Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Plan

Final Consolidated

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Fishery

Management

Plan

Including:

A Final Environmental Impact Statement,

A Final Regulatory Impact Review,

A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

A Final Social Impact Assessment,

Framework Actions, and

the 2006 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Highly Migratory Species Management Division

July 2006

FINAL

CONSOLIDATED

ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Including:

A Final Environmental Impact Statement,

A Final Regulatory Impact Review,

A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

A Final Social Impact Analysis,

Framework Actions, and

the 2006 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report

July 2006

Highly Migratory Species Management Division

Office of Sustainable Fisheries

National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Fishery Management Plan

July 2006

Highly Migratory Species Management Division

Office of Sustainable Fisheries

National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

The photos on the cover were contributed by the NOAA Photo Library

And Mark Grace, SEFSC, NOAA Fisheries

Citation:
NMFS. 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly
Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. pp. 1600.

The Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan
Actions:

Consolidate the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish,
and Shark and the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan; establish
workshops for fishermen and dealers; consider changes to time/area
closures; address rebuilding and/or overfishing of northern albacore tuna,
finetooth sharks, and Atlantic billfish; modify the management process of
bluefin tuna; change the fishing year; modify the authorized gears;
implement minor changes and clarifications to the regulations; and begin
the process to update essential fish habitat

Type of Statement: Final Environmental Impact Statement; Final Regulatory Impact Review;
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Final Social Impact Statement; and
Final Framework Actions
Lead Agency:

National Marine Fisheries Service

For Further Information: Karyl Brewster-Geisz
Highly Migratory Species Management Division F/SF1
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 713-2347; (301) 713-1917 (fax)
Abstract:

In 2003, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) began the process
to amend the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish,
and Sharks and the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan. After
considering comments on a scoping paper and on a predraft document,
NMFS decided to consolidate these fishery management plans, modify the
fishery management plan management measures as necessary, implement
framework actions, and begin the process for updating essential fish
habitat. The draft of this document was released on August 19, 2005. The
comment period was open until March 1, 2006. During this time, 24
public hearings were held throughout the coastal states from Maine
through Texas and the Caribbean. The final document describes a range
of alternatives that could impact fishermen and dealers for all highly
migratory species fisheries. The preferred alternatives include those to:
establish mandatory workshops for fishermen and dealers; implement two
small closures, consistent with regulations implemented by the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council; establish criteria for modifying
and/or establishing time/area closures; address rebuilding and/or
overfishing of northern albacore tuna, finetooth sharks, and Atlantic
billfish; modify the management process of bluefin tuna; change the
fishing year for tunas, swordfish, and billfish back to a calendar year;
authorize additional fishing gears; and clarify the regulations.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) are managed under the dual authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield (OY) by
rebuilding overfished fisheries and preventing overfishing. Under ATCA, NMFS is authorized
to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement the
recommendations from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT). Before this action, tunas, swordfish, and sharks were managed under the 1999 Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (and its 2003 amendment)
and billfish were managed under the 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP (and its 1999 amendment).
This final HMS FMP combines the management of all Atlantic HMS into one FMP, and
combines and simplifies the objectives of the previous FMPs.
NMFS announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to amend the
two previous FMPs on July 9, 2003. In this notice, NMFS asked for comments on quota
allocations of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT), swordfish, and sharks among and within domestic
fishing categories; management alternatives to improve and streamline the current HMS limited
access permit program; a review of HMS essential fish habitat (EFH) identifications; and
exempted fishing and scientific research permitting issues. On April 30, 2004, NMFS
announced the availability of an Issues and Options Paper and its intent to hold nine scoping
meetings. This paper expanded the list of issues to include those issues listed above, additional
issues for every species, HMS tournaments, bycatch reduction, recordkeeping and reporting,
workshops, authorized fishing gears, and consolidation of the FMPs. NMFS presented the Issues
and Options Paper to the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. A summary of the major
comments received during scoping was released in December 2004 and is available on the HMS
Management Division webpage at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
The Issues and Options paper included an exhaustive list of issues that NMFS could
address regarding Atlantic HMS. During scoping, NMFS heard of more issues and options that
merit additional consideration and examination. At the Predraft stage, in order to complete this
action in a timely manner, NMFS decided to handle in this rulemaking only some of the issues
identified in the Issues and Options paper and scoping process. NMFS prioritized the issues and
chose to consider those that were required by law (e.g., handling and release workshops are
required under the 2004 Biological Opinion) and/or would improve the management of the
fisheries (e.g., amending the FMP for the BFT General Category should allow management to
make changes in the fisheries on a more timely basis).
In February 2005, NMFS released the combined Predraft of the Consolidated HMS FMP
and the 2005 Annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. NMFS
presented the Predraft document to all five Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, both the Gulf
and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, and to the HMS and Billfish Advisory
Panels. Comments received on both the Issues and Options Paper and the Predraft were
considered when drafting and analyzing the ecological, economic, and social impacts of the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

alternatives in both the draft and final HMS FMP. A summary of the comments received on the
Predraft was released in June 2005 and is available on the HMS Management Division webpage.
While some of the options changed between the Predraft and Draft stages, the overall list of
issues to be addressed did not change.
On August 19, 2005, the draft HMS FMP and proposed rule were released. Originally,
the comment period was set to end 60 days after publication (October 18, 2005). However, due
to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NMFS extended the comment period to March 1, 2006 (for a total
comment period of 194 days), in order to ensure that those fishermen directly affected by the
hurricanes would have an adequate amount of time to review the document and provide
comment. Several thousand written comments were received, 24 public hearings were held, and
all five Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commissions were given briefings. A summary of the public comments received and NMFS’
response to those comments is included in an appendix of this document and will also be in the
final rule implementing the regulations. In addition to the public comments, NMFS also had
three independent scientists (i.e., scientists not involved in the drafting of the document) review
three specific sections of the draft HMS FMP. The three sections were the time/area analyses,
the standardized bycatch reporting methodology, and the review of EFH. The peer review
comments are also included in an appendix of this document.
The preferred alternatives in this document considered all of the comments received from
the general public at all stages of the rulemaking and the peer review by the independent
scientists. Table 1 provides the list of the changes from the draft document and the expected
implementation date of each alternative. A summary of the issues addressed and the other
alternatives considered in this rulemaking can be found below. More detail can be found in
Chapters 2 and 4 of this document. The final HMS FMP also consolidates the objectives for the
FMP (listed in Chapter 1) and removes the exemption to the billfish no sale provision (allowed
for, but not implemented, in the 1988 Billfish FMP). NMFS believes that the suite of preferred
alternatives in this document should, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
domestic laws, allow overfished Atlantic HMS to rebuild, address overfishing of Atlantic HMS,
balance the needs of the fishermen and communities with the needs of the resource, and
maximize OY for the fishery and the resource.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 1

The preferred alternatives at the draft and final stage of the Consolidated HMS FMP and the
expected implementation date.
Preferred Alternative in
Draft HMS FMP

Preferred Alternative in
Final HMS FMP

Expected
Implementation Date

Bycatch Reduction: Workshops
A2. Mandatory workshops and certification
for all HMS pelagic and bottom longline
vessel owners

Same

January 1, 2007: must
complete certification prior to
renewing HMS permit in 2007

A3. Mandatory workshops and certification
for vessel operators actively participating in
HMS pelagic and bottom longline fisheries

Same

January 1, 2007: must
complete certification prior to
fishing on a vessel that has
renewed its HMS permit in
2007

A5. Mandatory workshops and certification
for shark gillnet vessel owners and operators

Same

January 1, 2007: must
complete certification prior to
renewing HMS permit in 2007

A6. Certification Renewal Timetable
(Certification renewal every 3-years)

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

A9. Mandatory HMS identification
workshops for all shark dealers

Same

December 31, 2007

A16. Certification Renewal Timetable
(Certification renewal every 3-years)

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

B4. Implement complementary HMS
management measures in Madison-Swanson
and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

B5. Establish criteria to consider when
implementing new time/area closures or
making modifications to existing time/area
closures

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

Bycatch Reduction: Time/Area Closures

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing: Northern Albacore Tuna
C3. Establish the foundation with ICCAT for
developing an international rebuilding
program

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing: Finetooth Sharks
D4. Identify sources of finetooth shark
fishing mortality to target appropriate
management actions

Same

Ongoing

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing: Atlantic Billfish
E3. Effective January 1, 2007, limit all
Atlantic billfish tournament participants to
using only non-offset circle hooks when using
natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure
combinations

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E3. Effective January 1,
2007, limit all HMS permitted
vessels participating in
Atlantic billfish tournaments
to deploying only non-offset
circle hooks when using
natural baits or natural
bait/artificial lure
combinations
iv

January 1, 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Preferred Alternative in
Draft HMS FMP

Preferred Alternative in
Final HMS FMP

Expected
Implementation Date

E6. Effective January 1, 2007, implement
ICCAT Recommendations on Recreational
Marlin Landings Limits

Same

January 1, 2007

E7. Effective January 1, 2007 - December 31,
2011, allow only catch and release fishing for
Atlantic white marlin

No longer preferred

NA

Management Program Structure: Bluefin Tuna Quota Management
F3. Amend the management procedures
regarding General category time-periods,
subquota, as well as geographic set-asides to
allow for future adjustments to take place via
a regulatory framework action

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

F3(c). Revise General category time-periods
and subquotas to allow for a formalized
winter fishery (June-Aug, 50%; Sept, 26.5%;
Oct-Nov, 13%; Dec, 5.2% and Jan, 5.3%)

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

F4. Clarify the procedures for calculating the
Angling category school size-class BFT
subquota allocation and remove the Angling
category north/south dividing line

F4. Clarify the procedures for
calculating the Angling
category school size-class
BFT subquota allocation and
maintain the Angling category
north/south dividing line

30 days after final rule is
published

F6. Revise the annual BFT specification
process to refer back to the supporting
analytical documents of the Consolidated
HMS FMP and include seasonal management
measures in annual framework actions

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

F8. Establish an individual quota category
carry-over limit of 100 percent of the baseline
allocation (i.e., no more than the annual
baseline allocation may be carried forward),
except for the Reserve category, and authorize
the transfer of quota exceeding the 100
percent limit to the Reserve or another
domestic quota category, while maintaining
status quo overharvest provisions

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

F10. Revise and consolidate criteria
considered prior to performing inseason and
some annual BFT management actions

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

Management Program Structure: Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
G2. Shift the fishing year to January 1 –
December 31 for all HMS

Same

January 1, 2008

Management Program Structure: Authorized Fishing Gears
H2. Authorize speargun fishing gear as a
permissible gear type in the recreational
Atlantic tuna fishery

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

H2. Authorize speargun
fishing gear as a permissible
gear type in the recreational
Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery

v

30 days after final rule is
published

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Preferred Alternative in
Draft HMS FMP

Preferred Alternative in
Final HMS FMP

Expected
Implementation Date

H4. Authorize green-stick for the commercial
harvest of Atlantic BAYS tunas

No longer preferred

NA

H5. Authorize buoy gear in the commercial
swordfish handgear fishery, and limit vessels
employing buoy gear to possessing and
deploying no more than 35 individual buoys,
with each having no more than two hooks or
gangions attached

H5. Authorize buoy gear as a
permissible gear type in the
commercial swordfish
handgear fishery; limit vessels
employing buoy gear to
possessing and deploying no
more than 35 floatation
devices, with each individual
gear having no more than two
hooks or gangions attached

30 days after final rule is
published

H7. Clarify the allowance of hand-held
cockpit gears used at boat side for subduing
HMS captured on authorized gears

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

Management Program Structure: Regulatory Housekeeping
I1(b). Establish additional restrictions on
longline gear in HMS time/area closures by
specifying a maximum and minimum
allowable number of commercial fishing
floats to qualify as a BLL and PLL vessel,
respectively

No longer preferred

NA

I1(c). Differentiate between PLL and BLL
gear based upon the species composition of
the catch onboard or landed

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I2(b). Require that the 2nd dorsal fin and the
anal fin remain on all sharks through landing

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I3(b). Add new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(48)
making it illegal for any person to, “Purchase
any HMS that was offloaded from an
individual vessel in excess of the retention
limits specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24”

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I3(c). Add new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(49)
making it illegal for any person to, “Sell any
HMS that was offloaded from an individual
vessel in excess of the retention limits
specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24”

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I4(b). Amend the second coordinate of the
East Florida Coast closed area so that it
corresponds with the EEZ

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I5(b). Amend the definition of “handline” at
§ 635.2 by requiring that they be attached to,
or in contact with, all vessels

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I6(b). Prohibit vessels issued commercial
permits and operating outside of a tournament
from possessing, retaining, or taking Atlantic
billfish from the management unit

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Preferred Alternative in
Draft HMS FMP

Preferred Alternative in
Final HMS FMP

Expected
Implementation Date

I7(b). Amend the HMS regulations to provide
an option for Atlantic tunas dealers to submit
required BFT reports using the Internet

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I8(b). Require submission of “No Fishing”
reporting forms for selected vessels if no
fishing trips occurred during the preceding
month, postmarked no later than seven days
after the end of the month

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

I8(c). Require submission of the trip "CostEarnings” reporting form for selected vessels
30 days after a trip and the annual “CostEarning” report form by January 31 of each
year

I8(c). Require submission of
the trip “cost-earnings”
reporting form for selected
vessels 30 days after a trip,
and the “annual
expenditures” report form by
the date specified on the form

30 days after final rule is
published

I9(b). Require vessel owners to report non­
tournament recreational landings of North
Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic billfish

I9(b). Require vessel owners
(or their designees) to report
non-tournament recreational
landings of North Atlantic
swordfish and Atlantic billfish

30 days after final rule is
published

I10(b). Modify the HMS regulations to state
that “In addition, each year, 25 mt (ww) will
be allocated for incidental catch by pelagic
longlines” in the NED

I10(c). Conduct additional
discussions at ICCAT
regarding quota rollovers and
adjust quotas allocated to
account for bycatch related to
pelagic longline fisheries in
the vicinity of the
management area boundary
accordingly

30 days after final rule is
published

I11(b). Require recreational vessels with a
Federal permit to abide by Federal
regulations, regardless of where they are
fishing, unless a state has more restrictive
regulations

Same

30 days after final rule is
published

Bycatch Reduction: Workshops
The June 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery
requires NMFS to conduct training workshops regarding the safe release and disentanglement of
sea turtles from pelagic longline gear and to certify that fishermen have attended these
workshops. The October 2003 BiOp on the Atlantic shark fishery requires a series of workshops
that provide gear handling techniques and protocols that deal with entanglements and protected
species, in general, and include information on smalltooth sawfish and HMS requirements.
Additionally, in Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP, NMFS stated
that if shark fishermen can show that they can fish for specific species (e.g., target sandbar
sharks) and correctly identify the shark species caught on their gear, then the Agency might
consider using species-specific shark quotas in the future. Thus, NMFS felt it was important to

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

consider workshops, particularly workshops for handling and release of protected species and
workshops for identification of Atlantic HMS, in this rulemaking.
The workshops for the safe release, disentanglement, and identification of protected
resources are designed to reduce the post-hooking mortality of sea turtles and other protected
resources by educating fishermen on how to apply the appropriate safe handling and release
protocols, improve compliance with regulations, and enhance the utility of vessel logbook data.
The preferred alternatives for the protected species workshops would require all longline and
gillnet permit holders and operators to attend and be certified in handling and release techniques
and gear. Mandatory workshops for vessel owners would be linked to the vessels’ permit,
ensuring well attended workshops. Including operators would guarantee at least one person on
board the vessel during fishing activities is adept at the safe handling and release protocols.
NMFS also considered a range of alternatives for the protected species workshops including
voluntary workshops (no action) and mandatory workshops for the owners, operators, and the
crew of all HMS longline and gillnet vessels.
The preferred alternative for the identification workshops calls for all Federally permitted
shark dealers, or a designated proxy, to attend one-day workshops on species-specific
identification of offloaded shark carcasses. NMFS believes that identifying shark carcasses is
more difficult and uncertain than identifying other HMS carcasses as evidenced by the large
proportion of “unclassified” sharks listed on shark dealer logbooks. This uncertainty
compromises quota monitoring and stock assessment efforts. Dealers are a focal point for
gathering shark landings information as sharks from numerous vessels are offloaded at each
individual dealer. Positive identification is often less difficult for fishermen than dealers as they
know exactly where (depth, type of habitat, etc) a shark has been caught and often see the sharks
alive and intact. NMFS considered a range of alternatives for these identification workshops
including voluntary HMS identification workshops for dealers, recreational fishermen, and all
commercial vessel owners and operators (no action) and mandatory identification workshops for
all HMS dealers and/or HMS permit holders.
Under the preferred alternatives, longline and gillnet permit holders and vessel operators
and shark dealers would be required to be recertified every three years. NMFS also considered
recertification time periods of two and five years. Requiring recertification every three years
would balance the ecological benefits of maintaining familiarity with the protocols and the
economic impacts of workshop attendance due to travel costs and lost fishing opportunities.
None of the preferred alternatives changed significantly between the draft and final stages
of this HMS FMP, although NMFS did adjust the effective dates as a result of public comment
and the lengthening of the comment period. These one-day workshops are not expected to result
in excessive economic impacts as they would be scheduled at numerous locales along the
Atlantic coast, minimizing travel and lost fishing time.
Bycatch Reduction: Time/Area Closures
Since the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, NMFS has implemented
a number of time/area closures in order to reduce bycatch, to the extent practicable, consistent
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

with the National Standards. While the results of preliminary analyses examining the efficacy of
these closures have been included in annual SAFE Reports, a comprehensive analysis of the
impact of the closures on bycatch rates, the fishermen, and the communities is contained in this
document. In this document, NMFS examines the current time/area closures to determine if
these closures are accomplishing the original goals of the closures and whether changes are
needed to accomplish other objectives. The results of that examination indicate that both
bycatch and overall effort in the fleet has been reduced (see discussions of alternative B1 in
Chapter 4).
In this HMS FMP, NMFS is preferring two alternatives in regard to time/area closures.
The first preferred alternative would establish HMS regulations in the Madison-Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves that complement the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council’s regulations. These closures are expected to have minimal ecological, economic, or
social impacts on HMS fishermen. The second preferred alternative would establish criteria that
would guide future decision-making regarding implementation or modification of time/area
closures. This would provide enhanced transparency, predictability, and understanding of HMS
management decisions, allow for more adaptive management, and should result in minimal
social and economic impacts. Any impacts for specific closures would be analyzed when those
closures are considered.
As described in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, NMFS used POP and HMS logbook data to
identify new areas for time/area closures and selected alternatives based on these data to further
analyze 10 different closures or modifications for this rulemaking. NMFS evaluated the
reduction in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback sea turtles,
loggerhead sea turtles, other sea turtles, and BFT without redistribution of effort based on POP
data and the HMS logbook data for the various time/area closure alternatives (see Chapter 4).
Using HMS logbook data (see Chapter 4 and Appendix A), NMFS evaluated different scenarios
of a redistribution of fishing effort model, where each scenario had different assumptions
regarding how fishing effort would be redistributed into open areas. The model used in this
time/area analysis was consistent with the methods used in past rulemakings (for more
information on redistribution of effort model selection, please see page 4-6). Additional
redistribution of effort scenarios were considered based on comments received on the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP and the OMB reviews. As described in Chapter 4, each scenario of the
models had different assumptions regarding how fishermen would react to the closures (e.g., will
fishermen move out of the closed area but continue fishing in surrounding open areas, move their
business, or sell their permits to someone near an open area). Because of the difficulty in
predicting fishermen’s behavior, NMFS analyzed the range of what would happen fleet-wide
while recognizing that individuals within the fleet may act differently, and large closures may
result in more movement in order for fishermen to find open areas to fish and stay in business.
NMFS examined a wide range of alternatives including closing additional closures or
combining these additional closures for pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic Ocean, modifying existing closures for pelagic longline gear, establishing a closure for
bottom longline gear to protect smalltooth sawfish, and closing all areas to pelagic longline gear.
These alternatives were not preferred for a variety of reasons. The ecological benefits of some of
the additional closure alternatives considered were predicted to be variable with redistribution of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

effort, with potential negative ecological impacts to several species. For example, alternative
B2(a) (May - Nov), intended primarily to reduce leatherback sea turtle interactions, and white
marlin and BFT discards, could result in a 7.9 percent increase in loggerhead sea turtle
interactions and a 10.3 percent increase in BFT discards (see Table 4.2). As described in
Appendix A, even the modified redistribution of effort model for alternative B2(a) predicted
increases in sailfish discards (4.7 percent), LCS discards (4.4 percent), BFT discards (1.6
percent), and BAYS discards (0.7 percent). When closure areas were combined, the
redistribution of effort model predicted similar results with an increase in discards of several
species.
Alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) were considered to refine existing closures and to provide
additional opportunity to harvest legal-sized swordfish while not increasing bycatch. NMFS,
however, is not preferring any modifications to the current closures. None of the modifications
considered would have resulted in a large enough increase in retained catch to alleviate concerns
over uncaught portions of the swordfish and BFT quotas. For instance, B3(a) was predicted to
increase retained swordfish catch by only 30.72 mt, and B3(a) was predicted to increase the
retained swordfish catch by 0.07 mt. However, as of April 30, 2006, 4,905.9 mt and 294.7 mt of
directed and incidental quota, respectively, were still available for the 2005 fishing year. In
addition, modifications to existing closures could result in increased bycatch of blue and white
marlin, which is a concern given the stock status of blue and white marlin and the scheduled
white marlin ESA review. Increased interactions with sea turtles and marine mammals (e.g.,
pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins) are an additional concern.
Finally, all of these analyses (those analyzing the impacts of new closures and those
analyzing the impacts of modifications to existing closures) were conducted using J-hook data.
New circle hook management measures were put into place in 2004, and NMFS is still assessing
the effects of circle hooks on bycatch rates for HMS. Based on the Northeast Distant
experiment, circle hooks likely have a significantly different catch rate than J-hooks. Therefore,
NMFS needs to conduct further investigations to determine the potential impact of any new
time/area closures or modifications to existing closures. NMFS anticipates that 2005 HMS
logbook final data will become available in the summer of 2006. In addition, NMFS is awaiting
additional information regarding the status of the pelagic longline fleet after the devastating
hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico during the fall of 2005. A majority of the pelagic longline fleet
was thought to be severely damaged or destroyed during the 2005 hurricane season. The amount
of pelagic longline fishing effort, especially within the Gulf of Mexico, will likely be assessed in
the summer of 2006 when 2005 HMS logbook final data becomes available. Until NMFS can
better estimate the current fishing effort and potential recovery of the pelagic longline fleet, it
may be premature to implement any new time/area closures, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.
Furthermore, a number of stock assessments will be conducted during 2006 (blue marlin, white
marlin, north and south swordfish, eastern and western BFT, and large coastal sharks). NMFS is
waiting on the results of these stock assessments to help determine domestic measures with
regard to management of these species.
For the bottom longline closure alternative (B6), NMFS is waiting for the Smalltooth
Sawfish Recovery Team to designate critical habitat in order to compare possible closure areas
with the critical habitat. Closing all areas to pelagic longline gear (alternative B7) would have
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

severe economic and social impacts in the short term and possible negative ecological impacts in
the long term if U.S. quotas are transferred to countries without the same conservation ethic.
While NMFS did not change the preferred alternatives between the draft and final stages,
NMFS did conduct additional analyses as a result of public comment. These analyses include
examining the redistribution of effort model and its applicability, the mobility of the fleet, and
the concept of a decision matrix. NMFS also began looking at the 2004 circle hook data for the
pelagic longline fishery. In the future, NMFS intends, among other things, to investigate the
choices fishermen have made regarding previous closures and to pursue alternatives to reduce
bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico, especially for BFT. For BFT, NMFS is currently trying to assess
how protecting one age class at the potential detriment of other age classes will affect the fish
stock as a whole, and is also considering developing incentives that would dissuade fishermen
from keeping incidentally caught BFT, particularly spawning BFT, in the Gulf of Mexico. This
may involve research on how changes in fishing practices may help reduce bycatch of non-target
species as well as the tracking of discards (dead and alive) by all gear types. More information
on these additional analyses, their results, and potential future actions are contained in Chapter 4
and Appendix A.
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing: Northern Albacore Tuna
Since the 1999 FMP, NMFS has determined that northern albacore tuna are overfished.
While NMFS published a final rule that stated NMFS would work with ICCAT to rebuild
northern albacore, a rebuilding plan was not previously incorporated in the FMP. The preferred
alternative would establish a foundation with ICCAT for developing an international rebuilding
plan. Under this alternative, NMFS will continue to work with ICCAT member nations to
develop and adopt an appropriate international rebuilding plan for northern albacore tuna with a
specified recovery period, biomass targets, fishing mortality rate limits, and explicit interim
milestones. The U.S. harvest of the North Atlantic stock is proportionally so low that the socio­
economic impacts to the United States would likely be minimal but would depend upon the
specifics of the rebuilding plan adopted by ICCAT. The other alternatives of no action or
unilateral action would not be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act or ATCA, and would
be unlikely to rebuild northern albacore.
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing: Finetooth Sharks
In 2002, NMFS determined that overfishing is occurring on finetooth sharks. In the 2003
Amendment to the 1999 FMP, because most finetooth landings appear to come from fishermen
in non-HMS fisheries, NMFS stated that it would take action to identify sources of fishing
mortality on finetooth sharks, increase outreach, improve enforcement of the recreational limits,
and work with the Regional Fishery Management Councils to identify fisheries that catch
finetooth sharks.
In this HMS FMP, NMFS prefers an alternative that would establish a plan to prevent
overfishing. This preferred alternative would identify the sources of fishing mortality for
finetooth sharks. The analyses in the HMS FMP found that the majority of finetooth sharks are
landed in the South Atlantic region (primarily Florida) by vessels deploying gillnet gear and in
possession of both a Spanish mackerel permit and a commercial shark permit. NMFS also found
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

that an unmanaged fishery, the southern kingfish fishery, also catches finetooth sharks. Thus,
any management measures that are solely directed at fishermen using gillnet gear and in
possession of a commercial shark permit could easily be circumvented by fishermen using
gillnets for Spanish mackerel or kingfish. In addition to conducting analyses, NMFS has also
contacted the states and Regional Fishery Management Councils, sent a letter to the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council requesting collaboration in management between gillnet
fisheries, and requested that finetooth sharks be added to observer programs such as the Gulf of
Mexico shrimp trawl fishery. These actions should provide additional options to address this
issue.
NMFS considered other alternatives including no action, management measures targeting
commercial shark permit holders, and management measures targeting recreational HMS permit
holders. Targeting commercial shark permit holders is confounded by the fact that finetooth
sharks are within the SCS complex, which is not currently overfished or experiencing
overfishing, and commercial fishermen have only caught, on average, 28.5 percent of the SCS
quota between 1999-2003. Measures aimed at the recreational fishery would only affect a small
portion of the overall finetooth shark landings. Furthermore, a conservative bag limit of one
shark (including finetooth shark) and a minimum size above the age at first maturity for males
and females are already in place. NMFS intends to conduct a new small coastal shark stock
assessment following the Southeast Assessment, Data, and Review process starting in 2007. As
more research and data become available, NMFS may reconsider these other alternatives.
NMFS did not change the preferred alternative between the draft and final stages. NMFS
believes that the preferred approach constitutes a plan to prevent overfishing and is a prudent
means of establishing regulations that might affect a type of gear (gillnet), rather than an
individual permit. Applying the regulations to the gear is critical as regulations implemented
only on shark permit holders would only affect a sub-set of the individuals responsible for
finetooth shark fishing mortality, could be easily circumvented, and would likely result in
additional dead discards of finetooth sharks.
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing: Atlantic Billfish
Despite the implementation of domestic and international management measures, the
status of Atlantic blue and white marlin has continued to decline. Currently, the status of sailfish
and spearfish is uncertain. Atlantic white marlin has been identified as one of the most severely
overfished species of any stock under ICCAT’s purview for the past four years, but nevertheless
continues to be subjected to unsustainable levels of fishing mortality throughout the Atlantic. In
2002, the United States undertook a status review of white marlin pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). While the status review team determined that white marlin stock status did
not warrant a listing at that time, it concluded that “unless fishing mortality is reduced
significantly and relatively quickly, the stock could decline to a level that would warrant ESA
protection” (White Marlin Status Review Team 2002). NMFS will conduct another ESA listing
review in 2007. As such, in this document, NMFS reviewed the current data and examined
methods of reducing billfish mortality in both the commercial (e.g., time/area closures) and
recreational fisheries (e.g., circle hook requirements).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NMFS is preferring two alternatives to reduce the post-release mortality of billfish
associated with the directed billfish fishery. The first preferred alternative would require the use
of non-offset circle hooks by HMS permitted vessels in billfish tournaments when using natural
baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations. The second preferred alternative would codify
the ICCAT landings recommendations for billfish. The current landings recommendation would
limit the United States to landing no more than 250 blue or white marlin per year. These
alternatives strike a balance between conserving living marine resources and maintaining robust
recreational fisheries while achieving the objectives of the HMS FMP. The preferred
alternatives are anticipated to substantially reduce the post-release mortality of Atlantic white
marlin, provide positive ecological benefits for other species such as blue marlin, sailfish, and
tunas, and maintain consistency with United States’ international obligations. NMFS is delaying
the effective date for the circle hook requirement to mitigate, to the extent practicable, adverse
economic impacts and losses in angler consumer surplus by allowing: tournament operators
adequate time to adjust advertising, rules, business practices, and tournament formats; existing
stockpiles of J-hooks to be used; and, anglers time to become comfortable and proficient with
newly required gear.
As a result of public comment, NMFS is no longer preferring the alternative that would
prohibit the landing of white marlin. Additionally, NMFS clarified the intent of the first
preferred alternative to ensure that only HMS permit holders, not all tournament participants,
would be affected by the circle hook requirement.
Management Program Structure: Bluefin Tuna Quota Management
Western Atlantic BFT are overfished, and one of the main objectives of the Consolidated
HMS FMP is to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, while providing reasonable
fishing opportunities to harvest the limited quota that is available under the BFT rebuilding plan.
Since the 1999 FMP, BFT management has become increasingly complicated and difficult for
the public to understand and may no longer accurately reflect the needs of the fishery and goals
of the 1999 FMP. These issues are evident on a daily basis from the number of constituent
inquiries addressed by NMFS and the number of inseason management actions necessary
throughout the season. In addition, NMFS has received a petition from the State of North
Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries (NMDMF) for rulemaking to adjust the quota
allocations to provide for a General category fishery off North Carolina in the winter. NMFS
considers these requests and considers ways of clarifying BFT management.
Two of the preferred alternatives would amend the time period and sub quotas for the
General category and clarify the procedures for calculating the Angling category school-size
fish. These alternatives are expected to enhance NMFS' flexibility to address inherent variability
in the BFT fishery while still allowing for business planning. They also respond in part to the
NCDMF's Petition for Rulemaking and would allow for a formal General category winter BFT
fishery while still recognizing the historical BFT catch rates in the New England area fishery.
These preferred alternatives would also clarify the procedures NMFS used to implement the
ICCAT recommendation regarding the eight percent tolerance limit of school BFT as well as
maintain the recreational North/South dividing line as a management tool.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Two other preferred alternatives would provide participants in the BFT fishery a timely
and stable baseline quota allocation from one year to the next, the ability to address
under/overharvest from the previous year, the ability to establish the General category effort
controls as well as recreational and commercial handgear daily retention limits for the upcoming
season, and streamline the annual rulemaking process. Additionally, providing NMFS the
authority to implement a cap on the amount of quota that may be carried forward from one
fishing year to the next would allow NMFS to manage to harvest of BFT with more finite
precision and minimize the occurrence of 'stockpiling' in any one quota category.
Another preferred alternative would consolidate and refine the criteria that NMFS must
consider prior to conducting any inseason, and some annual, actions. This preferred alternative
would assist in meeting the Consolidated HMS FMP’s objectives in a consistent manner,
providing reasonable fishing opportunities, increasing the transparency in the decision making
process, and balancing the resource's needs with users’ needs.
Management Program Structure: Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
In the 1999 FMP and 1999 Billfish Amendment, NMFS established a fishing year
management cycle for tunas, billfish, and swordfish that began on June 1 and went through the
following May 31. This fishing year was established to allow NMFS time to implement
recommendations from ICCAT before the fishing year began. The change to the fishing year,
however, has been problematic given that many of the data infrastructure and reporting
requirements both within NMFS and ICCAT are based on a calendar year rather than a fishing
year. NMFS prefers the alternative that would establish a fishing year management cycle for all
HMS of January 1 through December 31. This preferred alternative is expected to simplify the
regulatory process for constituents in the long term by managing all HMS fisheries on a calendar
year and improve the United States’ basis for negotiation at international forums.
Management Program Structure: Authorized Fishing Gears
In 1999, NMFS published a list of authorized gears for all fisheries across the nation.
Occasionally, NMFS receives requests to modify the list of authorized gears. Sometimes, these
requests include gear that fishermen use in other oceans or elsewhere in the Atlantic to catch the
same species; other times, the requests are due to additional groups requesting to use a gear that
is approved for one permit, but not another. NMFS considers some of these requests (e.g.,
green-stick gear and speargun fishing gear) pertaining to HMS in this rulemaking.
NMFS prefers several alternatives that would add authorized gear types in HMS
fisheries. The first preferred alternative would allow spearfishermen to participate in the Atlantic
bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack (BAYS) tunas fishery. This alternative is responsive to
specific public comment and requests from constituents. This preferred alternative is anticipated
to result in minimal negative ecological impacts and positive social and economic benefits. This
preferred alternative is modified slightly from what was proposed in that, due to concerns related
to the status of BFT, only BAYS tunas could be taken by spearfishermen, not BFT.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The second preferred alternative would allow the commercial swordfish handgear fishery
to continue to utilize individual unattached buoyed gears (a.k.a. buoy gear), and would limit the
maximum number of gears deployed by a vessel. Before this FMP, both recreational and
commercial swordfish handgear fishermen could use this gear, previously called handline, and
were not limited in the number of gears that could be deployed. This alternative may provide
some positive ecological benefits by limiting future expansion of this gear sector and possibly by
reducing the amount of lost fishing gear. This alternative could result in positive social benefits
and would maintain current economic benefits to this sector. The last preferred alternative
would, in response to requests from fishery participants, clarify the allowable use of secondary
cockpit gears. This alternative should not result in an increase in bycatch mortality, over current
levels, as secondary gears are currently utilized in HMS fisheries.
Although NMFS originally preferred an alternative that would allow for the use of
greenstick in the commercial BAYS fishery in the Draft HMS FMP, it is not preferred in the
Final HMS FMP. During the comment period, NMFS realized that many fishermen, both
commercial and recreational, did not understand which gear configurations were currently
allowed and which configurations the Agency was proposing to allow. Thus, NMFS will clarify
the existing regulatory regime and the allowable configurations of green-stick gear in an effort to
reduce confusion regarding the authorized use of green-stick gear.
Management Program Structure: Regulatory Housekeeping
This rulemaking also considers a number of corrections and additions to the Atlantic
HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and other relevant sections in the CFR (e.g., 50 CFR part
300 contains information regarding international trade) in order to clarify their intent, remove
incorrect cross-references, remove dated regulations, as appropriate, and aid enforcement.
Besides the more than 40 minor corrections to the regulatory text, NMFS also considered a few
changes that required alternatives. In all, NMFS is preferring 13 alternatives in this section
across a wide range of eleven different issues.
The first issue in this section pertains to the definitions of bottom and pelagic longline
gear. These gears catch different species and are currently differentiated by the number of
weights and/or floats each gear uses. This raises enforcement concerns particularly in closed
areas. As such, NMFS is preferring an alternative that would differentiate between gears based
upon the species composition of the catch onboard or offloaded. This alternative is expected to
accommodate the majority of commercial fishing operations, yet still provide a quantifiable
method to differentiate between vessels using one gear or the other. Vessels that fish mixed trips
(i.e., trips that use both gear types) could still transit the closed areas provided the signals from
their vessel monitoring system unit indicate the vessel is transiting and not fishing. This
alternative is not expected to create significant adverse economic and social impacts and is
expected to improve the monitoring of, and compliance with, HMS closed area regulations.
NMFS originally preferred both the current preferred alternative and an alternative that would
limit the number of floats on bottom longline vessels. NMFS is no longer preferring that
alternative based upon public comment regarding impacts to vessel’s operational flexibility,
difficulties with terminology, and impracticalities in enforcing the alternative. Other alternatives

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

considered, besides the no action, included requiring time and depth recorders and closing all
areas to “longline” rather than trying to define the gears.
The second issue pertains to shark identification. Currently, shark fishermen may remove
all fins from the shark, consistent with the five-percent shark fin ratio. NMFS prefers an
alternative that would require the second dorsal and anal fins to remain on all sharks through the
first port of landing. While this alternative could have some minor economic and social impacts,
this alterative is expected to generate ecological benefits by enhancing and improving species
identification and data collection, thereby leading to improved management and increased shark
populations. NMFS also considered alternatives that would allow fishermen to remove the
second dorsal and anal fins from some species (e.g., lemon sharks) or require all fins to remain
on the shark.
In a third issue regarding sales of illegal landings, NMFS is preferring two alternatives
that would add clear prohibitions to the regulations regarding the sale and purchase of landings
in excess of the commercial retention limits. These alternatives may act as an additional
deterrent to discourage this illegal practice. NMFS believes that the social benefits of preventing
this practice should outweigh any short-term economic benefit gained as a result of illegally
selling catches in excess of the commercial retention limits.
In a fourth issue regarding the definition of the closed areas, NMFS is preferring an
alternative that would amend the area of the East Florida Coast closed area by extending one of
its coordinates 1.02 km (0.55 nmi) seaward so that it corresponds with the outer boundary of the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This alternative is not expected to create significant adverse
economic and social impacts. Any fishing effort that would have occurred in this area would
likely relocate to nearby open areas with similar catch rates. Because the East Florida Coast
closed area would be enlarged under this alternative, it could reduce the bycatch of undersized
swordfish, sailfish, and other HMS as compared with the no action alternative, but this reduction
is expected to be minimal.
The fifth issue pertains to the definition of handline. In the authorized fishing gear
section of the HMS FMP, NMFS is preferring an alternative that would define unattached
handlines as buoy gear and restrict their use to commercial swordfish fishermen. In this section,
NMFS is preferring an alternative that would require that handlines remain attached to all
vessels. This alternative would primarily affect recreational fishery participants and commercial
permittees that do not possess a commercial swordfish handgear permit. This alternative is not
expected to have significant adverse social or economic impacts on fishery participants.
The sixth issue described in this section pertains to the retention of billfish by commercial
permit holders. The directed billfish fishery is a recreational fishery. The regulations before this
FMP required that all pelagic longline fishermen release any billfish. The regulations were silent
on the retention of billfish by other commercial fishermen. NMFS is preferring an alternative
that would clarify the regulations and would allow only recreational and charter/headboat
fishermen to retain Alantic billfish. General category permit holders participating in a registered
HMS tournament could retain billfish during the tournament. Charter/headboat fishermen who

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xvi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

also hold commercial permits (e.g., shark limited access permit) could retain billfish on non-for
hire fishing trips only if no HMS on board exceed the recreational limits.
The seventh issue pertains to BFT dealer reports. The preferred alternative would
provide an option for BFT dealers to submit certain reports electronically over the Internet once
such a system is developed, but would not require it. Although unquantifiable, this alternative is
expected to produce positive social and economic impacts for both industry and government, as a
result of timesavings incurred when such a system is developed.
The eighth and ninth issues are related to reporting. The preferred alternatives would
require no fishing reports and cost-earning reports to be submitted within a certain timeframe and
would require either vessel owners or their designee, rather than anglers, to report all nontournament recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish. None of
these alternatives are expected to have adverse social or economic impacts. Rather, they clarify
the regulations and improve data collection.
The tenth issue addresses the Northeast Distant (NED) BFT set-aside for pelagic longline
fishermen. NMFS is preferring the alternative that would conduct additional discussions at
ICCAT regarding the long-term implications of allowing unused BFT quota from the previous
year being added to the subsequent year’s allocation. Depending on the results of these
discussions the regulations and operation procedures may need to be further amended in the
future. In the interim, NMFS would maintain the current regulatory text, but would amend the
practice of allowing under/overharvest of this set-aside allocation to be rolled into, or deducted
from, the subsequent fishing year’s set-aside allocation. This alternative would allow the pelagic
longline fishery to retain incidentally caught BFT in the NED to the amount of 25 mt (ww)
before landings are counted against the overall Longline category quota. At the proposed stage,
NMFS preferred the alternative that would amend the current regulatory text and allow
unharvested set-aside quota to be carried forward to subsequent years. That alternative is no
longer preferred due to concerns about stockpiling quota and creating potential incentives to
target BFT.
The last issue addressed in this section pertains to the inconsistencies between state and
Federal regulations. Under the regulations, commercial swordfish and shark fishermen, as a
condition of their permit, must abide by Federal regulations when fishing in state waters unless
the state has more restrictive regulations. NMFS is preferring an alternative that would expand
this permit condition to recreational and charter/headboat fishermen. This alternative is expected
to achieve increased consistency between state and Federal regulations for Federally-permitted
HMS recreational fishermen, and result in less confusion on behalf of fishermen and improved
compliance. Compared with the No Action alternative, the preferred alternative would produce
greater ecological benefits with few adverse social and economic impacts.
Essential Fish Habitat
In addition, this Consolidated HMS FMP continues a five-year review of EFH consistent
with the EFH guidelines. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary, through NMFS, to
establish guidelines to assist in the description and identification of EFH in FMPs, among other
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

things. The Agency set forth a schedule for the review and update of such EFH identifications
based on new scientific evidence or other relevant information. The EFH guidelines articulate
processes for determining the extent of EFH for each species and life-stage in a managed fishery.
In addition, the EFH guidelines call for periodic review and revision of EFH identified areas
based on available information, as well as a complete review of all EFH information at least once
every five years. NMFS originally described and identified EFH for all HMS in 1999, and
recently updated the EFH for five shark species (blacktip, dusky, finetooth, nurse, and sandbar)
in Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, which was finalized in
2003. In this document, NMFS includes the information available for all HMS in order to aid in
the determination of which species need updates to their EFH identifications. Any updates or
resulting changes in management will be done in a future document.
Future Considerations
Beyond the issues addressed in this document or raised during scoping, other new and
unresolved matters have been identified by the general public, the HMS and Billfish Advisory
Panels, and NMFS staff as important to rebuilding and maintaining fisheries that are
economically and biologically sustainable. NMFS may consider these issues or others in future
rulemakings. It is important to note that some of these additional issues are complicated, may
require specific comments from the public for development (e.g., scoping meetings and/or
developmental workshops), and may take several years to complete. These issues include: the
BFT fishery (status of BFT, protection of spawning grounds, potential impact of herring
fisheries, size limits, filleting at sea); the swordfish fishery (quota underharvests, reporting by
recreational anglers, limited access restrictions, time/area closures); the billfish fishery (ESA
status review in 2007, stock status, reduction in bycatch and post-release mortality); the shark
fishery (new stock assessments, changes to trip limits, limited access restrictions, time/area
closures); HMS permit reform; and recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring of all HMS
fisheries. These issues are described in more detail in Section 1.5.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xviii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii

Master Table of Contents.......................................................................................................... xix

Master List of Tables ................................................................................................................ xxx

Master List of Figures .................................................................................................................. li

List of Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................ lx

Chapter 1 Table of Contents......................................................................................................1-i

Chapter 1 List of Tables ............................................................................................................1-ii

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1
Brief Management History .......................................................................................... 1-2

1.2
Need for Action............................................................................................................ 1-3

1.3
Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.4
Combining Management for Atlantic HMS ................................................................ 1-8

1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4

Implications for Management Measures........................................................................1-10

Implications for the Exemption to the Billfish No Sale Provision.................................1-11

Implications for Highly Migratory Species and Billfish Advisory Panels ....................1-12

Implications for the FMP Objectives .............................................................................1-13

1.5
Issues for Future Consideration and Outlook ............................................................ 1-16

Chapter 2 Table of Contents......................................................................................................2-i

Chapter 2 List of Tables ............................................................................................................2-ii

Chapter 2 List of Tables ............................................................................................................2-ii

Chapter 2 List of Figures ..........................................................................................................2-ii

2.0 Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1
Bycatch Reduction ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1
Workshops .......................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1.1
Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops for Pelagic

Longline, Bottom Longline, and Gillnet Fishermen .....................................................................2-1

2.1.1.2
HMS Identification Workshops...................................................................................2-5

2.1.2
Time/Area Closures .........................................................................................................2-9

2.2

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing..................................................................... 2-25

2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3

2.3

Northern Albacore Tuna ................................................................................................2-25

Finetooth Sharks ............................................................................................................2-26

Atlantic Billfish..............................................................................................................2-30

Management Program Structure ................................................................................ 2-33

2.3.1
2.3.1.1
2.3.1.2
2.3.1.3
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.4.1
2.3.4.2

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Management....................................................................2-33

BFT Quota Management in the General and Angling Categories.............................2-33

Annual BFT Quota Adjustments ...............................................................................2-41

Inseason Actions........................................................................................................2-45

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ................................................2-48

Authorized Fishing Gear................................................................................................2-49

Regulatory Housekeeping..............................................................................................2-58

Proposed Regulatory Changes That Do Not Need Alternatives................................2-59

Alternatives................................................................................................................2-71

Chapter 2 References............................................................................................................... 2-83

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xix

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 3 Table of Contents......................................................................................................3-i

Chapter 3 List of Tables ............................................................................................................ 3-v

Chapter 3 List of Figures ........................................................................................................3-xii

3.0 Description of Affected Environment ................................................................................ 3-1

3.1
Introduction to HMS Management and HMS Fisheries .............................................. 3-1

3.1.1
History of Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark Management ......................................3-2

3.1.1.1
Pre-1999 Atlantic Tunas Management ........................................................................3-2

3.1.1.2
Pre-1999 Atlantic Swordfish Fishery and Management..............................................3-7

3.1.1.3
Pre-1999 Atlantic Shark Fisheries and Management ................................................3-10

3.1.1.4
1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, & Sharks...............3-14

3.1.1.5
Post 1999 FMP ..........................................................................................................3-15

3.1.1.6
Regulatory Amendments Relating to the Pelagic Longline Fishery..........................3-15

3.1.1.7
Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and

Sharks
3-18

3.1.1.8
Other Post-1999 FMP Regulations for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks........3-19

3.1.2
History of Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management..........................................................3-21

3.1.2.1
Preliminary Fishery Management Plan (PMP) for Atlantic Billfish and Sharks.......3-21

3.1.2.2
The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Billfishes ........................................3-22

3.1.2.3
Interim Rules .............................................................................................................3-23

3.1.2.4
Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan ........................3-23

3.1.2.5
ICCAT 2000 ..............................................................................................................3-25

3.1.2.6
White Marlin Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Review.................................3-25

3.1.2.7
ICCAT 2002 ..............................................................................................................3-25

3.1.2.8
Recreational Permitting and Reporting Rules ...........................................................3-26

3.1.2.9
Proposed Rule to Codify the 250 Marlin Landing Limit...........................................3-26

3.1.2.10
ICCAT 2004..........................................................................................................3-27

3.1.3
Summary and Update of Management Measures Taken in 2005 and Early 2006.........3-27

3.1.4
2005 Accomplishments of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic

Tunas (ICCAT) ...............................................................................................................................3-30

3.1.4.1
Atlantic Tunas ...........................................................................................................3-30

3.1.4.2
Atlantic Sharks ..........................................................................................................3-31

3.1.4.3
Trade and Trade Monitoring......................................................................................3-31

3.1.4.4
Data Compliance .......................................................................................................3-31

3.1.4.5
Circle Hooks..............................................................................................................3-31

3.1.5
Existing State Regulations .............................................................................................3-32

3.2

Status of the Stocks.................................................................................................... 3-41

3.2.1
Atlantic Swordfish .........................................................................................................3-44

3.2.1.1
Life History and Species Biology..............................................................................3-44

3.2.1.2
Stock Status and Outlook ..........................................................................................3-46

3.2.1.3
Effect of Regulations.................................................................................................3-49

3.2.1.4
Recent and Ongoing Research...................................................................................3-51

3.2.2
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna ....................................................................................................3-51

3.2.2.1
Life History and Species Biology..............................................................................3-52

3.2.2.2
Stock Status and Outlook ..........................................................................................3-52

3.2.2.3
Effects of Regulations ...............................................................................................3-57

3.2.2.4
Recent and Ongoing Research...................................................................................3-59

3.2.3
Atlantic BAYS Tuna......................................................................................................3-63

3.2.3.1
Atlantic Bigeye Tuna.................................................................................................3-63

3.2.3.2
Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna............................................................................................3-68

3.2.3.3
Atlantic Albacore Tuna .............................................................................................3-74

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xx

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.2.3.4
Atlantic Skipjack Tuna ..............................................................................................3-79

3.2.4
Atlantic Billfish..............................................................................................................3-83

3.2.4.1
Blue Marlin................................................................................................................3-83

3.2.4.2
White Marlin .............................................................................................................3-92

3.2.4.3
Sailfish.......................................................................................................................3-98

3.2.4.4
Longbill Spearfish ...................................................................................................3-105

3.2.5
Atlantic Sharks.............................................................................................................3-107

3.2.5.1
Life History/Species Biology ..................................................................................3-107

3.2.5.2
Stock Status and Outlook ........................................................................................3-109

3.2.5.3
Large Coastal Sharks...............................................................................................3-109

3.2.5.4
Small Coastal Sharks...............................................................................................3-112

3.2.5.5
Pelagic Sharks .........................................................................................................3-117

3.2.5.6
Effects of Regulations .............................................................................................3-118

3.2.5.7
Recent and Ongoing Research.................................................................................3-120

3.3

Habitat...................................................................................................................... 3-128

3.3.1
Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................3-128
3.3.1.1
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern........................................................................3-129

3.3.2
Habitat Types and Distributions ..................................................................................3-129

3.3.2.1
Atlantic Ocean .........................................................................................................3-130

3.3.2.2
Gulf of Mexico ........................................................................................................3-135

3.3.2.3
U.S. Caribbean.........................................................................................................3-138

3.4

Fishery Data Update ................................................................................................ 3-140

3.4.1
3.4.1.1
3.4.1.2
3.4.1.3
3.4.1.4
3.4.2
3.4.2.1
3.4.2.2
3.4.2.3
3.4.2.4
3.4.3
3.4.3.1
3.4.3.2
3.4.3.3
3.4.3.4
3.4.4
3.4.4.1
3.4.4.2
3.4.4.3
3.4.4.4
3.4.4.5
3.4.5
3.4.5.1
3.4.5.2
3.4.5.3
3.4.6
3.4.6.1
3.4.6.2
3.4.7

Pelagic Longline Fishery .............................................................................................3-143

Domestic History and Current Management ...........................................................3-143

Recent Catch and Landings .....................................................................................3-149

Safety Issues ............................................................................................................3-162

International Issues and Catch.................................................................................3-163

Purse Seine...................................................................................................................3-172

Domestic History and Current Management ...........................................................3-172

Recent Catch and Landings .....................................................................................3-173

Safety Issues ............................................................................................................3-173

International Issues and Catch.................................................................................3-173

Commercial Handgear .................................................................................................3-174

Domestic History and Current Management ...........................................................3-174

Recent Catch and Landings .....................................................................................3-176

Safety Issues Associated with the Fishery...............................................................3-179

U.S. vs. International Issues and Catch ...................................................................3-180

Recreational Handgear.................................................................................................3-180

Overview of History and Current Management ......................................................3-180

Most Recent Catch and Landings Data ...................................................................3-181

Bycatch Issues and Data Associated with the Fishery.............................................3-190

Safety Issues Associated with the Fishery...............................................................3-194

U.S. vs. International Catch.....................................................................................3-195

Bottom Longline ..........................................................................................................3-196

Domestic History and Current Management ...........................................................3-196

Recent Catch and Landings Data.............................................................................3-197

Bottom Longline Bycatch........................................................................................3-198

Gillnet Fishery .............................................................................................................3-207

Domestic History and Current Management ...........................................................3-207

Recent Catch and Landings .....................................................................................3-207

Fishery Data: Landings by Species..............................................................................3-213

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxi

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.5

Economic Status of HMS Fisheries ......................................................................... 3-228

3.5.1
Commercial Fisheries ..................................................................................................3-229

3.5.1.1
Ex-Vessel Prices......................................................................................................3-230

3.5.1.2
Revenues .................................................................................................................3-237

3.5.1.3
Wholesale Market....................................................................................................3-239

3.5.2
Recreational Fisheries..................................................................................................3-240

3.6

Community and Social Update ................................................................................ 3-244

3.6.1
Overview of Current Information and Rationale .........................................................3-244

3.6.2
Social Impacts of Selected 2005 Regulatory Actions..................................................3-246

3.6.3
Summary of New Social and Economic Data Available .............................................3-247

3.6.3.1
2005 Social Science Publications ............................................................................3-247

3.6.3.2
Summary of Social Data and Information for FEIS ................................................3-248

3.6.3.3
HMS Community Profile Needs..............................................................................3-249

3.7

International Trade and Fish Processing.................................................................. 3-250

3.7.1
3.7.1.1
3.7.1.2
3.7.1.3
3.7.1.4
3.7.1.5
3.7.1.6
3.7.2
3.7.2.1
3.7.2.2
3.7.2.3
3.7.2.4
3.7.2.5
3.7.3
3.7.3.1
3.7.3.2
3.7.3.3
3.7.3.4
3.7.3.5
3.7.4
3.7.5
3.7.5.1

3.8

Overview of International Trade for Atlantic HMS.....................................................3-250

Trade Monitoring.....................................................................................................3-250

Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document..........................................................................3-250

Swordfish Certificate of Eligibility and Statistical Document ................................3-251

Bigeye Tuna Statistical Document ..........................................................................3-251

Yellowfin Tuna Form 370 .......................................................................................3-251

Billfish Certificate of Eligibility..............................................................................3-252

U.S. Exports of HMS...................................................................................................3-252

Atlantic and Pacific Bluefin Tuna Exports..............................................................3-252

Other Tuna Exports .................................................................................................3-253

Shark Exports ..........................................................................................................3-254

Re-exports of Atlantic HMS....................................................................................3-255

Summary of Atlantic HMS Exports ........................................................................3-255

U.S. Imports of Atlantic HMS .....................................................................................3-256

Bluefin Tuna Imports ..............................................................................................3-256

Other Tuna Imports .................................................................................................3-257

Swordfish Imports ...................................................................................................3-258

Shark Imports ..........................................................................................................3-260

Summary of U.S. Imports of Atlantic HMS ............................................................3-261

The Use of Trade Data for Conservation Purposes......................................................3-261

Overview of the Processing Industry for Atlantic HMS..............................................3-263

Processing and Wholesale Sectors ..........................................................................3-264

Bycatch, Incidental Catch, and Protected Species ................................................... 3-264

3.8.1
Bycatch Reduction and the Magnuson-Stevens Act ....................................................3-265

3.8.2
Standardized Reporting of Bycatch .............................................................................3-266

3.8.2.1
U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery ...................................................................3-270

3.8.2.2
Purse Seine Fishery .................................................................................................3-271

3.8.2.3
Shark Bottom Longline Fishery ..............................................................................3-271

3.8.2.4
Shark Gillnet Fishery...............................................................................................3-272

3.8.2.5
Commercial Handgear Fishery................................................................................3-272

3.8.2.6
Recreational Handgear Fishery ...............................................................................3-273

3.8.3
Bycatch Reduction in HMS Fisheries..........................................................................3-273

3.9
3.9.1
3.9.2
3.9.3

HMS Permits and Tournaments............................................................................... 3-274

Upgrading and Safety Issues........................................................................................3-276

Atlantic Tunas Permits.................................................................................................3-276

HMS CHB Permits ......................................................................................................3-277

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxii

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.9.6
HMS Angling Permit ...................................................................................................3-278

3.9.4
Dealer Permits..............................................................................................................3-278

3.9.5
Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Display Permits, Chartering Permits, and Scientific

Research Permits (SRPs)...............................................................................................................3-282

3.9.6
Atlantic HMS Tournaments.........................................................................................3-283

3.9.7
Evaluation and Monitoring of Bycatch........................................................................3-291

3.9.8
Bycatch Mortality ........................................................................................................3-291

3.9.8.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................3-291

3.9.8.2
Mortality by Fishery ................................................................................................3-292

3.9.8.3
Code of Angling Ethics ...........................................................................................3-294

3.9.9
Interactions of HMS Fishing Gears with Protected Species ........................................3-294

3.9.9.1
Interactions and the Marine Mammal Protection Act..............................................3-295

3.9.9.2
Interactions and the ESA .........................................................................................3-297

3.9.9.3
Interactions with Seabirds .......................................................................................3-300

3.9.10
Measures to Address Protected Species Concerns.......................................................3-301

3.9.11
Bycatch of HMS in Other Fisheries.............................................................................3-301

3.9.11.1
Squid Mid-Water Trawl ......................................................................................3-302

3.9.11.2
Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery ...........................................................................3-302

3.9.11.3
Shrimp Trawl Fishery .........................................................................................3-303

3.9.11.4
Southeast Gillnet Fishery ....................................................................................3-304

3.9.12
Effectiveness of Existing Time/Area Closures in Reducing Bycatch..........................3-304

3.9.12.1
Prohibition of Live Bait in the Gulf of Mexico...................................................3-305

3.9.12.2
Conclusions .........................................................................................................3-306

3.9.13
Evaluation of Other Bycatch Reduction Measures ......................................................3-306

Chapter 3 References............................................................................................................. 3-309

Chapter 4 Table Of Contents.....................................................................................................4-i

Chapter 4 List of Tables ............................................................................................................4-ii

Chapter 4 List of Figures .......................................................................................................... 4-x

4.0 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives .................................................................. 4-1

4.1
Bycatch Reduction ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1
Workshops .......................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1.1
Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops for Pelagic

Longline, Bottom Longline, and Gillnet Fishermen .....................................................................4-1

4.1.1.2
HMS Identification Workshops.................................................................................4-17

4.1.2
Time Area Closures .......................................................................................................4-25

4.2

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing................................................................... 4-128

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3

4.3

Northern Albacore Tuna ..............................................................................................4-128

Finetooth Sharks ..........................................................................................................4-131

Atlantic Billfish............................................................................................................4-158

Management Program Structure .............................................................................. 4-211

4.3.1
4.3.1.1
4.3.1.2
4.3.1.3
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4

4.4
4.4.1

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Management..................................................................4-211

BFT Quota Management in the General and Angling Categories...........................4-211

Annual BFT Management Measures.......................................................................4-222

Inseason Actions......................................................................................................4-228

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ..............................................4-230

Authorized Fishing Gear..............................................................................................4-239

Regulatory Housekeeping............................................................................................4-254

Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................ 4-289

Workshops ...................................................................................................................4-290

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxiii

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8
4.4.9

4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8.1
4.8.2
4.8.3

Time/Area Closures .....................................................................................................4-290

Northern Atlantic Albacore Tuna ................................................................................4-290

Finetooth Sharks ..........................................................................................................4-290

Atlantic Billfish Management Measures .....................................................................4-291

Bluefin Tuna Management Measures ..........................................................................4-291
Calendar Year/ Fishing Year .......................................................................................4-291

Authorized Fishing Gears ............................................................................................4-291

Regulatory Housekeeping............................................................................................4-291

Impacts on Protected Resources .............................................................................. 4-291

Environmental Justice.............................................................................................. 4-294
Coastal Zone Management Act................................................................................ 4-296

Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-297

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ....................................................4-297

Cumulative Ecological Impacts ...................................................................................4-298

Cumulative Economic and Social Impacts ..................................................................4-304

Chapter 4 References............................................................................................................. 4-323

Chapter 5 Table of Contents......................................................................................................5-i

5.0 Mitigation and Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................. 5-1

5.1
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-7

5.3
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources............................................ 5-8

Chapter 6 Table of Contents......................................................................................................6-i

Chapter 6 List of Tables ............................................................................................................6-ii

6.0 Economic Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1
Number of Fishing and Dealer Permit Holders ........................................................... 6-1

6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3

6.2
6.3
6.4

HMS Commercial Fishing Permits..................................................................................6-1

Dealer Permits..................................................................................................................6-1

HMS Recreational Permits ..............................................................................................6-1

Gross Revenues of Fishermen ..................................................................................... 6-2

Variable Costs and Net Revenues................................................................................ 6-3

Expected Economic Impacts of the Alternatives ......................................................... 6-4

6.4.1
Bycatch Reduction...........................................................................................................6-4

6.4.1.1
Workshops...................................................................................................................6-4

6.4.1.2
Time/Area Closures.....................................................................................................6-8

6.4.2
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing.........................................................................6-11

6.4.2.1
Northern Albacore .....................................................................................................6-11

Finetooth Sharks........................................................................................................6-11

6.4.2.2
6.4.2.3
Atlantic Billfish .........................................................................................................6-13

6.4.3
Management Program Structure ....................................................................................6-16
6.4.3.1
Bluefin Tuna Quota Management .............................................................................6-16

6.4.3.2
Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries............................................6-21

6.4.3.3
Authorized Gears.......................................................................................................6-21

6.4.3.4
Regulatory Housekeeping .........................................................................................6-22

Chapter 6 References............................................................................................................... 6-27

Chapter 7 Table of Contents......................................................................................................7-i

Chapter 7 List of Tables .............................................................................................................7-i

7.0 Regulatory Impact Review.................................................................................................. 7-1

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxiv

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5

Description of the Management Objectives................................................................. 7-1

Description of the Fishery............................................................................................ 7-1

Statement of the Problem............................................................................................. 7-1

Description of Each Alternative................................................................................... 7-1

Economic Analysis of Expected Effects of Each Alternative Relative to the Baseline 7­
1

7.6
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 7-3

Chapter 8 Table of Contents......................................................................................................8-i

8.0 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis................................................................................. 8-1

8.1
Statement of the Need for and Objectives of this Final Rule ...................................... 8-1

8.2 A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised By the Public Comments in Response to

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Summary of the Assessment of the

Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Rule as a

Result of Such Comments ....................................................................................... 8-1

8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.2.5
8.2.6
8.2.7
8.2.8

8.3

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule

Will Apply ............................................................................................................... 8-9

8.3.1
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.3.5
8.3.6
8.3.7
8.3.8
8.3.9

8.4

8.5

W
orkshops .......................................................................................................................8-1

Time/Area Closures .........................................................................................................8-3

F
inetooth Sharks ..............................................................................................................8-4

A
tlantic Billfish................................................................................................................8-4

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Domestic Management Measures ................................................8-6

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ..................................................8-6

Authorized Fishing Gear..................................................................................................8-6

Regulatory Housekeeping................................................................................................8-7

W
orkshops .......................................................................................................................8-9

Time/Area Closures .........................................................................................................8-9

Northern Albacore Tuna ................................................................................................8-10

F
inetooth Sharks ............................................................................................................8-10

A
tlantic Billfish..............................................................................................................8-10

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Domestic Management Measures ..............................................8-10

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ................................................8-10

Authorized Fishing Gear................................................................................................8-10

Regulatory Housekeeping..............................................................................................8-11

Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small

Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirements of the Report or Record..... 8-11

Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic

Impact on Small Entities Consistent with the Stated Objectives of Applicable

Statutes, Including a Statement of the Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for

Selecting the Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule and the Reason That Each One

of the Other Significant Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which

Affect Small Entities Was Rejected ...................................................................... 8-12

8.5.1
Bycatch Reduction.........................................................................................................8-13

8.5.1.1
W
orkshops.................................................................................................................8-13

8.5.1.2
Time/Area Closures...................................................................................................8-15

8.5.2
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing.........................................................................8-16

8.5.2.1 Northern Albacore Tuna............................................................................................8-16

8.5.2.2
Finetooth Sharks........................................................................................................8-16

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxv

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.5.2.3
Atlantic Billfish .........................................................................................................8-16

8.5.3
Management Program Structure ....................................................................................8-18
8.5.3.1
Bluefin Tuna Quota Management .............................................................................8-18

8.5.3.2
Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries............................................8-19

8.5.3.3
Authorized Fishing Gears..........................................................................................8-19

8.5.3.4
Regulatory Housekeeping .........................................................................................8-20

Chapter 9 Table of Contents......................................................................................................9-i

Chapter 9 List of Tables ...........................................................................................................9-iii

Chapter 9 List of Figures .......................................................................................................... 9-v

9.0 Community Profiles ............................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 9-1

9.2
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 9-3

9.2.1
Previous community profiles and assessments ................................................................9-3

9.2.2
Information Used in this Assessment ..............................................................................9-3

9.2.2.1
Community Impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita..............................................9-5

9.3
9.4

United States Demographic Profile ............................................................................. 9-6

State and Community Profiles ..................................................................................... 9-7

9.4.1
Maine ...............................................................................................................................9-7

9.4.2
New Hampshire ...............................................................................................................9-8

9.4.3
Massachusetts ..................................................................................................................9-9

9.4.3.1
Gloucester, Massachusetts.........................................................................................9-11
9.4.3.2
New Bedford, Massachusetts ....................................................................................9-13

9.4.4
Rhode Island ..................................................................................................................9-17

9.4.5
Connecticut ....................................................................................................................9-18

9.4.6
New York.......................................................................................................................9-20

9.4.7
New Jersey.....................................................................................................................9-21

9.4.7.1
Barnegat Light, New Jersey ......................................................................................9-22

9.4.7.2
Brielle, New Jersey....................................................................................................9-25

9.4.8
Delaware ........................................................................................................................9-28

9.4.9
Maryland........................................................................................................................9-29

9.4.10
Virginia ..........................................................................................................................9-30

9.4.11
North Carolina ...............................................................................................................9-31

9.4.11.1
Hatteras .................................................................................................................9-33

9.4.11.2
Wanchese, North Carolina ....................................................................................9-36

9.4.12
South Carolina ...............................................................................................................9-39

9.4.13
Georgia...........................................................................................................................9-40

Florida............................................................................................................................9-41

9.4.14
9.4.14.1
Pompano Beach, Florida .......................................................................................9-43

9.4.14.2
Fort Pierce, Florida................................................................................................9-45

9.4.14.3
Madeira Beach, Florida.........................................................................................9-46

9.4.14.4
Panama City, Florida.............................................................................................9-49

9.4.14.5
Islamorada, Florida ...............................................................................................9-51

9.4.15
Alabama .........................................................................................................................9-53

9.4.16
Mississippi .....................................................................................................................9-55

9.4.17
Louisiana........................................................................................................................9-56

9.4.17.1
Venice, Louisiana..................................................................................................9-57

9.4.17.2
Dulac, Louisiana ...................................................................................................9-61

9.4.18
Texas..............................................................................................................................9-64

9.4.19
Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................................9-65

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxvi

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.4.19.1

Arecibo, Puerto Rico.............................................................................................9-66

9.5
Future Assessments.................................................................................................... 9-68
Chapter 9 References............................................................................................................... 9-76

Chapter 10 Table of Contents..................................................................................................10-i

Chapter 10 List of Tables ........................................................................................................10-ii

Chapter 10 List of Tables ........................................................................................................10-ii

10.0 Essential Fish Habitat.................................................................................................. 10-1

10.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 10-1

10.2 EFH Five-Year Review Process ................................................................................ 10-2

10.2.1
10.2.2

10.3

Summary of Review and Findings............................................................................. 10-8

10.3.1
10.3.2
10.3.3
10.3.4

10.4

Descriptions of Datasets Used in the Review ................................................................10-3

Methods Used to Map and Analyze EFH Data..............................................................10-6

Tunas..............................................................................................................................10-9

Swordfish .....................................................................................................................10-13

Billfish .........................................................................................................................10-14

Sharks ..........................................................................................................................10-16

Threats to Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................. 10-19

10.4.1
Regulatory Requirements and Fishing Activities That May Affect EFH ....................10-19

10.4.2
Potential Impacts of HMS Fishing Activities on HMS and non-HMS EFH ...............10-20

10.4.2.1
HMS EFH Overview...........................................................................................10-20

10.4.2.2
Impact of HMS Federally regulated gear on HMS and non-HMS EFH .............10-22

10.4.3
Potential Impacts of non-HMS Fishing Activities on HMS EFH................................10-25

10.4.4
Federally Managed Fishing Activities .........................................................................10-27

10.4.5
Non-Federally Managed Fishing Activities.................................................................10-29

10.4.6
Description of Fishing Gears .......................................................................................10-31

10.4.7
Summary......................................................................................................................10-45

10.5

Non-fishing Impacts to EFH.................................................................................... 10-45

10.5.1.1
Land-based Activities That May Impact HMS EFH...........................................10-47

10.5.1.2
Coastal and Offshore Activities That May Impact HMS EFH ...........................10-48

10.5.2
Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................10-51

Chapter 10 References........................................................................................................... 10-54

Chapters 11-13 Table of Contents ...........................................................................................11-i

11.0 Other Considerations................................................................................................... 11-1

11.1 National Standards ..................................................................................................... 11-1

11.2 Ongoing Management and the Procedure for Adjusting Management Measures ... 11-11

11.3 Consideration of Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 304(g) Measures ....................... 11-12

12.0 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 12-1

13.0 List Of Agencies, Organizations, And Persons Consulted And To Whom Copies Of

The EIS Will Be Sent ................................................................................................... 13-1

Appendix A Table of Contents ................................................................................................. A-i

Appendix A List of Tables......................................................................................................... A-i

Appendix A List of Figures ..................................................................................................... A-vi

A Appendix: Time/Area Closures: additional analyses and results .................................. A-1

Appendix B Table of Contents.................................................................................................. B-i

Appendix B List of Tables........................................................................................................ B-ii

Appendix B List of Figures ..................................................................................................... B-iii

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxvii

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

B Appendix: Essential Fish Habitat...................................................................................... B-1

B.1
Life History Accounts and Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions................................. B-1

B.1.1
Tuna ................................................................................................................................ B-1

B.1.1.1 Atlantic Albacore Tuna .............................................................................................. B-1

B.1.1.2 Atlantic Bigeye Tuna.................................................................................................. B-2

B.1.1.3 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna ................................................................................................. B-3

B.1.1.4 Atlantic Skipjack Tuna ............................................................................................... B-6

B.1.1.5 Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna............................................................................................. B-7

B.1.2
Swordfish ........................................................................................................................ B-9

B.1.3
Billfish .......................................................................................................................... B-11

B.1.3.1 Blue Marlin............................................................................................................... B-11

B.1.3.2 White Marlin ............................................................................................................ B-15

B.1.3.3 Sailfish...................................................................................................................... B-17

B.1.3.4 Longbill Spearfish .................................................................................................... B-19

B.1.4
Large Coastal Sharks .................................................................................................... B-20

B.1.4.1 Basking Sharks ......................................................................................................... B-20

B.1.4.2 Hammerhead Sharks................................................................................................. B-21

B.1.4.3 Mackerel Sharks ....................................................................................................... B-23

B.1.4.4 Nurse Sharks............................................................................................................. B-24

B.1.4.5 Requiem Sharks........................................................................................................ B-26

B.1.4.6 Sand Tiger Sharks..................................................................................................... B-39

B.1.4.7 Whale Sharks............................................................................................................ B-40

B.1.4.8 Small Coastal Shark ................................................................................................. B-41

B.1.4.9 Hammerhead Sharks................................................................................................. B-42

B.1.4.10
Requiem Sharks ................................................................................................... B-43

B.1.5
Pelagic Sharks............................................................................................................... B-47

B.1.5.1 Cow sharks ............................................................................................................... B-47

B.1.5.2 Mackerel Shark......................................................................................................... B-49

B.1.5.3 Requiem Sharks........................................................................................................ B-51

B.1.5.4 Thresher Sharks ........................................................................................................ B-54

Appendix B References......................................................................................................... B-196

Appendix C List of Tables......................................................................................................... C-i

C Appendix: Aggregate Domestic Pelagic Longline and Recreational Atlantic White

Marlin Fishing Mortality Estimates 2001 - 2004 ....................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Table of Contents ................................................................................................ D-i

D Proposed Rule and DEIS Comments and Responses ...................................................... D-1

D.1
Bycatch Reduction ...................................................................................................... D-1
D.1.1
D.1.2

D.2

Workshops ......................................................................................................................D-1

Time/Area Closures ......................................................................................................D-15

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing.................................................................... D-46

D.2.1
Northern Albacore Tuna ...............................................................................................D-46

D.2.2
Finetooth Sharks ...........................................................................................................D-49

D.2.3
Atlantic Billfish.............................................................................................................D-58

Gears and Gear Restrictions.......................................................................................................D-78

Circle Hooks And/Or Post-Release Mortality Data...................................................................D-87

Elimination of the ‘No Sale’ Exemption....................................................................................D-89

General Billfish Comments........................................................................................................D-90

D.3

Management Program Structure ............................................................................... D-95

D.3.1

Bluefin Tuna Quota Management Measures ................................................................D-95

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxviii

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

D.3.2
D.3.3
D.3.4

D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries .............................................D-103

Authorized Fishing Gear.............................................................................................D-105

Regulatory Housekeeping...........................................................................................D-127

Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................. D-145

Economic and Social Impacts................................................................................. D-151

Consolidation of the FMPs ..................................................................................... D-154

Objectives of the FMP ............................................................................................ D-156

Comment Period/Outreach...................................................................................... D-159
General.................................................................................................................... D-160

D.9.1
D.9.2
D.9.3
D.9.4
D.9.5
D.9.6
D.9.7
D.9.8
D.9.9
D.9.10

Recreational ................................................................................................................D-163

Commercial Fishery....................................................................................................D-165

Longline ......................................................................................................................D-166

Swordfish ....................................................................................................................D-167

Tunas...........................................................................................................................D-170

Sharks .........................................................................................................................D-170

Fishing Mortality and Bycatch Reduction ..................................................................D-174

Permitting, Reporting, and Monitoring.......................................................................D-180

E
nforcement................................................................................................................D-183

ICCAT ........................................................................................................................D-185

APPENDIX E TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. E-i

E OMB PEER REVIEW BULLETIN .................................................................................. E-1

E.1 Peer Review by Gregory Skomal, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of

Marine Fisheries, December 21, 2005 .....................................................................E-2

E.2 Response to OMB Peer Review by Gregory Skomal, Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, Division of Marine Fisheries, December 21, 2005.......................E-15

E.3
Peer Review by Chris Boggs and Keith Bigelow, NMFS SWFSC, January 9, 2006E-19
E.4 Response to OMB Peer Review by Chris Boggs and Keith Bigelow, NMFS SWFSC,

January 9, 2006......................................................................................................E-25

E.5
Peer Review by Paul J. Rago, NMFS NEFSC, January 25, 2006 .............................E-33

E.6 Response to OMB Peer Review by Paul J. Rago, NMFS NEFSC, January 25, 2006...E­
36

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxix

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

MASTER LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3

Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 3.13
Table 3.14
Table 3.15
Table 3.16

The preferred alternatives at the draft and final stage of the Consolidated HMS

FMP and the expected implementation date.......................................................... iv

Table indicating whether actions in this document are amending the FMP or are

being taken as framework actions........................................................................ 1-4

Current Advisory Panel Seat Allocation............................................................ 1-13

Previous and Final Objectives of the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark,

Billfish, and Consolidated HMS FMPs. Italicized text indicates the differences in

objectives between the two previous FMPs....................................................... 1-13

Summary and status of activities, anticipated results, and associated timelines for

preventing overfishing of finetooth sharks. ....................................................... 2-28

List of Proposed Regulatory Changes................................................................ 2-59

Summary of 2005 Federal Register Notices Related to HMS. .......................... 3-28

State Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Atlantic HMS, as of May 30, 2006. 3-33

Stock Assessment Summary Table. Source: SCRS, 2004 and 2005, Cortes, 2002,

and Cortes et al. 2002. ....................................................................................... 3-43

Atlantic Swordfish Stock Summary (weights given in mt ww). Source: SCRS,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-49

Summary Table for the Status of West Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-54

Summary Table for the Status of East Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-54

Probability of western Atlantic bluefin tuna achieving rebuilding target by 2018.

Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................................................... 3-57

Summary Table for the Status of Atlantic Bigeye Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005... 3­
66

Summary Table for the Status of Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

............................................................................................................................ 3-70

Summary Table for the Status of North Atlantic Albacore Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-76

Summary Table for the Status of South Atlantic Albacore Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-77

Summary Table for the Status of West Atlantic Skipjack Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-82

Summary of Atlantic Blue Marlin Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric

tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................................... 3-86

Summary of Atlantic White Marlin Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric

tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................................... 3-95

Summary of Atlantic Sailfish Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric tons,

whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2004................................................................. 3-101

Common names of shark species included within the four species management

units under the purview of the HMS management division. ........................... 3-109

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxx

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.17
Table 3.18
Table 3.19

Table 3.20

Table 3.21
Table 3.22
Table 3.23

Table 3.24
Table 3.25
Table 3.26
Table 3.27

Table 3.28

Table 3.29
Table 3.30
Table 3.31

Table 3.32
Table 3.33

Summary Table of Biomass and Fishing Mortality for Large Coastal Sharks

(LCS). Source: Cortes et al., 2002................................................................... 3-115

Summary Table of Biomass and Fishing Mortality for Small Coastal Sharks

(SCS) Source: Cortes, 2002. ............................................................................ 3-115

Summary table of the status of the biomass of finetooth sharks. Sources: 2002

SCS stock assessment; E. Cortes, personal communication. LRSG=lagged

recruitment, survival, and growth model; SPM=surplus production model.... 3-116

Summary table of the status of the biomass of finetooth sharks. Sources: 2002

SCS stock assessment; E. Cortes, personal communication. LRSG=lagged

recruitment, survival, and growth; SPM=surplus production model............... 3-116

Calendar Year 2004 U.S. vs International Catch of HMS (mt ww) other than

sharks. Source: SCRS, 2005. ........................................................................... 3-142

Average Number of Hooks per Pelagic Longline Set, 1999-2004. Source: Data

reported in pelagic longline logbook. .............................................................. 3-144

Observer Coverage of the Pelagic Longline Fishery. Source: Yeung, 2001;

Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison, 2005; Walsh and

Garrison, 2006.................................................................................................. 3-149

Reported Catch of Species Caught by U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longlines, in Number

of Fish, for 1999-2004. Source: Pelagic Longline Logbook Data................... 3-150

Reported Landings in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (in mt ww) for

1999-2004. Source: NMFS, 2004a; NMFS, 2005. .......................................... 3-151

Summary of Marine Mammal Interactions in the Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992­
1998. Source: Yeung, 1999a; Yeung, 1999b. .................................................. 3-152

Summary of Marine Mammal Interactions in the Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1999­
2005. Sources: Yeung, 2001; Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004;

Garrison, 2005; Walsh and Garrison, 2006. .................................................... 3-153

Estimated number of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle interactions in the U.S.

Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, 2001-2005 by statistical area. Sources: Walsh

and Garrison, 2006; Garrison, 2005; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison 2003.

.......................................................................................................................... 3-155

Seabird Bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992-2005.

Source: NMFS, 2004a; NMFS PLL fishery observer program (POP) data. ... 3-158

Status of Seabird Bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992­
2005. Source: NMFS PLL fishery observer program (POP) data. .................. 3-159

Preliminary Expanded Estimates of Seabird Bycatch (D = discarded dead and A =

discarded alive) and bycatch rates (all seabirds per 1,000 hooks) in the U.S.

Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2004a; NMFS PLL

fishery observer program (POP) data. ............................................................. 3-160

ICCAT Bycatch Table (LL, longline; GILL, gillnets; PS, purse-seine; BB,

baitboat; HARP, harpoon; Trap, traps). Source: SCRS, 2004. ........................ 3-165

Estimated International Longline Landings of HMS, Other than Sharks, for All

Countries in the Atlantic: 1999-2004 (mt ww)1. Source: SCRS, 2005............ 3-166

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxi

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.34

Table 3.35

Table 3.36

Table 3.37
Table 3.38
Table 3.39
Table 3.40
Table 3.41

Table 3.42
Table 3.43
Table 3.44

Table 3.45

Table 3.46

Table 3.47

Table 3.48

Nominal Catches of Blue Shark Reported to ICCAT (landings and discards in t)
by Major Gear and Flag between 1990 and 2002. Source: SCRS, 2004; SCRS,
2005.................................................................................................................. 3-168
Nominal Catches of Shortfin Mako Shark Reported to ICCAT (landings and
discards in t) by Major Gear and Flag between 1990 and 2002. Source: SCRS,
2004; SCRS, 2005............................................................................................ 3-169
Domestic Atlantic Tuna Landings for the Purse Seine Fishery: 1999-2004 (mt
ww). Northwest Atlantic Fishing Area. Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT:
2005.................................................................................................................. 3-173
Estimated International Purse Seine Atlantic Tuna Landings in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean: 1999-2004 (mt ww). Source: SCRS, 2005 ............................. 3-174
Domestic Landings for the Commercial Handgear Fishery, by Species and Gear,
for 1999-2004 (mt ww). Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT: 2005........ 3-177
Domestic Landings for the Commercial Handgear Fishery by Species and Region
for 1999-2004 (mt ww). Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT: 2005....... 3-178
Estimated number of vessel trips targeting large pelagic species, 2001-2004.
Source: Large Pelagics Survey database.......................................................... 3-178
Updated Domestic Landings for the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Billfish
Recreational Rod and Reel Fishery, 1997-2004 (mt ww)*. Sources: NMFS, 2004;
NMFS, 2005. (Recreational shark landings are provided in Table 3.44 through
Table 3.47). ...................................................................................................... 3-183
Preliminary RBS Recreational Billfish Landings in numbers of fish (calendar
year). Source: NMFS Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS). ............................ 3-185
Number of billfish reported to NMFS via call-in system by fishing year, 2002­
2005. Source: G. Fairclough, pers. comm. ...................................................... 3-185
Estimates of Total Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Sharks: 1998-2004 (numbers
of fish in thousands). Source: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004
(Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Estimates for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited
species. ............................................................................................................. 3-188
Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks (LCS) by Species, in
number of fish: 1998-2004. Sources: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001­
2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Total estimates for 2001-2004 do not include
prohibited species............................................................................................. 3-188
Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Pelagic Sharks by Species, in number of fish:
1998-2004. Sources: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés,
2005a; 2005b). Total estimates for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited species.3­
189
Recreational Harvest of Atlantic SCS by Species, in number of fish: 1998-2004.
Source: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b).
Total estimates for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited species. .................. 3-189
Observed or reported number of HMS kept 1 and released in the rod and reel
fishery, Maine through Virginia, 1997-2004. Source: Large Pelagic Survey (LPS)
Preliminary Data. ............................................................................................. 3-192

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.49
Table 3.50
Table 3.51
Table 3.52
Table 3.53
Table 3.54

Table 3.55

Table 3.56

Table 3.57

Table 3.58

Table 3.59

Table 3.60
Table 3.61
Table 3.62
Table 3.63
Table 3.64
Table 3.65
Table 3.66

Total 2004 Reported Boating Accident Types. Source: USCG Boating Statistics,
2004.................................................................................................................. 3-194
Overall 2004 Reported Boating Accident Cause-of-Death Statistics. Source:
USCG Boating Statistics, 2004........................................................................ 3-195
Species composition of observed bottom longline catch during 2003. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2004. ............................................................................. 3-200
Species composition of observed bottom longline catch during 2004. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2005. ............................................................................. 3-201
Directed bottom longline shark observed catch and disposition, 2003. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2004. ............................................................................. 3-203
Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Species by Month for Years
1994-2006 in the Shark Bottom Longline Fishery. Source: Shark Bottom
Longline Observer Program............................................................................. 3-204
Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Year for Years 1994-2006 in
the Shark Bottom Longline Fishery. Source: Shark Bottom Longline Observer
Program. Letters in parentheses indicate whether the sea turtle was released alive
(A), dead (D), or in an unknown (U) condition. .............................................. 3-204
Total Strikenet Shark Catch and Bycatch by Species in order of Decreasing
Abundance for all Observed Trips, 2003. Source: Carlson and Baremore, 2003.. 3­
211
Total Shark Catch by Species and Species Disposition in Order of Decreasing
Abundance for all Observed Driftnet Sets, 2003. Source: Carlson and Baremore,
2003.................................................................................................................. 3-211
Total bycatch in NMFS observed drift gillnet sets in order of decreasing
abundance and species disposition for all observed trips, 2003. Source: Carlson,
2003.................................................................................................................. 3-212
Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Year from 2000-2006 in the
Shark Gillnet Fishery. Source: Directed Shark Gillnet Observer Program. Letters
in parentheses indicate whether the sea turtle was released alive (A), dead (D), or
unknown (U). ................................................................................................... 3-212
Protected Species Interactions in Drift Gillnet Sets During the Directed Shark
Gillnet Fishery for All Observed Trips, 2003. Source: Carlson, 2003. ........... 3-213
U.S. Landings (mt) of Bluefin Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-213
U.S. Landings (mt) of Yellowfin Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-214
U.S. Landings (mt) of Skipjack Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-215
U.S. Landings (mt) of Bigeye Tuna by Area and Gear, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-216
U.S. Landings (mt) of Albacore Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-217
U.S. Catches and Landings (mt) of Swordfish by Gear and Area, 1997-2004.
Source: NMFS, 2005. ...................................................................................... 3-218

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxiii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.67
Table 3.68

Table 3.69
Table 3.70
Table 3.71

Table 3.72

Table 3.73

Table 3.74

Table 3.75

Table 3.76
Table 3.77

Table 3.78

U.S. Landings (mt) and dead discards of Blue Marlin, White Marlin and Sailfish
by Gear and Area, 1998-2002. Source: NMFS, 2003...................................... 3-219
Commercial landings of large coastal sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Sources: Data
from 1999-2001, Cortés pers. Comm.; data from 2002-2003, Cortés 2003; Cortés
and Neer, 2005. ................................................................................................ 3-221
Commercial landings of small coastal sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Source: Cortés
and Neer, 2002; Cortés, 2003. Cortés and Neer, 2005. ................................... 3-223
Commercial landings of pelagic sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Sources: Data from
2000-2001, Cortés pers. comm.; Cortés, 2003; Cortés and Neer, 2005. ......... 3-223
Estimates of total landings and dead discards for large coastal sharks from 1981
through 2004 (numbers of fish in thousands). Modified from the 1998 and 2002
Report of the Shark Evaluation Workshop (NMFS 1998, 2002), Cortés and Neer
(2002), and Cortés (2003, 2005). ..................................................................... 3-224
Commercial landings of LCS (including unclassified sharks) in the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico by region and year in mt dw for QMS and Logbook data and mt
ww for Canvass and CFDBS data from 1999-2003......................................... 3-226
Commercial landings of SCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by region and
year year in mt dw for QMS and Logbook data and mt ww for Canvass and
CFDBS data from 1999-2003. ......................................................................... 3-227
Inflation Price Indexes. The CPI-U is the standard Consumer Price Index for all
urban consumers (1982-1984=100) produced by U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The source of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for
unprocessed finfish (1982=100) is also the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Gross
Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator (200=100) is produced by the U.S.
Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis and obtained from the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (http://www.stlouisfed.org/)..................... 3-229
Average ex-vessel prices per lb dw for Atlantic HMS by gear and area. Source:
Dealer weighout slips from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, and bluefin tuna dealer reports from the Northeast
Regional Office. HND=Handline, harpoon, spears, trot lines, and trolls,
PLL=Pelagic longline, BLL=Bottom longline, Net=Gillnets and pound nets,
TWL=Trawls, SEN=Seines, TRP=Pots and traps, DRG=Dredge, and
UNK=Unknown. Gulf of Mexico includes: TX, LA, MS, AL, and the west coast
of FL. S. Atlantic includes: east coast of FL. GA, SC, and NC dealers reporting to
Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Mid-Atlantic includes: NC dealers reporting
to Northeast Fisheries Science Center, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, and CT. N. Atlantic
includes: RI, MA, NH, and ME. For bluefin tuna, all NC landings are included in
the Mid-Atlantic............................................................................................... 3-230
Average ex-vessel prices per lb for Atlantic HMS by area. ............................ 3-235

Estimates of the total ex-vessel annual revenues of Atlantic HMS fisheries.
Sources: NMFS, 1997; NMFS 2004a; Cortes, 2003; and bluefin tuna dealer
reports from the Northeast Regional Office..................................................... 3-238
The overall average wholesale price per lb of fresh HMS sold in Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico states as reported by the Fulton Fish Market. Source: NMFS, 2004.... 3­
239

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxiv

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.79

Table 3.80
Table 3.81

Table 3.82

Table 3.83

Table 3.84

Table 3.85
Table 3.86
Table 3.87
Table 3.88
Table 3.89
Table 3.90
Table 3.91
Table 3.92
Table 3.93
Table 3.94
Table 3.95

Table 3.96

Average Atlantic HMS charterboat rates for day trips. Source: NMFS searches for

advertised daily charter rates of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders.

(Observations=99) ........................................................................................... 3-241

United States exports of Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna, 1999-2004. Sources:

NMFS BSD Program, NERO, and Census Bureau. ........................................ 3-252

Amount and value of U.S. exports of albacore tuna from all ocean areas, 1999­
2004 (Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of North Atlantic albacore tuna

(2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT)............................................................ 3-253

Amount and value of U.S. exports of yellowfin tuna from all ocean areas, 1999­
2004 (Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of Atlantic yellowfin tuna (2005

U.S. National Report to ICCAT). ..................................................................... 3-253

Amount and value of U.S. exports of skipjack tuna from all ocean areas, 1999­
2004 (Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of West Atlantic skipjack tuna

(2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT)............................................................ 3-254

Amount and value of U.S. exports of bigeye tuna from all ocean areas, 1999-2004

(Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of Atlantic bigeye tuna (2005 U.S.

National Report to ICCAT).............................................................................. 3-254

Amount and value of U.S. shark product exports from 1999-2004. Source: Census

Bureau. ............................................................................................................. 3-255

Imports of Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna into the United States: 1999-2004.

Sources: NMFS BSD program and CBP data.................................................. 3-256

Imports of bigeye tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined:

2001-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. ........................................................ 3-257

Imports of yellowfin tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined:

1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. ........................................................ 3-257

Imports of albacore tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined:

1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. ........................................................ 3-258

Imports of skipjack tuna from all ocean areas combined into the United States:

1999-2004. Source: U.S. Census Bureau data. ................................................ 3-258

Swordfish import data for the 2004 calendar year collected under the NMFS

Swordfish Import Monitoring Program. .......................................................... 3-259

Imported swordfish products by year: 1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. . 3­
260

U.S. imports of shark products from all ocean areas combined: 1999-2004.

Source: Census Bureau data............................................................................. 3-261

Summary and current status of ICCAT recommended trade sanctions for bluefin

tuna, swordfish, and bigeye tuna implemented by the United States. ............. 3-262

Distribution of Shark, Swordfish, and Tuna longline Limited Access Permits

Between 2001 and 2006. Data for 2001-2005 are as of October 1 for each year.. 3­
275

The number of Atlantic tuna permit holders in each category as of October 2001

through 2005. Permit numbers for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006. The actual

number of 2006 permit holders in each category is subject to change as

individuals renew or allow their permits to expire. ......................................... 3-277

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxv

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.97
Table 3.98

Table 3.99

Table 3.100
Table 3.101
Table 3.102
Table 3.103

Table 3.104
Table 3.105
Table 3.106
Table 3.107

Table 3.108
Table 3.109

Table 3.110

Table 3.111

Table 4.1

CHB Permits by State as of February 1, 2006. ................................................ 3-278
Number of shark and swordfish dealer permits issued in each state or country as
of October 2001-2005. Permits for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006. The actual
number of permits per may change as permit holders move or sell their
businesses......................................................................................................... 3-279
Number of Atlantic tuna dealer permits by state issued in the 2005 calendar year.
Dealers may obtain a permit to sell and purchase only bluefin tuna, only BAYS
tunas, or both bluefin and BAYS tunas. .......................................................... 3-280
Number of International Trade Permits (ITP) by state (province) as of February 1,
2006.................................................................................................................. 3-281
Number of Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Display Permits, and Scientific
Research Permits (SRPs) issued between 2002 and 2006. .............................. 3-283
Number of Registered HMS Tournaments by State between 2001 and 2005.
Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration Database ................. 3-285
Number and Percent of All 2005 HMS Tournaments Awarding Points or Prizes
for an HMS. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration Database .. 3­
286
Registered Blue Marlin Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS
Tournament Registration Database.................................................................. 3-287
Registered White Marlin Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS
Tournament Registration Database.................................................................. 3-287
Registered Sailfish Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS
Tournament Registration Database.................................................................. 3-288
Summary of bycatch species in HMS fisheries, Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) category, endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements, data collection,
and management measures by fishery/gear type. (Excerpted from HMS Bycatch
Priorities and Implementation Plan and updated through May 2006) ............. 3-289
Atlantic HMS Landed (mt ww) Incidental to Trawl Fisheries, 1998-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2003, NMFS, 2005.............................................................................. 3-302
Expanded estimates of bycatch (number of fish) of bonnethead, Atlantic
sharpnose, and finetooth sharks in the U.S. south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery
based on within stratum expansion by effort as trips by fishing year. Source:
Cortés, 2002. .................................................................................................... 3-303
Estimates (in thousands of individuals and pounds dressed weight) of the bycatch
of small coastal sharks (as a complex and by species) in the shrimp trawl fishery
operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Source: S. Nichols, NMFS Pascagoula Lab.,
pers. comm. as cited in Cortés, 2002. .............................................................. 3-303
Comparison of the number of hooks reported set in the Gulf of Mexico with dead
or live bait, or a combination of both baits, 1999-2004 (numbers in parentheses
are percent of the total number of hooks set in the Gulf of Mexico). Source: PLL
Logbook data. .................................................................................................. 3-305
Extrapolated Total Sea Turtle and Marine Mammal Interactions in the HMS PLL
fishery for 1999-2005 and the 3 Year ITSs for 2004-2006 and 2007-2009.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxvi

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Sources: Yeung, 2001; Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison,
2005; NMFS, 2004b; Walsh and Garrison, 2006 ................................................ 4-3
Extrapolated (1994-2002) and Observed (2003-2005) Takes and Five Year ITS
for Sea Turtles and Sawfish in the HMS Bottom Longline Fishery*. Source:
NMFS, 2005, Smith et al., 2006 .......................................................................... 4-4
Extrapolated (1999-2002) and Observed (2003-2005) Takes and Five Year ITS
for Protected Resources in the Shark Gillnet Fishery*. Source: Carlson, 2003;
NMFS, 2003a; Carlson et al., 2004; Carlson and Bethea, 2005.......................... 4-4
Percent change in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtles, and bluefin tuna kept and discards
combined, based on various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution
of effort. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals
are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: Pelagic Observer Program data (2001 – 2003)........................... 4-82
Percent change in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback, loggerhead, and bluefin tuna based on various time/area closure
alternatives with and without redistribution of effort. + = increase and - =
decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001 – 2003). ............................................................................................ 4-83
Total number of swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, total BAYS
(bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack tuna), reported landed or discarded in
the U.S. Atlantic PLL fishery, 1997 – 2003. Pred 1 = without redistribution of
effort, Pred 2 = with redistribution of effort. Predictions were predicted back in
2000. Source: HMS Logbook data..................................................................... 4-85
Total number of pelagic sharks, large coastal sharks, dolphin (mahi mahi), and
wahoo reported landed or discarded and number of billfish (blue and white
marlin, sailfish, spearfish) and sea turtles caught and discarded in the U.S.
Atlantic PLL fishery, 1997 – 2003. Pred 1 = without redistribution of effort, Pred 2
= with redistribution of effort. Predictions were predicted back in 2000. Source:
HMS logbook data. ............................................................................................ 4-86
Reported distribution of hooks set by area, 1995-2003 (CAR=Caribbean,
GOM=Gulf of Mexico, FEC=Florida East Coast, SAB=South Atlantic Bight,
MAB=Mid-Atlantic Bight, NEC=Northeast Coastal, NED=Northeast Distant,
SAR=Sargasso, NCA=North Central Atlantic, and TUNS=Tuna North & Tuna
South). Source: HMS logbook data. .................................................................. 4-87
Number of bluefin tuna (BFT), swordfish (SWO), sharks (PEL-pelagic; LCSLarge Coastal Sharks), billfish, and turtles kept and/or discarded in the MidAtlantic Bight (MAB) and Northeast Coastal (NEC) areas combined versus all
other areas as reported in the pelagic logbook data, 1995-2003. Source: HMS
logbook Data...................................................................................................... 4-88
Alternative B2(a). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure
on discards from May through November with redistribution of effort in (a) all
open areas and (b) in the Gulf of Mexico only. Totals and percent changes are for
months of May-Nov only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxvii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.11

Table 4.12

Table 4.13

Table 4.14

Table 4.15

Table 4.16

Table 4.17

Table 4.18

discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)........................................................................................................ 4-89
Alternative B2(a). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards with and without redistribution of effort year-round and May-November
with redistribution of effort into (a) all open areas and (b) in the Gulf of Mexico
only. * excluding the NED. - + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003). 4­
91
Alternative B2(b). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-93
Alternative B2(c). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-94
Alternative B2(b). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure
on discards in June. Totals and percent decreases are for month of June only. *
excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001 – 2003)........................ 4-95
Percent change in kept and discarded catch based on different time/area closure
alternatives with and without redistribution of effort. - = decrease and + =
increase in kept and discarded catch; * with redistribution of effort assumes no
reduction in the number of hooks set. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-96
Alternative B2(c). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the
time/area closure on discards from April through June. Totals and percent changes
are for month of June only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease
in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001 – 2003)..................................................................................................... 4-97
Alternative B2(d). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area
closure on discards. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in
discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001 – 2003)..................................................................................................... 4-98
Alternative B2(d). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxviii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.19

Table 4.20

Table 4.21

Table 4.22

Table 4.23

Table 4.24

Table 4.25

Table 4.26

averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-99
Alternative B2(e). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area
closure on discards. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in
discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)...................................................................................................... 4-100
Alternative B2(e). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................. 4-101
B2(a) and B2(b) Combined. Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the
time/area closure on discards for combined alternatives B2(a) and B2(b) yearround, and from May through November for B2(a) and in June for B2(b). *
excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................... 4-102
B2(a) and B2(b) Combined. Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target
catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + =
increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................................. 4-103
B2(d) and B2(e) Combined. Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the
time/area closure on discards for combined alternatives B2(d) and B2(e)year­
round. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003). 4­
104
B2(d) and B2(e) Combined. Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target
catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + =
increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................................. 4-105
Alternative B3(a) Charleston Bump modification. Discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles from the
portion of the Charleston Bump to remain closed and the portion of the area
considered for reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in
discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997­
1999.................................................................................................................. 4-109
Alternative B3(b) Northeastern U.S. closure modification. Discards of white
marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea
turtles from the portion of the Northeastern U.S. closure to remain closed and the
portion of the area considered for reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xxxix

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.27

Table 4.28

Table 4.29

Table 4.30

Table 4.31

Table 4.32

Table 4.33

Table 4.34

and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook 1997 - 1999....................................................................................... 4-110
Alternative B3(a) Charleston Bump modification. Catches and discards of
incidental bluefin tuna and target species in the portion of the area considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999...... 4-111
Alternative B3(b) Northeastern U.S. closure modification. Catches and discards of
incidental bluefin tuna and target species in the portion of the area considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999...... 4-112
Comparison of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles in the portion of the areas considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000...... 4-113
Comparison of of swordfish, incidental bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna,
and BAYS in the portion of the areas considered for reopening. * excluding the
NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999........................................... 4-114
Average swordfish lengths (cm LJFL) in the portion of the areas to remain closed
and the portion of the areas considered for reopening. The minimum size limit for
swordfish is 119 cm LJFL. The mature size is > 180 cm LJFL. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 1992-1999.......................................................................... 4-115
Landings by region from the PLL fishery for swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin
tuna and bigeye tuna. The 2004 gross fishing revenues was calculated by
converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003 value was
multiplied by 1.0266). Source: NMFS, 2004................................................... 4-117
Average annual change in gross revenues by species for each of the alternatives in
comparison to landings from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Note: 2003 gross
revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices. 2004 gross revenues are based on
2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004 annual loss or gain to the fishery was
calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003
value was multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease and + = increase. Source: NMFS,
2005.................................................................................................................. 4-118
Average annual change in gross revenues by species for each of the modifications
to the existing time/area closures in comparison to landings from the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico. Note: 2003 gross revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices.
2004 gross revenues are based on 2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004 annual
loss or gain to the fishery was calculated by converting the 2003 total gross
revenues into 2004 dollars (2003 value was multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease
and + = increase; * excluding the NED. Source: NMFS, 2005. ...................... 4-122

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xl

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.35

Table 4.36

Table 4.37

Table 4.38

Table 4.39

Table 4.40

Table 4.41

Table 4.42

Table 4.43

Table 4.44

Average annual change in gross revenues by species for the B2(a) time/area
closures in comparison to landings from the Gulf of Mexico only. Note: 2003
gross revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices. 2004 gross revenues are based
on 2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004 annual loss or gain to the fishery was
calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003
value was multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease and + = increase. Source: NMFS,
2005.................................................................................................................. 4-123
Total number of individual vessels and sets by year in some of the time/area
closures. Alternative B4 was not included due to confidentiality concerns. Note:
2004 data is only from January through June 2004. Source: HMS Logbook 2001­
2003.................................................................................................................. 4-124
Total number of vessels by state for some of the time/area closures from 2001
through 2003, and 2001 through June of 2004. Alternative B4 was not included
due to confidentiality concerns. Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2004 (first six
months of 2004). .............................................................................................. 4-125
Percent of total landings and discards in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in
comparison to all areas. * excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. .............................................................................. 4-126
Percent of total discards in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in comparison to all areas
(excluding the NED). * excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. .............................................................................. 4-127
Finetooth shark landings in lb dw (mt dw) by gear type in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) and South Atlantic (SA), 1999-2003, as reported in the General Canvass
(CN) and Coastal Fisheries (CL) Logbooks. Source: Enric Cortes, pers. comm. . 4­
150
Summary of Small Coastal Shark quotas and landings in commercial and
recreational fisheries between 1999-2005. Sources: Data from 1998-2000,Cortés,
pers. comm., data from 2001-2004, Cortés, 2005; Carlson and Baremore, 2001;
Carlson and Baremore, 2002; Carlson and Baremore, 2003; Carlson et al., 2004;
NMFS, 2005; Cortés and Neer, 2005; Carlson and Bethea, 2006. .................. 4-150
Total pounds (lb ww) and percent of total landings by weight of species landed on
gillnet trips that landed finetooth sharks, 1999-2004. Species and landings in bold
are those currently managed by the HMS Management Division. Species with
landings under 10 lbs ww were omitted. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook
(CFL)................................................................................................................ 4-151
Total pounds (lb ww) and percent of total landings by weight of species landed on
bottom longline trips that landed finetooth sharks, 1999-2004. Species and
landings in bold are those currently managed by the HMS Management Division.
Species with landings under 10 lbs ww were omitted. Source: CFL............... 4-152
Number of trips with finetooth shark landings (all gears) by NMFS Statistical
Reporting reas, 1999 - 2004. A copy of the map indicating the NMFS Statistical
Reporting Areas can be found in Figure 4.18. Bolded areas had more than 20 trips
with landings of finetooth sharks. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook........... 4-153

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xli

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.45
Table 4.46

Table 4.47

Table 4.48

Table 4.49
Table 4.50

Table 4.51

Table 4.52

Table 4.53

Table 4.54
Table 4.55

Table 4.56

Table 4.57
Table 4.58
Table 4.59

State information on commercial fisheries that may be landing finetooth sharks. 4­
155
Finetooth landings reported from the Florida Trip Ticket program 1999-2004 by
area and gear type. All landings in the Exclusive Economic Zone are denoted as
EEZ. Source: Steve Brown, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Trip Ticket
Program............................................................................................................ 4-156
U.S. Pelagic Longline Dead Discards and Rod & Reel Landings of Atlantic
Billfish (MT). Source: Pelagic U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004;
2005.................................................................................................................. 4-160
U.S. Landings of Atlantic Blue and White Marlin as Reported to ICCAT in
Numbers of Fish. Source: U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004; 2005; and
Erika Carlsen, NMFS Office of International Affairs, pers. comm................. 4-162
Tournament Landings and Releases 1999 - 2004 in Number of Fish. Source:
NMFS Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS) Database ..................................... 4-162
MRFSS Estimated Aggregate Landings and Releases of Atlantic Billfish 1999­
2004 in Number of Fish (includes Puerto Rico, excludes Texas). Source: NMFS
MRFSS Database. ............................................................................................ 4-163
Large Pelagics Survey Estimated Aggregate Landings and Releases of Atlantic
Billfish (Virginia to Maine) 1999-2004 in Number of Fish. Source: NMFS LPS
Database........................................................................................................... 4-164
Estimated Post-Release Mortality of White Marlin in Numbers of Fish Based on
J-hooks and 35 Percent Post-Release Mortality Rate as derived from Data from
the RBS, MRFSS, and LPS. Source: Recreational Billfish Survey; Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey; and Large Pelagic Survey............... 4-165
Estimated Post-Release Mortality of Blue Marlin in Numbers of Fish Based on Jhooks and 11 Percent Post-Release Mortality Rate as derived from Data from the
RBS, the MRFSS, and LPS. Source: Recreational Billfish Survey; Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey; and Large Pelagic Survey............... 4-166
White Marlin Estimated Net Circle Hook Mortality Benefit in Numbers of Fish.
Source: RBS, MRFSS, LPS ............................................................................. 4-170
Cumulative number of white and blue marlin landed below each minimum size in
tournaments from 1999-2004 between the current minimum size for blue (99”)
and white (66”) marlin and the potential increased minimum sizes indicated. A
minimum size would be selected between 68-71 inches for WHM and 103-106 for
BUM. Source: NMFS RBS Database. ............................................................. 4-178
Catch per unit effort and numbers of blue and white marlin kept and released
1999-2004. Source: Billfish Tournament Database, Southeast Fisheries Science
Center............................................................................................................... 4-179
Average Number of Boats per Tournament by Month and State, 1999-2004.
Source: Recreational Billfish Survey............................................................... 4-200
Average Number of Billfish Tournaments by Month and State 1999-2004*.
Source: Recreational Billfish Survey............................................................... 4-200
Alternative F1: Gross revenues associated with the No Action alternative
regarding the General Category time-period subquota allocation.* ................ 4-214

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xlii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.60
Table 4.61

Table 4.62

Table 4.63

Table 4.64
Table 4.65
Table 4.66
Table 4.67
Table 4.68
Table 4.69
Table 4.70
Table 4.71
Table 4.72
Table 4.73
Table 4.74

Table 4.75

Table 6.1

Table 7.1
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3

Alternative F3(a): Gross revenues associated with the even sub-allocation of the
General Category quota between the 8-month fishing season......................... 4-217
Alternative F3(b): Gross revenues associated with the proposed sub-allocation of
the General Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the South Atlantic
.......................................................................................................................... 4-218
Alternative F3(c) (preferred): Gross revenues associated with the proposed suballocation of the General Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the
South Atlantic. ................................................................................................. 4-219
Alternative F3(d): Gross revenues associated with the proposed sub-allocation of
the General Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the South Atlantic.
.......................................................................................................................... 4-220
Alternative F8: Gross revenues associated with the proposed rollover cap of 100
percent of the baseline quota allocation........................................................... 4-227
Fishing years by HMS proposed for Alternatives G1-G3. .............................. 4-230
Average number of commercially harvested BFT by month for 1999-2004. Data
source: NERO BFT landings database. .......................................................... 4-232
Graphic representation of the distribution of U.S. domestic BFT quota by year. . 4­
236
Reported Atlantic Commercial Green-stick Gear Catch for 1999-2003*, in
Numbers of Fish. Source: PLL Logbook Data ................................................ 4-242
Reported U.S. Pacific Commercial Green-stick Gear Catch for 2002-2004, in
Numbers of Fish and Weight in Pounds. Source: State of Hawaii, 2006 ........ 4-243
Handline catches, in Numbers of Fish, for 2000 – 2004. Source: HMS Logbook.
Note that confidential data cannot be released and are marked by an *. ......... 4-246
List of “Indicator” Species to Determine Composition of Catch. ................... 4-261
Historical Per Trip Average Catch Composition of “Indicator” Species. Source:
NMFS Coastal Logbook .................................................................................. 4-262
Historical Per Trip Average Catch Composition of “Indicator” Species. Source:
Pelagic Longline Logbook............................................................................... 4-262
Numbers of Trips Reported as Using Handline Gear in the HMS Logbook and
Numbers of Those Trips that were “Handline-Only.” Source: HMS Logbook.
Note that confidential data cannot be released and are marked by an *. ......... 4-274
Impacts of alternatives considered. The symbols +, –, and 0 refer to positive,
negative, and zero impacts respectively. The expected impacts should be
compared to other alternatives within that issue, not to the impacts between
issues. See preceding section for details of impacts of each alternative.......... 4-308
Estimates of the total ex-vessel annual revenues of Atlantic HMS fisheries.
Sources: NMFS 2005a; Cortes, 2005; and bluefin tuna dealer reports from the
Northeast Regional Office. .................................................................................. 6-2
Summary of the Net Economic Benefits and Costs of Alternatives.................... 7-4
Demographic Profile of the United States. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
.............................................................................................................................. 9-6
Maine Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. ................... 9-8
New Hampshire Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 .... 9-9

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xliii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 9.4
Table 9.5
Table 9.6
Table 9.7
Table 9.8
Table 9.9
Table 9.10
Table 9.11
Table 9.12
Table 9.13
Table 9.14
Table 9.15
Table 9.16
Table 9.17
Table 9.18
Table 9.19
Table 9.20
Table 9.21
Table 9.22
Table 9.23
Table 9.24
Table 9.25
Table 9.26
Table 9.27
Table 9.28
Table 9.29
Table 9.30
Table 9.31
Table 9.32

Massachusetts Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ..... 9-10

Demographic Profile of Gloucester, Massachusetts. Source: U.S. Census, 1990

and 2000............................................................................................................. 9-12

Demographic Profile of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Source: U.S. Census, 1990

and 2000............................................................................................................. 9-14

Rhode Island Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ....... 9-18

Connecticut Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000......... 9-19

New York Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ........... 9-20

New Jersey Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.......... 9-22

Demographic Profile of Barnegat Light. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.... 9­
23

Demographic Profile of Brielle, New Jersey. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-26

Delaware Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000............. 9-28

Maryland Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000............. 9-29

Virginia Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000............... 9-31

Demographic Profile of North Carolina. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 9-32

Demographic Profile of Hatteras, North Carolina Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-34

Demographic Profile of Wanchese, North Carolina. Source: U.S. Census 1990

and 2000............................................................................................................. 9-37

South Carolina Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 .... 9-39

Georgia Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ............... 9-40

Florida Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000................. 9-42

Demographic Profile of Pompano Beach, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-44

Demographics of Fort Pierce, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000. ... 9-45

Demographic Profile for Madeira Beach, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-47

Demographic Profile for Panama City, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-50

Demographic Profile for Islamorada, Florida. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-53

Alabama Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.............. 9-54

Mississippi Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. ......... 9-55

Louisiana Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. ........... 9-56

Demographic Profile of Venice, Louisiana. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.

............................................................................................................................ 9-60

Demographic Profile of Dulac, Louisiana. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. 9­
63

Texas Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000................... 9-65

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xliv

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table 9.33

Puerto Rico Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 and
2000.................................................................................................................... 9-65
Table 9.34
Number and Percentage of HMS Angling Permits by State and Country in 2005.
............................................................................................................................... 69
Table 9.35
Number and Percentage of HMS Charter/Headboat Permits by State and Country
in 2005. ................................................................................................................. 71
Table 9.36
Number and Percentage of Commercial Tuna Permits by State and Country in
2005.................................................................................................................... 9-72
Table 9.37
Number and Percentage of HMS Dealers by State and Country as of February
2006 (sharks and swordfish) and for calendar year 2005 (tunas). ........................ 73
Table 9.38
Number and Percentage of Directed and Incidental Shark Permit Holders by State
as of February 2006. ............................................................................................. 74
Table 9.39
Number and Percentage of Swordfish Permit Holders by State as of February
2006.................................................................................................................... 9-75
Table 10.1. Impact assessment of HMS fishing gear on HMS and non-HMS EFH. ‘-‘
indicates that the gear type is not used in these habitat types. Habitat impacts are
as follows: negligible = 0, low = +, medium = ++, high = +++, unknown=?, and a
blank indicates not evaluated. Source: Symbols before the slash are from the
Caribbean FEIS, 2004 (Table 3.15a). The symbols after the slash are taken from
Barnette, 2001. ................................................................................................. 10-25
Table 10.2. A comprehensive list of all gear types used in HMS fisheries. ....................... 10-28
Table 10.3. Fishing gear types regulated in Federal waters of the Northeast region and their
effects on HMS EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0.
Source: Stevenson et al., 2004......................................................................... 10-28
Table 10.4. Fishing gear types regulated in Federal waters in the Southeast region and their
effects on HMS EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0.
Source: Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001; GOMFMC FEIS 2004. .................. 10-29
Table 10.5. Non-FMP Fishing Gear in the Northeast region and their effects on HMS EFH.
Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source: Stevenson et al.,
2004.................................................................................................................. 10-30
Table 10.6. Non-FMP Fishing Gear in Southeast region: Effects of other fishing gear on HMS
EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source: Hamilton,
2000; Barnette, 2001; GOMFMC, 2004. ......................................................... 10-31
Table A.1
The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles and bluefin tuna
based on the various time/area closures. * excluding NED. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS logbook data 2001-2003.................................................... A-8
Table A.2
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles and bluefin tuna based
on the various time/area closure alternatives with and without redistribution of
effort. (* = was not analyzed). Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003) ..... A-10
Table A.3
The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of each retained species caught or
discarded based on the various time/area closure alternatives without
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xlv

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

redistribution of effort. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)...................................................................... A-12
Table A.4
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the retained catch and discards based on
the various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution of effort. Source:
HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)...................................................................... A-13
Table A.5
The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of each retained species caught or
discarded based on the various time/area closure alternatives with redistribution of
effort. (* = was not calculated). 1 excluding the NED. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................................. A-14
Table A.6
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the retained catch and discards based on
the various time/area closure alternatives with redistribution of effort. (* = was
not calculated). Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................. A-15
Table A.7
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the number of hooks set; discards of white
marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea
turtles based on various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution of
effort. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)............................................. A-16
Table A.8
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtles, and bluefin tuna
kept and discards combined, based on various time/area closure alternatives
without redistribution of effort. Source: Pelagic Observer Program data (2001­
2003). ................................................................................................................ A-17
Table A.9
Alternative B2(f). Temporal variation in effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico
time/area closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and bluefin tuna discards.
A negative sign indicates an increase in bycatch. *excluding the NED. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................... A-18
Table A.10 Alternative B2(g). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Northeast time/area
closure from June through October in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase
(+) of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and
other sea turtle discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)...................................................................... A-19
Table A.11 Alternative B2(h). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Southeast time/area
closure closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle
discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001-2003)............................................................................................... A-20
Table A.12 Alternative B2(i). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure on the east
coast of Florida in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle
discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xlvi

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table A.13

Table A.14

Table A.15

Table A.16

Table A.17

Table A.18

Table A.19

Table A.20

can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001-2003)............................................................................................... A-21
Alternative B2(j). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Gulf of Mexico
time/area closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle
discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001-2003)............................................................................................... A-22
Alternative B2(k). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Caribbean time/area
closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle discards.
Landings were only reported for the four months listed. *excluding the NED.
Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the
three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)................ A-23
Alternative B2(f). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Gulf of Mexico
time/area closure in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch.
*excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-24
Alternative B2(g). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Northeast time/area
closure from June through October closure in terms of percent reduction (-) in
discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown;
one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three.
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................................................... A-25
Alternative B2(h). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure
from March through November closure in terms of percent reduction (-) in
discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown;
one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three.
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................................................... A-26
Alternative B2(i). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure of the east
Florida in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch.
*excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-27
Alternative B2(j). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure in
the Gulf of Mexico in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained
catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can
be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-28
Alternative B2(k). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure in
the Caribbean in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch.
*excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-29

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xlvii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table A.21

Table A.22

Table A.23

Table A.24

Table A.25

Table A.26

Table A.27

Table A.28 .

Table A.29

Swordfish lengths (cm lower jaw fork length; LJFL) in the portion of the areas to
remain closed and the portion of the areas considered for reopening. The
minimum size limit for swordfish is 119 cm LJFL. The mature size is > 180 cm
LJFL. Significant differences are shaded. Source: Pelagic Observer Program
1992-1999. ........................................................................................................ A-33
Alternative B3(c) Florida East Coast modification. Discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles in the
portion of the area to remain closed and the portion of the area considered for
reopening. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
1997-1999. ........................................................................................................ A-34
Alternative B3(d) Desoto Canyon modification. Discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles in the
portion of the area to remain closed and in the portion of the area considered for
reopening. Source HMS Logbook 1997-1999. *excluding the NED. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. .................................................................................................... A-35
Comparison of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles in the portion of the areas considered for
reopening. - = decrease + = increase. *excluding the NED. Four year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the four year total by four.
Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000.................................................................. A-36
Comparison of catch of swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and
BAYS in the portion of the areas considered for reopening. *excluding the NED.
Four year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the
four year total by four. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000............................. A-37
Alternative B3(c) modification of East Florida Coast time/area closure. Catch and
discards of various species in the portion of the area to remain closed and in the
portion of the area considered for reopening. *excluding the NED. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (1997-1999). ............................... A-38
Alternative B3(d) modification of the DeSoto Canyon time/area closure. Catch
and discards of various species in the portion of the area to remain closed and in
the portion of the area considered for reopening. *excluding the NED. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (1997-1999)......................... A-39
An example of the calculations for the redistribution of fishing effort model. This
example calculates the number of discards of loggerhead sea turtles considering
the redistribution of fishing effort for alternative B2(d). A negative sign indicates
an increase in discards. ..................................................................................... A-40
An example of how the modified redistribution of fishing effort was calculated.
This example calculates the number of discards of white marlin considering the
redistribution of fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and area 6 only for
alternative B2(c) from April through June. A negative sign indicates an increase
in discards, and a positive value indicates a decrease in discards. ................... A-41

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xlviii

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table A.30

Table A.31

Table A.32

Table A.33

Table A.34

Table A.35

Table A.36
Table A.37

Table A.38

Table A.39

An example of how the modified redistribution of fishing effort was calculated.
This example calculates the number of discards of white marlin considering the
redistribution of fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and area 6 only for
alternative B2(c) from April through June. A negative sign indicates an increase
in discards, and a positive value indicates a decrease in discards. ................... A-42
Comparison between the percent change of bycatch for different closures for
2001-2003 data (used in the draft Consolidated FMP) and 2001-2004 (first six
months of 2004 included) without redistribution of effort. A negative (-) sign
indicates a reduction in bycatch. Source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six
months of 2004). ............................................................................................... A-43
Comparison in the number of hooks, discards, and CPUEs (# discards/# hooks in
a particular area) between July through December of 2001-2003 and 2004 data.
The yearly averages for the 6 months in 2001-2003 for CPUEs, hooks, and
discards are shown in parentheses. Data source: HMS Logbook data July through
December 2001-2003 and 2004. ....................................................................... A-44
Comparison of the number of hooks, discards, species kept, and CPUEs
(#discards/#hooks or #kept/#hooks in a particular area) between July through
Dec. of 2001-2003 and 2004 data. The yearly averages for the 6 months in 2001­
2003 for CPUEs, hooks, discards, and species kept are shown in parentheses. .
Data source: HMS Logbook data July through December 2001-2003 and 2004. A­
46
Percent change in reported landings by area from July through December where:
a) 2001-03 vs. 1997-99; b) 2004 vs. 2001-03; and c) 2004 vs. 1997-99 (1997-99
and 2001-03 are mean reported landings). Source: HMS Logbook data......... A-48
Percent change in reported landings by area from July through December where:
a) 2001-03 vs. 1997-99; b) 2004 vs. 2001-03; and c) 2004 vs. 1997-99 (1997-99
and 2001-03 are mean reported landings). Source: HMS Logbook data......... A-50
Characteristics of vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and vessels moving out of
Gulf of Mexico.................................................................................................. A-55
Alternative B2(a) May through November. Cumulative number kept and
discarded (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution of effort in the Gulf
of Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus sign indicates a decrease. *excluding the
NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 2001­
2004 (first six months of 2004)......................................................................... A-57
Alternative B2(b) June only. Cumulative number of discards (over 3 1/2 years)
with and without redistribution of effort in the Atlantic only. Minus signs indicate
a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS
Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004). ....................................... A-58
Alternative B2(b) June only. Cumulative number kept and discarded (over 3 1/2
years) with and without redistribution of effort in the Atlantic only. Minus signs
indicate a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data
source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004). ................. A-59

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

xlix

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

Table A.40

Alternative B2(c) BFT Petition April through June. Cumulative number of
discards (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution of effort in the Gulf of
Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus signs indicate a decrease. *excluding the
NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 2001 2004 (first six months of 2004)......................................................................... A-60
Table A.41 Alternative B2(c) BFT Petition April through June. Cumulative number of kept
and discarded (over 3 1/2 years) species with and without redistribution of effort
in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus sign indicates a decrease.
*excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data
2001-2004 (first six months of 2004). .............................................................. A-61
Table B.1
1999 FMP size ranges for different life stages of sharks.................................. B-56

Table B.2
Size ranges used in this Amendment for mapping distribution data for different
life stages of sharks........................................................................................... B-60
Table B.3
Blacktip shark (Carcharinus limbatus) Life History and Habitat Characteristics.
From Amendment 1 to the FMP. ...................................................................... B-64
Table B.4
Dusky shark (Carcharinus obscurus) Life History and Habitat Characteristics. . B­
66
Table B.5
Sandbar shark (Carcharinus plumbeus) Life History and Habitat CharacteristicsB­
67
Table B.6
Nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) Life History and Habitat Characteristics.
........................................................................................................................... B-69
Table B.7
Essential fish habitat maps by species. ............................................................. B-70

Table B.8
List of abbreviations and acronyms for EFH data sources used in the maps. .. B-71
Table C.1
Estimated Domestic Aggregate Pelagic Longline Atlantic White Marlin
Mortalities in Numbers of Fish 2001-2004. Source: Pelagic Longline Logbook;
Kerstetter, 2006................................................................................................... C-1
Table C.2
Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities, in
Number of Fish, as Derived from the RBS Database by Combining Retained Fish
and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM)
(applying a 35% post-release mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source:
Recreational Billfish Survey; Horodysky, 2005 ................................................. C-2
Table C.3
Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities, in
Number of Fish, as Derived from the MRFSS Database by Combining Retained
Fish and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM)
(applying a 35% post-release mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source: Marine
Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey; Horodysky, 2005.................................. C-3
Table C.4
Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities, in
Number of Fish, as Derived from the LPS Database by Combining Retained Fish
and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM)
(applying a 35% post-release mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source: Large
Pelagics Survey; Horodysky, 2005; Large Pelagic Survey; Horodysky, 2005... C-4

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

l

MASTER LIST OF TABLES

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5

Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7

Figure 2.8

Figure 2.9
Figure 2.10
Figure 2.11
Figure 2.12
Figure 2.13
Figure 2.14
Figure 2.15

Existing time/area closures in HMS fisheries. Inset shows extent of the Northeast
Distant restricted fishing area. All closures except the Mid-Atlantic are applicable
to pelagic longline gear only. The Mid-Atlantic Closure is applicable to bottom
longline gear only. Note: the Northeast Distant (NED) was a closed area to all
vessels as of 2001. It became the NED Restricted Fishing Area on June 30, 2004
when it was opened to those participating in the NED experiment................... 2-19
Map showing areas being considered for new time/area closures to reduce nontarget HMS and protected species interactions.................................................. 2-20
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures. Note: only
alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed............................................... 2-21
Pelagic and Bottom Longline Sets in the Madison-Swanson (upper left) and
Steamboat Lumps (lower right) Marine Reserves. Note: one set for the
Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP) was in 2005. Although
not indicated, no new sets were recorded for the CSFOP in 2004. Source: HMS
Logbook, Pelagic Observer Program, and CSFOP. The Desoto Canyon closure is
also shown for reference. ................................................................................... 2-22
Map showing the potential closed area to bottom longline gear to reduce bycatch
of endangered smalltooth sawfish. Grey dots are locations of observed bottom
longline sets. Source: CSFOP 1994-2006......................................................... 2-23
Map showing time/area closure alternatives considered but not further analyzed at
this time to reduce white marlin and other protected species interactions. ....... 2-24
The New York Bight set-aside is defined as an area comprising the waters South
and West of a straight line originating at a point on the southern shore of Long
Island, NY, at 72º 27’ W. Long. (Shinnecock Inlet) and running South southeast
150º true, and north of 38º 47’ N. Lat................................................................ 2-34
Alternative F1: No Action. Suballocation of the BFT General Category Quota
among the current three time-periods. New York Bight set-aside is subtracted
from the General Category quota and then the time-period allocations are
determined.......................................................................................................... 2-35
The Angling category North/South dividing line, located at 39º 18’ N. Lat. (Great
Egg Inlet, NJ). .................................................................................................... 2-36
Alternative F3a: Equal General category subquota allocation percentages for each
month of the BFT fishing season. ...................................................................... 2-38
Alternative F3b: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation
percentages......................................................................................................... 2-39
Alternative F3c: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation
percentages......................................................................................................... 2-40
Alternative F3d: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation
percentages embodying the NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking......................... 2-40
Alternative F5: No Action. U.S. BFT Domestic Quota Category Allocation
Percentages. ....................................................................................................... 2-42
A Diagram of a Typical Speargun Fishing Gear Configuration (courtesy of
Matthew Richards)............................................................................................. 2-51

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

li

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.16

A Diagram of the Recreational Configuration of Green-stick Fishing Gear.
Source: Wescott, 1996 ....................................................................................... 2-54
Figure 2.17 A Diagram of the Commercial Configuration of Green-stick Fishing Gear.
Source: Wescott, 1996 ....................................................................................... 2-55
Figure 2.18 A Diagram of a Buoy Gear with Four Floatation Devices Attached (courtesy of
Dave Meyer). ..................................................................................................... 2-57
Figure 3.1
Illustration of the status determination criteria and rebuilding terms. ............... 3-41
Figure 3.2
Reported catches (mt whole weight) of Atlantic Swordfish, including discards for
1950-2004. Source: SCRS, 2005. ...................................................................... 3-48
Figure 3.3 Estimated fishing mortality rate relative to FMSY (F/FMSY) for the period 1959­
2001 (median with 80 percent confidence bounds based on bootstrapping are
shown). Source: SCRS 2004.............................................................................. 3-48
Figure 3.4 Annual yield (mt) (whole weight) for North Atlantic swordfish relative to the
estimated MSY level. Source: SCRS 2004........................................................ 3-49
Figure 3.5 Western Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning biomass (t), recruitment (numbers) and
fishing mortality rates for fish of age 8+, estimated by the Base Case VPA run.
Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................................................... 3-55
Figure 3.6 Abundance indices in numbers of BET. All ages are aggregated. Source: ICCAT,
2004.................................................................................................................... 3-65
Figure 3.7 Trajectory of the BET biomass modeled in production model analysis (middle
line) bounded by upper and lower lines denoting 80 percent confidence intervals.
Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................................................... 3-66
Figure 3.8
Comparison of relative biomass trends calculated using VPA and non-equilibrium
production models. Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................... 3-70
Figure 3.9
Comparison of relative fishing mortality trends calculated using VPA and nonequilibrium production models. Source: ICCAT, 2004..................................... 3-71
Figure 3.10 North Atlantic albacore spawning stock biomass and recruits with 80 percent
confidence limits. Source: ICCAT, 2004........................................................... 3-76
Figure 3.11 Estimated catches (including landings and dead discards in mt) of blue marlin in
the Atlantic by region. The 2003 catch reported to ICCAT is preliminary and is
not included in this figure. Weights are in metric tones, whole weight. Source:
SCRS, 2005........................................................................................................ 3-87
Figure 3.12 Composite CPUE series (symbols) used in the blue marlin assessment compared
to model estimated median relative biomass (solid lines) from bootstrap results
(80 percent confidence bounds shown by dotted lines). Source: SCRS, 2005. . 3-88
Figure 3.13 Estimated median relative fishing mortality trajectory for Atlantic blue marlin
(center, dark line) with approximate 80 percent confidence range (light lines)
obtained from bootstrapping. Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................... 3-88
Figure 3.14 Geographical distribution of reported catches of blue marlin for the period 1956­
2003. Source: SCRS, 2005. ............................................................................... 3-89
Figure 3.15 Estimated catches (including landings and dead discards in t) of blue marlin in the
Atlantic by region (1950-2004). Source: SCRS, 2005. ..................................... 3-89
Figure 3.16 Estimated biomass ratio B2000/ BMSY (solid line, no symbols) and fishing mortality
ratio F2000/FMSY (solid line with symbols) from the production model fitted to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lii

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19

Figure 3.20

Figure 3.21

Figure 3.22
Figure 3.23

Figure 3.24

Figure 3.25
Figure 3.26
Figure 3.27
Figure 3.28
Figure 3.29
Figure 3.30

Figure 3.31

Figure 3.32

the continuity case for white marlin. Ratios of last three years have been adjusted
for retrospective pattern. Broken lines show unadjusted ratios. Note that scales
are different for each ratio. Source: SCRS, 2004............................................... 3-95
Geographical distribution of white marlin catches for the period 1956-2003.
Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................................................................... 3-96
Reported catch of white marlin (Task I) in the North and South Atlantic for
longline (LL) gear and other (OTH) gears. Source: SCRS, 2005...................... 3-96
Evolution of estimated sailfish/spearfish catches in the Atlantic (landings and
dead discards, reported and carried over) in the ICCAT Task I database during
1956-2002 for the east and west stocks. The 2003 catch reported to ICCAT is
preliminary and is not included in this figure. Weights are in metric tons, whole
weight. Source: SCRS, 2005............................................................................ 3-101
Available standardized CPUE for western Atlantic sailfish/spearfish for the period
1967-2000, including Japanese, U.S., and Venezuelan time series data. Source:
SCRS, 2005...................................................................................................... 3-102
Estimated sailfish “only” catches based on the new procedure for splitting
combined sailfish and longbill spearfish catches from 1956-2000. Weights are in
metric tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ............................................ 3-102
Geographical distribution of sailfish/spearfish catches between 1950-2003.
Source: SCRS, 2005. ....................................................................................... 3-103
Evolution of estimated sailfish/spearfish catches in the Atlantic (landings and
dead discards, reported and carried over) in the ICCAT Task I database during
1956-2004 for the east and west stocks. Source: SCRS, 2005. ....................... 3-104
Estimated spearfish “only” catches in the Atlantic based on the new procedure for
splitting combined sailfish and spearfish catches from 1956-2000. Weights are in
metric tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ............................................ 3-106
Typical U.S. Pelagic Longline Gear. Source: Arocha, 1996 ........................... 3-143
Different Pelagic Longline Gear Deployment Techniques. Source: Hawaii
Longline Association and Honolulu Advertiser. ............................................. 3-145
Geographic Areas Used in Summaries of Pelagic Logbook Data. Source: Cramer
and Adams, 2000 ............................................................................................. 3-154
Areas Closed to Pelagic Longline Fishing by U.S. Flagged Vessels............... 3-162
Distribution of Atlantic Longline Catches for all Countries 1990-1999. Source:
SCRS, 2004...................................................................................................... 3-164
Total Number of Swordfish Caught, Kept and Released in Three Sampled
Recreational Swordfish Tournaments off Southeast Florida during 2002. Source:
J. Levesque, pers. comm. ................................................................................. 3-187
Observed sea turtle interactions and observed sets (smaller grey circles) in the
shark bottom longline fishery from 1994-2004. Source: Burgess and Morgan,
2004.................................................................................................................. 3-205
Observed sawfish interactions and observed sets (smaller grey circles) in the
shark bottom longline fishery from 1994-2006. Source: Burgess and Morgan,
2004.................................................................................................................. 3-206

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

liii

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.33 Average Annual Yen/$ Exchange Rate and Average U.S. BFT Ex-vessel $/lb
(dw) for all gears: 1971-2003. Source: Federal Reserve Bank (www.stls.frb.org)
and Northeast Regional Office......................................................................... 3-236
Figure 4.1
Existing time/area closures in HMS fisheries. Inset shows extent of the Northeast
Distant restricted fishing area. All closures except the Mid-Atlantic are applicable
to PLL gear only. The Mid-Atlantic Closure is applicable to bottom longline gear
only. Note: the Northeast Distant (NED) was a closed area to all vessels as of
2001. It became the NED Restricted Fishing Area on June 30, 2004 when it was
opened to those participating in the NED experiment. ...................................... 4-69
Figure 4.2 Map showing areas being considered for new time/area closures to reduce nontarget HMS and protected species interactions.................................................. 4-70
Figure 4.3 Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures.... 4-71
Figure 4.4 Pelagic and Bottom Longline Sets in the Madison-Swanson (upper left) and
Steamboat Lumps (lower right) Marine Reserves. Note: one set for the CSFOP
was in 2005. Although not indicated, no new sets were recorded for the CSFOP in
2004. Source: HMS Logbook, Pelagic Observer Program, Shark Observer
Program. The Desoto Canyon closure is also shown for reference. ................. 4-72
Figure 4.5 Map showing the potential closed area to bottom longline gear to reduce bycatch
of endangered smalltooth sawfish. Grey dots are locations of observed bottom
longline sets. Source: CSFOP 1994 – 2006. ...................................................... 4-73
Figure 4.6 Map showing all reported sets and white marlin interactions: a) shows the number
of interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. ................................................................................ 4-74
Figure 4.7 Map showing all observed sets and white marlin interactions. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 2001-2003............................................................................ 4-75
Figure 4.8 Map showing all reported sets and bluefin tuna discards: a) shows the number of
interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. ................................................................................ 4-76
Figure 4.9 Map showing all observed sets and bluefin tuna discards. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 2001-2003............................................................................ 4-77
Figure 4.10 Map showing all reported sets and leatherback sea turtle interactions: a) shows the
number of interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks).
Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.................................................................... 4-78
Figure 4.11 Map showing all reported sets and loggerhead sea turtle interactions: a) shows the
number of interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks).
Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.................................................................... 4-79
Figure 4.12 Map showing all observed sets and sea turtle interactions. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 2001 – 2003. ........................................................................ 4-80
Figure 4.13 Map showing discards of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico from
2001-2003. The large box is not a proposed time/area closure, but is shown for
illustrative purpose only to delineate an area with high bluefin tuna discards. The
bluefin tuna discards are listed by month below the box. Source: HMS Logbook
2001-2003. ......................................................................................................... 4-81

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

liv

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.14 Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures and
juvenile swordfish data (<180 cm LJFL). The minimum size limit for swordfish is
119 cm LJFL. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999. ....................... 4-106
Figure 4.15 Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures and
adult swordfish data (>180 cm LJFL) from the Pelagic Observer Program.
Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999................................................ 4-107
Figure 4.16 Map showing modification to the existing Northeast United States closure and
bluefin tuna discards. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999............................... 4-108
Figure 4.17 Map showing smalltooth sawfish bycatch. Numbers in parentheses in the legend
are the number of sawfish interactions. Gray dots indicate the location of each
observed bottom longline set. Source: CSFOP 1994-2006. ............................ 4-116
Figure 4.18 NMFS Statistical Reporting Areas. Areas 3, 23, 2780, 2880, 2980, 3079, and
3379 all had greater than 20 trips that reported finetooth shark landings in the
Coastal Fisheries Logbook between 1999-2004 as indicated in Table 4.44 Number
of trips with finetooth shark landings (all gears) by NMFS Statistical Reporting
reas, 1999 - 2004. A copy of the map indicating the NMFS Statistical Reporting
Areas can be found in Figure 4.18. Bolded areas had more than 20 trips with
landings of finetooth sharks. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook................... 4-154
Figure 4.19 Finetooth shark trips by month and gear type between 1999-2004. E/H = Electric
Reel, Bandit Gear, Handline; GN = Gillnet; and LL = Longline. Source: Coastal
Fisheries Logbook............................................................................................ 4-155
Figure 4.20 U.S. Pelagic Longline Dead Discards and Rod & Reel Landings of Atlantic
Billfish. Source: U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004; 2005............. 4-160
Figure 4.21 Number of blue marlin landed in tournaments between 1999-2004 by size (inches,
LJFL). Source: NMFS RBS database. ............................................................. 4-178
Figure 4.22 Number of white marlin landed in tournaments between 1999-2004 by length
(inches, LJFL). Source: NMFS RBS Database................................................ 4-179
Figure 4.23 Map of the East Florida Coast closed area (solid shaded area) and the boundary of
the U.S. EEZ (thin line wrapping around the coast). The inset is a close-up of the
closed area depicting both the old and proposed (new) boundary coordinates. The
small grey dots represent locations of longline sets from the year 2000 through the
first half of 2004............................................................................................... 4-271
Figure 9.1 Location of HMS Angling Permit Holders in 2005 and the percentage of Angling
permit holders for the top five states.................................................................. 9-69
Figure 9.2 Location of HMS Angling Permit Holders in 2005 by region........................... 9-70

Figure 9.3 Location of the HMS Charter/Headboat Permit Holders in 2005 and the
percentage of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders for the top five states.... 9-71
Figure 9.4 Location of the Commercial Tuna Permit Holders in 2005 (all gear categories harpoon, longline, purse seine, and trap) and the percentage of commercial tuna
permit holders for the top five states.................................................................. 9-72
Figure 9.5 Location of all HMS Dealer Permit Holders as of February 2006 for shark and
swordfish permits and for fishery year 2005 for tunas and the percentage of total
HMS dealer permit holders for the top five states. ............................................ 9-73

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lv

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 9.6
Figure 9.7
Figure A.1

Figure A.2
Figure A.3

Figure A.4

Figure A.5
Figure A.6

Figure A.7

Figure A.8

Figure A.9

Figure B.1
Figure B.2
Figure B.3
Figure B.4
Figure B.5
Figure B.6
Figure B.7
Figure B.8
Figure B.9

Location of the Shark Directed and Incidental Permit Holders as of February 2006
and percentage of shark permit holders for the top five states. ......................... 9-74
Location of the Swordfish Permit Holders as of February 2006 and the percentage
of swordfish permit holders for the top five states. ........................................... 9-75
Map showing time/area closure alternatives considered but not further analyzed at
this time (see Section 2.1.2) to reduce white marlin and other protected species
interactions.......................................................................................................... A-7
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures. Note: only
alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed.............................................. A-30
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures and juvenile
swordfish data (<180 cm LJFL). The minimum size limit for swordfish is 119 cm
LJFL. Note: only alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed. Source
Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999. ............................................................. A-31
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures and adult
swordfish data from the Pelagic Observer Program. Note: only alternatives B2(a)
and (b) were further analyzed. Source Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999. A-32
Map showing the different areas that were used in the fleet mobility analysis.A-52
Map showing the number of vessels fishing in different areas with their respective
homeports listed. “FL east” signifies that a vessel’s homeport was in the east
coast of Florida. “FL west” signifies that a vessel’s homeport was in the west
coast of FL, and “FL east/west” signifies that the vessel’s homeport was in the
Florida Keys...................................................................................................... A-53
Map showing vessels originating from the Gulf of Mexico and fishing in Atlantic
Areas 2B through 6. The percentage of hooks represents the percentage of hooks
that moved out of the Gulf of Mexcio and into Areas 2B, 3, 4, 5, and 6.......... A-54
Map of pelagic longline sets within and outside of the U. S. EEZ. a) extent of
pelagic longline sets inside and outside U.S. EEZ, b) inset shows the size of B2(a)
and B2(c) relative to the scope of pelagic longline sets inside and outside of U. S.
EEZ, c) the distance pelagic longline vessels have made relative to the U. S.
coastline, d) the distance it would take a vessel to travel from the Gulf of Mexico
to the Mid-Atlantic Bight area. Source: HMS logbook data from January 2001 to
June 2004. ......................................................................................................... A-56
Map showing the overlap of bluefin tuna discards, white marlin discards, and sea
turtle interactions for pelagic longline sets from 2001 to 2003. Source: HMS
Logbook data 2001-2003. ................................................................................. A-62

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae..................................... B-72

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Juvenile. .................................................................... B-73

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Adult.......................................................................... B-74

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ....................................... B-75

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Juvenile......................................................................... B-76

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Adult............................................................................. B-77

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ...................................... B-78

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Juveniles. ..................................................................... B-79

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Adults........................................................................... B-80

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lvi

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B.10
Figure B.11
Figure B.12
Figure B.13
Figure B.14
Figure B.15
Figure B.16
Figure B.17
Figure B.18
Figure B.19
Figure B.20
Figure B.21
Figure B.22
Figure B.23
Figure B.24
Figure B.25
Figure B.26
Figure B.27
Figure B.28
Figure B.29
Figure B.30
Figure B.31
Figure B.32
Figure B.33
Figure B.34
Figure B.35
Figure B.36
Figure B.37
Figure B.38
Figure B.39
Figure B.40
Figure B.41
Figure B.42
Figure B.43
Figure B.44
Figure B.45
Figure B.46
Figure B.47
Figure B.48
Figure B.49
Figure B.50

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. .................................... B-81

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Juvenile. ..................................................................... B-82

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Adult. ......................................................................... B-83

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. .................................. B-84

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Juvenile.................................................................... B-85

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Adult. ....................................................................... B-86

Atlantic Swordfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ........................................... B-87

Atlantic Swordfish: Juvenile............................................................................. B-88

Atlantic Swordfish: Adult. ................................................................................ B-89

Blue Marlin: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ...................................................... B-90

Blue Marlin: Juvenile........................................................................................ B-91

Blue Marlin: Adult............................................................................................ B-92

White Marlin: Spawning, Eggs, and larvae. ..................................................... B-93

White Marlin: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-94

White Marlin: Adult.......................................................................................... B-95

Sailfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ............................................................. B-96

Sailfish: Juvenile............................................................................................... B-97

Sailfish: Adult. .................................................................................................. B-98

Spearfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. .......................................................... B-99

Spearfish: Juvenile. ......................................................................................... B-100

Spearfish: Adult. ............................................................................................. B-101

Basking Shark: Neonate.................................................................................. B-102

Basking Shark: Juvenile.................................................................................. B-103

Basking Shark: Adult...................................................................................... B-104

Great Hammerhead: Neonate.......................................................................... B-105

Great Hammerhead: Juvenile.......................................................................... B-106

Great Hammerhead: Adult.............................................................................. B-107

Scalloped Hammerhead: Neonate................................................................... B-108

Scalloped Hammerhead: Juvenile.................................................................. B-109

Scalloped Hammerhead: Adult. ...................................................................... B-110

Smooth Hammerhead: Neonate. ..................................................................... B-111

Smooth Hammerhead: Juvenile. ..................................................................... B-112

Smooth Hammerhead: Adult. ......................................................................... B-113

White Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................... B-114

White Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-115

White Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................ B-116

Nurse Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................... B-117

Nurse Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-118

Nurse Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................ B-119

Bignose Shark: Neonate.................................................................................. B-120

Bignose Shark: Juvenile.................................................................................. B-121

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lvii

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B.51
Figure B.52
Figure B.53
Figure B.54
Figure B.55
Figure B.56
Figure B.57
Figure B.58
Figure B.59
Figure B.60
Figure B.61
Figure B.62
Figure B.63
Figure B.64
Figure B.65
Figure B.66
Figure B.67
Figure B.68
Figure B.69
Figure B.70
Figure B.71
Figure B.72
Figure B.73
Figure B.74
Figure B.75
Figure B.76
Figure B.77
Figure B.78
Figure B.79
Figure B.80
Figure B.81
Figure B.82
Figure B.83
Figure B.84
Figure B.85
Figure B.86
Figure B.87
Figure B.88
Figure B.89
Figure B.90
Figure B.91

Bignose Shark: Adult...................................................................................... B-122

Blacktip Shark: Neonate. ................................................................................ B-123

Blacktip Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................................ B-124

Blacktip Shark: Adult. .................................................................................... B-125

Bull Shark: Neonate........................................................................................ B-126

Bull Shark: Juvenile........................................................................................ B-127

Bull Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................... B-128

Caribbean Reef Shark: Neonate...................................................................... B-129

Caribbean Reef Shark: Juvenile...................................................................... B-130

Caribbean Reef Shark: Adult. ......................................................................... B-131

Dusky Shark: Neonate. ................................................................................... B-132

Dusky Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................................... B-133

Dusky Shark: Adult......................................................................................... B-134

Lemon Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................. B-135

Lemon Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................. B-136

Lemon Shark: Adult........................................................................................ B-137

Night Shark: Neonate...................................................................................... B-138

Night Shark: Juvenile...................................................................................... B-139

Night Shark: Adult.......................................................................................... B-140

Sandbar Shark: Neonate.................................................................................. B-141

Sandbar Shark: Juvenile.................................................................................. B-142

Sandbar Shark: Adult...................................................................................... B-143

Sandbar Shark Habitat Area of Particular Concern. ....................................... B-144

Silky Shark: Neonate. ..................................................................................... B-145

Silky Shark: Juvenile. ..................................................................................... B-146

Silky Shark: Adult........................................................................................... B-147

Spinner Shark: Neonate. ................................................................................. B-148

Spinner Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................................. B-149

Spinner Shark: Adult....................................................................................... B-150

Tiger Shark: Neonate. ..................................................................................... B-151

Tiger Shark: Juvenile. ..................................................................................... B-152

Tiger Shark: Adult. ......................................................................................... B-153

Sand Tiger Shark: Neonate. ............................................................................ B-154

Sand Tiger Shark: Juvenile. ............................................................................ B-155

Sand Tiger Shark: Adult. ................................................................................ B-156

Angel Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................... B-157

Angel Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-158

Angel Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................ B-159

Bonnethead Shark : Neonate........................................................................... B-160

Bonnethead Shark: Juvenile............................................................................ B-161

Bonnethead Shark: Adult................................................................................ B-162

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lviii

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B.92
Figure B.93
Figure B.94
Figure B.95
Figure B.96
Figure B.97
Figure B.98
Figure B.99
Figure B.100
Figure B.101
Figure B.102
Figure B.103
Figure B.104
Figure B.105
Figure B.106
Figure B.107
Figure B.108
Figure B.109
Figure B.110
Figure B.111
Figure B.112
Figure B.113
Figure B.114
Figure B.115
Figure B.116
Figure B.117
Figure B.118
Figure B.119
Figure B.120
Figure B.121
Figure B.122
Figure B.123
Figure B.124

Altantic Sharpnose: Neonate........................................................................... B-163

Atlantic Sharpnose: Juvenile........................................................................... B-164

Atlantic Sharpnose Shark: Adult. ................................................................... B-165

Blacknose Shark: Neonoate. ........................................................................... B-166

Blacknose Shark: Juvenile. ............................................................................. B-167

Blacknose Shark: Adult. ................................................................................. B-168

Finetooth Shark: Neonate. .............................................................................. B-169

Finetooth Shark: Juvenile. .............................................................................. B-170

Finetooth Shark: Adult.................................................................................... B-171

Smalltail Shark: All Life Stages. .................................................................... B-172

Bigeye Sixgill Shark: All Life Stages............................................................. B-173

Sevengill Shark: All Life Stages..................................................................... B-174

Sixgill Shark: All Life Stages. ........................................................................ B-175

Longfin Mako Shark: Neonate........................................................................ B-176

Longfin Mako Shark : Juvenile....................................................................... B-177

Longfin Mako Shark: Adult............................................................................ B-178

Porbeagle Shark: Neonate............................................................................... B-179

Porbeagle Shark: Juvenile............................................................................... B-180

Porbeagle Shark: Adult. .................................................................................. B-181

Shortfin Mako Shark: Neonate. ...................................................................... B-182

Shortfin Mako Shark: Juvenile. ...................................................................... B-183

Shortfin Mako Shark: Adult............................................................................ B-184

Blue Shark: Neonate. ...................................................................................... B-185

Blue Shark: Juvenile. ...................................................................................... B-186

Blue Shark: Adult. .......................................................................................... B-187

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Neonate................................................................... B-188

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Juvenile................................................................... B-189

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Adult....................................................................... B-190

Bigeye Thresher Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................... B-191

Bigeye Thresher Shark: Adult. ....................................................................... B-192

Thresher Shark: Neonate................................................................................. B-193

Thresher Shark: Juvenile................................................................................. B-194

Thresher Shark: Adult..................................................................................... B-195

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lix

MASTER LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AA

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

ACCSP

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program

ACS

Angler consumer surplus

ALRS

Automated Landings Reporting System

ALWTRP

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

ALWTRT

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team

ANPR

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AOCTRP

Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan

AOCTRT

Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team

AP

Advisory Panel

APA

Administrative Procedure Act

ASMFC

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

ATCA

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act

B

Biomass

BAYS

Bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, skipjack tunas

BET

Bigeye tuna

BETYP

Bigeye Tuna Year Program

BFT

Bluefin tuna

BiOp

Biological Opinion

BLL

Bottom Longline

BMSY

Biomass expected to yield maximum sustainable yield

BOY

Biomass expected to yield optimum yield

BSD

Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document

BTF

By the fish

BUM

Blue marlin

CAR

Caribbean Statistical Area

CBP

Customs and Border Protection

CFDBS

Commercial Fisheries Database System

CFMC

Caribbean Fishery Management Council

CFL

Curved fork length

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CHB

Charter/Headboat

CIAT

Spanish for IATTC

CIE

Center for Independent Experts

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COE

Certificate of Eligibility

COFI

Committee on Fisheries

CPI

Consumer Price Index

B

B

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lx

LIST OF COMMONLY USED
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

CPUE

Catch per unit effort

CSFOP

Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (run by University of Florida)

CSR

Center for Shark Research

CSTP

Cooperative Shark Tagging Program

CZMA

Coastal Zone Management Act

DEIS

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DPS

Distinct population segment

DRG

Dredge

DSGFOP

Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery Observer Program

dw

Dressed weight

EA

Environmental Assessment

EEZ

Exclusive Economic Zone

EFC

East Florida Coast closed area

EFH

Essential fish habitat

EFP

Exempted fishing permit

EIS

Environmental Impact Statement

EO

Executive Order

ESA

Endangered Species Act

F

Instantaneous fishing mortality

FAD

Fish aggregating device

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FAS

Free Alongside Ship

FEC

Florida East Coast Statistical Area

FEIS

Final Environmental Impact Statement

FL

Fork length

FMP

Fishery management plan

FMSY

Instantaneous fishing mortality rate expected to yield maximum sustainable yield

FMU

Fishery management unit

FOY

Fishing mortality rate expected to yield optimum yield

FR

Federal Register

FRFA

Final regulatory flexibility analysis

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GIS

Geographic Information System

GOM

Gulf of Mexico

GSAFDF

Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Development Foundation

GMFMC

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

GSMFC

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

HACCP

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

HAPC

Habitat area of particular concern

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lxi

LIST OF COMMONLY USED
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

HBS

Headboat Survey

HMS

Highly migratory species: Atlantic sharks, tunas, swordfish, and billfish

HTS

Harmonized Tariff Schedule

IATTC

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICCAT

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

ILAP

Initial limited access permit

IMARPE

Instituo del Mar del Peru

INP

Instituto Nacional de Pesca

IPOA

International Plan of Action

IRFA

Initial regulatory flexibility analysis

ITP

International Trade Permit

ITQ

Individual transferable quota

ITS

Incidental take statement

IUU

Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported

LAP

Limited access permit

LCS

Large coastal sharks

LJFL

Lower jaw fork length

LOA

Letter of Acknowledgment

LOF

List of Fisheries

LPS

Large Pelagic Survey

LWTRP

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

LWTRT

Large Whale Take Reduction Team

M

Mortality

MAB

Mid-Atlantic Bight Statistical Area

MAFMC

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Magnuson-Stevens Act

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MFMT

Maximum fishing mortality threshold

MMPA

Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS

Minerals Management Service

MPA

Marine protected area

MRFSS

Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey

MSST

Minimum stock size threshold

MSY

Maximum sustainable yield

mt

Metric tons

NCA

North Central Atlantic

NEC

Northeast Coastal Statistical Area

NED

Northeast Distant Statistical Area

NEFMC

New England Fishery Management Council

NEFSC

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lxii

LIST OF COMMONLY USED
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NERO

Northeast Regional Office, NMFS

NFRDI

National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

NGO

Non-governmental organization

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service

nmi

Nautical mile

NOA

Notice of Availability

NOAA

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI

Notice of Intent

NPOA

National Plan of Action

NRC

Natural Resources Consultants, Inc.

NS

National Standards

NYB

New York Bight

OSF

Office of Sustainable Fisheries

OY

Optimum yield

PAT

Pop-up archival tag

PFD

Personal flotation device

PIFSC

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

PLL

Pelagic longline

PLTRP

Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan

PLTRT

Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team

POP

Pelagic observer program

PPI

Producer price index

OPR

Office of Protected Resources

PRA

Paperwork Reduction Act

PRM

Post-release mortality

PSAT

Pop-up satellite archival tag

RBS

Recreational Billfish Survey

Reg Flex Act

Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIR

Regulatory Impact Review

RFMC

Regional Fishery Management Council

RPAs

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives

RPMs

Reasonable and Prudent Measures

RUM

Random utility model

SAFE Report

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report

SAFMC

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

SAB

South Atlantic Bight

SAI

Sailfish

SAR

Sargasso Sea

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lxiii

LIST OF COMMONLY USED
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

SBR

Spawning Stock Biomass Ratio

SCRS

Standing Committee for Research and Statistics

SCS

Small coastal sharks

SCUBA

Self contained underwater breathing apparatus

SD

Statistical document

Secretary

Secretary of Commerce

SEDAR

Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review

SEFSC

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS

SEIS

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SEN

Seines

SERO

Southeast Regional Office, NMFS

SEW

Stock evaluation workshop

SFA

Sustainable Fisheries Act

SFL

Straight fork length

SK Program

Saltonstall-Kennedy Program

SRP

Scientific research permit

SSB

Spawning stock biomass

SWFSC

Southwest Fisheries Science Center

TAC

Total allowable catch

TAG

Tag-A-Giant

TAL

Total allowable landings

TCs

Terms and Conditions

TL

Total length

TRP

Traps and pots

TUNS

Tuna North and Tuna South

TWL

Trawls

TXPWD

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

UNK

Unknown

USFWS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VIMS

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

VMS

Vessel monitoring system

WHM

White marlin

WPFMC

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council

WTP

Willingness to pay

ww

Whole weight

WWF

World Wildlife Fund

YFT

Yellowfin tuna

YOY

Young of the year

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

lxiv

LIST OF COMMONLY USED
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

CHAPTER 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Table of Contents......................................................................................................1-i

Chapter 1 List of Tables ............................................................................................................1-ii

1.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Brief Management History .............................................................................................. 1-2

1.2 Need for Action ............................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 1-7

1.4 Combining Management for Atlantic HMS .................................................................... 1-8

1.4.1 Implications for Management Measures ................................................................. 1-10

1.4.2 Implications for the Exemption to the Billfish No Sale Provision.......................... 1-11

1.4.3 Implications for Highly Migratory Species and Billfish Advisory Panels ............. 1-12

1.4.4 Implications for the FMP Objectives ...................................................................... 1-13

1.5 Issues for Future Consideration and Outlook................................................................ 1-16

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-i

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3

Table indicating whether actions in this document are amending the FMP or are

being taken as framework actions........................................................................ 1-4

Current Advisory Panel Seat Allocation............................................................ 1-13

Previous and Final Objectives of the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark,

Billfish, and Consolidated HMS FMPs. Italicized text indicates the differences in

objectives between the two previous FMPs....................................................... 1-13

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-ii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 1 are managed under the dual authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must, consistent with the National Standards, manage fisheries
to maintain optimum yield (OY) by rebuilding overfished fisheries and preventing overfishing.
Under ATCA, NMFS is authorized to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and
appropriate, to implement the recommendations from the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Additionally, any management measures must also be
consistent with other domestic laws including, but not limited to, the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
Before this document, Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks were managed under the
1999 Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (and its 2003
amendment) and Atlantic billfish were managed under the 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP (and its
1999 amendment). This final document consolidates the management of all Atlantic HMS into
one comprehensive FMP (described Section 1.4), and combines and simplifies the objectives of
the previous FMPs (described in Section 1.3).
Chapters 2 and 4 of this document provide a description of the alternatives and the
analyses of the potential impacts. All of the preferred alternatives would likely be implemented
in a final rule to be published shortly after this document. Chapter 3 provides a description of
the fishery and contains the 2006 stock assessment and fishery evaluation report (SAFE report).
Chapter 5 discusses any mitigating measures regarding the alternatives. Chapters 6, 7, and 8
fully analyze the economic impacts of the alternatives and address the requirements of a
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). Chapter 9
provides the social impact analysis. Chapter 10 describes the first step in updating the
descriptions of essential fish habitat. Appendix A provides the methodologies and analyses for
the time/area closure alternatives described in Sections 2.1.2 and 4.1.2. Appendix B provides the
maps for EFH as described in Chapter 10. Appendix C provides additional information related
to domestic Atlantic billfish mortality contributions of the recreational sector and the pelagic
longline fishery. Appendix D provides a summary of the comments received on the draft HMS
FMP and proposed rule and NMFS’ responses. Appendix E provides the peer reviews
completed under the OMB peer review bulletin and NMFS’ actions based on those reviews.

1
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, at 16 U.S.C. 1802(14), defines the term Ahighly migratory species@ as tuna species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp.
and Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istiophorus spp.), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius). Further, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, at 16
U.S.C. 1802(27), defines the term Atuna species@ as albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), bluefin tuna (Thunnus
thynnus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1

Brief Management History

This section provides a brief overview of the major influences regarding HMS
management and the existing FMPs. More detail regarding the management history of HMS can
be found in Section 3.1.
In the 1980s, the Regional Fishery Management Councils were responsible for the
management of Atlantic HMS. Thus, in 1985 and 1988, the five Councils finalized joint FMPs
for swordfish and billfish, respectively. In 1989, the Councils requested that the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) manage Atlantic sharks. NMFS finalized a Shark FMP in 1993. Atlantic
tunas did not have an FMP until 1999.
On November 28, 1990, the President of the United States signed into law the Fishery
Conservation Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-627). This law amended the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act or Magnuson-Stevens Act) and gave the Secretary the authority (effective
January 1, 1992) to manage HMS in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Atlantic Ocean,
Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C.
§1811). This law also transferred from the Fishery Management Councils to the Secretary,
effective November 28, 1990, the management authority for HMS in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean Sea (16 U.S.C. §1854(f)(3)). The Secretary then delegated authority to
manage Atlantic HMS to NMFS. In 1992, the HMS Management Division was created within
NMFS to manage Atlantic HMS.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must maintain OY of each fishery by
preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks. To do this, NMFS must, among other
things, consider the National Standards, including using the best scientific information and
considering impacts on residents of different States, efficiency, costs, fishing communities,
bycatch, and safety at sea (16 U.S.C. §1851 (a)(1-10)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also has a
specific section that addresses preparing and implementing FMPs for Atlantic HMS (16 U.S.C.
§1854 (g)(1)(A-G)). In summary, the section includes, but is not limited to, requirements to:
ƒ
ƒ

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Consult with and consider the views of affected Councils, Commissions, and advisory
groups;
Evaluate the likely effects of conservation and management measures on participants and
minimize, to the extent practicable, any disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in relation to
foreign competitors;
Provide fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest any allocation or quota
authorized under an international fishery agreement;
Diligently pursue comparable international fishery management measures; and,
Ensure that conservation and management measures promote international conservation
of the affected fishery, take into consideration traditional fishing patterns of fishing
vessels, are fair and equitable in allocating fishing privileges among U.S. fishermen and
do not have economic allocation as the sole purpose, and promote, to the extent
practicable, implementation of scientific research programs that include the tagging and
release of Atlantic HMS.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-2

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In addition to domestic management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Atlantic HMS are
also managed internationally by ICCAT. ICCAT consists of 42 contracting parties as well as
other cooperating parties that fish for tunas and tuna-like species throughout the Atlantic
including Canada, the European Community, Japan, and China. Since 1966, ICCAT’s stated
objective has been to “cooperate in maintaining the populations of these fishes at levels which
will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes.” To achieve this
objective, ICCAT requires countries to collect catch data. In 1966, through a resolution, ICCAT
urged all countries to begin to collect and process statistics and data on Atlantic tunas fisheries.
In 1972, noting data deficiencies, ICCAT again urged countries to improve the collection and
efficiency of Atlantic tunas catch-effort data and to make sure data are made available to ICCAT.
These types of requests continue to be made, either as resolutions or recommendations, as the
management and science needs for each fishery continue to expand.
The current conservation and management recommendations of ICCAT include total
allowable catches, sharing arrangements for member countries, minimum size limits, effort
controls, time/area closures, trade measures, compliance measures, and monitoring and
inspection programs. If the United States accepts an ICCAT recommendation, ATCA provides
the Secretary with the necessary statutory authority to issue regulations as may be necessary and
appropriate to implement binding ICCAT recommendations to fisheries managed by the United
States (16 U.S.C. §971 et seq.). However, no regulation promulgated under ATCA may have the
effect of increasing or decreasing any allocation or quota of fish or fishing mortality level to
which the United States agreed pursuant to a recommendation of ICCAT (16 U.S.C. §971 (c)).
ICCAT recommendations can be found on the internet at http://www.ICCAT.es .
In 1999, due in part to amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 and additional
information regarding the status of several Atlantic HMS, NMFS combined the FMPs for
Atlantic swordfish and sharks and finalized the first FMP for Atlantic tunas. The result was the
FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). At this time, NMFS also amended
the 1988 Billfish FMP. Since 1999, NMFS has changed a number of regulations either through
framework actions, regulatory amendments, or FMP amendments. This includes, but is not
limited to, implementation of time/area closures, implementation of gear requirements for
pelagic longline fishery or gear, implementation of vessel monitoring systems for shark and
pelagic longline fisheries, changes in retention limits, changes in permitting requirements for
charter/headboat and recreational fishermen, handling and release gear requirements for nontarget species (bycatch) in longline fisheries, and changes in reporting requirements for
recreational fishermen. Additionally, the status of some Atlantic HMS has changed, the pelagic
longline fishery has received several times determinations that the continuation of the fishery
without additional actions could jeopardize the existence of certain sea turtles, and the swordfish
and bluefin tuna fisheries are not currently catching their quotas. Thus, HMS fisheries, as
described in the 1999 FMP and the 1999 Billfish Amendment, have changed.
1.2

Need for Action

As described above, since 1999, the regulations for HMS fisheries have changed for a
variety of reasons. As such, the 1999 FMP and Amendment may no longer fully describe the
current fisheries. The changes have been documented in the supporting documents for various
rulemakings and in annual SAFE reports. However, this document represents the first time since
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1999 that a majority of the HMS fisheries have been impacted in one rulemaking. These
changes and the inclusiveness of this document have been a challenge. Both before and during
scoping, the public and NOAA staff raised a number of management issues that merit additional
consideration and examination. Some of these issues require an FMP amendment. Other issues
would be more appropriately and efficiently addressed in conjunction with other regulatory
actions. However, in order to complete action on some of the issues identified during the
scoping process in a timely manner, NMFS decided to handle only a portion of them in this
rulemaking. NMFS prioritized the issues and chose to consider those in this rulemaking that
were required by law (e.g., handling and release workshops are required under the 2004
Biological Opinion) and/or would improve the management or the fisheries (e.g., amending the
FMP for the bluefin tuna General Category should allow management to match changes in the
fisheries on a more timely basis). Other issues will be considered, as appropriate, in future
rulemakings (see Section 1.5). This section provides a succinct summary of some of the reasons
for the management measures being considered in this rulemaking. More detail on the individual
issues can be found in Chapters 2 and 4.
This section also describes the actions that are amending the FMP and the actions that are
considered regulatory framework adjustments or actions under the FMP (Table 1.1). A
framework action includes notice and comment rulemaking and amends implementing
regulations but not the FMP itself. Both the 1999 FMP and the 1999 Billfish Amendment listed
certain management measures that could be adjusted via framework action to meet the objectives
of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act and that would not necessarily require amending the
FMP (50 CFR §635.34). This list was modified with Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP. The
actions preferred in this document span a range of framework actions and amendments to the
FMP. The list of the types of management actions that can be accomplished via a framework
action is provided in Chapter 11 of this document. For more information regarding the
differences between framework actions and FMP amendments, please see Chapter 3 of the 1999
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP.
Table 1.1

Table indicating whether actions in this document are amending the FMP or are being taken as
framework actions.

Major Issue
Reducing Bycatch: Workshops

Framework or FMP Amendment
FMP Amendment

Reducing Bycatch: Time/area closures

FMP Amendment and framework action

Rebuilding: Northern albacore tuna

FMP Amendment

Overfishing: Finetooth sharks

FMP Amendment

Rebuilding: Billfish

Framework action

Management Program: Bluefin tuna

FMP Amendment and framework action

Management Program: Timeframe for Annual Management

Framework action

Management Program: Authorized gears

Framework action

Management Program: Regulatory housekeeping

Framework action

The June 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) requires NMFS to conduct training workshops
regarding the release of sea turtles from pelagic longline gear and to certify that fishermen have
attended these workshops. The October 2003 BiOp requires a series of workshops that provide
gear handling techniques and protocols that deal with entanglements and protected species, in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

general, and including information on smalltooth sawfish and HMS requirements. Additionally,
in Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP, NMFS stated that if shark fishermen can show that they can
correctly identify shark species and fish for specific species, then the Agency might consider
using species-specific shark quotas in the future. In public comments received during the
scoping period and on the Predraft, some fishermen commented that the data collection problem
is not with the fishermen but with the dealers who often incorrectly identify shark species. These
comments were considered when analyzing alternatives for workshops. Many of the needs for
workshops and certifying that people are trained to handle and release fish or protected resources
and to identify certain species are beyond what was considered in the 1999 FMP and Billfish
Amendment. Thus, in this document, NMFS amends the 1999 FMP and Billfish Amendment
and examines different types of workshops to meet these needs.
Since 1999, NMFS has implemented a number of time/area closures in order to reduce
bycatch, to the extent practicable, consistent with National Standard 9. While preliminary
analyses have been done in annual SAFE reports that examine the efficacy of these closures, a
comprehensive analysis of the impact of the closures on bycatch rates, the fishermen, and the
communities is contained in this document. Based on the results of this comprehensive analysis,
in this rulemaking, NMFS examines the current time/area closures to determine if these closures
are accomplishing the original goals of the closures or if changes are needed. NMFS also
examines the need for additional closures to reduce bycatch in HMS fisheries of certain species
including sea turtles, white marlin, and bluefin tuna. The 1999 FMP considered and allowed for
the implementation of time/area closures as framework actions. However, in this action NMFS
is considering a comprehensive mechanism regarding how to analyze the need for establishing,
modifying, or removing time/area closures. Because this alternative is beyond the scope of the
1999 FMP, the preferred alternatives in this document recommend both amending the 1999 FMP
and implementing closures under the framework mechanism.
Since the 1999 FMP, NMFS has determined that overfishing is occurring on finetooth
sharks and that northern albacore tuna are overfished. NMFS addresses rebuilding and
overfishing for these species in this action. For northern albacore tuna, because its rebuilding
plan is not yet outlined in the FMP, any actions being considered would be an amendment to the
FMP. Finetooth sharks do not require a rebuilding plan because they are not overfished but
action is required to prevent overfishing. Because the actions being considered to address
overfishing are contained in the list of framework actions (see Chapter 11), the actions being
considered to address overfishing of finetooth sharks would be regulatory framework actions.
Despite the implementation of domestic and international management measures, the
status of Atlantic blue and white marlin has continued to decline. Currently, the status of sailfish
and spearfish is uncertain. Atlantic white marlin has been identified as one of the most severely
overfished species of any stock under ICCAT’s purview for the past four years, but nevertheless
continues to be subjected to unsustainable levels of fishing mortality throughout the Atlantic. In
2002, the United States undertook a status review of white marlin pursuant to the ESA. While
the status review team determined that white marlin stock status did not warrant a listing at that
time, it concluded that “unless fishing mortality is reduced significantly and relatively quickly,
the stock could decline to a level that would warrant ESA protection” (White Marlin Status
Review Team 2002). NMFS is will conduct another ESA listing review in 2007. Ultimately, the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

declines in the status of blue and white marlin have diminished the likelihood of achieving
domestic rebuilding goals and objectives outlined in the 1999 Billfish Amendment.
The United States has led billfish conservation efforts internationally over the past
decade. The effects of these efforts, while serving to move conservation forward in the policy
arena, are as yet uncertain from a biological perspective. Additional information on this issue
should be available in mid to late 2006 when the next ICCAT stock assessment for Atlantic
marlin is finalized. While the United States cannot unilaterally reverse stock declines for these
species given the international nature of the fishery, additional domestic management actions are
possible and appropriate to augment steps that have thus far been unable to stem long-term
downward population trends and/or increasing fishing mortality rates for Atlantic marlins.
Failure of the United States to continue leading international efforts to rebuild marlin will likely
result in this issue losing visibility and priority among international fishery managers, as marlin
are generally taken incidental to directed fishing activities for more commercially valuable
species. The rulemaking process and the management measures analyzed are a critical
component of demonstrating such leadership. Reinforcing the need for action are new data
suggesting that post-release mortality for white marlin from recreational catch-and-release
fishing with traditional J-hooks may be considerably higher than previous estimates. New data
and studies also indicate that in some years, the domestic recreational billfish fishery may be
responsible for an equal or greater amount of billfish mortality than the domestic pelagic longline
fishery, in some years. This appears to be the result of the significant size differential between
the two fisheries. As such, in this document, NMFS reviews the current data and examines
methods of reducing billfish mortality in both the commercial (e.g., time/area closures) and
recreational fisheries (e.g., minimum sizes, circle hooks). Because the management measures
specific to reducing billfish fishing mortality are being considered are within the scope of those
allowed for framework actions, these measures would be taken as regulatory framework actions.
Over the years, BFT management has become increasingly complicated, and may no
longer accurately reflect the needs of the fishery and goals of the 1999 FMP. These issues are
evident on a daily basis from the number of constituent inquiries addressed by NMFS and the
number of inseason management actions necessary throughout the season. In addition, NMFS
has received a petition from the State of North Carolina for rulemaking to adjust the quota
allocations to provide for a General category fishery off of North Carolina in the winter. NMFS
is considering these requests and is also considering ways of clarifying BFT management. Some
of the changes considered are within the scope of those that the 1999 FMP stated could be
accomplished by framework actions. However, other alternatives are beyond the scope of a
framework action and need to be accomplished by FMP amendment. Thus, this issue
encompasses both framework actions and amendments to the FMP.
In the 1999 FMP and Billfish Amendment, NMFS established a fishing year for tunas,
billfish, and swordfish that began on June 1 and went through the following May 31. This
fishing year was established to allow NMFS time to implement recommendations from ICCAT
before the fishing year began. The change to the fishing year, however, has been problematic
given that many of the data infrastructures and reporting requirements both within the Agency
and ICCAT are based on calendar year rather than fishing years. Thus, NMFS revisits this issue

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-6

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

during this rulemaking. Changes to the fishing year are within the scope allowed in the 1999
FMP and the 1999 Billfish Amendment. Thus, this issue is being taken as a framework action.
In 1999, NMFS published a list of authorized gears for all fisheries across the nation.
Occasionally, NMFS receives requests to modify the list of authorized gears. Sometimes, these
requests include gear that fishermen use in other oceans or elsewhere in the Atlantic to catch the
same species; other times, the requests are due to additional groups requesting to use a gear that
is approved for one permit, but not another. NMFS considers some of these requests pertaining
to HMS, such as greenstick and speargun fishing gear, in this FMP. The use and restriction of
gears is within the scope of management measures that can be modified through framework
actions; thus, any changes to the authorized gears would be achieved via a framework action.
This FMP also considers a number of corrections and additions to the Atlantic HMS
regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and other relevant sections in the CFR (e.g., 50 CFR part 300
contains information regarding international trade) in order to clarify their intent, remove
incorrect cross-references, remove dated regulations, as appropriate, and aid enforcement. These
actions are all being taken as framework actions.
In addition, this consolidated HMS FMP continues the five-year review of HMS EFH
consistent with the EFH guidelines. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary, through
NMFS, to establish guidelines to assist in the description and identification of EFH in FMPs,
among other things. The Agency set forth a schedule for the review and update of such EFH
identifications based on new scientific evidence or other relevant information. The EFH
guidelines articulate processes for determining the extent of EFH that encompasses each species
and life-stage in a managed fishery. In addition, the EFH guidelines call for periodic review and
revision of EFH identified areas based on available information, as well as a complete review of
all EFH information at least once every five years. NMFS originally described and identified
EFH for all HMS, including Atlantic billfish, in 1999, and recently updated the EFH for five
shark species (blacktip, dusky, finetooth, nurse, and sandbar) in Amendment 1 to the FMP for
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, which was finalized in 2003. In this document, NMFS
includes the information available for all HMS, including billfish, in order to aid in the
determination of which species need updates to their EFH identifications. Any updates or
resulting changes in management will be done in a future document.
1.3

Objectives

Consistent with the consolidated FMP objectives (see Section 1.4.4) and the National
Standards, the specific objectives of this action are to:
ƒ

Better coordinate domestic conservation and management of the fisheries for Atlantic
tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, considering the multi-species nature of many HMS
fisheries;

ƒ

Simplify management of Atlantic HMS, to the extent practicable;

ƒ

Update the ecological, economic, and social data regarding HMS fisheries;

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-7

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.4

ƒ

Reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality, to the extent practicable, while also minimizing
the economic and social impacts on related fisheries;

ƒ

Reduce mortality, including dead discards and post-release mortality, to the extent
practicable, of Atlantic HMS in directed and non-directed fisheries;

ƒ

Improve, to the extent practicable, data collections or data collection programs;

ƒ

Implement, to the extent practicable, the bycatch reduction strategy using the

standardized bycatch reduction methodology; and,

ƒ

Begin the review process for updating EFH identifications for Atlantic HMS, as needed.
Combining Management for Atlantic HMS

As discussed above, NMFS issued two separate documents in April 1999 for the Atlantic
HMS fisheries. The 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks,
combined, amended, and replaced previous management plans for swordfish and sharks, and was
the first FMP for tunas. Amendment 1 to the Billfish Management Plan updated and amended
the 1988 Billfish FMP.
In 1999, based on concerns expressed by Advisory Panel (AP) members about
consolidating the FMPs for billfish and the other HMS, as well as the recreational nature of the
domestic billfish fishery, NMFS chose to maintain separate FMPs and APs for these species.
Nevertheless, over the past six years that these two FMPs have co-existed, there has been a
growing recognition by NMFS of the interrelated nature of these fisheries and the need to
consider management actions together. In addition, NMFS has identified some adverse
ramifications stemming from separation of the plans, including unnecessary administrative
redundancy and complexity, loss of efficiency, and public confusion over the management
process. The following examples illustrate the closely intertwined nature of the fisheries and
their management:
1. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines highly migratory species as tuna species, marlin,
oceanic sharks, sailfishes, and swordfish;
2. An HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat (CHB) permit is required to fish for billfish or
other HMS recreationally;
3. Recreational fishermen target billfish and other HMS in the same season and often on the
same trip;
4. Recreational fishermen can use rod and reel to fish for both billfish and other HMS;
5. Many of the primary management actions for addressing overfishing and bycatch issues
for billfish are contained in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks;
6. Any potential management measures for billfish or other HMS are likely to impact the
same communities;
7. The reporting requirements for billfish and other HMS fishermen overlap;

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-8

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

8. The regulations for Atlantic billfish and the other Atlantic HMS are all contained in 50
CFR part 635; and,
9. The Billfish and HMS Advisory Panels usually meet in a combined session2.
As such, consistent with the fifth objective of Billfish Amendment 13 and the ninth
objective listed in the 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP4, NMFS is consolidating these
FMPs into one comprehensive FMP to improve coordination of the conservation and
management of the domestic fisheries for Atlantic swordfish, tunas, sharks, and billfish. The
regulatory implications of consolidating the FMPs are negligible, as the regulations governing
the fisheries for all Atlantic HMS have been consolidated in 50 CFR part 635 since 1999.
During the comment periods on the Predraft and Draft, some HMS and Billfish AP
members, some Council members, and many recreational billfish fishermen objected to the
consolidation of the FMPs. For the most part, they were concerned that: (1) two objectives from
the 1988 Billfish FMP were identified for removal, on the basis that their core intent was thought
to be adequately contained in objectives that would remain (this was a concern raised only for
the Predraft); (2) commercial fisheries aim to utilize the specific quota while recreational
fisheries, particularly billfish fisheries, aim to have the highest abundance of fish available
because they are predominantly catch-and-release fisheries; (3) in a consolidated FMP, billfish
would be considered only as a bycatch species and would not be a priority; and (4) billfish would
lose representation on the AP. As a result of the first comment, NMFS kept those two objectives
as they were originally drafted in the consolidated HMS FMP (Section 1.3). Regarding the
second comment, NMFS agrees that commercial fishermen aim to fully utilize a quota and many
recreational fishermen practice catch-and-release fishing. NMFS believes that this difference
can be accommodated in a consolidated FMP just as they already are in the existing tunas,
swordfish, and shark fisheries that are both commercial and recreational. Further, given the
interconnected nature of the billfish fishery with other HMS fisheries, both on the water and in
the regulatory and policy arenas, as well as the current permitting structure, changes in any of the
non-billfish fisheries are likely to have impacts on the billfish fishery. Combining the FMPs
would allow those changes to be analyzed more holistically with clearer links among the impacts
and issues between fisheries. Regarding the third comment, NMFS believes that combining the
FMPs will not change the priorities of managing HMS, which are dictated by the MagnusonStevens Act and other domestic law. Regarding the fourth comment, the composition of the APs
in terms of representation by states and sectors (commercial, recreational, academic, or
conservation) would not change as a result of combining the plans (Section 1.4.3).
Another group of constituents, including AP and Council members, objected to
combining the FMPs because they felt that too many species and too much information had
2

The Advisory Panels have met separately five times since their creation in 1997 (out of approximately 14 AP meetings total). In 1997, the
Billfish AP met twice without the HMS AP because the HMS AP had not yet been created (July 7, 1997, 62 FR 36261; September 3, 1997, 62 FR
46483). At its first meeting, the HMS AP met alone (October 9, 1997, 62 FR 52692) and again after a joint meeting to discuss shark issues (July
20, 1998, 63 FR 38808). In 2003, the HMS AP met to discuss the proposed Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (August 27, 2003, 68 FR 51560).
3
To better coordinate domestic conservation and management of the fisheries for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, considering
the multispecies nature of many highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries, overlapping regional and individual participation, international
management concerns, and other relevant factors.
4
To better coordinate domestic conservation and management of the fisheries for Atlantic tuna, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, considering
the multispecies nature of many HMS fisheries, overlapping regional and individual participation, international management concerns, historical
fishing patterns and participation, and other relevant factors.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

already been combined in the existing FMPs. If anything, these parties felt that the species and
management measures in the existing FMPs should be separated and that NMFS should manage
on a more species-specific basis. NMFS believes that combining the FMPs for tunas, swordfish,
and sharks, and the actual regulations for all HMS has led to a more holistic view of the fishery.
This view has allowed the impacts of management measures on all sectors of HMS fisheries to
be fully analyzed whereas before, the links may not have been seen or analyzed as readily. By
combining the FMPs, NMFS is moving toward an ecosystem-based approach to the management
of HMS. Such an approach could ultimately benefit the resource and the people involved. As an
example, at several of the meetings on the Predraft, fishermen have noted that using circle hooks
while trolling for blue marlin is impracticable. At those same meetings, tuna fishermen asked for
the use of circle hooks on rod and reel. In many cases, the same fishermen fish for tunas and
billfish. While NMFS could implement different regulations for tunas and billfish, more
effective and appropriate management can only be done by considering the implications on both
fisheries.
NMFS also received comments that other interested parties, including some recreational
fishermen and AP members, feel the plan to consolidate the FMPs makes sense and is only
logical, particularly given the overlapping nature of the fisheries. Some people, who supported
the consolidation, noted that the customary joint meetings of the HMS and Billfish APs have
resulted in an imbalance of representation favoring the recreational fishing sector. NMFS does
not believe that the current APs are imbalanced. Combining the FMPs will not change the
composition of the APs; however, NMFS may change the composition over time in order to
preserve the balance between different interest groups.
A summary of all the comments received on the draft HMS FMP and NMFS’ responses
can be found in Appendix D.
1.4.1

Implications for Management Measures

The 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP integrated and replaced preexisting
management measures for Atlantic tuna, swordfish, and shark fisheries. Amendment 1 to the
Billfish FMP (1999) was developed in coordination with the Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP,
but augmented rather than replaced the preexisting Billfish FMP, which had been finalized in
1988. The consolidated HMS FMP is intended to augment and combine the 1999 Atlantic
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP, Amendment 1 to the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks FMP, the 1988 Billfish FMP, and Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP into a single fishery
management plan. To reiterate, upon issuance of this final document, there will be a single
management plan for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish. Under this consolidated
HMS FMP, “HMS” includes billfish in all references except where noted otherwise.
The consolidation itself would not change any existing management measures for
Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish that have been issued previously under the
authority of ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Neither would the consolidation change any
of the threshold criteria that are used to determine the status of the stock (e.g., overfishing is
occurring if Fyear>FMSY). These threshold criteria are summarized briefly in Section 3.2. Should
NMFS determine that further changes are necessary to the regulations or the threshold criteria,
they will be made through the FMP amendment process or through rulemaking as described in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-10

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

the framework provisions. Please see below (Section 1.4.4) for a discussion of the implications
of combining the plans on the plan objectives.
1.4.2

Implications for the Exemption to the Billfish No Sale Provision

The 1988 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish prohibited the sale or purchase
of Atlantic billfish. Recognizing the existence of a traditional artisanal handline fishery in
Puerto Rico that occasionally landed billfishes, primarily blue marlin, the 1988 Billfish FMP also
included a limited exemption from the “no sale” provision to accommodate this fishery. The
exemption to the “no sale” provision was subject to a number of conditions and restrictions,
including:
ƒ

only fish caught on handlines having fewer than six hooks could be retained for sale;

ƒ

vessels retaining billfish for sale could not have a rod and reel onboard;

ƒ

fish could be sold only in Puerto Rico;

ƒ

a maximum of 100 billfish per year could be landed and sold;

ƒ

if more than 100 billfish per year were landed under the exemption, the Councils would
consider removing the exemption;

ƒ

all existing fishermen wishing to sell billfish would be required to obtain a permit;

ƒ

the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, in cooperation with the Government of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, would develop and implement a system for tracking
billfish landings under the exemption; and,

ƒ

The exemption would not be in effect until the permitting and tracking systems were
operative, pending approval by the five involved Councils at that time.

The exemption from the “no sale” provision for the Puerto Rican handline artisanal
fishery has never been implemented under Federal regulations, because the aforementioned
conditions have never been met, either prior to or following transfer of the FMP to Secretarial
authority. Given that Atlantic billfish are overfished, overfishing continues to occur, longlines
(not handlines) are defined in 50 CFR part 635 as having three or more hooks, and nonfulfillment of conditions necessary to implement the exemption over nearly two decades, NMFS
sought comment on the potential removal of the “no sale” exemption from the FMP during the
scoping process for this document. Further, as the provision was developed and approved by the
five Atlantic Fishery Management Councils prior to transfer of the FMP to Secretarial authority,
NMFS specifically sought comment from the Regional Fishery Management Councils on this
issue in November 2004.
Public comment on elimination of the exemption to the no sale provision as discussed in
the Predraft document was mixed, with support for its elimination as well as limited support for
maintaining the exemption. In response to direct outreach efforts to the Councils on this issue,
NMFS received formal responses from the New England Council, the Mid-Atlantic Council, and
the Caribbean Council. The New England Council responded with a formal “no comment” on
the issue, as it had not been directly involved in HMS management issues since the inception of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-11

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Secretarial Authority. The Mid-Atlantic Council indicated that removal of the exemption was an
appropriate action, and the Caribbean Council adopted a formal motion at its May 2005 meeting
in St. Thomas, USVI, in support of removing the provision. At the draft stage, NMFS did not
receive any comments in opposition to the removal of this exemption.
Based on the status of Atlantic billfish as overfished with continuing overfishing; nonfulfillment of the conditions necessary to implement the exemption to the no sale provision and
resultant non-implementation of the provision over a period of 18 years; public comment at all
stages of writing this document; and, support of the involved Regional Fishery Management
Councils, specifically the Caribbean Council which would be most directly impacted by the
potential elimination of the exemption provision, NMFS is not carrying forward the exemption to
the no sale provision for the artisanal handline fishery in Puerto Rico into this final consolidated
HMS FMP.
1.4.3

Implications for Highly Migratory Species and Billfish Advisory Panels

The HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels (AP) were established in 1997, pursuant to
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements (16 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq., as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act PL 104-297), to assist NMFS in the collection and evaluation of information
relevant to the development of the 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP and Amendment 1
of the Billfish FMP. Nominations for initial membership on the APs were solicited in March and
August of 1997 for the Billfish and HMS APs, respectively. The first meeting of the Billfish AP
was in July 1997 and the first meeting of the HMS AP was in October 1997.
Membership for both panels is composed of representatives of the commercial and
recreational fishing communities, as well as conservation and academic interests. When
finalizing the members on each panel, NMFS attempts to achieve a balance among sectors,
regions, and species. The five Regional Fishery Management Councils involved in Atlantic
HMS management, the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal States, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S.
ICCAT Advisory Committee have ex-officio seats. In keeping with operating practices for
appointments to Regional Fishery Management Councils, in recent years, appointments to the
24-member HMS AP have been selected on a staggered, three-year cycle with eight members
appointed for a three-year term. For the Billfish AP, which consists of nine appointed members,
terms are on a two-year cycle with four members appointed for each two-year term. Staggered
terms were implemented to ensure that there is some institutional memory on the APs at all
times. The terms of ex-officio seats do not expire and assignment and substitution of these AP
representatives are at their discretion of the respective agencies.
With the consolidation of the APs under this FMP, NMFS expects to revise the AP
standard operating procedures. With this revision, NMFS will consider, among other things,
how long the terms of AP members should be. The terms of current AP members will not
change as a result of this consolidation.
Composition of the existing HMS and Billfish APs, in terms of the number of seats and
the percentage of seat allocation, is detailed in Table 1.2. With the completion of the FMP
consolidation process, the memberships of the two panels will be combined into a single
consolidated HMS AP that will advise NMFS on all HMS issues, including billfish. NMFS will
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-12

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

continue to balance representation based on species, sector, and regions, as necessary. Thus, the
numbers presented in Table 1.2 may change over time, as needed.
Table 1.2

Current Advisory Panel Seat Allocation.

Commercial

Current HMS AP
%
#
of Seats
Representation
10
42

Current Billfish AP
%
#
of Seats
Representation
2
22.2

Combined AP
% Representation
#
of Seats
12
36.3

Recreational

8

33

4

44.4

12

36.3

Conservation

4

17

1

11.1

5

15.1

Academic

2

8

2

22.2

4

12.1

Totals

24

100

9

100

33

100

1.4.4

Implications for the FMP Objectives

Amendment and consolidation of the 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark and the Billfish
FMPs and their amendments provides an opportunity to review the suitability and relevance of
the HMS and Billfish FMP objectives. Both plans contain a detailed set of objectives, of which
many overlap, complement, or otherwise reinforce each other. At the same time, a small number
of objectives are unique to each plan, and may not logically apply to the other plan. NMFS has
identified changes to the objectives of the previous FMPs that will remove redundancy and
update some objectives. The objectives are finalized as outlined in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3

Previous and Final Objectives of the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark, Billfish, and
Consolidated HMS FMPs. Italicized text indicates the differences in objectives between the two
previous FMPs.
Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark
FMP

Billfish FMP and Billfish
Amendment

1

To prevent or end overfishing
of Atlantic tuna, swordfish, and
sharks and adopt the
precautionary approach to
fishery management

Prevent and/or end overfishing
of Atlantic billfish and adopt
the precautionary approach to
fishery management

Prevent or end overfishing of
Atlantic tuna, swordfish,
billfish, and sharks and adopt
the precautionary approach to
fishery management

2

To rebuild overfished fisheries
in as short a time as possible
and control all components of
fishing mortality, both directed
and incidental, so as to ensure
the long-term sustainability of
the stocks and promote stock
recovery of the management
unit to the level at which the
maximum sustainable yield can
be supported on a continuing
basis

Rebuild overfished Atlantic
billfish stocks, and monitor and
control all components of
fishing mortality, both directed
and incidental, so as to ensure
the long-term sustainability of
the stocks and promote
Atlantic-wide stock recovery to
the level where MSY can be
supported on a continuing basis

Rebuild overfished Atlantic
HMS stocks, and monitor and
control all components of
fishing mortality, both directed
and incidental, so as to ensure
the long-term sustainability of
the stocks and promote Atlanticwide stock recovery to the level
where MSY can be supported on
a continuing basis

Obj. #

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-13

Final Consolidated FMP

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Obj. #

Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark
FMP

Billfish FMP and Billfish
Amendment

Final Consolidated FMP

3

To minimize, to the extent
practicable, bycatch of living
marine resources and the
mortality of such bycatch that
cannot be avoided in the
fisheries for Atlantic tuna,
swordfish, and sharks

Minimize, to the extent
practicable, release mortality in
the directed billfish fishery,
and minimize, to the extent
practicable, bycatch and
discard mortality of billfish on
gears used in other fisheries

Minimize, to the extent
practicable, bycatch of living
marine resources and the
mortality of such bycatch that
cannot be avoided in the
fisheries for Atlantic HMS or
other species, and minimize, to
the extent practicable, postrelease mortality in the directed
billfish fishery

4

To establish a foundation for
international negotiation on
conservation and management
measures to rebuild overfished
fisheries and to promote
achievement of optimum yield
for these species throughout
their range, both within and
beyond the exclusive economic
zone. Optimum yield is the
maximum sustainable yield
from the fishery, reduced by any
relevant social, economic, or
ecological factors

Establish a foundation for the
adoption of comparable
international conservation and
management measures,
through international entities
such as ICCAT, to rebuild
overfished fisheries and to
promote achievement of
optimum yield for these species
throughout their range, both
within and beyond the EEZ

Establish a foundation for
international negotiation on
conservation and management
measures, through international
entities such as ICCAT, to
rebuild overfished fisheries and
to promote achievement of
optimum yield for these species
throughout their range, both
within and beyond the exclusive
economic zone

5

To minimize, to the extent
practicable, economic
displacement and other adverse
impacts on fishing communities
during the transition from
overfished fisheries to healthy
ones

Minimize adverse social and
economic effects on
recreational and commercial
activities to the extent
practicable, consistent with
ensuring achievement of the
other objectives of this plan,
and with all applicable laws

Minimize, to the extent
practicable, adverse social and
economic impacts on fishing
communities and recreational
and commercial activities during
the transition from overfished
fisheries to healthy ones,
consistent with ensuring
achievement of the other
objectives of this plan and with
all applicable laws

6

To provide the data necessary
for assessing the fish stocks and
managing the fisheries,
including addressing
inadequacies in current
collection and ongoing
collection of social, economic,
and bycatch data about HMS
fisheries

Provide the data necessary for
assessing the fish stocks and
managing the fisheries,
including addressing
inadequacies in collection and
ongoing collection of social,
economic, and bycatch data on
Atlantic billfish fisheries

Provide the data necessary for
assessing the fish stocks and
managing the fisheries,
including addressing
inadequacies in current
collection and ongoing
collection of social, economic,
and bycatch data on Atlantic
HMS fisheries

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-14

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark
FMP

Billfish FMP and Billfish
Amendment

7

Consistent with other objectives
of this FMP, to manage Atlantic
HMS fisheries for continuing
optimum yield so as to provide
the greatest overall benefit to
the Nation, particularly with
respect to food production,
providing recreational
opportunities, preserving
traditional fisheries, and taking
into account the protection of
marine ecosystems

Consistent with other
objectives of this amendment,
manage Atlantic billfish
fisheries for the continuing
optimum yield so as to provide
the greatest overall benefit to
the Nation, particularly with
respect to recreational
opportunities and taking into
account the protection of
marine ecosystems. Optimum
yield is the maximum
sustainable yield from the
fishery, as reduced by any
relevant social, economic, or
ecological factors.

Consistent with other objectives
of this FMP, manage Atlantic
HMS fisheries for continuing
optimum yield so as to provide
the greatest overall benefit to the
Nation, particularly with respect
to providing food production for
commercial fisheries, enhancing
recreational opportunities,
preserving traditional fisheries
to the extent practicable, and/or
taking into account the
protection of marine ecosystems

8

To better coordinate domestic
conservation and management
of the fisheries for Atlantic
tuna, swordfish, sharks, and
billfish, considering the
multispecies nature of many
HMS fisheries, overlapping
regional and individual
participation, international
management concerns,
historical fishing patterns and
participation, and other relevant
factors

Better coordinate domestic
conservation and management
of the fisheries for Atlantic
tunas, swordfish, sharks, and
billfish, considering the
multispecies nature of many
highly migratory species
(HMS) fisheries, overlapping
regional and individual
participation, international
management concerns, and
other relevant factors

Better coordinate domestic
conservation and management
of the fisheries for Atlantic tuna,
swordfish, sharks, and billfish,
considering the multispecies
nature of many HMS fisheries,
overlapping regional and
individual participation,
international management
concerns, historical fishing
patterns and participation, and
other relevant factors

9

To provide a framework,
consistent with other applicable
law, to take necessary action
under ICCAT compliance
recommendation

Coordinate domestic
regulations and ICCAT
conservation measures for
controlling Atlantic-wide
fishing mortality

Provide a framework, consistent
with other applicable law, to
take necessary action under
ICCAT compliance and/or
conservation recommendations,
including controlling Atlanticwide fishing mortality

10

To promote protection of areas
identified as essential fish
habitat for tuna, swordfish, and
sharks

Maximize protection of areas
identified as essential fish
habitat for Atlantic billfish,
particularly for critical life
stages

Promote conservation and
enhancement of areas identified
as essential fish habitat for
Atlantic HMS, particularly for
critical life stages

11

To simplify and streamline
HMS management while
actively seeking input from
affected constituencies, the
general public, and the HMS
AP

Obj. #

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Final Consolidated FMP

Simplify and streamline HMS
management while actively
seeking input from affected
constituencies, the general
public, and the HMS AP

1-15

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Obj. #

Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark
FMP

Billfish FMP and Billfish
Amendment

Final Consolidated FMP

12

Promote the live release of
Atlantic billfish through active
outreach and educational
programs

Promote the live release and
tagging of Atlantic HMS that
are voluntarily released or
cannot be legally landed through
active outreach and educational
programs

13

Maintain the highest
availability of billfishes to the
U.S. recreational fishery by
implementing conservation
measures that will reduce
fishing mortality

Maintain the highest availability
of billfishes to the U.S.
recreational fishery by
implementing conservation
measures that will reduce
fishing mortality

14

Optimize the social and
economic benefits to the nation
by reserving the billfish
resource for its traditional use,
which in the continental United
States is almost entirely a
recreational fishery

Optimize the social and
economic benefits to the nation
by reserving the Atlantic billfish
resource for its traditional use,
which in the United States is
entirely a recreational fishery

15

Increase understanding of the
condition of billfish stocks and
the billfish fishery

Increase understanding of the
condition of HMS stocks and
HMS fisheries

16

To reduce latent effort and
overcapitalization in HMS
commercial fisheries

Delete.

17

To create a management system
to make fleet capacity
commensurate with resource
status so as to achieve the dual
goals of economic efficiency
and biological conservation

Consistent with the other
objectives of this FMP, create a
management system to make
fleet capacity commensurate
with resource status so as to
improve both economic
efficiency and biological
conservation, and provide access
for traditional gears and
fishermen

18

To develop eligibility criteria
for participation in the
commercial shark and
swordfish fisheries based on
historical participation,
including access for traditional
swordfish handgear fishermen
to participate fully as the stock
recovers

Combined with objective 17.

1.5

Issues for Future Consideration and Outlook

Beyond the issues addressed and raised in this document, other new and unresolved
matters have been identified by the general public, the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels, and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-16

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

NOAA staff as important to rebuilding and maintaining fisheries that are economically and
biologically sustainable. Some of the main issues are identified below. This list is not
comprehensive in nature, and NMFS may consider these issues or others in future rulemakings,
possibly through framework actions. The issues are not listed in any priority. It is important to
note that some of the issues are complicated, may require specific comments from the public for
development (e.g., scoping meetings and/or developmental workshops), and may take several
years to complete.
ƒ

Bluefin Tuna Fishery Issues

During this rulemaking, NMFS heard many comments regarding the BFT fishery in
general. There is growing concern regarding the status of BFT, protection of the spawning
grounds in the Gulf of Mexico, the underharvests in recent years, overlap between the BFT and
herring fisheries/habitat, and the current minimum size and trip limits. Purse Seine participants
also continue to request changes to the current regulations that limit Purse Seine vessel landings
of large medium bluefin tuna (73 inches to less than 81 inches) to no more than 15 percent, by
weight, of the total amount of giant bluefin tuna landed during a fishing year. Angling category
participants have concerns about the unit of measurement used by surveyors and the amount of
quota available in their category. Charter/headboat fishermen continue to request the ability to
fillet tunas at sea. Also, ICCAT is conducting a stock assessment in June 2006 that should
provide additional information regarding the status of BFT and the current rebuilding plan. It is
likely that in November 2006 ICCAT will finalize the stock assessment and recommend
management actions for BFT. While NMFS cannot predict what the recommendation(s) will
contain, many of the actions taken in this HMS FMP should help NMFS implement the new
recommendations. For example, the time/area closure preferred alternative to implement criteria
for the consideration of additional or modified closures for any gear type in order to protect BFT,
if needed. NMFS may also consider closing an area of the Gulf of Mexico and opening it as an
experimental fishery to test for ways of reducing bycatch of spawning bluefin tuna through such
things as hook and bait combinations, environmental conditions, and/or temporal and spatial
associations among different species. Also, amending the process to establish the General
Category subperiod and subquotas could facilitate adjustments in a more timely manner, if
necessary. Depending on ICCAT recommendation(s) and the status of BFT, it is possible that
NMFS could include additional issues within an ICCAT implementation rule. However, NMFS
will need to prioritize issues to ensure that international obligations are met and the rebuilding
plan is progressing.
ƒ

Swordfish Fishery Issues

For the past several years, the domestic swordfish fishery has been unable to catch its full
U.S. quota allocation. This is a change from the fishery in the 1990s where the quota was
usually taken. In 1997, the quota was overharvested and the fishery was closed. There are a
number of possible explanations and factors that may contribute to the inability of the domestic
fleet to fully harvest the swordfish quota today including time/area closures to pelagic longline
gear (the primary gear used to harvest swordfish), the reduction in permit holders through limited
access, the restrictions on vessel upgrading, the incidental trip limits, the few number of
swordfish reported landed by the recreational sector, and other economic factors (e.g., fuel cost).
Given the general anticipation that the North Atlantic swordfish stock will be identified as fully
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-17

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

rebuilt, per the pending September 2006 stock assessment, a number of fishermen and others
have asked NMFS to assist in revitalizing this fishery. Options that have been raised include, but
are not limited to, opening the time/area closures, allowing open access to swordfish handgear
permits, removing or modifying the upgrade restrictions, removing or modifying the incidental
trip limits, and improving recreational reporting. Many people are concerned that without a plan
to revitalize the fishery, the quota will be taken from the United States and given to other
countries, many of which appear to place a lower priority on conservation than does the United
States. NMFS is also concerned about the status of this fishery and the U.S. quota. While this
rulemaking was not intended to revitalize the swordfish fishery, many of the preferred
alternatives would facilitate future actions. For example, NMFS did not modify any existing
closures at this time but the preferred criteria would allow for modifications to the closed areas
and/or experiments to test gears or other fishing methods in the closed areas. Additionally,
NMFS is defining a “new” swordfish commercial gear type (i.e., buoy gear) and clarifying the
difference between this commercial gear and the primarily recreational gear of handline.
Depending on the stock assessment, the takes of sea turtles and marine mammals by the pelagic
longline fleet, the recommendations of the final Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan, and the
upcoming ICCAT recommendations, NMFS expects to do rulemaking in the near future to aid in
revitalizing the swordfish fishery. Such a rulemaking could, but may not necessarily, reconsider
the time/area closures using the criteria established in this FMP and using circle hook data,
consider changes to the upgrading restrictions and incidental trip limits, and modifications to the
permitting program (described more below). Revitalizing this fishery may also require
additional assistance such as creation of a Seafood Marketing Council (January 24, 2006, 71 FR
3797). Other factors that NMFS cannot control, such as fuel prices or the cost to upgrade
vessels, may impact the revitalization effort. Over time, consistent with the objectives of this
FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, MMPA, and the ESA, NMFS intends to aid in revitalizing the
fishery so that swordfish are harvested in a sustainable and economically viable manner and
bycatch is minimized to the extent practicable.
ƒ

Billfish Fishery Issues

Blue and white marlin are overfished and overfishing is occurring. However, the United
States is responsible for a small portion of the mortality compared to other countries in the
Atlantic. NMFS received a petition under the ESA to list white marlin and intends to conduct a
status review in 2007. Additionally, while Atlantic billfish cannot be sold, Pacific billfish can
be. Thus, NMFS has a number of challenges to address regarding the billfish fishery and stock,
much of which will depend on the results of the May 2006 stock assessment. In recent years,
NMFS has implemented a number of time/area closures that have reduced the bycatch of billfish
in the pelagic longline fishery. In this rulemaking, NMFS has considered several time/area
closures in part to continue to reduce bycatch of billfish in the pelagic longline fishery. NMFS
did not find a time/area closure that would reduce both billfish bycatch and bycatch of other
species; however, the criteria could allow NMFS to continue considering this option based on
circle hook data. In this rulemaking, NMFS also considered several alternatives that could
reduce the post-release mortality of billfish in the directed recreational fishery. NMFS is
preferring some of those alternatives and has analyzed alternatives that may, or may not, be
considered by ICCAT in November 2006. NMFS is also closing potential loopholes for billfish
mortality by limiting the landings or possession of billfish to Angling and Charter/Headboat
category permit holders and to General category permit holders who are participating in a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-18

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

tournament. Regardless of the permit combination (e.g., Charter/Headboat and commercial
shark limited access permit), no billfish may be possessed or retained on board vessels that have
commercial quantities of other HMS on board. Depending on the recommendations by ICCAT
in November 2006, the results of the 2006 stock assessment, and other priorities, NMFS may
need to initiate a rulemaking regarding billfish in the near future. As part of this rulemaking,
NMFS may consider standardized reporting requirements, particularly in regard to the Certificate
of Eligibility (COE) for Pacific billfish. Such a step may improve compliance, facilitate
enforcement, and improve the quality and quantity of information on Atlantic billfish harvest and
Pacific billfish shipments.
ƒ

Shark Fishery Issues

Since initiation of the 2003 Amendment 1 to the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Shark FMP, there have been a number of new assessments and new information relating to
sharks. ICCAT assessed blue and shortfin mako sharks in 2004. In 2004, Canada began
considering listing porbeagle sharks as endangered under Canadian laws based on a 2001 stock
assessment, and in 2005, Canada published an updated stock assessment for porbeagle sharks.
Both fishermen and environmentalists have requested NMFS to lower the porbeagle shark quota
and strengthen the regulations in response. In August 2005, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission agreed to develop a coast-wide shark fishery management plan for state waters. In
October 2005, NMFS began the process to update the LCS stock assessment; this assessment
should be done in 2006. Also in 2005, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council requested
jurisdiction to manage smooth dogfish. NMFS has also conducted a species-specific stock
assessment for dusky sharks that is undergoing internal review. NMFS expects to update the
SCS stock assessment starting in early 2007. Based on these many stock assessments and
changes, NMFS realizes there may be a need to adjust current quotas for certain species. Besides
this information, public comments have continued to raise concerns over particular management
measures. Thus, future rulemaking may also consider, as needed, other modifications including,
but not limited to, the mid-Atlantic time/area closure, changes to the LCS trip limit, changes to
the upgrading restrictions and/or incidental trip limits, changes to the prohibited species list,
reporting for recreational fishermen, changes to authorized gear, and changes to the management
unit. Additionally, in early 2006, a right whale calf was found dead with gillnet lacerations.
Thus, the gillnet fishery in the right whale critical habitat was closed for the last part of the
calving season through March 31, 2006 (February 16, 2006, 71 FR 8223). The Office of
Protected Resources is currently considering this issue in light of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Given this and repeated requests by the
State of Georgia and others, NMFS may need to conduct a rulemaking to reconsider the use of
gillnet gear in Atlantic shark fisheries.
ƒ

HMS Permit Reform

In the 1990s, NMFS issued shark and swordfish permits that were essentially speciesbased but also allowed fishermen to catch tunas other than non-bluefin tuna. NMFS also issued
bluefin tuna permits that were established by gear type. In 1999, NMFS established a limited
access permit system for tuna longline, swordfish, and sharks. Since then, NMFS has also
implemented two overarching permits for those fishermen fishing for any HMS: angling and
charter/headboat. Thus, fishermen fishing for HMS now have a variety of required permits to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-19

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

choose from, some of which are species-based and some of which are gear-based. Once the
fisherman chooses to use one particular required permit, the fisherman must fish for that species
with the particular gear authorized by that permit (i.e., they are placed in a box). This has caused
concern and has raised a number of complicated questions and answers. Thus, NMFS intends to
conduct a rulemaking regarding HMS permits that could include, among other things, further
rationalizing some segments of the HMS fisheries, streamlining or simplifying the permitting
process, restructuring the permit program (gear-based, species-based, or both), reopening some
segments of the limited access system to allow for the issuance of additional permits, modifying
when permits are renewed (fishing year or birth month), and considering dedicated access
privileges (e.g., individual transferable permits).
ƒ

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Monitoring

Timely and reliable data is critical for fishery management. Thus, NMFS is always
striving to improve its data collection. Data for HMS fisheries is collected in a number of ways
including through self-reported methods, such as logbooks or call-in systems, and through
observers. Observer data are generally considered to be of higher quality; however, observer
programs are expensive to operate and the majority of fishing effort is conducted without
observers. Recent Biological Opinions pertaining to HMS fisheries require NMFS to collect
observer information specific to sea turtles and marine mammals on pelagic longline vessels and
commercial vessels participating in the Atlantic shark fisheries. Observer data collection in other
HMS fisheries, including the recreational and Charter/Headboat fisheries, is voluntary at this
time. Commercial fishermen in some HMS fisheries are required to submit logbooks. Many
fishermen have asked for electronic or real-time reporting. Similarly, HMS dealers must submit
dealer reports and many of them have asked for electronic reporting.
NMFS also collects commercial fisheries data via vessel monitoring systems (VMS). In
HMS, pelagic longline, bottom longline, and gillnet fishermen are all required to use VMS
during certain seasons. All VMS units need to be turned on and operating two hours before the
vessel leaves port until the vessel returns to port. NMFS and fishermen have had problems with
VMS not operating while the vessel is away from port. Some VMS units do not have any
indicator light or other method for fishermen to see if the unit is working. Fishermen have also
commented that certain brands appear to be unreliable. NMFS enforcement has indicated that
hourly reporting may not be frequent enough for all of their needs.
Recreational fisheries are a major component of Atlantic HMS fisheries, and because
recreational landings of Atlantic HMS are not marketed through commercial channels, it is not
possible to monitor anglers’ catches through ex-vessel transactions as in the commercial fishery.
Instead, NMFS collects data through other means including the two primary statistical sampling
surveys of the recreational fisheries: the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS)
and the Large Pelagics Survey (LPS). Both surveys consist of a telephone survey to estimate
effort and a dockside intercept program to collect CPUE data or landings information. The
utility and accuracy of both surveys has been questioned in recent years. NMFS also uses other
programs to collect information on recreational fisheries for Atlantic HMS, including tournament
registration and reporting and angler self-reporting systems. Mandatory call-in systems were
implemented in 1997 for bluefin tuna, and in 2003 for Atlantic billfish and swordfish. NMFS is
also working cooperatively with individual states to develop more effective monitoring of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-20

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Atlantic HMS recreational fisheries. North Carolina and Maryland both employ catch card and
body tag systems that may serve as a model for future recreational data collection efforts.
Despite these data collection systems, NMFS seeks to further enhance its commercial and
recreational data collection efforts. NMFS believes that better administration and coordination
of reporting programs and requirements for dealers and fishermen of HMS species can ultimately
streamline reporting requirements and procedures, thereby ensuring that information necessary
for the management of HMS species is collected more efficiently and with less burden on
fishermen. As such, NMFS would like to explore methods to improve the accuracy of data,
either through rules or through administrative methods. However, stakeholders must also realize
that quality data is dependent on their cooperation and efforts, including submission of accurate
commercial and recreational landings on a timely basis. Some of the preferred measures in this
FMP will begin to facilitate this improvement of data collected from HMS fisheries (e.g., shark
identification dealer workshops and the ability in the future for BFT dealers to report
electronically). Additional changes are possible in the future.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1-21

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 2 Table of Contents......................................................................................................2-i

Chapter 2 List of Tables ............................................................................................................2-ii

Chapter 2 List of Figures ..........................................................................................................2-ii

2.0
Summary of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1
Bycatch Reduction ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1
Workshops ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1.1 Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops for

Pelagic Longline, Bottom Longline, and Gillnet Fishermen ........................................... 2-1

2.1.1.2 HMS Identification Workshops ....................................................................... 2-5

2.1.2
Time/Area Closures ............................................................................................. 2-9

2.2
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing..................................................................... 2-25

2.2.1
Northern Albacore Tuna .................................................................................... 2-25

2.2.2
Finetooth Sharks ................................................................................................ 2-26

2.2.3
Atlantic Billfish.................................................................................................. 2-30

2.3
Management Program Structure ................................................................................ 2-33

2.3.1
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Management........................................................ 2-33

2.3.1.1 BFT Quota Management in the General and Angling Categories................. 2-33

2.3.1.2 Annual BFT Quota Adjustments ................................................................... 2-41

2.3.1.3 Inseason Actions ............................................................................................ 2-45

2.3.2
Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries .................................... 2-48

2.3.3
Authorized Fishing Gear.................................................................................... 2-49

2.3.4
Regulatory Housekeeping.................................................................................. 2-58

2.3.4.1 Proposed Regulatory Changes That Do Not Need Alternatives.................... 2-59

2.3.4.2 Alternatives .................................................................................................... 2-71

Chapter 2 References............................................................................................................... 2-83

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-i

CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 2.2

Summary and status of activities, anticipated results, and associated timelines for
preventing overfishing of finetooth sharks. ....................................................... 2-28
List of Proposed Regulatory Changes................................................................ 2-59

CHAPTER 2 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5

Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7

Figure 2.8

Figure 2.9
Figure 2.10
Figure 2.11

Existing time/area closures in HMS fisheries. Inset shows extent of the Northeast
Distant restricted fishing area. All closures except the Mid-Atlantic are applicable
to pelagic longline gear only. The Mid-Atlantic Closure is applicable to bottom
longline gear only. Note: the Northeast Distant (NED) was a closed area to all
vessels as of 2001. It became the NED Restricted Fishing Area on June 30, 2004
when it was opened to those participating in the NED experiment................... 2-19
Map showing areas being considered for new time/area closures to reduce nontarget HMS and protected species interactions.................................................. 2-20
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures. Note: only
alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed............................................... 2-21
Pelagic and Bottom Longline Sets in the Madison-Swanson (upper left) and
Steamboat Lumps (lower right) Marine Reserves. Note: one set for the
Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP) was in 2005. Although
not indicated, no new sets were recorded for the CSFOP in 2004. Source: HMS
Logbook, Pelagic Observer Program, and CSFOP. The Desoto Canyon closure is
also shown for reference. ................................................................................... 2-22
Map showing the potential closed area to bottom longline gear to reduce bycatch
of endangered smalltooth sawfish. Grey dots are locations of observed bottom
longline sets. Source: CSFOP 1994-2006......................................................... 2-23
Map showing time/area closure alternatives considered but not further analyzed at
this time to reduce white marlin and other protected species interactions. ....... 2-24
The New York Bight set-aside is defined as an area comprising the waters South
and West of a straight line originating at a point on the southern shore of Long
Island, NY, at 72º 27’ W. Long. (Shinnecock Inlet) and running South southeast
150º true, and north of 38º 47’ N. Lat................................................................ 2-34
Alternative F1: No Action. Suballocation of the BFT General Category Quota
among the current three time-periods. New York Bight set-aside is subtracted
from the General Category quota and then the time-period allocations are
determined.......................................................................................................... 2-35
The Angling category North/South dividing line, located at 39º 18’ N. Lat. (Great
Egg Inlet, NJ). .................................................................................................... 2-36
Alternative F3a: Equal General category subquota allocation percentages for each
month of the BFT fishing season. ...................................................................... 2-38
Alternative F3b: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation
percentages......................................................................................................... 2-39

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-ii

CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 2.12
Figure 2.13
Figure 2.14
Figure 2.15
Figure 2.16
Figure 2.17
Figure 2.18

Alternative F3c: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation
percentages......................................................................................................... 2-40
Alternative F3d: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation
percentages embodying the NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking......................... 2-40
Alternative F5: No Action. U.S. BFT Domestic Quota Category Allocation
Percentages. ....................................................................................................... 2-42
A Diagram of a Typical Speargun Fishing Gear Configuration (courtesy of
Matthew Richards)............................................................................................. 2-51
A Diagram of the Recreational Configuration of Green-stick Fishing Gear.
Source: Wescott, 1996 ....................................................................................... 2-54
A Diagram of the Commercial Configuration of Green-stick Fishing Gear.
Source: Wescott, 1996 ....................................................................................... 2-55
A Diagram of a Buoy Gear with Four Floatation Devices Attached (courtesy of
Dave Meyer). ..................................................................................................... 2-57

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-iii

CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

2.0

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1

Bycatch Reduction
2.1.1

Workshops

2.1.1.1 Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops for
Pelagic Longline, Bottom Longline, and Gillnet Fishermen
These workshops are intended to reduce the mortality of sea turtles, marine mammals,
and other protected species captured incidentally in the HMS pelagic longline (PLL), bottom
longline (BLL), and gillnet fisheries. These workshops would disseminate information and
demonstrate techniques specific to sea turtle safe handling and release protocols as per the
current NMFS standards. Through these workshops, participants would be trained to safely
disentangle, resuscitate, and release captured sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, other protected
species and non-target species, would teach participants how to properly identify protected
species, and would provide information on key morphological characteristics, distribution, and
basic life history to improve positive identification of protected species. Due to the nature of the
workshop subject matter, hands-on training and interaction with the workshop leader is vital for
initial skill development and certification. During these workshops, participants would be given
a comprehensive hands-on examination, which, upon successful completion, would result in a
multi-year certification. After the initial series of workshops, the Agency would continue to
provide certification opportunities for permitted HMS fishery participants. Certification would
be renewed on a specified timetable (i.e., 2, 3, or 5-year timetable) to ensure that the latest
techniques to disentangle, release, and identify protected species are used. Additional
certification requirements may be warranted in the future based upon reinitiation of consultation
with the NMFS Office of Protected Resources or the receipt of significant new information
related to handling and release protocols. While the workshop alternatives may be mandatory
for certain individuals, to the extent practicable, the workshops would be open to interested
individuals who wish to receive the workshop certification on a voluntary basis.
Alternative A1

Voluntary protected species safe handling, release, and identification
workshops for longline fishermen (No Action)

Under alternative A1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would continue to provide
voluntary safe handling and release workshops for PLL and BLL fishermen and continue to
distribute wheelhouse placards, protocols, and educational videos, as well as disseminate
additional information through the activities of the NMFS PLL Point of Contact (POC). No
mandatory requirements would be implemented under this alternative.
Alternative A2

Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification
workshops and certification for all HMS pelagic or bottom longline vessel
owners – Preferred Alternative

Alternative A2 would require mandatory workshops and certification for all vessel
owners that have pelagic or bottom longline gear on their vessel and that have been issued or are
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-1

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

required to be issued any of the HMS limited access permits (LAPs) to participate in HMS
longline fisheries. Only HMS LAP owners with PLL or BLL gear on board their vessel are
required to attend the workshop and receive a workshop certificate. These workshops would
provide information and ensure proficiency with the safe handling, disentanglement,
resuscitation, and release techniques for sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other protected
species. Additionally, the workshops would teach participants how to properly identify protected
species, and provide information on key morphological characteristics, distribution, and basic
life history to improve positive identification of protected species.
To receive their workshop certification, HMS LAP owners that fish with PLL or BLL
gear would attend a workshop and demonstrate their understanding of the safe handling,
disentanglement, resuscitation, release, and identification techniques. It is a refutable
presumption that vessel owners and/or operators fish with longline gear if longline is on board
the vessel; logbook reports indicate that longline gear was used on at least one trip in the
preceding year; or in the case of a permit transfer to new owners that occurred less than a year
ago, logbook reports indicate that longline gear was used on at least one trip since the permit
transfer. HMS LAP(s) owners with PLL or BLL on board the vessel would be required to obtain
their initial workshop certification prior to renewing their shark and swordfish limited access
permit(s) in 2007. If the vessel owner holds multiple HMS LAPs, the owner would need to be
certified prior to the earliest expiring shark or swordfish LAP in 2007.
For permit holders required to attend the workshop and receive a certificate, the permit
holder must show a copy of their HMS permit, as well as proof of identification. If a permit
holder is a corporation, partnership, association, or any other entity, the individual attending on
behalf of the permit holder must show proof that he or she is the permit holder’s agent and a
copy of the HMS permit. The workshop certification would not be transferable to any other
person and would state the name of the permit holder on the certificate. If acquiring an HMS
LAP from a previous permit holder, the new owner would need to obtain a workshop
certification prior to transferring the permit into the new owner’s name. A copy of the owner’s
workshop certificate must be kept on board the vessel at all times.
The schedule for the protected species workshops would be available in advance to allow
permit holders to select the workshop closest to them and most convenient to their schedule. If a
permit holder is unable to attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS would consider granting one-on­
one workshop training at the expense of the permit holder.
All owners that attended and successfully completed the industry-sponsored certification
workshops, as documented by workshop facilitators, held on April 8, 2005, in Orlando, Florida,
and on June 27, 2005, in New Orleans, Louisiana, would automatically receive valid protected
species workshop certificates.
Alternative A3

Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification
workshops and certification for vessel operators actively participating in
HMS pelagic and bottom longline fisheries – Preferred Alternative

Alternative A3 would require mandatory workshops and certification for vessel operators
who intend to participate in HMS longline fisheries. Alternative A3 would ensure that at least
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-2

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

one person on board and directly involved with a vessel’s fishing activities is certified in the
release and disentanglement protocols and identification of protected species.
The initial operator certification would be linked to the renewal of the vessel’s HMS
shark and swordfish LAP(s) in 2007; therefore, an operator would need to attend a workshop and
receive the certification prior to the owner renewing any of the vessel’s HMS shark and
swordfish LAP(s) in 2007. If the vessel owner holds multiple HMS LAPs, the operator would
need to be certified prior to the earliest expiration date on the either the shark or swordfish
limited access permit in 2007. After the initial certification, the operator’s certification is no
longer linked to the renewal of a vessel’s HMS LAPs and would need to be renewed prior to the
expiration date on the operator’s workshop certificate. The workshop certification would not be
transferable to any other person and would have the operator’s name on the certificate.
If the vessel’s HMS LAP(s) has not yet expired in 2007, the operator has until the
expiration of the vessel’s HMS LAP(s) to continue operating the vessel without a workshop
certification. If the vessel’s shark or swordfish LAP has already been renewed in 2007, the
operator would need to be certified and have a workshop certificate on board the vessel. After
renewing the vessel’s shark or swordfish LAP in 2007, operating a vessel with longline gear
without a certified operator and a copy of the certificate on board would be illegal.
Operators are encouraged to transfer the knowledge and skills obtained from successfully
completing the workshops to the crew members, potentially increasing the proper handling and
release protocols, and identification of protected species. While crew members are not required
to attend the workshops, to the extent practicable, the workshops would be open to anyone who
wishes to attend and receive certification.
The schedule for the protected species workshops would be available in advance to allow
operators to select the workshop closest to them and most convenient to their schedule. If an
operator is unable to attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS would consider granting one-on-one
workshop training at the expense of the individual.
All operators that attended and successfully completed the industry certification
workshops, as documented by workshop facilitators, held on April 8, 2005, in Orlando, Florida,
and on June 27, 2005, in New Orleans, Louisiana, would automatically receive valid protected
species workshop certificates.
Alternative A4

Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification
workshops and certification for all HMS longline vessel owners, operators,
and crew

Alternative A4 would require mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and
identification workshops and certification for all HMS longline vessel owners, operators, and
crewmembers. Attendance and successful completion of a workshop would be linked to an
owner’s ability to renew an HMS permit. This alternative would allow the Agency to certify at
least two individuals per vessel that would be associated with fishing activities on board the
vessel. Unless the owners, operators, and crew attend and successfully complete the workshop,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-3

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

an HMS permit would not be issued to the vessel. At least one trained person must be onboard
during fishing activities to provide proof of certification.
Alternative A5

Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification
workshops and certification for shark gillnet vessel owners and operators –
Preferred Alternative

Alternative A5 would require mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and
identification workshops and certification for all shark gillnet vessel owners that have been
issued a Federal directed or indirect shark permit, as well as gillnet vessel operators. It is a
rebuttable presumption that vessel owners and/or operators fish with gillnet gear if a gillnet is on
board the vessel; logbook reports indicate that gillnet gear was used on at least one trip in the
preceding year; or in the case of a permit transfer to new owners that occurred less than a year
ago, logbook reports indicate that gillnet gear was used on at least one trip since the permit
transfer. These workshops would provide information and ensure proficiency with the safe
handling and release techniques for sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other protected species.
Additionally, the workshops would teach participants the proper identification of protected
species, and would provide information on key morphological characteristics, distribution, and
basic life history to improve positive identification of protected species.
Attendance and successful completion of a workshop would be linked to an owner’s
ability to renew an HMS fishing permit. A copy of the owner’s workshop certificate would need
to be submitted with the HMS LAP renewal request as proof of successful completion of the
protected species workshops. Shark gillnet vessel owners would be required to attend a
workshop and receive a certification prior to the expiration date on their shark LAP in 2007 to
renew their permit. For their initial certification only, an operator would also need to attend a
workshop and receive the certification prior to renewing the vessel’s shark permit in 2007. After
the initial certification, the operator’s certification is no longer linked to the renewal of the
vessel’s permit and would need to be renewed prior to the expiration date on the operator’s
workshop certificate.
For shark permit holders required to attend the workshop and receive a certificate, the
permit holder must show a copy of their shark LAP, as well as proof of identification. If a
permit holder is a corporation, partnership, association, or any other entity, the individual
attending on behalf of the permit holder must show proof that he or she is the permit holder’s
agent and a copy of the shark LAP. The workshop certification would not be transferable to any
other person and would state the name of the permit holder on the certificate. If acquiring a
shark LAP from a previous permit holder, the new owner would need to obtain a workshop
certification prior to transferring the permit into the new owner’s name.
If the vessel’s directed or indirect shark permit has not yet expired in 2007, the owner and
operator would have until the expiration of the permit to continue operating the vessel without a
workshop certification. If the vessel’s shark permit has already been renewed in 2007, the owner
and operator would need to have a workshop certificate on board the vessel. Both the owner’s
and operator’s workshop certificate would need to be kept on board the vessel to verify
successful completion of the safe release, disentanglement, and identification workshop. This
alternative would ensure that at least one person on the vessel, who is directly involved with a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-4

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

vessel’s fishing activities, is certified in the safe handling and release protocols and identification
of protected species.
The schedule for the protected species workshops would be available in advance to allow
owners and operators to select the workshop closest to them and most convenient to their
schedule. If an owner or operator is unable to attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS would
consider granting one-on-one workshop training at the expense of the individual.
Alternative A6

Protected species safe handling, release, and identification certification
renewal every 3-years – Preferred Alternative

Alternative A6 would require the renewal of the mandatory protected species safe
handling, release, and identification workshop certifications every three years. Permit holders
employing longline or gillnet gear, including those grandfathered into these requirements, would
be required to attain recertification every three years before renewing their shark and swordfish
LAPs or tuna longline permits. Proof of the owner’s valid workshop certification would need to
be submitted to renew an HMS permit. Operators, including those grandfathered into these
requirements, would need to renew the workshop certification every three years prior to the
expiration date on the workshop certification.
Once the first round of certifications are complete, NMFS would explore alternative
means for renewing permits, including online or mail-in options. The Agency also hopes to
develop an online program that would serve as a medium for providing up-to-date information
regarding protected species handling techniques. In addition to considering alternative
timetables for certification renewal (i.e., every two or five years), NMFS considered combining
this alternative with each of the mandatory workshop alternatives listed above in the DEIS.
2.1.1.2

HMS Identification Workshops

Proper identification of HMS, as well as threatened and endangered species that
fishermen may interact with while pursuing HMS, is paramount to the efficacy of HMS
regulations and management. Permitted fish dealers and fishermen are responsible for accurately
identifying HMS on the dealer reports and logbooks submitted to NMFS. These reports form the
basis of quota monitoring activities and stock assessments. Misidentification of HMS can
negatively impact stock assessments, calculation of season lengths, and influence the criteria
used to designate certain species as prohibited. Identification workshops would help shark
dealers and/or their proxies improve their shark identification skills. These workshops would be
most effective if held at venues where live and/or freshly dead specimens could be displayed.
After the initial series of workshops, the Agency would continue to provide certification
opportunities for permitted HMS fishery participants. The preferred alternative would require
the renewal of HMS identification certifications on a three-year timetable to ensure that the latest
techniques to properly identify commonly caught HMS are used. While the workshop
alternatives may be mandatory for certain individuals, to the extent practicable, the workshops
would be open to interested individuals who wish to receive the workshop certification on a
voluntary basis (e.g., fishermen, dealers, law enforcement officials, and port agents).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-5

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative A7

No HMS identification workshops (No Action)

Under alternative A7, the No Action alternative, NMFS would continue to support
dissemination of information through the Guide to Sharks, Tunas, & Billfishes of U.S. Atlantic
& Gulf of Mexico, to enhance fishery participant’s ability to accurately identify species
commonly caught in HMS fisheries. No mandatory requirements would be implemented under
this alternative.
Alternative A8

Voluntary HMS identification workshops for dealers, all commercial vessel
owners and operators, and recreational fishermen

Under alternative A8, NMFS would hold voluntary HMS identification workshops for
dealers, commercial vessel owners and operators, and recreational fishermen. These workshops
would be held in addition to the items listed under the No Action alternative (A7) above. No
mandatory requirements would be implemented under this alternative.
Alternative A9

Mandatory shark identification workshops for all shark dealers – Preferred
Alternative

Alternative A9 would require mandatory shark identification workshops for all Federally
permitted shark dealers. Attendance and successful completion of a workshop would be linked
to a dealer’s ability to renew their Federal shark dealer permit. All Federally permitted shark
dealers would have to successfully complete the shark identification workshop by December 31,
2007. The permit holder would be required to submit proof of a workshop certification when
renewing the shark dealer permit. Also, proof of a workshop certification would need to be
available at the dealer’s place of business for inspection. Without a certificate indicating
successful completion of the workshop, Federal shark dealer permit would not be issued. Shark
identification workshops would be mandatory for Federally permitted shark dealers, but, to the
extent possible, these workshops would be open to other interested individuals (e.g., individuals
participating in the shark fishery, port agents, law enforcement officers, state shark dealers, and
recreational fishermen) on a voluntary basis.
If the permitted dealer is unable to attend or is not directly involved in species
identification, then a proxy could be sent to meet mandatory attendance and certification
requirements. The proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business
covered by the dealer’s permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, or first
receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and is involved in filling out dealer reports. If
a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer would be required to designate a proxy for each place of
business covered by the dealer’s permit. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy.
Under this alternative, Federally permitted shark dealers would be held accountable for ensuring
that the appropriate individuals receive the proper training in shark identification. NMFS
encourages shark dealers to send as many proxies as necessary to train the individuals
responsible for shark species identification within the dealer’s business. Multiple trained and
certified proxies per shark dealer would ensure that the dealer has at least one person on staff
with the workshop certification and skills to properly identify sharks.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-6

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

For shark dealers required to attend the Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate,
the dealer must show a copy of their HMS permit, as well as proof of identification. If a permit
holder is a corporation, partnership, association, or any other entity, the individual attending on
behalf of the permit holder must show proof that he or she is the permit holder’s agent, as well as
a copy of the HMS permit. For proxies attending on behalf of a shark dealer permit holder, the
proxy must have documentation from the permit holder acknowledging that the proxy is
attending the workshop on behalf of the Atlantic shark dealer permit holder and must show a
copy of the Atlantic shark dealer permit. A dealer or the designated proxy would be required to
bring a copy of the dealer permit to the workshop to guarantee that the dealer receives credit for
the certification, as the workshop certification would be linked to the dealer’s permit number.
The schedule for shark identification workshops would be available in advance to allow
dealers and proxies to select the workshop closest to them and most convenient to their schedule.
If a dealer and/or proxy are unable to attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS would consider
granting one-on-one workshop training at the expense of the shark dealer permit holder. One­
on-one training sessions could also accommodate the replacement of a proxy whose employment
was terminated on short notice.
Alternative A10 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all swordfish, shark, and
or/tuna dealers
Alternative A10 would require mandatory HMS identification workshops for all
swordfish, shark, and/or tuna dealers. Attendance and successful completion of a workshop
would be linked to a dealer’s ability to renew a Federal dealer permit. If the permitted dealer
was unable to attend or is not directly involved in dealer activities, then a proxy could be sent to
meet mandatory attendance requirements. If a dealer opts to send a proxy, then the dealer must
designate a proxy from each place of business covered by the dealer’s permit. A proxy must be a
person who is employed by a place of business, covered by a dealer’s permit, a primary
participant in identification, weighing, or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel,
and involved in filling out dealer reports. Without a certificate indicating successful completion
of the workshop, no permit would be issued.
Alternative A11 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial longline vessel
owners
Alternative A11 would require mandatory HMS identification workshops for all vessel
owners issued HMS LAPs and using longline gear. Attendance and successful completion of a
workshop would be linked to an owner’s ability to renew a HMS fishing permit. Without a
certificate indicating successful completion of the workshop, a HMS permit or permit renewal
would not be issued to a vessel that has logbook reports indicating longline use.
Alternative A12 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial longline vessel
operators
Alternative A12 would require mandatory HMS identification workshops for all
commercial longline vessel operators. The initial operator certification would be linked to the

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-7

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

vessel’s HMS permit renewal. An operator would need to attend a workshop and receive the
certification prior to the renewal of the vessel’s HMS permit in 2007.
Alternative A13 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial vessel owners
(longline, CHB, General category, and handgear/harpoon)
Alternative A13 would require mandatory HMS identification workshops for all
commercial vessel owners with an HMS permit. Attendance and successful completion of a
workshop would be linked to an owner’s ability to renew a HMS fishing permit. Without a
certificate indicating successful completion of the workshop, a HMS permit would not be issued
to the vessel.
Alternative A14 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial vessel operators
(longline, CHB, General category, and handgear/harpoon)
Alternative A14 would require mandatory HMS identification workshops for all
commercial vessel operators. The initial operator certification would be linked to the vessel’s
HMS permit renewal. An operator would need to attend a workshop and receive the certification
prior to renewing the vessel’s certification in 2007.
Alternative A15 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all HMS Angling category
permit holders
Alternative A15 would require mandatory HMS identification workshops for all HMS
Angling permit holders, the largest category of HMS permit holders. Attendance and successful
completion of a workshop would be linked to an owner’s ability to renew a HMS Angling
category fishing permit. Without a certificate indicating successful completion of the workshop,
no HMS Angling category permit would be issued.
Alternative A16 HMS identification certification renewal every 3-years – Preferred Alternative
Alternative A16 would require renewal of mandatory HMS identification workshop
certifications every three years. In conjunction with alternative A9, Federally permitted shark
dealers would be required to recertify every three years before renewing their Federal dealer
permits. Proof of a valid workshop certification would need to be submitted to renew their
Federal dealer permit. If the dealer opts to send a proxy or proxies, a copy of a workshop
certificate for every business covered by the dealer’s permit must be included with the renewal
application.
Due to the nature of workshop subject matter, hands-on training and interaction with the
workshop leader is vital for initial skill development and certification. Once the first round of
certifications are complete, NMFS would explore alternative means for renewing permits,
including online or mail-in options. The Agency also hopes to develop an online program that
would serve as a medium for providing up-to-date information regarding HMS identification. In
addition to considering alternative timetables for certification renewal (i.e., every two or five
years), NMFS considered combining this alternative with each of the mandatory workshop
alternatives listed above.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-8

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Other workshop alternatives considered but not further analyzed at this time
Alternative A17

Compliance With, and Understanding of, HMS Regulations

Constituents have expressed concern over the complexity of HMS regulations.
Workshops providing a thorough explanation of HMS regulations and management history
would likely be beneficial and may result in improved public relations on behalf of the Agency,
improved compliance with regulations, and understanding of the HMS regulatory process.
During the scoping process for the Issues and Options Paper and Pre-draft for this
document, NMFS received comments noting that workshops held by the agency should be
prioritized. Furthermore, comments received were supportive of continuing to disseminate
information pertaining to HMS regulations (e.g., annual HMS Compliance Guide) rather than
spending Federal dollars to hold workshops on regulations at this time. Advisory Panel members
were supportive of focusing on mandatory requirements (i.e., workshops required under
Biological Opinions and other mandates) first and then following up with additional hard copy
outreach materials to meet regulatory informational needs. Since NMFS already disseminates
this type of information on a regular basis and given that this information can be distributed to
participants attending either the handling/release and/or identification workshops, this alternative
is not being further analyzed at this time. NMFS may reconsider this alternative in the future, if
appropriate.
2.1.2

Time/Area Closures

The first time/area closure for HMS was implemented in the 1999 FMP with the
Northeastern U.S. closure off New Jersey in June 1999 to reduce bluefin tuna (BFT) discards.
Since then, additional closures have been implemented in the DeSoto Canyon (2000), Florida
East Coast (2001), Charleston Bump, Northeast Distant (2001), and the Mid-Atlantic shark
closed area (2005) (Figure 2.1). The goals of all of the HMS time/area closures are to: (1)
maximize the reduction in bycatch; (2) minimize the reduction in the target catch; and (3)
consider impacts on non-target HMS (i.e., BFT) to minimize or reduce non-target catch levels.
These time-area closures have proven to be effective at reducing bycatch. However,
despite these closures, several non-target HMS such as blue and white marlin, sailfish, and BFT
are overfished with overfishing occurring, and protected species, such as leatherback and
loggerhead sea turtles, continue to interact with HMS gears. As a result, NMFS considered
additional closures to further reduce these interactions. However, possibly because of these
closures, landings, such as swordfish, and pelagic longline (PLL) effort have decreased over the
years. Therefore, NMFS considered modifications to existing closures as a means to increase the
catch of Atlantic swordfish.
NMFS considered the following alternatives, ranging from the No Action alternative of
maintaining existing closures to a complete prohibition of certain HMS gear types. Some of the
alternatives are grouped according to the specific objectives of the closed areas. Thus,
alternatives B2(a) through B2(k), B4, and B6 consider new closure areas for HMS to primarily
address white marlin, BFT, sea turtle, and smalltooth sawfish bycatch, whereas alternatives
B3(a) through B3(d) consider alternatives for modifying existing closures. Alternative B5
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-9

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

considers criteria for implementing new closures and/or modifying existing closure whereas
alternative B7 considers prohibiting the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries. For details on the
methods used to consider alternatives and select alternatives for further analysis see Section 4.1.2
and Appendix A.
Alternative B1

Maintain existing time/area closures; no new time/area closures (No Action)

This alternative would maintain the existing time/area closures. It would not implement
any new time/area closures nor modify any existing closures. The current time/area closures are
shown in Figure 2.1.
Alternative B2(a) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the central portion of the
Gulf of Mexico from May through November (7 months), annually
This alternative would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted
to fish for HMS in the central portion of the Gulf of Mexico where blue and white marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, BFT, and leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles have been observed and
reported caught year-round, but with highest concentrations from May through November. This
closure would encompass approximately 11,991 square nautical miles (nm2) and would be
defined as the area within the following coordinates, beginning with the northeastern corner and
proceeding clockwise: 27º 10’ N. latitude (Lat.), 90º 29’ W. longitude (Long.); 25º 47’ N. Lat.,
90º 29’ W. Long.; 25º 47’ N. Lat., 93º 10’ W. Long.; 27º 10’ N. Lat., 93º 10’ W. Long. (Figure
2.2).
Alternative B2(b) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in an area of the Northeast
during the month of June (1 month), each year
This alternative would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted
to fish for HMS in a portion of the Northeast where large numbers of BFT is discarded during
the month of June each year. This closure would encompass approximately 2,251 nm2 and
would be defined as the area within the following coordinates, beginning with the northern-most
corner and proceeding clockwise: 41º 15’ N. Lat., 66º 41’ W. Long.; 40º 48’ N. Lat., 66º 14’ W.
Long.; 39º 50’ N. Lat., 67º 22’ W. Long.; 40º 17’ N. Lat., 67º 49’ W. Long. (Figure 2.2).
Alternative B2(c) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the central Gulf of Mexico
from April through June (3 months), annually
This alternative would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted
to fish for HMS in a central portion of the Gulf of Mexico from April through June (three
months), annually. This area was mainly considered to protect BFT that spawn in the Gulf of
Mexico. NMFS took into account information received in a petition for rulemaking to consider a
closure to reduce BFT discards in a reported spawning area in the Gulf of Mexico (Blue Ocean
Institute et al., 2005; Block et al., 2005). This closure would encompass approximately 101,670
nm2 and would be defined as the area within the following coordinates, beginning with the
northwest corner and proceeding clockwise: 28° 00’ N. Lat., 96° 00’ W. Long.; 28° 00’ N. Lat.,
92° 00’ W. Long.; 29° 00’ N. Lat., 92° 00’ W. Long.; 29° 00’ N. Lat., 86° 00’ W. Long.; 28° 00’
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-10

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

N. Lat., 86° 00’ W. Long.; 28° 00’ N. Lat., 85° 00’ W. Long.; 27° 00’N. Lat., 85° 00’ W. Long.;
27° 00’ N. Lat., 86° 00’ W. Long.; 26° 00’ N. Lat., 86° 00’ W. Long.; 26° 02’ N. Lat., 86° 17’
W. Long.; following the EEZ until 26° 00’ N. Lat., 96° 00’ W. Long. (Figure 2.2).
Alternative B2(d) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico west of
86° W. Longitude year-round
This alternative would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted
to fish for HMS in the Gulf of Mexico west of 86° W. Longitude year-round. This alternative
would close an area where approximately 50 percent of all effort (Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean) and 90 percent of all effort in the Gulf of Mexico has been reported in recent years
(2001 – 2003). Closing this area would help reduce interactions for a number of different
species. This closure would encompass approximately 162,181 nm2 west of 86° 00’ W. Long.,
25° 00’ N. Lat. between the State Territorial Sea and the EEZ boundary (Figure 2.2).
Alternative B2(e) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in an area of the Northeast to
reduce sea turtle interactions year-round
This alternative would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted
to fish for HMS in an area of the Northeast year-round. This area was primarily considered to
reduce loggerhead sea turtle interactions, which occur with greater frequency in this area than in
nearly all other areas. This closure would encompass approximately 46,956 nm2 and would be
defined as the area within the following coordinates, beginning with the western-most corner and
proceeding clockwise: 39° 59’ N. Lat., 71° 50’ W. Long.; 41° 18’ N. Lat., 66° 26’ W. Long.; 40°
27’ N. Lat., 66° 42’ W. Long.; 37° 53’ N. Lat., 70° 28’ W. Long. (Figure 2.2).
Alternative B3(a) Modify the existing Charleston Bump time/area closure to allow the use of
PLL gear in all areas seaward of the axis of the Gulf Stream
This alternative would modify the existing Charleston Bump time/area closure by moving
the eastern boundary at 76º W. Long. to the west following the axis of the Gulf Stream from the
existing northeast corner of the closure southwest to 31º N. Lat., 79º 16’ Long. This alternative
would reopen areas seaward of the axis of the Gulf Stream previously closed to PLL gear from
February 1 through April 30. In particular, this alternative would provide additional opportunity
to harvest North Atlantic swordfish, for which the quota has not been harvested in recent years
(Figure 2.3).
Alternative B3(b) Modify the existing Northeastern U.S. time/area closure to allow the use of
PLL gear in areas west of 72º 47’ W. Long. during the month of June each
year
This alternative would modify the existing Northeastern U.S. time/area closure boundary
to allow PLL gear in areas west of 72º 47’ W. Long. during the month of June each year. This
alternative would reopen an area in which there were historically low numbers of BFT discards.
This alternative would provide additional opportunity to harvest North Atlantic swordfish and
other targeted HMS such as yellowfin tuna (Figure 2.3).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-11

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative B4

Implement complementary HMS management measures in Madison-Swanson
and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves year-round – Preferred alternative

This alternative would implement HMS management measures in the Madison-Swanson
and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves to complement measures for these reserves
recommended by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). These reserves
would prohibit all HMS fishing for all gear types year-round except for surface trolling only
from May through October. The HMS management measures would expire on June 16, 2010,
consistent with GMFMC recommendations. Both of these reserves are located shoreward of the
Desoto Canyon Closed Area. The Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve is 115 nm2 in size,
rectangular-shaped, and is positioned southwest of Apalachicola, FL (29° 17’ N. Lat., 85° 50’ W.
Long. to 29° 17’ N. Lat., 85° 38’ W. Long. to 29° 06’ N. Lat., 85° 38’ W. Long. to 29° 06’ N.
Lat., 85° 50’ W. Long. to 29° 17’ N. Lat., 85° 50’ W. Long.). The Steamboat Lumps marine
reserve is 104 nm2 in size, rectangular-shaped, and is positioned due west of Clearwater, FL (28°
14’ N. Lat., 84° 48’ W. Long. to 28° 14’ N. Lat., 84° 37’ W. Long. to 28° 03’ N. Lat., 84° 37’
W. Long. to 28° 03’ N. Lat., 84° 48’ W. Long. to 28° 14’ N. Lat., 84° 48’ W. Long. (Figure 2.4)
Alternative B5

Establish criteria to consider when implementing new time/area closures or
making modifications to existing time/area closures – Preferred alternative

This alternative would establish criteria for regulatory framework adjustments for
implementing new time/area closures or making modifications to existing time/area closures.
These criteria would provide greater transparency in the decision making process and allow
fishermen more ability to plan for future changes. Consistent with the FMP, the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable law criteria that were identified for consideration, included the
following: any ESA-related issues, concerns, or requirements, including applicable Biological
Opinions; bycatch rates of protected species, prohibited HMS, or non-target species both within
the specified or potential closure area(s) and throughout the fishery; bycatch rates and postrelease mortality rates of bycatch species associated with different gear types; new or updated
landings, bycatch, and fishing effort data; evidence or research indicating that changes to fishing
gear and/or fishing practices can significantly reduce bycatch; social and economic impacts; and
the practicability of implementing new or modified closures compared to other bycatch reduction
options. If the species is an ICCAT-managed species, NMFS would need to determine the
overall effect of the United States’ catch on that species before implementing time/area closures.
NMFS also considered modifying the current closed areas using these same criteria and
GIS mapping techniques to better pinpoint areas of low bycatch within closed areas (based on
catch data from pelagic logbooks collected before an area was closed) (see Section 4.1.2). The
current time/area closures were not intended to be permanent. Rather, NMFS intended to modify
existing closures, as appropriate, to allow utilization of a given fishery consistent with the FMP
once the objective of the time/area closure had been met. Additionally, because fisheries, fishing
gear, fishing practices, and stock status change over time, periodically NMFS must examine the
continued need for existing time/area closures. One method of doing this would be for NMFS to
conduct, fund, or support research, such as testing methods for reducing bycatch of protected,
prohibited, and non-target species. Such research would need to be part of a scientifically
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-12

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

justified research plan, identifying the rationale, objectives, methodology, and experimental
design of the research. The scope and magnitude in terms of ecological and socio-economic
impact would be considered as part of any research proposal. Research in both open and closed
areas may be warranted to collect data on the spatial and temporal relationship between target
and bycatch species and to provide data for use in considering the criteria listed above. Such
research could be cooperative in nature to include different stakeholders in the process.
Alternative B6 Prohibit the use of bottom longline gear in an area southwest of Key West to
protect endangered smalltooth sawfish year-round
This alternative would prohibit the use of bottom longline gear by all U.S. flaggedvessels permitted to fish for HMS in an area southwest of Key West where smalltooth sawfish
have been observed and caught year-round. This area would encompass approximately 49 nm2
and would be defined as the area on the southwest tip of Key West, bordering the state waters
with the following coordinates, beginning with the northwest corner and proceeding clockwise:
24° 29’ N. Lat., 82° 06’ W. Long.; 24° 29’ N. Lat., 82° 02’ W. Long.; 24° 24’ N. Lat., 81° 58’W.
Long.; 24° 23’ N. Lat., 81° 58’ W. Long., 24° 23’N. Lat. 82° 06’ W. Long. (Figure 2.5)
Alternative B7

Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in all areas

This alternative would prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in all areas to
enhance the rebuilding of overfished stocks and reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality.
Other time/area closure alternatives considered but not further analyzed at this time
Below are a number of closure alternatives that were considered and eliminated from
further consideration before being fully analyzed (Figure 2.6). The descriptions below include
the reasons why the alternatives were not further analyzed at this time. More detail about these
alternatives can be found in Appendix A. These alternatives may be considered in the future as
needed.
Alternative B2(f) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the central portion of the
Gulf of Mexico in an area similar to, but larger than the area considered in
alternative B2(a), from May through November (7 months), annually
Alternative B2(g) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in an area off the Northeast Atlantic coast from
the 200 meter contour to the 2000 meter contour between the eastern tip of
Georges Bank (66º 10’ W. Long.) to Cape Hatteras (35º N. Lat.) from June
through October, annually
Alternative B2(h) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in an area off the Southeast Atlantic coast from
the 200 meter contour to the 2000 meter contour between Cape Hatteras (35º
N. Lat.) and Cape Canaveral (29º N. Lat.) from March through November,
annually

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-13

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative B2(i) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in an area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the
existing Florida East Coast closure from 29º N. to 28º 25’ N. and seaward to
the 2000 meter contour year-round
Alternative B2(j) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico from the
200 meter contour to the 2000 meter contour from the Straits of Florida (82º
W. Long.) to the border between the United States and Mexico (26º N. Lat.)
year-round
Alternative B2(k) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the Caribbean from the 200
meter contour to the 2000 meter contour on the west coast of Puerto Rico
during certain times of each year
Alternative B3(c) Modify the Florida East Coast time/area closure to allow the use of PLL gear
in the northeast and southwest corners of the existing closure
Alternative B3(d) Modify the existing DeSoto Canyon time/area closure to allow the use of PLL
gear in all areas seaward of the 2000 meter contour
Alternative B2(f) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in a portion of the central Gulf of Mexico from May to November,
annually. This is similar to, but larger than the area described in alternative B2(a), where blue
and white marlin, sailfish, spearfish, BFT, and sea turtles have been observed and caught yearround, but with highest concentrations occurring from May through November. Without
redistribution of fishing effort, this closure would result in a relatively large decrease in the
number of discards for blue and white marlin (Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A). This closure
would encompass approximately 17,219 nm2 and would be defined as the area within the
following coordinates, beginning with the northeastern corner and proceeding clockwise: 27º 10’
N. Lat., 89º 11’ W. Long.; 25º 44’ N. Lat., 89º 11’ W. Long.; and following the EEZ boundary to
26º 10’ N. Lat., 93º 10’ W. Long., 27º 10’ N. Lat., 93º 10’ W. Long. (Figure 2.6)
When redistribution of fishing effort was considered, a seven-month closure for
alternative B2(f) was predicted to result in an increase in the number of swordfish, BFT, and
bigeye tuna discards (2,081, 219, and 150 discards over three years for the seven-month closure,
respectively; Table A.5 in Appendix A). NMFS compared possible reductions and increases of
discards and targeted catch with the redistribution of effort for B2(f) with results from other
closures. For instance, B2(f) is larger in size than B2(a). Thus, NMFS would expect a greater
ecological benefit in terms of bycatch reduction from the larger B2(f) closure rather than the
smaller B2(a) closure. However, the model predicted comparable results in terms of bycatch
reduction between B2(a) and B2(f) (Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A). In addition, B2(a)
would not have resulted in as many BFT discards or potentially had as large of a negative
economic impact in terms of a reduction in retained catch as B2(f). B2(f) is also smaller than
B2(d). However, NMFS choose to analyze the larger closure to better assess the ecological,
social and economic impacts of a large B2(d) closure in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, by
further analyzing B2(a) and B2(d), NMFS was able to analyze a range in terms of potential

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-14

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

ecological, social, and economic impacts with regard to the size of a closure in this area of the
Gulf of Mexico.
Alternatives B2(g) – (k) were considered due to their overlap with existing EFH areas for
white marlin and information indicating bycatch of non-target HMS species as well as sea
turtles. NMFS specifically took into account five suggested white marlin time/area closures in
the U.S. EEZ described on page 10 in a February 14, 2002, letter from the Biodiversity Legal
Foundation, re: Atlantic White Marlin Critical Habitat Designation. NMFS agreed to take these
five areas into account, among other things, as part of a settlement agreement in Center for
Biological Diversity v. NMFS, Civ. Action No. 04-0063 (D.D.C.). Data from the Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) logbook (i.e., the logbook the PLL fleet uses) and pelagic observer
program (POP) were analyzed for these specific areas to determine the percent reduction in
discards with and without redistribution of fishing effort (described in detail in Chapter 4 and
Appendix A). The analyses indicated that, while there may be some benefit from closures
without the redistribution of fishing effort, in nearly all cases, bycatch increased with the
redistribution of fishing effort in one or more of these areas, or other areas had higher rates of
bycatch and produced larger ecological benefits with fewer social and economic impacts in the
redistribution of fishing effort analyses. Additionally, because these alternatives follow contour
lines, they would be difficult to enforce and difficult for fishermen to know if they were fishing
inside a closed area or not. Therefore, while NMFS presents some analyses here and in
Appendix A, alternatives B2(g) – (k) were not further analyzed in Chapter 4.
Alternative B2(g) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in portions of the Northeast in areas where white marlin are
concentrated during certain times of the year and have been observed and reported caught from
June through October (Figure 2.6). This time period also corresponds to higher catches of all
other species considered (blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles
and BFT; Table A.10 in Appendix A). Without considering redistribution of fishing effort,
closing B2(g) could result in a reduction in the number of discards for all species considered
(Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A). However, when redistribution of fishing effort was
considered, there was a predicted increase in the number of discards for white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and other sea turtles, with the largest increase in discards
expected for blue marlin, sailfish, and spearfish (20.2, 23.2, and 14.5 percent, respectively; Table
A.2 in Appendix A). Loggerhead sea turtles were the only species with an expected decrease in
discards under the redistribution model. This closure followed contour lines from Maine to
North Carolina. The temporal and spatial aspects of B2(g) are different than any other closures
in this area. B2(b) and B2(e) are also located off the Northeast. A year-round closure for B2(e)
could result in less of an increase in discards of blue marlin, sailfish, and spearfish with
redistribution of effort (Table A.1 in Appendix A). In addition, B2(e) could result in a larger
decrease in leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, and BFT discards (Table A.1 in Appendix A).
However, B2(e) was considered year-round whereas B2(g) was only considered for June through
October. NMFS determined that a one month closure (June) for B2(b) may have a greater
ecological benefit by decreasing the number of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish,
and spearfish. In addition, it could reduce leatherback sea turtle discards as well as loggerhead
sea turtles discards and have a comparable reduction in BFT discards as B2(g) (Table A.2 in

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-15

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Appendix A). Given these results, alternatives B2(b) and B2(e) were further analyzed, while
B2(g) was not.
Alternative B2(h) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in portions of the Southeast where white marlin are concentrated
during certain times of the year and have been observed and caught year-round (Figure 2.6).
Without considering redistribution of fishing effort, the model predicted a small decrease in the
percentage of discards, with the exception of sailfish (Tables A.2 in Appendix A). When
redistribution of fishing effort was considered, the ecological impacts of B2(h) would likely be
minor (the predicted decreases in the number of discards were small and typically less than eight
percent; Table A.2 in Appendix A). There would be almost no decrease in the number of
discards for blue marlin, a slight increase in the number of discards for white marlin, and a
moderate increase in the number of discards of both leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles
(Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A). This closure did not spatially overlap any of the other
closures further analyzed. However, given the minimal ecological benefits for some species and
the negative ecological impact for white marlin and sea turtles, this alternative was not further
analyzed.
Alternative B2(i) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in portions of the east coast of Florida where white marlin are
concentrated during certain times of the year and have been observed and caught year-round
(Figure 2.6). As with B2(h), this closure did not spatially overlap with any of the other closures
that were further analyzed. However, even without considering redistribution of fishing effort,
the reduction in bycatch associated with B2(i) was small, with the highest expected reduction for
blue marlin (316 fish for 3 years or 12.9 percent; Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A). When
redistribution of fishing effort was considered, the model predicted only slight decreases in
discards of white and blue marlin, sailfish and loggerhead sea turtles, with all decreases less than
ten percent (Table A.2 in Appendix A). However, there were predicted increases in spearfish,
leatherback sea turtle, and BFT discards (Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A). Thus, given the
potential negative ecological impacts of this closure, this alternative was not further analyzed.
Alternative B2(j) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in portions of the Gulf of Mexico where white marlin are concentrated
during portions of the year and have been observed and reported caught year-round (Figure 2.6).
Without considering redistribution of fishing effort, B2(j) could have decreased discards of all
species considered, especially blue marlin, sailfish and spearfish (21.6, 43.1, 25.5 percent,
respectively; Table A.2 in Appendix A). However, when redistribution of fishing effort was
considered, the model predicted an increase in the number of discards, especially for loggerhead
sea turtles (22.3 percent; Table A.2 in Appendix A). While there were predicted decreases in
discards of sailfish and spearfish (Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A), the net effect could be a
negative ecological impact. This closure was a spatially large closure in the Gulf of Mexico that
could also have a large economic impact, especially for a year-round closure. Given other
closures in the Gulf of Mexico that were further analyzed (B2(a), B2(c), and B2(d)) varied in
size and time period, this alternative was not further analyzed.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-16

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative B2(k) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in portions of the Caribbean where white marlin are concentrated and
have been observed and caught during certain times of the year (Figure 2.6). Bycatch occurs
primarily from December through April. As with B2(h) and B2(j), this closure did not spatially
overlap with any of the other closures that were further analyzed. However, even without
considering redistribution of fishing effort, the effort and reduction in bycatch associated with
B2(k) was small, with the predicted reduction in the number of hooks and discards extremely
low (less than one percent; Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A). When redistribution of fishing
effort was considered, there was only a slight decrease in the number of discards for white and
blue marlin, and a slight increase in the number of discards for leatherback sea turtles and BFT
discards (less than two percent; Table A.2 in Appendix A.2). Thus, the overall ecological impact
due to this time/area closure would probably be relatively minor, resulting in no net decrease in
discards for any of the species considered. Therefore, this alternative was not further analyzed.
In addition to proposing new closed areas, NMFS considered modifying current or
existing time/area closures (alternatives B3(a) through B3(d)). In general, closed areas
considered for modification (i.e., partial re-opening) were chosen based on examining the PLL
and POP data from 1997 through 1999. The data were analyzed in GIS, allowing NMFS to
identify areas associated with minimal bycatch within current time/area closures for re-opening.
Alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) were chosen for further analysis whereas alternatives B3(c) and
B3(d) were initially examined but not further analyzed based on the reasons outlined below.
Alternative B3(c) would modify the Florida East Coast time/area closure by moving the
eastern boundary at 27º N Lat., 30’ W Long. west to the axis of the Gulf Stream, and then
following the axis of the Gulf Stream north to 31º N Lat., 79º 20’ W. Long. B3(c) would also
move the southernmost boundary of the Florida East Coast closure north from 24º 00’ N Lat. to
24º 10’ N. Lat. between 81º 47’ and 81º 00’ W. Long. (Figure 2.3). This alternative would
reopen these areas to PLL gear year-round. Alternative B3(d) would modify the existing DeSoto
Canyon time/area closure boundary to allow PLL gear in areas seaward of the 2000 meter
contour from 26º N. Lat., 85º 00’ W. Long., to 29º N. Lat., 88º 00’ W. Long. (Figure 2.3). B3(d)
would reopen this area to PLL gear year-round.
The proportion of discarded swordfish versus the number of swordfish kept varied among
the modifications to existing time/area closures (Table A.25 in Appendix A). Both alternatives
B3(c) and B3(d) could have resulted in a larger proportion of discarded swordfish than
alternatives B3(a) or B3(b) (Table A.25 in Appendix A). Minimizing the number of swordfish
caught in B3(d) is important because the average swordfish size was significantly smaller in the
area to be reopened (average size was 108 cm LJFL in the portion considered for reopening;
P = 0.03; Table A.21 in Appendix A) compared to the area to remain closed (Figure A.2 in
Appendix A; average size was 116 cm LJFL in the portion to remain closed; Table A.21 in
Appendix A). In addition, the average swordfish size in B3(d) in the outside area was smaller
than the minimum size limit of 119 cm LJFL (Table A.21 in Appendix A). There were also a
lower proportion of BFT discards in the B3(a) and B3(b) modifications compared to B3(c) and
B3(d) (Table A.25 in Appendix A). Although B3(c) could have resulted in an increase in the
number of landed swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna than either B3(a) or B3(b), it could

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-17

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

have also increased the number of swordfish, bluefin, yellowfin and bigeye tuna discards (Table
A.25 in Appendix A).
In terms of bycatch, B3(c) or B3(d) could result in the highest bycatch levels of white and
blue marlin, and sailfish; almost 2.5 times as many white marlin, at least four times as many blue
marlin, and at least ten times as many sailfish could be discarded in the B3(c) and B3(d)
modifications compared to the B3(a) or B3(b) modification (Table A.24 in Appendix A). Such
high levels of bycatch associated with B3(c) or B3(d) may have a larger negative ecological
impact compared to B3(a) or B3(b); thus, NMFS only analyzed alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) in
Chapter 4.

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-18

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 2.1 Existing time/area closures in HMS fisheries. Inset shows extent of the Northeast Distant restricted fishing area. All closures except the MidAtlantic are applicable to pelagic longline gear only. The Mid-Atlantic Closure is applicable to bottom longline gear only. Note: the Northeast
Distant (NED) was a closed area to all vessels as of 2001. It became the NED Restricted Fishing Area on June 30, 2004 when it was opened to
those participating in the NED experiment.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-19

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 2.2

Map showing areas being considered for new time/area closures to reduce non-target HMS and protected species interactions.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-20

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 2.3

Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures. Note: only alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-21

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 2.4 Pelagic and Bottom Longline Sets in the Madison-Swanson (upper left) and Steamboat Lumps (lower right) Marine Reserves. Note: one set
for the Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP) was in 2005. Although not indicated, no new sets were recorded for the CSFOP in
2004. Source: HMS Logbook, Pelagic Observer Program, and CSFOP. The Desoto Canyon closure is also shown for reference.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-22

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 2.5

Map showing the potential closed area to bottom longline gear to reduce bycatch of endangered smalltooth sawfish. Grey dots are locations
of observed bottom longline sets. Source: CSFOP 1994-2006.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-23

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 2.6

Map showing time/area closure alternatives considered but not further analyzed at this time to reduce white marlin and other protected
species interactions.

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-24

HAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

2.2

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing
2.2.1

Northern Albacore Tuna

In the October 1999 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, NMFS identified
the northern albacore tuna stock as overfished. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to
develop a rebuilding plan for overfished stocks. Alternatives for developing a rebuilding plan
for northern albacore tuna were presented and discussed in a proposed rule issued on May 24,
2000 (65 FR 33519). The alternatives considered included; no action, a unilateral U.S. action
plan, and a ten-year international rebuilding program negotiated through ICCAT. NMFS
requested comment on those rebuilding alternatives and commenters noted that a rebuilding
program for northern albacore tuna must reflect the magnitude of current landings and consider
year-to-year variability in the U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries. In the final rule,
NMFS indicated that, in establishing the foundation for an international rebuilding program, it
would work through ICCAT to adopt a target stock size together with a time frame for rebuilding
that included flexibility (65 FR 77523, December 12, 2000).
Since the final rule, the U.S delegation to ICCAT has advocated a total allowable catch
(TAC) for northern albacore tuna set at a level less than the current estimate of replacement yield
(34,500 mt ww). Other ICCAT members have not shared the U.S. position that immediate catch
reductions were needed to rebuild the spawning stock biomass to levels that would support
MSY. Consequently, between 2000 and 2003, ICCAT adopted recommendations each year to
set a TAC at the replacement yield level of 34,500 mt ww through 2006, together with country
specific allocations in order to control compliance. In addition, the 1998 recommendation on
limiting vessel capacity for northern albacore has remained in force. Irrespective of the
established TAC, reported catches have been significantly below the replacement yield level in
recent years. Major harvesters (European Union countries) have attributed the decline in catches
to gear changes (shifting from banned gillnets to trolling) and to availability (fish concentrations
further offshore under prevailing oceanographic conditions) rather than further declines in
abundance. If true, the low catches in recent years may have allowed some rebuilding to occur.
As noted above, NMFS previously took comment on the following northern albacore
rebuilding alternatives. Comments were again received on the following alternatives ending
March 1, 2006.
Alternative C1

Maintain compliance with the current ICCAT recommendation (No Action)

Under Alternative C1, NMFS would continue to monitor U.S. northern albacore tuna
fisheries to stay in compliance with the ICCAT-recommended annual U.S. TAC of 607 mt ww,
however; NMFS would not actively pursue the development of an international rebuilding plan,
or seek to establish the foundation for such a plan at future ICCAT meetings.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-25

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Alternative C2

Unilateral proportional reduction of United States northern albacore tuna
fishing mortality

Alternative C2 would establish a reduction in fishing mortality of northern albacore tuna
in U.S. fisheries. This would be a unilateral action setting a proportional reduction below the
current TAC in an effort to begin rebuilding the northern albacore stock. A variety of measures
designed to reduce mortality would be examined, including but not limited to: seasonal closures,
closed areas, quota restrictions, size limits, and retention limits. Those measures found to be
appropriate would be implemented as domestic regulation through separate rulemaking.
Alternative C3

Establish the foundation with ICCAT for developing an international
rebuilding program – Preferred Alternative

This measure would incorporate an ICCAT northern albacore rebuilding program into
this consolidated HMS FMP. Depending on the results of the scheduled 2007 stock assessment,
the United States would, if warranted, seek an international northern albacore tuna rebuilding
program with a target stock level, a time table, and reference points for progress. In order to
rebuild the stock, if the 2007 assessment indicates a similar level of stock abundance below
BMSY, ICCAT would likely have to set the TAC at replacement level or below. The U.S.
landings alone, at around two percent, would likely not provide enough harvest reduction to
rebuild the stock. Under alternative C3, the United States would continue to work through
ICCAT to establish a stock size and rebuilding plan time frame consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act. Such an international rebuilding program should ensure rebuilding to a level
capable of producing MSY with a target stock level, a timetable, and reference points. Once a
plan was established, the United States would comply with ICCAT recommendation(s), with
domestic regulatory action as necessary. Alternative C3 would not require any immediate
domestic regulatory action.
B

2.2.2

Finetooth Sharks

The following alternatives explore a range of management options available to address
overfishing of finetooth sharks. The 2002 stock assessment for Small Coastal Sharks (SCS)
found that overfishing was occurring on finetooth sharks. A more detailed description of the
2002 SCS assessment can be found in Section 3.2.5.
Alternative D1

Maintain current regulations (No Action)

This alternative would maintain fishing mortality at current levels. Finetooth sharks are
managed for recreational and commercial fisheries within the SCS species complex.
Commercial fisheries are managed under a limited access permitting system where new entrants
to the fishery must obtain a previously held permit and transfer it to their vessel, subject to
upgrading restrictions. There are five vessels that target sharks with drift gillnet or strikenet gear
and these vessels are subject to extensive observer coverage. There is no SCS trip limit for
directed permit holders; however, incidental permit holders are limited to 16 SCS and pelagic
sharks combined per vessel per day. Between 1999 and 2004, commercial landings of SCS
ranged from 204-330 mt dw, well below the quota established for SCS (Table 4.2). Most
finetooth sharks are landed by vessels targeting species other than sharks, with gillnet gear, in the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-26

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

South Atlantic region. Recreational anglers must possess an HMS Angling permit and are
subject to a bag limit of one shark (including finetooth shark) greater than 54 inches FL (137 cm)
per vessel per day. The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Service estimated that 14,811 finetooth sharks were landed between 1999 and
2005.
Alternative D2

Implement commercial management measures to reduce fishing mortality of
finetooth sharks

This alternative would implement management measures to reduce finetooth shark
fishing mortality in commercial fisheries targeting sharks. These measures would affect all
vessels in possession of a Federal limited access shark permit. These actions may include any
combination of the following measures, including: a directed trip limit for SCS, gillnet gear
restrictions, prohibiting the use of gillnet gear for landing sharks, reduced soak time for gillnets,
and reducing the overall SCS quota.
Alternative D3

Implement recreational management measures to reduce fishing mortality of
finetooth sharks

This alternative would implement measures aimed at reducing fishing mortality of
finetooth sharks in HMS recreational fisheries. These measures would affect all vessels in
possession of a Federal HMS Angling category permit, CHB permit, and/or General category
permit that target finetooth sharks. This alternative may require the use of circle hooks when
targeting SCS, and/or increasing the minimum size for retention of finetooth sharks. Currently,
anglers may retain one shark over 54 inches (137 cm) per vessel per trip and are permitted to use
circle and J-hooks. This alternative would not affect the minimum size for possession of other
sharks.
Alternative D4

Identify sources of finetooth fishing mortality to target appropriate
management actions (Preferred Alternative)

Landings data from dealer reports, compared to observer data from the Directed Shark
Gillnet Fishery Observer Program (DSGFOP) indicate that the five vessels currently targeting
sharks with drift or strike gillnets are not landing a significant portion of the total catch of
finetooth sharks (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Furthermore, most of these vessels also possess a Spanish
mackerel permit. There are also additional vessels that are permitted to deploy gillnet gear and
possess both a commercial shark limited access permit and a Spanish mackerel permit. These
vessels were not previously considered to be targeting sharks and are not subject to observer
coverage because they were either targeting non-HMS or not fishing gillnets in a strike or drift
fashion.
This alternative would implement a plan to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks that
entails identifying sources of finetooth shark fishing mortality in commercial (gillnet and other)
and recreational fisheries that may not be targeting sharks specifically, but landing them
incidentally to other species. Furthermore, this alternative would also result in improved
collaboration among management entities; this collaboration may be necessary to prevent
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-27

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

overfishing of finetooth sharks because fisheries managed by other management entities may be
contributing to fishing mortality. Additional data collected may also be beneficial to the
upcoming stock assessment for SCS beginning in 2007. Specific activities that may be included
in the Agency’s plan for preventing overfishing and included in this alternative may include, but
would not be limited to: contacting states, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and
Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions to determine which fisheries may be landing finetooth
sharks; contacting state employees responsible for processing finetooth shark landings data to
understand data management protocols and procedures between states and obtain additional
landings data; including finetooth sharks as a select species for bycatch sub-sampling in the Gulf
of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery; selecting vessels that deploy sink gillnet gear and/or target nonHMS for observer coverage under the DSGFOP; analyzing Federal logbook data to determine
seasonality, locations, and which non-HMS are landed on trips that also harvest finetooth sharks;
exploring collaborative management measures with the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council to address the overlap between shark and Spanish mackerel gillnet fisheries; and,
implementing shark identification workshops (alternative A9) for dealers so that they might
become more proficient at identifying finetooth sharks (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Summary and status of activities, anticipated results, and associated timelines for preventing
overfishing of finetooth sharks.
Activity

Anticipated Results

Status

Timeline

Send letters to
Regional Fishery
Management
Councils and
Interstate Marine
Fisheries
Commissions to
determine sources
of finetooth
mortality

Expand information on
fisheries that are landing
finetooth sharks within the
purview of Councils,
Commissions, and state
agencies; Obtain additional
data for SCS assessment;
attain points of contacts with
the various Councils, states,
and Commissions regarding
identification of finetooth
landings; understand how and
where finetooth sharks are
being reported and the
availability of additional
landings data

Contacts for ASMFC
and GMFMC attained;
additional information
on fisheries landing
finetooth sharks in
Federal waters was
obtained

06/2005 (letters sent to Gulf
and South Atlantic Councils
and Gulf and Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries
Commissions seeking
data/information on finetooth
landings)
04/2006 – ongoing
(collaboration/follow-up with
SAFMC initiated because of
overlap between Spanish
mackerel and shark fisheries;
issues surrounding potential
management of kingfish in
Federal waters)

Expand DSGFOP
to include vessels
targeting non-HMS
and/or using sink
gillnet gear

Increase landings information
on finetooth sharks landed
with gillnet gear in Federal
waters of the South Atlantic,
expand available data for SCS
assessment

In 2005, 88 sets
observed on 30 trips
from 8 vessels not
targeting HMS or
fishing with sink
gillnets

2005 (pilot program,
expanded DSGFOP to include
sink-gillnet fishermen, vessels
not targeting HMS)
2006 - ongoing (continue
inclusion of additional vessels
in selection for coverage
under DSGFOP)

Contact individual
states (TX to NC)
to determine data
management
protocols, fisheries

Obtain additional information
on finetooth shark landings,
fisheries deploying gillnets in
state waters, data management
and reporting; Attain state

Contacted state
employees in AL, TX,
NC, FL, LA, MS, and
GA, SC.
Additional landings

2006 - ongoing (inclusion of
finetooth sharks in any state
observer program for bycatch
sampling)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-28

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Activity

Anticipated Results

Status

Timeline

interacting with
finetooth,
regulations, etc.

contacts for future measures to
prevent overfishing of
finetooth sharks

data attained from FL,
AL, LA

Include finetooth
sharks as a select
species in the
Shrimp Trawl
Fishery Observer
Program in the
Gulf of Mexico

Increase bycatch landings
information in the GOM
shrimp trawl fishery, expand
bycatch data for SCS
assessment

Included finetooth
sharks as a select spp.
for bycatch sampling
on shrimp trawl vessels
in GOM

2006 - ongoing

Implement
identification
workshops for
shark dealers
(Alternative A9)

Improve species identification
skills; improve General
Canvass (dealer) data reports

Implementation of
Alternative A9 in 2007;
include all Federal
shark dealer permit
holders

2007 - ongoing

SCS stock
assessment

Update information on the
status of finetooth sharks in
the Atlantic Ocean

First data review
workshop in early 2007

2007

Target appropriate
management
measures as
necessary

Based on stock assessment
and investigating other
sources of mortality,
implement commercial and/or
recreational management
measures as necessary to
prevent overfishing

2007 - 2008

Other alternatives considered but not further analyzed at this time
Alternative D5

Prohibit landings of finetooth sharks in commercial and recreational fisheries.

This alternative would add finetooth sharks to the prohibited species list for commercial
and recreational fisheries. Federally permitted commercial and recreational fishermen would not
be able to land and/or possess finetooth sharks under this alternative. Finetooth sharks would
need to meet at least two of the four criteria defined under 50 CFR Part 635 for inclusion of the
species to the prohibited species list for Atlantic sharks. The existing criteria are: (1) there is
sufficient biological information to indicate the stock warrants protection, such as indications of
depletion or low reproductive potential or the species is on the ESA candidate list; (2) the species
is rarely encountered or observed caught in HMS fisheries, (3) the species is not commonly
encountered or observed caught as bycatch in fishing operations, or (4) the species is difficult to
distinguish from other prohibited species (i.e., look alike issue). Finetooth sharks do not meet
any of the criteria necessary to be considered a prohibited species at this time.
During the development of Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, the Agency considered the addition of finetooth to the list of
prohibited species and concluded:

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-29

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

“This alternative would have limited ecological impacts as finetooth sharks are common
bycatch in non-HMS fisheries and prohibiting them will not prevent their capture. A
reduction in finetooth shark landings in HMS fisheries may not significantly reduce
mortality because they are only a small component of total landings. This alternative
may help to reduce mortality of this species but could also increase waste and
discards...In regard to alternative I6 [prohibited species listing criteria], finetooth sharks
are not depleted and are commonly caught in HMS and non-HMS fisheries. Therefore,
this species does not appear to meet the criteria selected under alternative I6, at this
time”.
The Agency does not have any new information at this time that would alter this
conclusion. Thus, this alternative was not further analyzed at this time. As more information is
collected, NMFS may re-consider if necessary.
2.2.3

Atlantic Billfish

Atlantic blue and white marlins have been identified as overfished with overfishing
continuing. West Atlantic sailfish are considered overfished. The status of blue and white
marlin is characterized by reduced or severely reduced biomass levels and high fishing mortality
rates. In 2002, NMFS conducted an Endangered Species Act (ESA) status listing review for
Atlantic white marlin and determined that a listing was not warranted at that time. Another ESA
status listing review for Atlantic white marlin is scheduled in 2007, and additional conservation
steps taken in advance of that review would be relevant to status review deliberations.
Domestically, directed billfish fishing effort has been reserved for the recreational fishing sector
since 1988, when possession by pelagic longline vessels and sales of Atlantic billfish species
were prohibited. Based on ICCAT data, the United States’ landings (landings and dead discards)
of Atlantic blue and white marlin averaged 2.4 percent and 4.5 percent (respectively) of
aggregate Atlantic-wide landings for these species, as reported to ICCAT for the period 1999­
2004. U.S. landings of West Atlantic sailfish averaged 8.6 percent of aggregate West Atlanticwide sailfish landings, as reported to ICCAT for the period 1999-2004.
The following alternatives represent the range of options that NMFS is considering to
reduce the recreational fishery’s contribution to overfishing and to improve data collection.
Please see section 2.1.2 for alternatives considered to address commercial billfish bycatch issues.
The alternatives include gear restrictions, landings restrictions, and data collection requirements.
Alternative E1

Retain existing regulations regarding recreational billfish fishing, including
permit requirements, minimum size limits, prohibited species, landing form,
allowable gear, and reporting requirements (No Action)

Alternative E1 would maintain the status quo in the domestic Atlantic recreational
billfish fishery. As such, this alternative retains all existing regulations regarding recreational
billfish fishing in the Atlantic Ocean, including permit requirements, minimum size limits,
prohibited species, catch and release fishery management program, landing form, allowable gear,
and reporting requirements, unless specifically modified during this rulemaking.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-30

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Alternative E2

Effective January 1, 2007, limit all participants in Atlantic HMS recreational
fisheries to using only non-offset circle hooks when using natural baits or
natural bait/artificial lure combinations

Alternative E2 would require the use of non-offset circle hooks in all segments of HMS
recreational fisheries, for all species, whenever natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure
combinations are used, beginning on January 1, 2007. This includes HMS Angling category
permitted vessels, Charter/Headboat permitted vessels on for-hire trips, and all General category
permitted vessels participating in registered HMS tournaments. Circle hooks are defined in 50
CFR §635.2 as “a fishing hook originally designed and manufactured so that the point is turned
perpendicularly back to the shank to form a generally circular, or oval, shape.” Natural
bait/artificial lure combinations would include, but are not limited to, rigs such as natural baits
used in combination with artificial hoods, heads, and/or skirts. This alternative would allow the
use of J-hooks with artificial lures.
Alternative E3

Effective January 1, 2007, limit all HMS permitted vessels participating in
Atlantic billfish tournaments to deploying only non-offset circle hooks when
using natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure combinations – Preferred
Alternative

Alternative E3 would require the use of non-offset circle hooks by anglers fishing from
HMS permitted vessels, or vessels required to be permitted, participating in Atlantic billfish
tournaments whenever natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure combinations are used, effective
January 1, 2007. Any tournament that has an award category, or awards points or prizes for
Atlantic billfish is considered a billfish tournament. Circle hooks are defined in 50 CFR §635.2
as “a fishing hook originally designed and manufactured so that the point is turned
perpendicularly back to the shank to form a generally circular, or oval, shape.” Natural
bait/artificial lure combinations would include, but are not limited to, rigs such as natural baits
used in combination with artificial hoods, heads, and/or skirts. This alternative would allow the
use of J-hooks with artificial lures in tournaments. This alternative includes a minor technical
clarification relative to preferred alternative E3, as presented in the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP. As described more fully in Chapter 4, the changes are intended to clarify that circle hook
use is only required aboard HMS permitted vessels participating in Atlantic billfish tournaments
when deploying natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations. The phrasing of
alternative E3 in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP was sufficiently vague to allow other
interpretations of which anglers may be affected by this alternative. This technical clarification
has no effect on the impacts of the alternative, as only permitted HMS vessels may fish for,
catch, or retain Atlantic billfish, and alternative E3 in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP was
analyzed from the vantage point of applying only to HMS permitted vessels.
Alternative E4(a) Increase the minimum legal size for Atlantic white marlin to a specific size
between 68 and 71 inches LJFL (172 - 180 cm)
Alternative E4(a) would increase the minimum legal size for Atlantic white marlin to a
specific size between 68 and 71 inches LJFL (172 - 180 cm) to reduce U. S. landings and/or
mortalities, as appropriate. The sizes presented represent the upper and lower bounds of the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-31

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

sizes analyzed and available for selection, and as such, do not represent consideration of a “slot
limit.”
Alternative E4(b) Increase the minimum size for blue marlin to a specific size between 103 and
106 inches LJFL (261 – 269 cm)
Alternative E4(b) would increase the minimum size for blue marlin to a specific size
between 103 and 106 inches LJFL (261 – 269 cm) to reduce U.S. landings and/or mortalities, as
appropriate. The sizes presented represent the upper and lower bounds of the sizes analyzed and
available for selection, and as such, do not represent consideration of a “slot limit.”
Alternative E5

Implement a recreational bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip

Alternative E5 would implement a recreational bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per
vessel per trip. No more than one Atlantic billfish would be allowed to be possessed, retained, or
landed on, or by, a vessel regardless of the length of the trip.
Alternative E6

Effective January 1, 2007, Implement ICCAT Recommendations on
Recreational Marlin Landings Limits – Preferred Alternative

Alternative E6 would codify ICCAT recommendations pertaining to recreational marlin
landing limits and implement domestic compliance mechanisms. Specifically, this includes an
annual landings-limit of 250 recreationally caught Atlantic blue and white marlin, combined, as
per ICCAT recommendations 00-13 and 04-09. To provide for maximum utilization of the U.S.
recreational Atlantic marlin landing limit without exceeding it, this alternative would allow
NMFS to increase the legal minimum size of blue and/or white marlin, as appropriate. The
anticipated effect of an in-season minimum size increase would be to slow landings, if necessary,
and thereby prevent a shift to catch and release fishing only. Under this alternative, the proposed
size range that would be made available to NMFS for in-season management actions is from 117
to 138 inches for Atlantic blue marlin and 70 to 79 inches for Atlantic white marlin. The need
for action and the specific minimum size temporarily implemented would be based upon a
review of observed landings, time remaining until conclusion of the current fishing year, current
and historical landings trends, and any other relevant factors. As a backstop to ensure that the
U.S.’s actions remain consistent with the ICCAT landing limit, the fishery would become catch
and release only for the remainder of a fishing year if the landing limit were achieved. If marlin
minimum sizes are increased to slow landings during a given fishing year, they would revert
back to the previous minimum size at the start of the next fishing season. Consistent with
ICCAT recommendations, NMFS would subtract any overharvest from the subsequent fishing
year’s landing limit, and could carry forward any underharvest to the subsequent fishing year.
Alternative E7

Effective January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2011, allow only catch and release
fishing for Atlantic white marlin

Alternative E7 would allow only catch and release fishing for Atlantic white marlin.
Possession, retention, and landings of Atlantic white marlin would be prohibited at all times and
under all circumstances. This provision would expire five years from the effective date unless
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-32

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

specifically extended by NMFS. This alternative was preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP. As further described in Chapter 4, NMFS is not selecting this alternative as a preferred
alternative in the final Consolidated HMS FMP, but may consider it in a future rulemaking, as
necessary and appropriate.
Alternative E8

Effective January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2011, allow only catch and release
fishing for Atlantic blue marlin

Alternative E8 would allow only catch and release fishing for Atlantic blue marlin.
Possession, retention, and landings of Atlantic white marlin would be prohibited at all times and
under all circumstances. This provision would expire five years from the effective date unless
specifically extended by NMFS
Other billfish alternatives considered but not further analyzed at this time
Alternative E9

Implement a mandatory Atlantic HMS tournament permit

Alternative E9 would replace the current tournament registration system with a
mandatory tournament permit. A separate permit would be required for each tournament on an
annual basis. Tournament permit applications would be required to be received 45 days in
advance of the tournament to allow NMFS time to process the permit and select tournaments for
reporting, if appropriate. This alternative would not alter reporting requirements. NMFS has
determined that improvements to tournament registration, data collection, and enforceability that
could be achieved under this alternative can be achieved with significantly less burden to the
public and government through implementation of regulatory clarifications contained elsewhere
in this document. Please see the Section 2.3.4 Regulatory Housekeeping for addition details.
Therefore, this alternative is not further analyzed in this rulemaking, but maybe considered, if
appropriate and necessary, in a future rulemaking.
2.3

Management Program Structure
2.3.1
2.3.1.1

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Management
BFT Quota Management in the General and Angling Categories

The following alternatives explore different possibilities for amending/clarifying the
annual BFT quota allocation schemes in both the General and Angling categories. Currently,
ICCAT recommends an annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of BFT for the United States in the
western Atlantic management area. NMFS implements these ICCAT recommendations, as
required by ATCA, by dividing the annual U.S. BFT TAC among several domestic quota
categories based on allocation percentages established in the 1999 FMP. In some categories,
including the General and Angling categories, NMFS further subdivides these domestic category
allocations into subquotas (i.e., on a temporal, geographic, and/or BFT size class basis) to further
meet the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the 1999 FMP. Not all of the
alternatives described below are mutually exclusive.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-33

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Alternative F1

Maintain the time-periods, subquota allocations, and geographic set-asides for
the General and Angling categories as established in the 1999 FMP (No
Action)

This alternative would maintain the current General category time-period subquota
allocation scheme, as stated in the 1999 FMP, and would require an FMP amendment to adjust
the time-period subquota allocation percentages in the future. This sub-allocation scheme
divides the annual General category quota in three distinct time-periods and one geographic setaside. The New York Bight geographic set-aside (Figure 2.7) is allocated ten metric tons (mt)
whole weight on an annual basis. Once this amount is deducted from the overall General
category quota, the remaining quota is divided among three time-periods and is allocated to each
time-period as follows: 60 percent to June through August, 30 percent to September, and 10
percent to October through January (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.7 The New York Bight set-aside is defined as an area comprising the waters South and West of a
straight line originating at a point on the southern shore of Long Island, NY, at 72º 27’ W. Long.
(Shinnecock Inlet) and running South southeast 150º true, and north of 38º 47’ N. Lat.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-34

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

October - January
10%
September
30%

June - August
60%

Figure 2.8

Alternative F1: No Action. Suballocation of the BFT General Category Quota among the
current three time-periods. New York Bight set-aside is subtracted from the General Category
quota and then the time-period allocations are determined.

This alternative would maintain the process NMFS currently uses to account for the
ICCAT recommendations regarding the tolerance limit of school BFT and the Northeast Distant
(NED) Statistical Area set-aside. The ICCAT recommendation regarding school BFT states that
contracting parties, non-contracting parties, entities and fishing entities may grant tolerances to
capture western Atlantic BFT either weighing less that 30 kg, or in the alternative having a fork
length less than 115 cm provided they limit the take of these fish so that the average over each
four-consecutive-year quota balancing period is no more than eight percent by weight of the total
BFT quota on a national basis, and institute measures to deny economic gain to the fishermen
from such fish. ICCAT has adopted an additional recommendation stating that the United States
shall receive a quota (of catch that can be retained) of 25 mt to account for bycatch related to its
directed longline fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary. NMFS defined “in
the vicinity of the management area boundary” as the NED Statistical Area (68 FR 56783,
October 2, 2003).
As the NED Statistical Area recommendation is more recent than the school BFT
tolerance limit, NMFS has not accounted for this additional allocation in the calculations used to
formulate the school tolerance BFT. Therefore, under this alternative, the United States would
deduct the quota attributed to the NED Statistical Area before applying the eight percent school
size-class BFT tolerance limit to the U.S. overall quota, rather than applying the eight percent to
the total U.S. BFT quota.
This alternative would maintain the North/South Angling category dividing line (Figure
2.9). This dividing line is intended to provide a more equitable geographic and temporal
distribution of recreational fishing opportunities by separating each BFT size-class subquota into
two geographical regions, the northern area (allocated 47.2 percent of the size-class subquotas)
and the southern area (52.8 percent of the size-class subquotas).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-35

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Figure 2.9

The Angling category North/South dividing line, located at 39º 18’ N. Lat. (Great Egg Inlet, NJ).

Alternative F2

Establish General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic set-asides
annually via framework actions

This alternative would amend the status quo process that establishes the General category
time-periods and associated subquotas. Under this alternative, General category time-periods
and/or the subquota allocated to each time-period, as well as any geographic set-asides, would be
established annually via a regulatory framework action (versus an FMP amendment as described
under Alternative F1). This alternative would revise the detailed language regarding General
category time-periods, subquota allocations, and geographic set-asides contained in the 1999
FMP to be more general. The specific details pertaining to management of the General category
would be established each year in the annual regulatory framework action. This alternative
attempts to address the inherent variability in the General category BFT fishery from one year to
the next, and would require the regulatory framework action to be finalized prior to the start of
the season, thereby establishing General category time-periods and associated subquotas before
the fishery commences.
Factors that would be considered prior to establishing the annual General category timeperiods, associated subquotas, and/or geographic set-asides may include, but would not be
limited to, protected species interactions and bycatch rates, historic landings, total landings
reported at the end of the season, weather conditions, levels of effort, the amount of unharvested
quota rolling over from the previous fishing year, and the projected ability of the vessels to
harvest the subquotas.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-36

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Alternative F3

Amend the management procedures regarding General category time-periods,
subquotas, as well as geographic set-asides to allow for future adjustments to
take place via a regulatory framework action – Preferred Alternative

This alternative would amend the status quo management procedures which establish and
adjust the General category time-periods, subquotas, as well as geographic set-asides. More
specifically, this alternative would revise the detailed language regarding General category timeperiods, subquota allocations, and geographic set-asides contained in the 1999 FMP to be more
general, similar to Alternative F2. However, under this alternative, the specific details pertaining
to management of the General category would be established in the regulatory text implementing
the consolidated FMP, versus established annually (as in Alternative F2), thereby providing a
level of consistency from one year to the next. By moving the specific language from the FMP
to the implementing regulations, NMFS would be able to provide consistent time-periods and
subquotas while also gaining the ability to amend these General category time-periods, subquota
allocation percentages, and geographic set-asides, if deemed necessary, via a regulatory
framework action, versus an FMP amendment.
Additionally, because the General category baseline quota, time-periods, and associated
subquotas would be contained in the implementing regulations, the annual BFT specification
process would not be necessary for the fishery to commence on the first day of the fishing year.
Factors that may warrant future adjustments may include, but may not be limited to, ICCAT
recommendations that modify BFT management measures, shifts in protected species
interactions and bycatch rates, consideration of historic allocations and landings, stability and
predictability of quotas, total landings reported, weather conditions, levels of effort, the amount
of unharvested quota rolling from one year to the next, and the projected ability of the vessels to
harvest the subquotas. If the specific management measures contained in the regulatory text
need to be changed, then an appropriate analytical document (i.e., EA or EIS, RIR, IRFA, etc.)
may need to accompany the proposed and final rule in the regulatory amendment. However, as
long as the ICCAT recommended annual U.S. BFT quota remains consistent, and the established
General category time-period subquota allocation percentages are specified in whole weight, the
regulatory, environmental, social, and economic analyses conducted for the consolidated HMS
FMP would constitute the supporting documentation for the annual regulatory framework action.
This alternative would also amend the actual General category time-periods as well as the
corresponding subquota allocation percentages for each time-period. These subalternatives
would support the preferred alternative in Section 2.3.2, which would adjust management of all
HMS fisheries to a calendar year basis, by providing separate time-period subquota for
December and January, ensuring that the time-periods do not span two calendar years. The
status quo General category time-periods and subquotas are described in Alternative F1. The
range of sub-alternatives analyzed in this document are intended to further meet the objectives of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, as well as the consolidated HMS FMP, and are drafted in
accordance with the preferred CY/FY alternatives contained in Section 2.3.2. These alternatives
specifically address public comments received during the scoping period of this action as well as
the North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries' (NCDMF) Petition for Rulemaking (see
Notice of Receipt of Petition, 67 FR 69502, November 18, 2002). The sub-alternatives are as
follows:

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-37

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Alternative F3(a) Establish equal monthly General category time-periods and subquotas (JuneJan; 12.5 percent each)
This sub-alternative would remove the New York Bight set-aside allocation and divide
the coast-wide General category season into eight distinct time-periods that correspond to each
month from June through January. The coast-wide General category quota would be allocated in
equal amounts among all eight time periods, specifically 12.5 percent to each time-period
(Figure 2.10). This alternative was designed to provide an opportunity to harvest an equal
amount of quota during all eight months of the General category BFT season.

December
12.5%

January
12.5%

November
12.5%

June
12.5%

October
12.5%

July
12.5%
September
12.5%

August
12.5%

Figure 2.10 Alternative F3a: Equal General category subquota allocation percentages for each month of
the BFT fishing season.

Alternative F3(b) Revise General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized
winter fishery (June-Aug, 54 percent; Sept, 26.5 percent; Oct-Nov, 9 percent;
Dec, 5.2 percent; and Jan, 5.3 percent)
This sub-alternative would remove the New York Bight set-aside allocation and divide
the coast-wide General category season into five distinct time-periods that correspond with
traditional fishing patterns in the New England region, yet are slightly modified to reflect recent
trends in the fishery and provide for a formal winter fishery in the South Atlantic region.
Historically, the coast-wide General category BFT fishery was prosecuted in the waters off New
England during the summer and early fall months. However, recent trends in this coast-wide
fishery reflect a shift in the availability of commercial size BFT, both geographically and
temporally, to the South Atlantic area. This alternative is intended to achieve optimum yield
from the General category quota while providing fair and equitable fishing opportunities to
General category participants regardless of geographical location. The time-periods would
consist of June through August, September, and October through November, December, and
January. This alternative would also establish time-period subquota allocation percentages as
follows: 54 percent (June through August), 26.5 percent (September), 9 percent (October
through November), 5.2 percent (December) and 5.3 percent (January) (Figure 2.11).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-38

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

October - November
9.0%

December
5.2%

January
5.3%

September
26.5%

June - August
54.0%

Figure 2.11

Alternative F3b: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation percentages.

Alternative F3(c) Revise General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized
winter fishery (June-Aug, 50 percent; Sept, 26.5 percent; Oct-Nov, 13
percent; Dec, 5.2 percent; and Jan, 5.3 percent) – Preferred Alternative
This sub-alternative would remove the New York Bight set-aside allocation and divide
the coast-wide General category season into five distinct time-periods, June through August,
September, October through November, December, and January. This alternative would shift
slightly more quota from the start of the season to the October through November fishery
(relative to Alternative F3(b)) where demand has been increasing in recent years, and to the
December and January time-periods (relative to Alternative F1) providing for a formal winter
BFT fishery in the South Atlantic region. As described in Alternative F3(b), the historical
General category BFT fishery was primarily prosecuted in the waters off New England during
the summer and early fall months. This resulted in a General category time-period and subquota
allocation scheme heavily weighted to the New England fishery (i.e., See Alternative F1 for the
status quo). The time-periods, and associated subquotas, of this alternative would allocate
fishing privileges to further achieve optimum yield without excluding traditional participants in
the fishery. Thus, this alternative would establish time-period subquota allocation percentages as
follows: 50 percent (June through August), 26.5 percent (September), 13 percent (October
through November), 5.2 percent (December), and 5.3 percent (January) (Figure 2.12).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-39

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

October - November
13.0%

December
5.2%
January
5.3%

September
26.5%

June - August
50.0%

Figure 2.12

Alternative F3c: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation percentages.

Alternative F3(d) Revise General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized
winter fishery (June-Aug, 38.7 percent; Sept , 26.6 percent; Oct-Nov, 13
percent; Dec, 10.8 percent; and Jan, 10.9 percent)
This sub-alternative would also remove the New York Bight set-aside allocation and
divide the coast-wide General category season into the same five distinct time-periods referred to
in sub-alternatives F3(b) and F3(c). However, this alternative's time-period subquota allocation
percentages would provide the greatest opportunity for the winter BFT fishery and specifically
embody the subquota allocation requested in the NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking. This
alternative would establish time-period subquota allocation percentages as follows: 38.7 percent
(June through August), 26.6 percent (September), 13 percent (October), 10.8 percent
(December), and 10.9 percent (January) (Figure 2.13).

October - November
13.0%

December
10.8%
January
10.9%

September

26.6%

June - August
38.7%

Figure 2.13

Alternative F3d: Proposed General category time-period subquota allocation percentages
embodying the NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-40

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Alternative F4

Clarify the procedures for calculating the Angling category school size-class
BFT subquota allocation – Preferred Alternative

This alternative would clarify the procedure for calculating the ICCAT-recommended
school size-class BFT tolerance for the Angling category quota. The eight percent tolerance
limit would be calculated from the U.S. BFT quota to determine the school size-class allowance
for the Angling category. Then, the NED Statistical set-aside allocation would be deducted from
the remaining U.S. BFT quota. This clarification would implement procedures for calculating
the eight percent tolerance limit to be more consistent with the actual language from the ICCAT
recommendation and would result in a slight increase of the school size class BFT quota by
approximately 0.02 percent.
This alternative has been slightly modified from that proposed in the draft HMS FMP.
This preferred alternative modifies the proposed alternative in the draft FMP by retaining the
North/South Angling category dividing line located at 39º 18 minutes N. latitude (Great Egg
Inlet, NJ) (Figure 2.9). This dividing line is intended to provide a more equitable geographic and
temporal distribution of recreational fishing opportunities by separating each BFT size-class
subquota into two geographical regions, the northern area (allocated 47.2 percent of the sizeclass subquotas) and the southern area (52.8 percent of the size-class subquotas). This
management tool was originally intended to ensure reasonable recreational fishing opportunities
in all geographic areas without risking overharvest of the Angling category quota. While this
line allows NMFS to allocate different retention limits based on the migratory pattern of BFT,
the effectiveness of this management tool depends on NMFS gathering recreational BFT
landings information in a timely fashion to support real-time management decisions.
2.3.1.2 Annual BFT Quota Adjustments
In 1991, ICCAT recommended that if the catch of a Contracting Party exceeds its annual
or biannual scientific monitoring quota, then in the biannual period or year following reporting
of that catch to ICCAT, that Contracting Party will reduce its catch to compensate in total for
that overage. Such a reduction will be applied to the domestic catch category of the applicable
Contracting Party of the overage (ICCAT 91-1). This recommendation was revised in 1998 to
state that unused quota or overage from the previous year shall be added or subtracted, as
appropriate, to the current year's catch that can be retained (ICCAT 98-7). The intent of the
following alternatives is to streamline the annual BFT quota adjustment process, including the
allocation of baseline quotas as well as adjusting those quotas based on the previous years
under/overharvests.
The U.S. BFT quota is allocated to specific domestic quota categories via allocation
percentages contained in the 1999 FMP. The annual BFT specifications quantify the baseline
allocation for each domestic quota category, measured in whole weight (metric tons), by
calculating the allocation percentages against the recommended U.S. BFT quota. These
percentage shares were based on allocations that had been developed by NMFS over several
years. Under all of the subsequent alternatives, the allocation of the U.S. BFT quota will remain
consistent with those baseline percentages established in the 1999 FMP. These percentages are
as follows: General - 47.1 percent; Angling - 19.7 percent; Harpoon - 3.9 percent; Purse Seine 18.6 percent; Longline - 8.1 percent; and Trap - 0.1 percent. The remaining 2.5 percent of the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-41

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

BFT landings quota will be held in the Reserve category (Figure 2.8). These domestic quota
category percentages will remain unchanged as codified in the consolidated HMS FMP and
would require an FMP amendment to change them in the future. However, revisions to the
General category time-period subquota allocation scheme are being considered in Section
2.3.1.1.
Alternative F5

Maintain the annual BFT quota specification process and the
under/overharvest procedures within individual domestic quota categories and
individual vessels in the Purse seine category (No Action)

This alternative would maintain the annual BFT quota specification process established
in the 1999 FMP, which allocates the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT quota annually to
domestic user groups. This alternative would require NMFS to draft proposed annual BFT quota
specifications and appropriate supporting analytical documents, collect public comment on those
proposed specifications, and then, after responding to comments received, finalize the initial
BFT quota specifications via a final rule published in the Federal Register. This process would
establish the baseline domestic quota category allocations in weight, as well as any applicable
subquota allocations, and account for any under/overharvests from the previous fishing year.

Purse Seine
18.6%

Trap Longline Reserve
0.1% 8.1%
2.5%

Harpoon
3.9%

General
47.1%

Angling
19.7%
Figure 2.14

Alternative F5: No Action. U.S. BFT Domestic Quota Category Allocation Percentages.

This alternative would maintain and implement annual adjustment procedures, which
include accounting for unused quota or an overage from the previous year, within individual
domestic quota categories, via the current annual specification process. These annual
adjustments would be based on landings statistics and other available information, and
consideration of which BFT quota in any category or, as appropriate, subcategory has been
exceeded or has not been reached, with the exception of the Purse seine category due to the IFQ
nature of this category. Any overharvest would be subtracted from, or the underharvest would
be added to, that same quota category for the following fishing year, provided that the total of the
adjusted category quotas and the Reserve remained consistent with ICCAT recommendations,
the tolerance of school BFT, and the allowance for dead discards. For the Purse seine category,
annual adjustments would be based on landings statistics and other available information for that
specific purse seine vessel’s allocation. Adjustments would then be considered based on
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-42

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

calculations of whether a purse seine vessel’s allocation, as adjusted, has been exceeded or has
not been reached, in which case the overharvest would be subtracted from, or underharvest
would be added to, that vessel’s allocation for the following fishing year. Under this alternative,
there would be no limit on the amount of quota that could be carried forward from one year to
the next in any domestic quota category.
This alternative would implement annual adjustment procedures to allocate any quota in
the Reserve category at the end of a fishing year to account for overharvests in any fishing
category, provided such allocation is consistent with the criteria specified in Section 2.3.1.3.
This alternative would also maintain the authority to perform inseason actions within a fishing
year, such as adjusting daily retention limits, quota transfers among categories or, as appropriate,
subcategories, and performing interim closures. These inseason actions would be determined
based on the consideration of the criteria stipulated in Section 2.3.1.3.
This alternative would maintain the default General and Angling category BFT retention
limits as articulated in the regulations implementing the 1999 FMP. The default coast-wide
General category BFT retention limit is one large medium or giant BFT, measuring 73 inches
curved fork length (CFL) or greater, per vessel per day/per trip. The default Angling category
BFT retention limit is one school, large school, or small medium BFT, measuring 27 inches to
less than 73 inches CFL per vessel per day/trip. NMFS has the ability to change the default
retention limits via an inseason action. For further details regarding inseason actions, please see
Section 2.3.1.3.
Lastly, this alternative would maintain the procedure for establishing Restricted Fishing
Days (RFDs) in the General category BFT fishery, by proposing them in the annual BFT quota
specifications. An RFD means a day beginning at 0000 hours and ending 2400 hours local time,
during which a person aboard a vessel for which a General category permit for Atlantic tunas has
been issued may not fish for, possess, or retain BFT. RFDs are intended to extend the General
category BFT season, reduce market gluts, and further achieve optimum yield. A designated
RFD may be waived if it is determined that it would impede the attainment of a time-period
subquota or an RFD may be introduced if it is determined that it is needed to avert a premature
time-period closure. NMFS has the ability to alter the RFD schedule via an inseason action. For
further details regarding inseason actions, please see Section 2.3.1.3.
Alternative F6

Revise the annual BFT quota specification process to refer back to the
supporting analytical documents of the consolidated HMS FMP and include
seasonal management measures in annual framework actions – Preferred
Alternative

This alternative is similar to Alternative F5, in that BFT quota specifications would be
conducted on an annual basis; however, the range of impacts associated with annual BFT
specifications would be analyzed in the appropriate analytical documents of the consolidated
HMS FMP, as opposed to a separate EA or EIS. The consolidated HMS FMP analyses would
then be referred to and used in subsequent quota specifications as the supporting analytical
documents for regulatory, environmental, social, and economic impact analyses. Analytical
documents would accompany the annual BFT quota specifications only if the analyses associated
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-43

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

with the consolidated HMS FMP no longer applied, (i.e., if ICCAT were to amend its
recommendation regarding the total U.S. BFT TAC). Currently, ICCAT recommendations for
BFT TACs cover multiple years, and usually coincide with the most recent BFT stock
assessment. The ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC would be allocated to the domestic quota
categories per the allocation percentages listed in the consolidated HMS FMP (see introductory
paragraph for Section 2.3.1.2). The equivalent quota tonnage associated with these percentages
would be specified in the regulatory text implementing the consolidated HMS FMP, therefore
formally establishing annual baseline quotas, in whole weight, for each of the domestic quota
categories and therefore removing the need to analyze them on an annual basis as they would
remain consistent.
The baseline quota percentages, for each domestic quota category, would remain in the
consolidated HMS FMP, while the corresponding quota allocation for each quota category,
denoted in metric tons, would be specified in the regulatory text implementing the consolidated
HMS FMP. These baseline quota allocations may be adjusted on an annual basis to account for
under/overharvests that occur in the previous year, per ICCAT recommendations. The range of
these quota adjustments would also be analyzed in the supporting analytical documents of the
consolidated HMS FMP and referred to in the annual BFT specifications (see Section 4.3.1.1,
Alternative F8). This alternative would implement annual adjustment procedures that provide
NMFS the authority to allocate any quota remaining in the Reserve category at the end of a
fishing year to any fishing category, provided such allocation is consistent with the applicable
determination criteria currently listed in the regulations. Section 2.3.1.3 addresses the multiple
sets of determination criteria listed in the current regulations and the preferred alternative of this
section which would consolidate the multiple lists for consistency purposes. As any annual
quota transfers from the Reserve category are similar to an inseason quota transfer, the
determination criteria discussed in Section 2.3.1.3 would also be addressed prior to conducting
an annual transfer from the Reserve category.
This alternative would also include seasonal management measures in the annual
framework rulemaking. Under the No Action alternative (i.e., in comparison to Alternative F5),
inseason management is conducted separately from the annual rulemaking. These seasonal
management measures may include, but would not be limited to, establishing recreational daily
BFT retention limits and their duration and General category effort controls, such as RFDs and
daily BFT retention limits. Including seasonal management measures in the annual BFT
specifications would provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for the public to comment on
any proposed actions. Subsequent inseason actions would likely still be necessary to close
fisheries, alter seasons, and/or alter retention limits as changing fishery conditions warrant them.
This alternative would also maintain the inseason action authority as discussed under Section
2.3.1.3.
Alternative F7

Eliminate unharvested quota carryover provisions and return unharvested
quota to the resource, while maintaining status quo overharvest provisions

This alternative would implement an annual adjustment provision that would not allow
unharvested quota to be carried forward from one fishing year to the next, but would start each
fishing year with the baseline domestic quota category allocations. This alternative would
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-44

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

maintain the overharvest provision and annual adjustment procedures as described in Alternative
F5.
Alternative F8

Establish an individual quota category carryover limit of 100 percent of the
baseline allocation (i.e., no more than the annual baseline allocation may be
carried forward), except for the Reserve category, and authorize the transfer
of quota exceeding the 100 percent limit to the Reserve or another domestic
quota category, while maintaining status quo overharvest provisions –
Preferred Alternative

This alternative would implement similar carryover provisions described in Alternative
F5, but may apply a limit to the amount of quota each domestic quota category could carry
forward from one fishing year to the next. This limit may be applied to all domestic quota
categories, except for the Reserve category. The intent of this alternative is to prevent
"stockpiling" of unharvested quota in a particular domestic quota category due to multiple
successive years of underharvest. This alternative would implement a carryover cap of 100
percent of the baseline allocation for each domestic quota category, except for the Reserve
category, such that no more than two years worth of quota allocation may be held by a particular
domestic quota category at the start of the fishing year. For example, the Harpoon category is
allocated 3.9 percent of the U.S. BFT quota. Using the current ICCAT BFT quota
recommendation, this equates to an annual baseline allocation of approximately 57.1 mt. Under
this alternative, the Harpoon category would be allowed to carry forward 57.1 mt of unharvested
quota from one year to the next. Combining the Harpoon category annual baseline allocation of
57.1 mt with the unharvested quota that may be carried forward, 57.1 mt, and the Harpoon
category quota would be limited to 114.2 mt. Any quota that exceeds the 100 percent carryover
limit would then be transferred to either the Reserve category or to another domestic quota
category. This preferred alternative would not preclude NMFS from transferring additional
quota from the Reserve back to a category that has reached the rollover limit via an inseason
action. Section 2.3.1.3 addresses the multiple sets of determination criteria listed in the current
regulations and the preferred alternative of this section which would consolidate multiple criteria
lists for consistency purposes. As any quota transfers associated with exceeding the 100 percent
rollover limit would be similar to an inseason quota transfer, the determination criteria discussed
in Section 2.3.1.3 would also need to be addressed prior to transferring quota under this
alternative. This alternative would maintain the overharvest provisions as stipulated in
Alternative F5.
2.3.1.3 Inseason Actions
The following alternatives set forth the basis for NMFS' management of BFT inseason
actions, including, but not limited to adjusting daily retention limits, inseason quota transfers,
and fishery closures/reopenings.
Alternative F9

Maintain inseason action procedures (No Action)

This alternative would maintain and implement the status quo regulatory authority to
provide for maximum utilization of the BFT quota by authorizing increases or decreases to the
General category daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range from zero to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-45

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

a maximum of three per vessel via the use of inseason management actions that are published in
the final rule section of the Federal Register. These actions would be based on a review of dealer
reports, daily landing trends, availability of the species on the fishing grounds, and any other
relevant factors. General category retention limit adjustments are not effective until at least three
calendar days after a notification is filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
The one exception corresponds to previously designated RFDs. RFDs may be waived effective
upon closure of the General category fishery so that persons aboard vessels permitted in the
General category may conduct catch-and-release or tag-and-release fishing for BFT under §
635.26.
This alternative would maintain and implement the existing regulatory authority to
provide for maximum utilization of the Angling category BFT quota, by authorizing adjustments
that may increase or decrease the recreational retention limit for any size-class BFT or change a
vessel trip limit to an angler limit and vice versa. Such adjustments would be based on a review
of daily landing trends, availability of the species on the fishing grounds, and any other relevant
factors. Also, such adjustments to the retention limits may apply separately for persons aboard a
specific vessel type, such as private vessels, headboats, or charterboats. Recreational retention
limit adjustments are not effective until at least three calendar days after a notification is filed
with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
This alternative would maintain and implement regulations that authorize quota transfers
among categories or, as appropriate subcategories, within a fishing year after considering the
following factors:
(A) The usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular quota
category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock;
(B) The catches of the particular category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of
that segment of the fishery if no allocation is made;
(C) The projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota to
harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing year;
(D) The estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery
might be exceeded;
(E) Effects of the transfer on BFT rebuilding and overfishing;
(F) Effects of the transfer on accomplishing the objectives of the Fishery Management
Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks.
If it was determined, based on these criteria and the probability of exceeding the total
quota, that vessels fishing under any category or subcategory quota were not likely to take that
quota, NMFS could conduct an inseason transfer of any portion of the remaining quota of that
fishing category to any other fishing category or to the Reserve.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-46

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

This alternative would maintain and implement regulations to close a domestic quota
category, other than the Purse Seine category quota due to the IFQ nature of this category, based
on when that quota was reached, or was projected to be reached. The closure would be effective
for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the closure notice
published as an inseason action in the final rule section of the Federal Register.
This alternative would also maintain and implement the regulations to close and reopen
the Angling category BFT fishery by accounting for variations in seasonal distribution,
abundance, or migration patterns of BFT, or catch rates in one area, which may have precluded
anglers in another area from a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the Angling
category quota. The Angling category BFT fishery, or a part of the fishery, may be reopened at a
later date if it is determined that BFT migrated into the other area. In determining the need for
any such interim closure, the following criteria would be considered:
(A) The usefulness of information obtained from catches of a particular geographic area
of the fishery for biological sampling and for monitoring the status of the stock;
(B) The current year catches from the particular geographic area relative to the catches
recorded for that area during the preceding four years;
(C) The catches from the particular geographic area to date relative to the entire
category and the likelihood of closure of that entire category of the fishery if no
interim closure or area closure is effected; and
(D) The projected ability of the entire category to harvest the remaining amount of BFT
before the anticipated end of the fishing season.
Alternative F10 Revise and consolidate criteria considered prior to performing inseason and
certain annual BFT management actions – Preferred Alternative
This alternative would revise and consolidate the sets of criteria that NMFS considers for
any and all inseason management actions, as well as certain annual management actions,
including, but not limited to adjustments in daily retention limits, annual quota adjustments
to/from the Reserve, inseason quota transfers, fishery closures, and interim fishery
closure/reopenings. This alternative would enhance the flexibility and consistency regarding the
determination criteria analyzed prior to conducting inseason management actions and/or some
annual management actions as discussed in the previous alternatives. The criteria listed below
are in no particular order of importance and in some circumstances not all criteria would be
relevant in the decision making process.
This alternative would also move the determination criteria from § 635.27(a)(7) into a
stand-alone section. Thus, this alternative would implement the following consolidated criteria:
(A) The usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for
biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock;

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-47

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

(B) The catches of the particular category quota, and/or subquota, to date and the
likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no interim closure or quota
allocation is made;
(C) The projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota
and/or subcategory quota to harvest the remaining and/or additional amount of BFT
before the end of the fishing year;
(D) The estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery
might be exceeded;
(E) Effects of the action on BFT rebuilding and overfishing;
(F) Effects of the action on accomplishing the objectives of the consolidated HMS
FMP;
(G) Review of variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of
BFT;
(H) Effects of catch rates in one area, precluding participants in another area from
having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the category quota; and
(I) Review of dealer reports, daily landing trends, and/or availability of the species on
the fishing grounds.
This alternative would maintain and implement regulations to close a domestic quota
category, other than the Purse seine category quota due to the IFQ nature of this category, based
on when that quota is reached, or is projected to be reached. The closure would be effective for
the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the closure notice
published as an inseason action in the final rule section of the Federal Register.
Alternative F11

Eliminate BFT inseason actions

This alternative would eliminate NMFS' authority to perform inseason actions such as
daily retention limit adjustments, inseason quota transfers, or interim closures. Domestic BFT
quotas would be established as outlined in Section 0, and would be amended annually due to
carryover provisions as outlined in Section 2.3.1.2. This alternative was designed to provide
BFT fishery participants certainty in the rules and regulations throughout the BFT season for the
purpose of consistency and at the expense of flexibility.
2.3.2

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries

Many aspects of HMS fisheries are managed on an annual cycle, including, but not
limited to, quota distribution, permit issuance, and fishery specifications. Currently, sharks are
managed on a calendar year cycle (January 1 to December 31) while tunas, swordfish, and
billfish are managed on a fishing year cycle (June 1 to May 31). For example, the 2005 annual
quotas recommended by ICCAT for the U.S. tuna and swordfish fisheries are implemented for
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-48

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

the fishing year from June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006, and the annual 2005 domestic shark fishery
quotas are based on a fishing year from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 (ICCAT
does not currently make recommendations for annual shark quotas). The following alternatives
present options for shifting the management cycle timeframe in order to simplify the
management program for HMS fisheries and improve the United States’ basis for negotiations at
international forums.
Alternative G1

Maintain the current management cycle for all HMS (No Action)

This alternative would maintain the current management timeframe for all managed
HMS. Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and billfish would continue to be managed on a fishing year
from June 1 to May 31, whereas Atlantic sharks would continue to be managed on a calendar
year. This alternative would not require any re-allocation of the sub-quotas used to manage
BFT, sharks, or swordfish.
Alternative G2

Shift the management cycle to January 1 to December 31 for all HMS –
Preferred Alternative

Under this alternative, the preferred alternative for the Draft HMS FMP, all of the HMS
management programs would be implemented on a calendar year cycle. The Atlantic shark
management timeframe would maintain the status quo, whereas tunas, swordfish, and billfish
would shift from a fishing year to a calendar year. The calendar year for billfish would be
implemented on January 1, 2007 via this action. To transition from a fishing year to a calendar
year, an abbreviated fishing year would be established via a separate action for BFT and
swordfish to cover the months between the end of the fishing year (May 31, 2007) and the start
of the new calendar year (January 1, 2008). This alternative has been refined relative to the
Draft HMS FMP by shifting the effective date for BFT and swordfish from January 1, 2007 to
January 1, 2008. The shift in the management timeframe would require some alteration to the
BFT seasonal allocations because a domestic BFT subquota and time-period currently spans two
calendar years. Section 2.1.1.1 discusses management alternatives for BFT, including all the
subalternatives under alternative F3, which would address this issue by providing separate
subquota time periods for December and January.
Alternative G3

Shift the management cycle to June 1 to May 31 for all HMS

This alternative would move all HMS to a June 1 to May 31 fishing year management
cycle. The management timeframe for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and billfish would maintain
status quo, whereas shark management would shift from the calendar year to a fishing year. The
shark management program’s trimesters and sub-quotas would be modified to fit within a fishing
year management regime, and a bridge period would be required to cover the months between
the end of the calendar year (December 31, 2006) and beginning of the fishing year (June 1,
2007).
2.3.3

Authorized Fishing Gear

Innovative fishing gears and techniques are essential to increasing efficiency and
reducing bycatch in fisheries for Atlantic HMS. As current or traditional gears are modified and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-49

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

new gears are developed, NMFS needs to be cognizant of these advances to gauge their potential
impacts on target catch rates, bycatch rates, and protected species interactions, all of which can
have important management implications. New gears and techniques need to be evaluated by
NMFS for qualification as authorized gear types. In this document, NMFS is considering the
definition and authorization of speargun gear, green-stick gear, and buoy gear, as well as
clarifying the allowable use of handheld cockpit gears.
Alternative H1

Maintain current authorized gears in Atlantic HMS fisheries (No Action)

The revised list of authorized fisheries (LOF) and the associated fishing gears became
effective December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67511). The rule applies to all U.S. marine fisheries,
including Atlantic HMS. As stated in the rule, “no person or vessel may employ fishing gear or
participate in a fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) not included in this LOF without
giving 90 days’ advance notice to the appropriate Fishery Management Council (Council) or,
with respect to Atlantic HMS, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).” The LOF is updated
periodically and can be found at 50 CFR § 600.725. Acceptable HMS fisheries and authorized
gear types for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks include: swordfish handgear fishery - rod and
reel, harpoon, handline, bandit gear; pelagic longline fishery - longline; shark drift gillnet fishery
- gillnet; shark bottom longline fishery - longline; shark recreational fishery - rod and reel,
handline; tuna purse seine fishery - purse seine; tuna recreational fishery - rod and reel, handline;
and tuna handgear fishery - rod and reel, harpoon, handline, bandit gear. For Atlantic billfish,
the only acceptable fishery and authorized gear type is recreational fishery - rod and reel. This
alternative would maintain the status quo for authorized gears in all Atlantic HMS fisheries.
Alternative H2

Authorize speargun fishing gear as a permissible gear type in the recreational
Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery - Preferred Alternative

Alternative H2 would define and authorize speargun fishing gear in the recreational
Atlantic bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack (BAYS) tuna fishery (i.e., all regulated HMS
tuna species except for BFT). This is a slightly modified alternative from that proposed in the
Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. This preferred alternative modifies the proposed alternative
contained in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP by not allowing BFT to be fished for, landed, or
retained by fishermen using speargun gear. In addition, this revised alternative would not allow
the sale of any BAYS tuna harvested with speargun gear, under any circumstances, including
those landed by fishermen aboard a HMS CHB permitted vessel and regardless of whether the
CHB permitted vessel is operating in a for-hire or non-for-hire manner. BFT would be excluded
from the allowed list of target species by this new gear type due to the recent declining
performance of the existing BFT fishery, recent quota limited situations within the recreational
angling sector, and ongoing concerns over the status of the stock. All sale of tuna harvested with
this gear type would be prohibited in order to clarify the intent of authorizing this gear type,
which would be to allow recreational speargun fishermen an opportunity to use speargun gear to
recreationally target BAYS tuna. Recreational spearfishermen would only be allowed to fish
from vessels possessing valid HMS Angling or CHB category permits, and would be subject to
all Federal management measures for recreational HMS fishing including retention limits for
YFT, a minimum size of 27 inches for BET and YFT, and reporting requirements, as well as
other measures. Speargun landings would be monitored using existing recreational monitoring
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-50

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

methods, including LPS. Under this alternative, no HMS would be allowed to be taken by
speargun gear, other than Atlantic BAYS tunas.
Fishermen using speargun gear would be allowed to freedive, use SCUBA, or other
underwater breathing devices, and would be required to be physically in the water when firing or
discharging a speargun. Only free-swimming fish, not those restricted by fishing lines or other
means, could be taken with a speargun.
Under alternative H2, speargun fishing gear would be defined as a muscle-powered
speargun equipped with a trigger mechanism, a spear with a tip designed to penetrate and retain
fish, and terminal gear. Terminal gear may include but would not be limited to trailing lines,
reels, and floats. Muscle-powered spearguns store potential energy provided from the operator’s
muscles. Muscle-powered spearguns may only release that amount of energy that the operator
has provided to it from his/her own muscles. Common energy storing methods for musclepowered spearguns include compressing air and springs, and the stretching of rubber bands
(IBSRC, 2005) (Figure 2.15). Powerheads, as defined at 50 CFR § 600.10, or any other
explosive devices, would not be allowed to harvest or subdue BAYS tunas with this gear type.

Figure 2.15

A Diagram of a Typical Speargun Fishing Gear Configuration (courtesy of Matthew

Richards).

Alternative H3

Authorize speargun fishing gear as a permissible gear-type in the commercial
tuna handgear and recreational Atlantic tuna fisheries

Alternative H3 would authorize the use of speargun fishing gear, as defined above, in the
commercial tuna handgear and recreational Atlantic tunas fisheries. Recreational BFT speargun
landings would be deducted from the Angling category quota and commercial BFT speargun
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-51

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

landings would be subtracted from the General category quota. As discussed in alternative H2,
fishermen using speargun fishing gear would be allowed to freedive, use SCUBA, or other
underwater breathing devices, and would be required to be physically in the water when firing a
speargun. Only free-swimming fish, not those restricted by fishing lines or any other devices,
could be taken. The use of powerheads, as defined at 50 CFR § 600.10, or any other explosive
devices, would not be allowed to harvest or subdue tunas with this gear type. Under this
alternative, no HMS would be allowed to be taken by speargun gear, other than Atlantic tunas.
Alternative H4

Authorize green-stick fishing gear for the commercial harvest of Atlantic
BAYS tunas

Alternative H4 would add a definition of green-stick fishing gear to the Atlantic HMS
regulations and add this gear to the list of authorized fishing gears for the commercial tuna
handgear fishery for certain fishing permits. This alternative was preferred in the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP, however it is not preferred in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP.
Under this alternative, green-stick gear would be distinguished from current definitions of
existing gear types and individually defined as a line that is elevated, or suspended, above the
waters’ surface from which no more than 10 hooks or gangions may be hung. Possible technical
configuration and use of the gear would be similar to that described below. The intent of this
alternative would be to allow commercial tuna handgear fishermen, targeting BAYS with greenstick gear, to increase the number of hooks on their gear from two hooks to no more than 10
hooks. This alternative would also prohibit commercial vessels using or possessing green-stick
fishing gear from retaining or possessing BFT on board. The primary impacted commercial
fishing entities would be General category and HMS CHB permit holders, who are currently
restricted to the handgear limit of two hooks or less per line, but are allowed to sell their BAYS
catch, in accordance with other appropriate management measures (e.g., size limits). Longline
permit holders are currently allowed to use three hooks or more per line although they are
restricted to the use of circle hooks only, among other restrictions (e.g., closed areas). This
alternative would not impact HMS recreational fishermen targeting BAYS as they are already
not allowed to sell their catch.
During the public comment period for the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, commenters
provided a range of opposition and support regarding this previously preferred alternative (to
authorize green-stick gear for the commercial harvest of Atlantic BAYS tunas) including;
considerable confusion over the current regulatory regime; concern over the need for better
reporting, monitoring and overall data collection for this gear-type; and, the need for further
understanding of the technical nature of the gear itself. Based on these comments, the Agency
has determined it would be preferable to clarify the currently allowed use of the green-stick gear
rather than proceed with authorization and definition of the gear-type in a manner that may
further add to the confusion and have unintended negative consequences to the fishery and the
resource.
Below is a brief discussion of the currently allowed and authorized use of green-stick
gear in HMS fisheries. The gear is currently recognized to be configured in at least two different
modes classified as “recreational” and “commercial.” In either mode, the gear is actively trolled
and configured so that the baits are fished on or above the surface of the water. The suspended
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-52

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

line, attached gangions, and catch may be retrieved collectively by hand or mechanical means.
The discussion below is solely intended to further understanding of the technical nature and
possible use of this gear. Despite the terminology of these modes, it is possible for the actual use
of the gear, in either mode, to exist in the commercial or the recreational HMS fisheries in
accordance with existing HMS and tuna permit requirements and HMS management measures.
In the “recreational” configuration, a fiberglass pole, or “green-stick”, serves as a vertical
outrigger, elevating a line above the waters’ surface, allowing multiple anglers to fish
individually tended lines suspended by the green-stick’s single line (Figure 2.16). At the end of
the green-stick line, a floating decoy is attached. This decoy provides drag as the vessel moves
forward and puts tension on the green-stick line. The individual fishing lines are connected to
the green-stick line by rubber bands, outrigger clips, or other breakaway connections, and are
allowed to hang down and brush across the surface of the water while trolled. When a fish takes
one of the baits, the breakaway connection releases, and the angler tending that individual line
fights and lands the fish. Some recreational fishermen have further modified the gear and
suspend baits from a “high-line” attached to a flying bridge or tuna tower, and do not actually
use the green-stick pole (Wescott, 1996).
It is believed that this “recreational” configuration is primarily used to target YFT,
although BFT, other BAYS species, and possibly billfish can be captured via this method. So
long as each separate and individual fishing line that is attached to the mainline only trails two
hooks or fewer this configuration would fall under current HMS regulatory handgear definitions
for rod and reel and handline. Rod and reel and handline gears are already authorized for either
recreational or commercial fishing for HMS species under existing regulations. Fishermen
wishing to use green-stick gear in this manner would need to possess any of the HMS permits
that authorize the use of rod and reel or handline, including HMS CHB, HMS Angling, Atlantic
tunas General category permits, or Swordfish and Shark limited access permits. Again, it is
important to note that although the configuration may be termed “recreational,” HMS species
landed under the HMS commercial permits (authorized for handgear) and using this
configuration (e.g., all except the HMS Angling permit) may be sold as normal, under existing
regulations.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-53

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Figure 2.16 A Diagram of the Recreational Configuration of Green-stick Fishing Gear. Source: Wescott,
1996

The “commercial” configuration of green-stick gear generally consists of a 10.7 - 13.7 m
(35 - 45 feet) fiberglass pole mounted to the vessel. A heavy mainline (800-1,000-pound test
line) housed in a spool is hoisted by a tether-rope mounted to the top of the pole. The mainline is
connected to the tether-rope with a cotton breakaway cord. At the end of the mainline, a floating
decoy is attached. This decoy provides drag as the vessel moves forward and puts tension on the
mainline. Several leaders hang down from the mainline at regularly spaced intervals and
suspend baits so that they brush across the top of the water (Figure 2.17). As this gear is towed,
the baits attached to the mainline skip across the water’s surface and flex in the fiberglass pole
produces a “jigging” action that attracts fish. This gear was designed so that the mainline breaks
away from the tether rope when one or more fish are hooked. The mainline and all the fish are
then retrieved together using the spool (Wescott, 1996).
It was understood that the “commercial” configuration of green-stick gear was primarily
used on vessels targeting YFT. However, since publication of the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP, public comments to the Agency, particularly from the North Carolina area, have made it
clear that there is interest and potential activity targeting other species, including BFT.
Theoretically, it is possible to use this “commercial” mode of configuration with a main line that
only trails two hooks or less. In this case, it would also fall under current HMS regulatory
handgear definitions for rod and reel and handline and is thus already authorized for either
commercial or recreational fishing for HMS species under existing regulations. However, when
fishing in this mode, it is likely that more than two hooks would be applied to the line. In cases
where more than two hooks are attached to the mainline, the use of this gear would fall under the
current HMS regulatory definition for longline gear. Fishermen wishing to use the commercial
configuration with more than two hooks could still use this configuration of green-stick gear but
would need to hold an Atlantic tunas longline permit and other necessary limited access permits
depending on species and amounts targeted. An important note to consider under these
circumstances is the relatively recent regulatory requirement (69 FR 40734, July 6, 2004) that

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-54

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

vessels using pelagic longline gear are limited at all times to possessing on board and using only
circle hooks (50 CFR 635.21).

Figure 2.17 A Diagram of the Commercial Configuration of Green-stick Fishing Gear. Source: Wescott,
1996

Although the alternative to explicitly define and authorize green-stick gear is not
preferred in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, fishermen are still allowed to use green-stick
gear as a form of currently approved handgear or longline gear. Under current HMS regulations,
either configuration described above is already authorized, provided vessels are issued a valid
HMS vessel permit and abide by all gear operation and deployment restrictions (e.g., number and
type of hooks per line, closed areas), and management measures (e.g., size and catch limits,
target catch restrictions) appropriate for that HMS vessel permit.
Alternative H5

Authorize buoy gear as a permissible gear type in the commercial swordfish
handgear fishery; limit vessels employing buoy gear to possessing and
deploying no more than 35 floatation devices, with each individual gear
having no more than two hooks or gangions attached – Preferred Alternative

Alternative H5 would define and authorize buoy gear in the commercial swordfish
handgear fishery. This alternative has been modified from the alternative proposed in the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP to allow the use of more than one floatation device per buoy gear. This
modification was made in response to public comment. Additional detail regarding this change
can be found in Chapter 4. The swordfish handgear fishery may currently utilize individual
handlines attached to free-floating buoys; however, another preferred alternative in this
document (I5(b)) would require that handlines used in HMS fisheries be attached to a vessel.
Alternative H5 would change the definition of individual free-floating buoyed lines, that are
currently considered to be handlines, to “buoy gear,” allowing the commercial swordfish
handgear fishery to continue utilizing this gear type. This fishery has been operating under the
current regulations, which require that handlines be restricted to no more than two hooks and be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-55

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

released and retrieved by hand. The current regulations do not limit the number of individual
handlines/buoy gears that may be possessed or deployed and do not require that the lines be
attached to a vessel. This gear (free-floating handlines) has been utilized with no limits on the
number of gears by both recreational and commercial fishermen in many areas, including areas
closed to pelagic longline fishing. Under alternative H5, only commercial swordfish fishermen
possessing valid swordfish handgear or swordfish directed limited access permits would be
authorized to utilize buoy gear and could only retain swordfish captured on this gear. Alternative
H5 would maintain current limits of no more than two hooks per buoy gear and requirements that
the gear be released and retrieved by hand; however, it would limit the number of individual
floatation devices possessed or deployed to no more than 35 per vessel.
There is an existing definition of buoy gear at 50 CFR § 600.10 which states that “buoy
gear means fishing gear consisting of a float and one or more lines suspended therefrom. A hook
or hooks are on the lines at or near the end. The float and line(s) drift freely and are retrieved
periodically to remove catch and rebait hooks.” The proposed HMS definition of buoy gear is
consistent with this general definition; however, the Agency would provide a more specific
definition for the use of buoy gear in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery. NMFS feels it
is appropriate to include a refined definition of buoy gear at 50 CFR § 635 given the nature and
characteristics of the swordfish fishery, as well as gear and techniques commonly utilized.
Under alternative H5, buoy gear would be defined as a fishing gear consisting of one or
more floatation devices supporting a single mainline to which no more than two hooks or
gangions are attached. Fishermen using buoy gear would be required to mark each floatation
device with the vessel’s name, registration number, or HMS permit number, as per current
regulations at 50 CFR § 635.6 (c). Under alternative H5, buoy gear would be required to be
constructed and deployed so that the hooks would be attached to the vertical portion of the
mainline. Floatation devices could be attached to one, but not both ends of the mainline, and no
hooks or gangions could be attached to any floatation device or horizontal portion of the
mainline. If more than one floatation device were attached to a buoy gear, no hook or gangion
may be attached to the mainline between them (Figure 2.18). Individual buoy gears could not be
connected together in any way and all buoy gears would be required to be released and retrieved
by hand. Under this alternative, fishermen using this gear type would be required to affix gear
monitoring equipment to each individual buoy gear to aid in recovery. Gear monitoring
equipment could include, but would not be limited to, radar reflectors, beeper devices, lights, or
reflective tape. If only reflective tape were used, the vessel deploying the buoy gear would be
required to possess an operable spotlight capable of illuminating deployed buoys. If a gear
monitoring device were positively buoyant and rigged to be attached to a fishing gear, it would
be included in the 35 floatation device vessel limit and would need to be marked appropriately.
Additionally, a floatation device would be defined as any positively buoyant object rigged to be
attached to a fishing gear.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-56

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Figure 2.18

A Diagram of a Buoy Gear with Four Floatation Devices Attached (courtesy of Dave Meyer).

Alternative H6

Authorize buoy gear as a permissible gear type in the commercial swordfish
handgear fishery; limit vessels employing buoy gear to possessing and
deploying no more than 50 floatation devices, with each individual gear
having no more than 15 hooks or gangions attached

Alternative H6 would authorize the use of buoy gear, as defined above, in the commercial
swordfish handgear fishery. This alternative is similar to H5; however, it would limit vessels to
possessing and deploying no more than 50 floatation devices, with each buoy gear having no
more than 15 hooks or gangions attached. This alternative has been modified from the
alternative proposed in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP to allow the use of more than one
floatation device per buoy gear. This modification was made to provide an appropriate
comparison to alternative H5 which was modified in response to public comment. Additional
detail regarding this change can be found in Chapter 4
Alternative H7

Clarify the allowance of hand-held cockpit gears used at boat side for
subduing HMS captured on authorized gears - Preferred Alternative

In recent years, NMFS has become aware of some confusion regarding the allowable use
of hand-held cockpit gears. Constituents have stated that they are unsure of whether they are
allowed to possess cockpit gears, such as gaffs and dart harpoons, onboard their vessels if these
gears are not specifically authorized in their particular fishery or permit category. This
confusion stems from the Atlantic HMS regulations regarding authorized gears located at 50
CFR § 635.21(e). In this section, NMFS lists the authorized primary gear types that Atlantic
HMS permit holders are allowed to use. The gear types are based on the species being targeted
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-57

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

and the permit category of the particular vessel. It is NMFS' intent to only authorize the primary
gear types used to harvest HMS, meaning the gears used to bring an HMS to the vessel. This
issue is being addressed to clarify the allowable use of secondary gears to subdue HMS after they
are brought to the vessel using a primary gear type.
Alternative H7 would clarify the allowance of secondary hand-held cockpit gears by
amending existing text at 50 CFR § 635.21 (b). The text would state that:
No person may fish for, catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic HMS other
than with the primary authorized gears, which are the gears specifically
authorized in this part. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section, secondary gears may be used to aid and assist in subduing, or
bringing on board a vessel, Atlantic HMS that have first been caught or
captured using primary gears. For purposes of this part, secondary gears
include, but are not limited to, dart harpoons, gaffs, flying gaffs, tail ropes,
etc. Secondary gears may not be used to capture, or attempt to capture,
free-swimming or undersized HMS.
This alternative would acknowledge and account for the current regulations located at 50 CFR §
635.21(a), which state that an Atlantic HMS harvested from its management unit that is not
retained must be released in a manner that will ensure maximum probability of survival, but
without removing the fish from the water. Under this alternative, cockpit gears would not be
allowed to be used in any way to capture, or attempt to capture, free-swimming or undersized
HMS, but only to gain control of legal-sized HMS brought to the vessel via an authorized
primary gear type, with the intent of retaining that HMS.
2.3.4

Regulatory Housekeeping

This section addresses several items in the HMS regulations that need to be “cleaned up,”
including minor corrections, clarifications, the removal or modification of obsolete crossreferences, and minor changes to definitions and prohibitions that will improve the
administration and enforcement of HMS regulations. Several of these items have been identified
by constituents over the past few years or were raised during scoping hearings. Most of the
corrections, clarifications, changes in definitions, and modifications to remove obsolete crossreferences are consistent with the intent of previously analyzed and approved management
measures. These changes would have no effect either individually or cumulatively upon the
human environment. Under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, actions that modify previously
analyzed actions and that do not affect the human environment, minor technical additions,
corrections, or changes to existing regulations are categorically excluded from the requirements
of an EA or EIS. Changes that meet these criteria, and that are therefore exempt from the NEPA
requirements, are described in Section 2.3.4.1 with the current regulation in the left column and
the amendment in the right column. Other, more substantive, changes for which alternatives
have been analyzed pursuant to NEPA, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or other applicable laws
are discussed in Section 2.3.4.2.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-58

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

2.3.4.1

Proposed Regulatory Changes That Do Not Need Alternatives

Table 2.2 presents a list of the current regulations and the amendments to those
regulations that will be effective in the final rule. The actual changes in the final rule may differ
slightly from what is presented here due to overlap between these changes and changes due to
other preferred actions in this document. However, the final rule will reflect the intent for the
change, as described in the last column of the table.
Table 2.2
Item
Number
1

2

3

4

5

List of Proposed Regulatory Changes.
Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

§ 635.2 Definitions.

§ 635.2 Definitions.

ILAP means an initial limited
access permit issued pursuant
to §635.4.

Remove the definition for ILAP.

§ 635.2 Definitions.

§ 635.2 Definitions

Management unit means in
this part: * * * (5) For sharks,
means all fish of these species
in the western north Atlantic
Ocean, including the Gulf of
Mexico and the Caribbean
Sea, excluding those species
listed in Table 2 of Appendix
A.

Management unit means in this
part: * * * (5) For sharks, means
all fish of the species listed in
Table 1 of Appendix A to this
part, in the western north
Atlantic Ocean, including the
Gulf of Mexico and the
Caribbean Sea.

§ 635.2 Definitions.

§ 635.2 Definitions.

Northeast Distant closed area
***

Northeast Distant gear
restricted area * * *

§ 635.2 Definitions.

§ 635.2 Definitions.

Shark means one of the
oceanic species, or a part
thereof, listed in tables 1 and
2 in Appendix A to this part.

Shark means one of the oceanic
species, or a part thereof, listed
in Table 1 in Appendix A to this
part.

Table 2 in Appendix A - List
of Deepwater and other
sharks

Revise Table 2 in Appendix A
by replacing it with another
non-related table.

2-59

Specifies the species that are
part of the management unit,
rather than those that are not
part of the management unit.

Amends title of the Northeast
Distant closed area to reflect
recent amendments to the
regulations governing this
area. The term is also
replaced throughout the
regulations.

NOTE – Table 2 is revised
pursuant to measures described
in Issue 1 in “Regulatory
Housekeeping.”

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Removes the definition of
Initial Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

Links the definition of “shark”
to the definition of
“management unit.”

Removes the table of
deepwater and other shark
species that were previously
removed from the
management unit. NMFS will
continue to collect data on
these species and may add
them to the management unit
in the future.

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

6

§ 635.4(c)(2) A vessel issued
an Atlantic Tunas General
category permit under
paragraph (d) of this section
may fish in a recreational
HMS fishing tournament if
the vessel has registered for,
paid an entry fee to, and is
fishing under the rules of a
tournament that has notified
NMFS as required under §
635.5(d). When a vessel
issued an Atlantic Tunas
General category permit is
fishing in such a tournament,
such vessel must comply with
HMS Angling category
regulations, except as
provided in 635.4(c)(3).

§ 635.4(c)(2) A vessel issued an
Atlantic Tunas General category
permit under paragraph (d) of
this section may fish in a
recreational HMS fishing
tournament if the vessel has
registered for, paid an entry fee
to, and is fishing under the rules
of a tournament that has
registered with NMFS as
required under § 635.5(d). When
a vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas
General category permit is
fishing in such a tournament,
such vessel must comply with
HMS Angling category
regulations, except as provided
in 635.4(c)(3).

Clarifies the requirement that
tournaments must be
registered with NMFS,
consistent with proposed
revisions to § 635.5(d).

7

§ 635.4(d)(4) A person can
obtain an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit for a
vessel only if the vessel has
been issued both a limited
access permit for shark and a
limited access permit for
swordfish. NMFS will issue
Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permits to qualifying
vessels in calendar year 1999.
Thereafter, such permits may
be obtained through transfer
from current owners
consistent with the provisions
under paragraph (l)(2) of this
section.

§ 635.4(d)(4) A person can
obtain an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit for a
vessel only if the vessel has been
issued both a limited access
permit for shark and a limited
access permit other than
handgear for swordfish. Limited
access Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permits may only be
obtained through transfer from
current owners consistent with
the provisions under paragraph
(l)(2) of this section.

Removes a reference to a date
that has passed. Also,
clarifies that handgear permit
holders cannot have an
Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit because they
cannot use longline gear to
catch swordfish.

8

§ 635.4(e)(1) As of July 1,
1999, the only valid Federal
commercial vessel permits for
sharks are those that have
been issued under the limited
access criteria specified in
§635.16.

§ 635.4(e)(1) The only valid
Federal commercial vessel
permits for sharks are those that
have been issued under the
limited access program
consistent with the provisions
under paragraphs (l) and (m) of
this section.

Removes a date that has
passed, and a cross-reference
that has been removed.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-60

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

9

§ 635.4(e)(2) The owner of
each vessel used to fish for or
take Atlantic sharks or on
which Atlantic sharks are
retained, possessed with an
intention to sell, or sold must
obtain, in addition to any
other required permits, only
one of two types of
commercial limited access
shark permits: Shark directed
limited access permit or shark
incidental limited access
permit. See §635.16
regarding the initial issuance
of these two types of permits.
It is a rebuttable presumption
that the owner or operator of a
vessel on which sharks are
possessed in excess of the
recreational retention limits
intends to sell the sharks.

§ 635.4(e)(2) The owner of each
vessel used to fish for or take
Atlantic sharks or on which
Atlantic sharks are retained,
possessed with an intention to
sell, or sold must obtain, in
addition to any other required
permits, only one of two types of
commercial limited access shark
permits: Shark directed limited
access permit or shark incidental
limited access permit. It is a
rebuttable presumption that the
owner or operator of a vessel on
which sharks are possessed in
excess of the recreational
retention limits intends to sell
the sharks.

Removes a cross-reference
that has been removed.

10

§ 635.4(f)(1) The owner of
each vessel used to fish for or
take Atlantic swordfish or on
which Atlantic swordfish are
retained, possessed with an
intention to sell, or sold must
obtain, in addition to any
other required permits, only
one of three types of
commercial limited access
swordfish permits: swordfish
directed limited access permit,
swordfish incidental limited
access permit, or swordfish
handgear limited access
permit. See §635.16 regarding
the initial issuance of these
three types of permits.

§ 635.4(f)(1) The owner of each
vessel used to fish for or take
Atlantic swordfish or on which
Atlantic swordfish are retained,
possessed with an intention to
sell, or sold must obtain, in
addition to any other required
permits, only one of three types
of commercial limited access
swordfish permits: swordfish
directed limited access permit,
swordfish incidental limited
access permit, or swordfish
handgear limited access permit.
It is a rebuttable presumption
that the owner or operator of a
vessel on which swordfish are
possessed in excess of the
recreational retention limits
intends to sell the swordfish.

Removes a cross-reference
that has been previously
removed. Also, adds
rebuttable presumption that
swordfish possessed in excess
of recreational retention limits
are intended to be sold.

11

§ 635.4(f)(2) As of July 1,
1999, the only valid Federal
vessel permits for swordfish
are those that have been
issued under the limited
access criteria specified in
§635.16.

§ 635.4(f)(2) The only valid
Federal vessel permits for
swordfish are those that have
been issued under the limited
access program consistent with
the provisions under paragraphs
(l) and (m) of this section..

Removes a date that has
passed, and a cross-reference
that has been previously
removed.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-61

Rationale for Amendment

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

12

§ 635.4(h)(2) Limited access
permits for swordfish and
shark. See §635.16 for the
issuance of ILAPs for shark
and swordfish. See paragraph
(l) of this section for transfers
of ILAPs and LAPs for shark
and swordfish. See paragraph
(m) of this section for
renewals of LAPs for shark
and swordfish.

§ 635.4(h)(2) Limited access
permits for swordfish and shark.
See paragraph (l) of this section
for transfers of LAPs for shark
and swordfish. See paragraph
(m) of this section for renewals
of LAPs for shark and
swordfish.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued. Also, removes a
cross-reference that has been
previously removed.

13

§ 635.4(l)(2)(i) Subject to the
restrictions on upgrading the
harvesting capacity of
permitted vessels in paragraph
(l)(2)(ii) of this section and to
the limitations on ownership
of permitted vessels in
paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this
section, an owner may
transfer a shark or swordfish
ILAP or LAP or an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category
permit to another vessel that
he or she owns or to another
person. Directed handgear
ILAPs and LAPs for
swordfish may be transferred
to another vessel but only for
use with handgear and subject
to the upgrading restrictions in
paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this
section and the limitations on
ownership of permitted
vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii)
of this section. Incidental
catch ILAPs and LAPs are not
subject to the requirements
specified in paragraphs
(l)(2)(ii) and (l)(2)(iii) of this
section.

§ 635.4(l)(2)(i) Subject to the
restrictions on upgrading the
harvesting capacity of permitted
vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of
this section and to the limitations
on ownership of permitted
vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of
this section, an owner may
transfer a shark or swordfish
LAP or an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit to
another vessel that he or she
owns or to another person.
Directed handgear LAPs for
swordfish may be transferred to
another vessel but only for use
with handgear and subject to the
upgrading restrictions in
paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this
section and the limitations on
ownership of permitted vessels
in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this
section. Incidental catch LAPs
are not subject to the
requirements specified in
paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and
(l)(2)(iii) of this section.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-62

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

14

§ 635.4(l)(2)(ii)(B) The
vessel’s horsepower may be
increased only once
subsequent to the issuance of
a limited access permit,
whether through refitting,
replacement, or transfer. Such
an increase may not exceed 20
percent of the horsepower of
the vessel’s baseline
specifications, as applicable.

§ 635.4(l)(2)(ii)(B) Subsequent
to the issuance of a limited
access permit, the vessel’s
horsepower may be increased
only once, relative to the
baseline specifications of the
vessel originally issued the LAP,
whether through refitting,
replacement, or transfer. Such
an increase may not exceed 20
percent of the baseline
specifications of the vessel
originally issued the LAP.

Clarifies that the one
allowable horsepower upgrade
for vessels with limited access
permits is relative to the
baseline specifications of the
vessel originally issued the
LAP.

15

§ 635.4(l)(2)(ii)(C) The
vessel’s length overall, gross
registered tonnage, and net
tonnage may be increased
only once subsequent to the
issuance of a limited access
permit, whether through
refitting, replacement, or
transfer. Any increase in any
of these three specifications of
vessel size may not exceed 10
percent of the vessel’s
baseline specifications, as
applicable. ***

§ 635.4(l)(2)(ii)(C) ) Subsequent
to the issuance of a limited
access permit, the vessel’s
length overall, gross registered
tonnage, and net tonnage may be
increased only once, relative to
the baseline specifications of the
vessel originally issued the LAP,
whether through refitting,
replacement, or transfer. Any
increase in any of these three
specifications of vessel size may
not exceed 10 percent of the
baseline specifications of the
vessel originally issued the LAP.
***

Clarifies that the one
allowable vessel size upgrade
for vessels with limited access
permits is relative to the
baseline specifications of the
vessel originally issued the
LAP.

16

§ 635.4(l)(2)(viii) As
specified in paragraph (f)(4)
of this section, a directed or
incidental ILAP or LAP for
swordfish, a directed or an
incidental catch ILAP or LAP
for shark, and an Atlantic
Tunas commercial category
permit are required to retain
swordfish. Accordingly, a
LAP for swordfish obtained
by transfer without either a
directed or incidental catch
shark LAP or an Atlantic
tunas commercial category
permit will not entitle an
owner or operator to use a
vessel to fish in the swordfish
fishery.

§ 635.4(l)(2)(viii) As specified
in paragraph (f)(4) of this
section, a directed or incidental
LAP for swordfish, a directed or
an incidental catch LAP for
shark, and an Atlantic Tunas
longline category permit are
required to retain swordfish.
Accordingly, a LAP for
swordfish obtained by transfer
without either a directed or
incidental catch shark LAP or an
Atlantic Tunas longline category
permit will not entitle an owner
or operator to use a vessel to fish
in the swordfish fishery.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued. Changes general term
“commercial” to “longline” to
be consistent with the crossreference to paragraph (f)(4).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-63

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

17

§ 635.4(l)(2)(ix) As specified
in paragraph (d)(4) of this
section, a directed or
incidental ILAP or LAP for
swordfish, a directed or an
incidental catch ILAP or LAP
for shark, and an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category
permit are required to retain
Atlantic tunas taken by
pelagic longline gear.
Accordingly, an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category
permit obtained by transfer
without either a directed or
incidental catch swordfish or
shark LAP will not entitle an
owner or operator to use the
permitted vessel to fish in the
Atlantic tunas fishery with
pelagic longline gear.

§ 635.4(l)(2)(ix) As specified in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section,
a directed or incidental LAP for
swordfish, a directed or an
incidental catch LAP for shark,
and an Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit are required to
retain Atlantic tunas taken by
pelagic longline gear.
Accordingly, an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit
obtained by transfer without
either a directed or incidental
catch swordfish or shark LAP
will not entitle an owner or
operator to use the permitted
vessel to fish in the Atlantic
tunas fishery with pelagic
longline gear.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

18

§ 635.4(m)(2) Shark,
swordfish, and tuna longline
LAPs. As of June 1, 2000, the
owner of a vessel of the
United States that fishes for,
possesses, lands or sells shark
or swordfish from the
management unit, or takes or
possesses such shark or
swordfish as incidental catch
or that fishes for Atlantic
tunas with longline gear must
have the applicable limited
access permit(s) issued
pursuant to the requirements
in §635.4, paragraphs (e) and
(f). However, any ILAP that
expires on June 30, 2000, is
valid through that date. Only
valid limited access permit
holders in the preceding year
are eligible for renewal of a
limited access permit(s).
Limited access permits that
have been transferred
according to the procedures of
paragraph (l) of this section
are not eligible for renewal by
the transferor.

§ 635.4(m)(2) Shark, swordfish,
and tuna longline LAPs. The
owner of a vessel of the United
States that fishes for, possesses,
lands or sells shark or swordfish
from the management unit, or
takes or possesses such shark or
swordfish as incidental catch or
that fishes for Atlantic tunas
with longline gear must have the
applicable limited access
permit(s) issued pursuant to the
requirements in paragraphs (e)
and (f) of this section. Only
persons holding a non-expired
limited access permit(s) in the
preceding year are eligible for
renewal of a limited access
permit(s). Limited access
permits that have been
transferred according to the
procedures of paragraph (l) of
this section are not eligible for
renewal by the transferor.

Removes a date that has
passed, and references to
Initial Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued. Also, replaces the
word “valid” with “nonexpired” to better clarify the
intent of the paragraph.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-64

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

19

§ 635.5(a)(4) Pelagic longline
sea turtle reporting. The
operators of vessels that have
pelagic longline gear on board
and that have been issued, or
are required to have, a limited
access swordfish, shark, and
tuna longline category permit
for use in the Atlantic Ocean
including the Caribbean Sea
and the Gulf of Mexico are
required to report any sea
turtles that are dead when they
are captured or that die during
capture to the NOAA
Fisheries Southeast Fisheries
Science Center Observer
Program, at a number
designated by NOAA
Fisheries, within 48 hours of
returning to port, in addition
to submitting all other
reporting forms required by
this part and 50 CFR parts 223
and 224.

Remove § 635.5(a)(4), and
redesignate subsequent sections
as needed.

Removes a duplicative
reporting requirement.
Captured sea turtles would
still be required to be reported
in PLL logbooks, so no
information is lost.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-65

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

20

§ 635.5(d) Tournament
operators. A tournament
operator must notify NMFS of
the purpose, dates, and
location of the tournament
conducted from a port in an
Atlantic coastal state,
including the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico, at
least 4 weeks prior to
commencement of the
tournament. NMFS will notify
a tournament operator in
writing, when his or her
tournament has been selected
for reporting. The tournament
operator that is selected must
maintain and submit to NMFS
a record of catch and effort on
forms available from NMFS.
Tournament operators must
submit completed forms to
NMFS, at an address
designated by NMFS,
postmarked no later than the
7th day after the conclusion of
the tournament and must
attach a copy of the
tournament rules.

§ 635.5(d) Tournament
operators. A tournament
operator must register with the
NMFS’ HMS Management
Division all tournaments that are
conducted from a port in an
Atlantic coastal state, including
the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico, at least 4 weeks
prior to commencement of the
tournament by indicating the
purpose, dates, and location of
the tournament. Tournament
registration is not considered
complete unless the operator has
received a confirmation number
from the NMFS’ HMS
Management Division. NMFS
will notify a tournament
operator in writing when his or
her tournament has been
selected for reporting.
Tournament operators that are
selected to report must maintain
and submit to NMFS a record of
catch and effort on forms
available from NMFS.
Tournament operators must
submit the completed forms to
NMFS, at an address designated
by NMFS, postmarked no later
than the 7th day after the
conclusion of the tournament,
and must attach a copy of the
tournament rules.

Clarifies the specific line
office that HMS tournament
operators must notify and
register with. Indicates that a
confirmation number is
necessary to complete the
registration process.

21

§ 635.21(a)(2) If a billfish is
caught by a hook, the fish
must be released by cutting
the line near the hook or by
using a dehooking device, in
either case without removing
the fish from the water.

§ 635.21(a)(2) If a billfish is
caught by a hook and not
retained, the fish must be
released by cutting the line near
the hook or by using a
dehooking device, in either case
without removing the fish from
the water.

Clarifies that billfish caught
by a hook and not retained
must be released using
specified protocols. Without
clarification, the implication
may be that billfish caught by
hook must always be released.

22

§ 635.21(c)(1) From August
1, 1999, through November
30, 2000, no person may
deploy a pelagic longline that
is more than 24 nautical mile
(44.5 km) in length in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight.

This paragraph is revised with
new, non-related regulations.

Removes a requirement that
has expired.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-66

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

23

§ 635.21(c)(2)(ii) In the
Charleston Bump closed area
from March 1 through April
30, 2001, and from February 1
through April 30 each
calendar year thereafter;

§ 635.21(c)(2)(ii) In the
Charleston Bump closed area
from February 1 through April
30 each calendar year;

Removes dates that have
passed.

24

§ 635.21(c)(2)(iii) In the East
Florida Coast closed area at
any time beginning at 12:01
a.m. on March 1, 2001;

§ 635.21(c)(2)(iii) In the East
Florida Coast closed area at any
time;

Removes dates that have
passed.

25

§ 635.21(c)(2)(iv) In the
Desoto Canyon closed area at
any time beginning at 12:01
a.m. on November 1, 2000;

§ 635.21(c)(2)(iv) In the Desoto
Canyon closed area at any time;

Removes dates that have
passed.

26

§ 635.21(c)(2)(v) In the
Northeast Distant closed area
at any time, unless persons
onboard the vessel comply
with the following: * * *

§ 635.21(c)(2)(v) In the
Northeast Distant gear restricted
area at any time, unless persons
onboard the vessel comply with
the following: * * *

Amends title of the Northeast
Distant closed area to reflect
recent amendments to the
regulations governing the
area.

27

Second sentence of §
635.21(e)(1) currently reads,
“When fishing for Atlantic
tunas other than BFT, fishing
gear authorized for any
Atlantic Tunas permit
category may be used, except
that purse seine gear may only
be used on board vessels
permitted in the Purse Seine
category and pelagic longline
gear may be used only on
board vessels issued an
Atlantic Tunas Longline
category tuna permit as well
as ILAPs or LAPs for both
swordfish and sharks.”

Second sentence of §
635.21(e)(1) proposed to be
amended as, “When fishing for
Atlantic tunas other than BFT,
primary fishing gear authorized
for any Atlantic Tunas permit
category may be used, except
that purse seine gear may only
be used on board vessels
permitted in the Purse Seine
category and pelagic longline
gear may be used only on board
vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category tuna permit
and a LAP other than handgear
for swordfish, and a LAP for
sharks.”
NOTE – The first sentence in
this paragraph is modified
pursuant to regulatory changes
described in the “Authorized
Fishing Gear” section.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued. Consistent with
existing regulations, reiterates
that vessels issued swordfish
handgear permits cannot be
issued an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit
because the vessel cannot use
longline gear to catch
swordfish.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Amendment

2-67

Rationale for Amendment

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

28

§ 635.21(e)(4)(iii) A person
aboard a vessel issued a
directed handgear ILAP or
LAP for Atlantic swordfish
may not fish for swordfish
with any gear other than
handgear. * * *

§ 635.21(e)(4)(iii) A person
aboard a vessel issued or
required to be issued a directed
handgear LAP for Atlantic
swordfish may not fish for
swordfish with any gear other
than handgear. * * *
NOTE – The remainder of this
paragraph is modified pursuant
to regulatory changes described
in the “Authorized Fishing
Gear” section.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

29

The third sentence of
§635.22(c) currently reads,
“No prohibited sharks from
the management unit, which
are listed in table 1(d) of
Appendix A to this part, may
be retained.”

The third sentence of §635.22(c)
is amended to be, “No
prohibited sharks, including
parts or pieces of prohibited
sharks, from the management
unit, which are listed in table 1
of Appendix A to this part under
prohibited sharks, may be
retained.”

Clarifies that parts and pieces
of prohibited sharks may not
be retained.

30

§ 635.23(f)(3) – For pelagic
longline vessels fishing in the
Northeast Distant closed area,
as defined under §635.2,
under the exemption specified
at §635.21(c)(2)(v), all BFT
taken incidental to fishing for
other species while in the
Northeast Distant closed area
may be retained up to a
maximum of 25 mt for all
vessels so authorized,
notwithstanding the retention
limits and target catch
requirements specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this
section.

§ 635.23(f)(3) – For pelagic
longline vessels fishing in the
Northeast Distant gear restricted
area under the exemption
specified at §635.21(c)(2)(v), all
BFT taken incidental to fishing
for other species while in that
area may be retained up to the
available quota as specified in
§635.27(a), notwithstanding the
retention limits and target catch
requirements specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
Once the available quota as
specified in §635.27(a) has been
attained, the target catch
requirements specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section
apply.
NOTE – Much of the regulatory
text in this paragraph is modified
pursuant to Issue 10 in the
“Regulatory Housekeeping”
section.

Changes the title of the NED
closed area to reflect recent
amendments to the regulations
governing the area.

31

§ 635.24(a)(1) Persons who
own or operate a vessel that
has been issued a directed
ILAP or LAP for shark may
retain, possess or land no
more than 4,000 lb (1,814 kg),
dw, of LCS per trip.

§ 635.24(a)(1) Persons who own
or operate a vessel that has been
issued a directed LAP for shark
may retain, possess or land no
more than 4,000 lb (1,814 kg),
dw of LCS per trip.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-68

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

32

§ 635.24(a)(2) Persons who
own or operate a vessel that
has been issued an incidental
catch ILAP or LAP for sharks
may retain, possess or land no
more than 5 LCS and 16 SCS
and pelagic sharks, combined
per trip.

§ 635.24(a)(2) Persons who own
or operate a vessel that has been
issued an incidental catch LAP
for sharks may retain, possess or
land no more than 5 LCS and 16
SCS and pelagic sharks,
combined, per trip.

Removes references to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

Add a new paragraph at
§635.24(a)(3) to read as follows,
“Persons who own or operate a
vessel that has been issued an
incidental or directed LAP for
sharks may not retain, possess,
land, sell, or purchase a
prohibited shark, including parts
or pieces of prohibited sharks,
which are listed in Table 1 of
Appendix A to this part under
prohibited sharks.”

Clarifies existing regulations
regarding the retention,
possession, sale and purchase
of prohibited sharks by also
including parts and pieces of
prohibited sharks.

33

34

§ 635.24(b)(1) Persons aboard
a vessel that has been issued
an incidental ILAP or LAP for
swordfish may retain, possess,
or land no more than two
swordfish per trip in or from
the Atlantic Ocean north of 5°
N. lat.

§ 635.24(b)(1) Persons aboard a
vessel that has been issued an
incidental LAP for swordfish
may retain, possess, or land no
more than two swordfish per trip
in or from the Atlantic Ocean
north of 5° N. lat.

Removes reference to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

35

§ 635.24(b)(2) Persons aboard
a vessel in the squid trawl
fishery that has been issued an
incidental ILAP or LAP for
swordfish may retain, possess,
or land no more than five
swordfish per trip in or from
the Atlantic Ocean north of 5°
N. lat. * * *

§ 635.24(b)(2) Persons aboard a
vessel in the squid trawl fishery
that has been issued an
incidental LAP for swordfish
may retain, possess, or land no
more than five swordfish per trip
in or from the Atlantic Ocean
north of 5° N. lat. * * *

Removes reference to Initial
Limited Access Permits
(ILAPs), which are no longer
issued.

36

§ 635.27(a)(3) * * * In
addition, 25 mt shall be
allocated for incidental catch
by pelagic longline vessels
fishing in the Northeast
Distant closed area, as defined
under §635.2, under the
exemption specified at
§635.21(c)(2)(v).

§ 635.27(a)(3) * * * In addition,
25 mt shall be allocated for
incidental catch by pelagic
longline vessels fishing in the
Northeast Distant gear restricted
area as specified at
§635.23(f)(3).

Changes title of the NED
closed area to reflect recent
regulatory changes to the area.

37

§ 635.71(a)(7) Fail to allow
an authorized agent of NMFS
to inspect and copy reports
and records, as specified in §
635.5(e) or § 635.32.

§ 635.71(a)(7) Fail to allow an
authorized agent of NMFS to
inspect and copy reports and
records, as specified in §
635.5(e) and (f), or § 635.32.

Adds an additional reference
in this prohibition to §
635.5(f) – Additional data and
inspection.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-69

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

38

§ 635.71(a)(8) Fail to make
available for inspection an
Atlantic HMS or its area of
custody, as specified in §
635.5(g).

§ 635.71(a)(8) Fail to make
available for inspection an
Atlantic HMS or its area of
custody, as specified in §
635.5(e) and (f).

Corrects an obsolete reference
to § 635.5(g) and replaces
with § 635.5 (e) and (f).

39

§ 635.71(a)(37) Fail to report
to NMFS, at the number
designated by NMFS, the
incidental capture of listed
whales with shark gillnet gear
and sea turtle mortalities
associated with pelagic
longline gear as required by §
635.5.

§ 635.71(a)(37) Fail to report to
NMFS, at the number designated
by NMFS, the incidental capture
of listed whales with shark
gillnet gear as required by §
635.5.

Removes a duplicative
reporting requirement.
Captured sea turtles would
still be required to be reported
in PLL logbooks, so no
information is lost.

40

§ 635.71(b)(22) As the owner
or operator of a purse seine
vessel, fail to comply with the
requirements for weighing,
measuring, and information
collection specified in §
635.30(a)(2).

§ 635.71(b)(22) As the owner or
operator of a purse seine vessel,
fail to comply with the
requirement for possession at
sea and landing of BFT under §
635.30(a).

Revises language referencing
a paragraph that has been
removed by referencing the
appropriate paragraph.

41

§ 635.71(d)(10) Retain,
possess, sell, or purchase a
prohibited shark, as specified
under § 635.22(c) and §
635.27(b)(1) or fail to
disengage any hooked or
entangled prohibited shark
with the least harm possible to
the animal as specified at §
635.21(d)(3).

§ 635.71(d)(10) Retain, possess,
sell, or purchase a prohibited
shark, including parts or pieces
of prohibited sharks, as specified
under §§ 635.22(c),
635.24(a)(3), and 635.27(b)(1)
or fail to disengage any hooked
or entangled prohibited shark
with the least harm possible to
the animal as specified at
§635.21(d)(3).

Adds a reference to a new
paragraph at § 635.24(a)(3),
which includes parts and
pieces of prohibited sharks.

42

§ 635.71(d)(11) Falsify
information submitted under §
635.16(d)(2) or (d)(4) in
support of an application for
an ILAP or an appeal of
NMFS’ denial of an ILAP for
shark.

Revise § 635.71(d)(11) with
regulatory language pursuant to
“HMS Identification
Workshops” section.

Removes a cross-reference
that has been removed. ILAPs
are no longer being issued,
and appeals are complete.

43

§ 635.71(e)(11) Falsify
information submitted under
§635.16(d)(2) or (d)(4) in
support of an application for
an ILAP or an appeal of
NMFS’ denial of an initial
limited access permit for
swordfish.

Revise § 635.71(e)(11) with
regulatory language pursuant to
“Authorized Gears” section.

Removes a cross-reference
that has been removed. ILAPs
are no longer being issued,
and appeals are complete.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-70

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Item
Number

Current Regulation

Amendment

Rationale for Amendment

44

§ 300.182(d) Duration. Any
permit issued under this
section is valid until
December 31 of the year for
which it is issued, unless
suspended or revoked.

§ 300.182(d) Duration. Any
permit issued under this section
is valid for the period specified
on it, unless suspended or
revoked.

Modifies the expiration date
of the HMS International
Trade Permit.

45

§ 635.22(b) Billfish. No
longbill spearfish from the
management unit may be
possessed shoreward of the
outer boundary of the EEZ.

§ 635.22(b) Billfish. No longbill
spearfish from the management
unit may be taken, retained, or
possessed shoreward of the outer
boundary of the EEZ.

Strengthens longbill spearfish
regulations, and is consistent
with similar language
regarding other species.

2.3.4.2 Alternatives
The issues being addressed in this section include changes in definitions, clarifications,
and amendments for which alternatives have been developed and analyzed. A description of
each issue is provided, followed by a description of the alternatives being considered.
Issue 1: Definitions of Pelagic and Bottom Longline
The HMS time/area closures that are currently in effect apply specifically to either
pelagic or bottom longline gear (i.e., the Desoto Canyon, East Florida Coast, Charleston Bump,
Mid-Atlantic Shark, and Northeastern United States Closed Areas). Therefore, to determine
compliance with the closed area restrictions, it is optimal for the two gear types to be clearly
differentiable. In the current regulations, the difference is articulated by general reference to the
presence of weights/floats capable of anchoring/supporting the mainline on/in the seafloor/water
column. Problems have arisen because bottom longline vessel operators sometimes possess and
utilize floats on bottom longline gear, and pelagic longline vessel operators sometimes possess
and utilize weights on pelagic longline gear. In these situations, it may be difficult to determine
if the weights are capable of anchoring the mainline on the seafloor, or if the floats are capable of
supporting the mainline in the water column. NMFS is considering amending the definitions for
pelagic and bottom longlines at §§ 635.2, 635.21(c), and 635.21(d), or establishing additional
restrictions or possession limits on these gears when fishing in any of the HMS time/area
closures.
Alternative I1(a) Retain current definitions for pelagic and bottom longline gears (No Action)
This alternative would retain the current definitions for pelagic and bottom longlines at
§§ 635.2, 635.21(c), and 635.21(d). A pelagic longline is defined as a longline that is suspended
by floats in the water column and that is not fixed to or in contact with the ocean bottom. For
purposes of § 635.21(c), a vessel is considered to have pelagic longline gear onboard when a
power-operated longline hauler, a mainline, floats capable of supporting the mainline, and
leaders (gangions) with hooks are onboard. A bottom longline is defined as a longline that is
deployed with enough weights and/or anchors to maintain contact with the ocean bottom. For
purposes of § 635.21(d), a vessel is considered to have bottom longline gear on board when a
power-operated longline hauler, a mainline, weights and/or anchors capable of maintaining
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-71

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

contact between the mainline and the ocean bottom, and leaders (gangions) with hooks are on
board. There are currently no restrictions on the amount of pelagic species that may be
possessed when fishing with bottom longline gear in PLL closed areas, and vice verse.
Alternative I1(b) Establish additional restrictions on longline gear in HMS time/area closures
by specifying a maximum and minimum allowable number of commercial
fishing floats in order to qualify as a bottom or pelagic longline vessel,
respectively
This alternative would retain the current definitions for pelagic and bottom longlines at
§§ 635.2; 635.21(c); and 635.21(d). However, in addition, this alternative would establish limits
on the number of commercial fishing floats that longline fishing vessels must possess onboard to
qualify as either a bottom or pelagic longline vessel within the closed areas. Specifically, under
this alternative, to be considered a bottom longline vessel in a PLL closed area, the vessel must
possess no more than 70 commercial fishing floats onboard or deployed, combined. To be
considered a pelagic longline vessel in a BLL closed area, the vessel must possess at least 71
commercial fishing floats onboard or deployed, combined. Examples of commercial fishing
floats include bullet floats, poly balls, high flyers, and lobster pot buoys. This alternative was a
preferred alternative in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP.
Alternative I1(c) Differentiate between pelagic and bottom longline gear based upon the
species composition of the catch onboard or landed – Preferred Alternative
This alternative would retain the current definitions for pelagic and bottom longlines at
§§ 635.2, 635.21(c), and 635.21(d). However, in addition, this alternative would establish a fivepercent limit (by weight) on the allowable amount of pelagic “indicator” species that bottom
longline vessels may possess or land from PLL closed areas, and establish a five-percent limit
(by weight) on the allowable amount of demersal “indicator” species that pelagic longline
vessels may possess or land from BLL closed areas (measured relative to the total weight of all
pelagic and demersal “indicator” species). Specifically, to qualify as a bottom longline vessel
when fishing in a PLL closed area, no more than five percent (by weight) of the species
possessed or landed may be pelagic “indicator” species, as measured relative to the total weight
of all pelagic and demersal “indicator” species. To be considered a pelagic longline vessel when
fishing in a BLL closed area, no more than five percent (by weight) of the species possessed or
landed may be demersal “indicator” species, as measured relative to the total weight of all
pelagic and demersal “indicator” species. The indicator species are listed in Table 1 of Section
4.3.4.
Alternative I1(d) Require time/depth recorders (TDRs) on all HMS longlines
This alternative would require TDRs (data loggers) at pre-specified intervals on all HMS
longline fishing gear that is deployed. Under this alternative, the TDRs would have to be
operational and able to accurately record the maximum and minimum fishing depths of HMS
longline gear using an onboard TDR reader. Pelagic longline gear would be required to remain
within the upper two-thirds of the water column while fishing, and bottom longline gear would
be required to remain within the bottom third of the water column while fishing.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-72

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Alternative I1(e) Base HMS time/area closures on all longlines (PLL and BLL)
This alternative would not differentiate between pelagic and bottom longline gear in the
establishment and enforcement of HMS longline closed areas. Specifically, if this alternative
were adopted, all longline gear would be prohibited from all HMS longline closed areas.
Issue 2: Shark Identification
Species identification of sharks can be enhanced by the presence of fins. NMFS is
considering amending the regulations governing commercial shark landings, possibly at §
635.30(c)(2) and at § 635.71(d)(6), to facilitate shark identification for enforcement and data
collection purposes.
Alternative I2(a) Retain current commercial regulations regarding shark landing requirements
(No Action)
By retaining the status quo, this alternative would allow for the removal of all shark fins
prior to landing. Other regulations governing the landing of sharks and shark fins would remain
unchanged, as well. As such, Federal commercial shark limited access permit holders would be
allowed to eviscerate sharks and remove their heads and fins at sea as long as the ratio between
the weight of fins and the weight of carcass does not exceed five percent.
Alternative I2(b) Require that the 2nd dorsal fin and the anal fin remain on all sharks through
landing – Preferred Alternative
This alternative would mandate the retention of the 2nd dorsal fin and anal fin on all shark
species through landing. Specifically, Federal commercial shark limited access permit holders
would be required to have these fins attached to all sharks during offloading. Removal of these
fins would only be permissible after the shark is offloaded.
Alternative I2(c) Require that the 2nd dorsal fin and the anal fin remain on all sharks through
landing, except for lemon and nurse sharks
This alternative would mandate the retention of the 2nd dorsal fin and anal fin on all shark
species, except for lemon and nurse sharks, through landing. Specifically, Federal commercial
shark limited access permit holders would be required to have these fins attached to all sharks,
except nurse and lemon sharks, during offloading. Removal of these fins would only be
permissible after the shark is offloaded. Due to ease at which nurse and lemon sharks without
2nd dorsal and anal fins can be identified, these species would be exempt under this alternative.
Alternative I2(d) Require that all fins remain on all sharks through landing
This alternative would mandate the retention of all fins on all shark species through
landing. Federal commercial shark limited access permit holders would be required to have all
fins attached to all sharks during offloading. Removal of the fins would only be permissible
after the shark is offloaded.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-73

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Issue 3: HMS Retention Limits
Currently, HMS retention limits apply to “persons aboard a vessel” (i.e., vessel owners
and operators). NMFS is considering adding new prohibitions at § 635.71(a)(48) and §
635.71(a)(49) that would address the purchase and sale of HMS by dealers and fishermen in
excess of the retention limits specified in § 635.23 and § 635.24. The intent of these prohibitions
would be to improve compliance with HMS retention limits by extending the regulations to both
of the parties involved in a transaction (i.e. “persons aboard a vessel” & buyers).
Alternative I3 (a) Retain current regulations regarding retention limits, with no new prohibitions
(No Action)
This alternative would not implement any new prohibitions regarding the purchase and
sale of HMS by dealers and fishermen in excess of the retention limits specified in §§ 635.23 and
635.24. As such, compliance with many of the HMS retention limits would remain solely
incumbent upon “persons aboard a vessel” (i.e., vessel owners and operators). Persons who
purchase HMS that were offloaded from an individual vessel in excess of the retention limits
would remain unaffected.
Alternative I3(b) Add new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(48) making it illegal for any person to,
“Purchase any HMS that was offloaded from an individual vessel in excess of
the retention limits specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24” – Preferred
Alternative
This alternative would implement a new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(48) making it illegal
for any person to, “Purchase any HMS that was offloaded from an individual vessel in excess of
the retention limits specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24.” As such, dealers or buyers would be
held responsible for purchases of HMS in excess of the commercial retention limits. This
prohibition is intended to improve compliance with HMS retention limits by extending the
regulations to both of the parties involved in a transaction. It would reinforce and clarify other
existing regulations regarding landings of HMS in excess of commercial retention limits.
Alternative I3(c)

Add new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(49) making it illegal for any person to,
“Sell any HMS that was offloaded from an individual vessel in excess of the
retention limits specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24” – Preferred Alternative

This alternative would implement a new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(49) making it illegal
for any person to, “Sell any HMS that was offloaded from an individual vessel in excess of the
retention limits specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24.” As such, vessel owners or operators would
be held responsible for sales in excess of HMS retention limits. This prohibition would reinforce
and clarify other existing regulations regarding landings of HMS by vessels in excess of
commercial retention limits.
Issue 4: Definition of East Florida Coast Closed Area
NMFS is considering amending the definition of the East Florida Coast closed area at §
635.2 by replacing the second coordinate (28° 17’ N. Lat., 79° 12’ W. Long.) with a new
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-74

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

coordinate (28° 17’ 10” N. Lat., 79° 11’ 24” W. Long.), so that the outer boundary of the closed
area corresponds with the outer boundary of the EEZ, as originally intended. This area was
initially described in the FSEIS (NMFS June 14, 2000) and the final rule prepared pursuant to
implementation of the closed area (65 FR 47214, August 1, 2000). However, one of the current
outer coordinates does not correspond exactly with the EEZ boundary, thus inadvertently leaving
a small area open between the closed area and the EEZ. The outer coordinate being considered
is approximately 1.02 km (0.55 nm) seaward (eastward) of the current coordinate.
Alternative I4(a) Retain current coordinates for the East Florida Coast closed area (No Action)
This alternative would retain the status quo coordinates for the East Florida Coast closed
area. One of the outer coordinates does not correspond exactly with the EEZ boundary, thus
leaving a small area open between the closed area and the EEZ. Pelagic longline vessels would
continue to be allowed to fish in this small region between the closed area and the EEZ.
Alternative I4(b) Amend the second coordinate of the East Florida Coast closed area to 28° 17’
10” N. Lat., 79° 11’ 24” W. Long., so that it corresponds with the EEZ –
Preferred Alternative
This alternative would amend the second coordinate of the East Florida Coast closed
area. If this alternative were selected, pelagic longline vessels would not be able to fish in the
small area that is currently open between the closed area and the EEZ. This modification would
meet the intent of the closed area to extend out to the EEZ.
Issue 5: Definition of Handline
Currently, a “handline” is defined as fishing gear consisting of a mainline to which no
more than two leaders (gangions) with hooks are attached, and that is released and retrieved by
hand, rather than by mechanical means. It has been brought to the Agency’s attention that some
vessel operators, both commercial and recreational, may be deploying numerous handlines that
are not attached to their vessel in areas that are closed to pelagic longlines and elsewhere. While
these vessel operators may be technically compliant with current regulations, this practice may
circumvent the original “concept” of handline gear, and could potentially diminish the
conservation benefits associated with the PLL closed areas. Therefore, NMFS is considering
amending the definition of “handline,” possibly at §§ 635.2 and 635.2l.
Alternative I5(a) Retain the current definition of “handline” at § 635.2 (No Action)
The “No Action” alternative would retain the current definition of “handline,” as
described above. As such, the practice of fishing with an unlimited number of unattached
handlines would continue to be allowed.
Alternative I5(b) Amend the definition of “handline” at § 635.2 by requiring that they be
attached to, or in contact with, a vessel – Preferred Alternative
Alternative I5(b) would define a handline as fishing gear that is attached to, or in direct
contact with, a fishing vessel and consists of a mainline to which no more than two leaders
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-75

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

(gangions) with hooks are attached, and that is released and retrieved by hand, rather than by
mechanical means. As such, the practice of fishing with unattached handlines would be
disallowed for all HMS commercial and recreational fishing activities. Please see Section 2.3.3
of this document regarding an alternative that would add “buoy gear” to the list of authorized
gears for the swordfish handgear fishery.
Alternative I5(c) Require that handlines remain attached to vessels when fishing recreationally
and allow unattached handlines when fishing commercially
Alternative I5(c) would require that handlines remain attached to, or in direct contact
with, a fishing vessel for all vessels possessing either an HMS Angling category permit; an HMS
Charter/headboat permit when fishing on a for-hire trip; or, an Atlantic Tunas General category
permit when fishing in a registered HMS tournament. As such, the practice of fishing with
unattached handlines would be disallowed when conducting recreational fishing activities, but
the practice would be allowed when fishing commercially.
Issue 6: Possession of Billfish on Vessels Issued HMS Commercial Permits
The Atlantic billfish fishery is a recreational fishery and the sale of Atlantic billfish is
prohibited. Furthermore, Atlantic billfish may only be harvested by rod and reel, and persons
may not currently possess, take, or retain billfish if pelagic longline gear is onboard the vessel.
NMFS is considering amendments that would reinforce the recreational nature of the Atlantic
billfish fishery by eliminating a minor loophole that exists, whereby the possession or retention
of billfish is not prohibited if commercial gears other than pelagic longline are onboard a vessel.
As such, persons aboard HMS-permitted vessels may potentially fish for and possess Atlantic
billfish for non-commercial purposes using rod and reel when other commercial gear is onboard.
Also, vessel operators might incidentally capture and possess billfish caught on other
commercial gears and illegally retain the fish by indicating that it was caught using rod and reel.
Therefore, NMFS is considering amendments to prohibit the possession or retention of billfish
on all vessels issued HMS commercial permits.
Alternative I6(a) Retain current regulations regarding the possession of Atlantic billfish (No
Action)
The “No Action” alternative would allow the possession or retention of billfish when
commercial gears, other than pelagic longlines, are onboard the vessel. As such, persons may
potentially fish for and possess Atlantic billfish for non-commercial purposes using rod and reel,
when other commercial gear is onboard. The “No Action” alternative does not specify which
permit holders may possess or retain an Atlantic billfish taken from its management unit.
Alternative I6(b)

Prohibit vessels issued HMS commercial permits and operating outside of
a tournament from possessing, retaining, or taking Atlantic billfish from
the management unit – Preferred Alternative

Alternative I6(b) would prohibit the possession or retention of billfish on all vessels that
have been issued HMS commercial permits. Only vessel owners possessing either an HMS
Angling, HMS Charter/headboat permit, or an Atlantic Tunas General category (when fishing in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-76

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

a registered HMS tournament) permit would be allowed to possess or retain an Atlantic billfish
taken from its management unit with rod and reel. If this alternative were selected, the
regulations for all HMS commercial fisheries would be consistent with current regulations in
effect for the pelagic longline fishery. This alternative would further reinforce and clarify the
recreational nature of the Atlantic billfish fishery.
Issue 7: Bluefin Tuna Dealer Reporting
NMFS is investigating alternative methods of BFT dealer reporting. Currently, BFT
dealers are required to manually complete and submit as many as three individual BFT reports
(BFT landing reports, bi-weekly BFT reports, and BFT statistical documents for international
trade). These reports are then re-entered into databases by NMFS personnel. Recent advances in
software technology and web-based applications provide opportunities for dealers to enter and
report data with greater efficiency, and with potential reductions in administrative costs for both
dealers and NMFS. For example, NMFS' Northeast Regional Office has transitioned to an
electronic web-based dealer reporting system and continues to work with dealers to improve the
system. Electronic capabilities could also be developed for an HMS BFT system to increase
quality control and assurance capabilities, using cross-checks with other databases, data fields,
and flags that would facilitate accurate data entry. However, current regulations regarding BFT
dealer reporting and recordkeeping require that dealers submit written reports, either in the mail
or via FAX transmittal. To provide additional electronic reporting flexibility, as described
above, it is necessary to amend the HMS regulations to specify that BFT dealers may submit
these reports electronically over the Internet if they choose to do so, or are required to do so.
Alternative I7(a) Retain the current regulations regarding bluefin tuna dealer reporting (No
Action)
Under this alternative the regulations regarding BFT dealer reporting would remain
unchanged. Potentially, dealers that have the capacity and interest to report electronically would
not be able to do so because the current requirements specifically state that reports must be
written and mailed or faxed (i.e., fax for landing reports; fax or standard mail for bi-weekly
reports; fax or standard mail for statistical documents accompanying imported BFT; standard
mail for statistical documents accompanying exported BFT).
Alternative I7(b) Amend the HMS regulations to provide an option for Atlantic tunas dealers to
submit required BFT reports using the Internet – Preferred Alternative
Under this alternative, the regulations would be slightly modified to add text under each
BFT dealer reporting requirement so that dealers may also electronically submit the required
report if they choose to do so, using an on-line tool or webpage. All status quo methods of
providing hand-written reports and documentation via mail or fax would remain available and
permissible. Electronic submission would be provided as an option, and would not be
mandatory. Investigations are still underway regarding the feasibility and design of an electronic
system and no dates for implementation have yet been set. However, when such a system has
been designed, it would be useful to provide interested dealers with the opportunity to test the
system and provide feedback for future enhancements. The preferred alternative would provide

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-77

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

dealers with the flexibility not only to test the system, but continue to use it should they choose
to do so.
Alternative I7(c) Amend the HMS BFT dealer reporting regulations to require that Atlantic
tunas dealers submit BFT reports electronically, with specific exceptions
This alternative proposes to adjust the regulations to require all BFT dealers, with some
exceptions, to submit all BFT reports electronically either using a web-based application, or
using software on a private computer with the data being transmitted over the Internet. The
intent of this alternative would be to standardize reporting, reduce administrative burdens, and
ensure the new system is used. All options to submit written reports via mail or fax would be
eliminated with certain specific exemptions, such as for dealers falling below an established
economic threshold, or for dealers who only report minimal numbers of fish on an infrequent
basis.
Issue 8: “No-Fishing,” “Cost-Earnings,” and “Annual Expenditures” Reporting Forms
Presently, if commercial HMS permit holders (i.e., HMS Charter/headboat, Atlantic
Tunas, and commercial shark and swordfish permit holders) are selected for reporting, they are
required to submit logbooks to NMFS postmarked within seven days of offloading any Atlantic
HMS. NMFS supplies logbook forms to all selected vessels. These forms consist of a fishing
report (catch, discards, effort and fishing area data), a “no-fishing” reporting form if no fishing
took place during the preceding month, and trip and annual “cost-earnings” reporting forms. The
reported information is used to conduct stock assessments, monitor quotas, prevent overfishing,
and estimate the economic impacts of different management measures. There has been some
confusion as to whether the “no-fishing” reporting form and the “cost-earnings” reporting forms
are a required component of the logbook, and exactly when they must be submitted. Therefore,
NMFS is considering amendments to require the submission of a “no-fishing” reporting form,
and to specify that the report must be postmarked no later than seven days after the end of the
month. Similarly, the “cost-earnings” and “annual expenditures” reporting forms would need to
be submitted consistent with the instructions on the forms. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
reporting burden for these information collections is currently approved under the PRA
submission for Atlantic HMS vessel logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0371). A
requirement to submit the “no-fishing” report form, and the trip “cost-earnings” and “annual
expenditures” reporting forms within a certain timeframe would be new, however it is consistent
with current HMS requirements and with other NMFS’ Southeast Regional regulations. These
modifications would clarify HMS logbook reporting requirements.
Alternative I8(a) Maintain the existing regulations regarding submission of logbooks (No
Action)
The “No Action” alternative would retain the existing regulations regarding the
submission of HMS vessel logbooks at § 635.5(a)(1). There are currently no specific regulations
to submit “no-fishing,” “cost-earnings,” and “annual expenditure” reporting forms to NMFS
within a certain timeframe.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-78

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Alternative I8(b) Require submission of “no-fishing” reporting forms for selected vessels if no
fishing trips occurred during the preceding month, postmarked no later than
seven days after the end of the month – Preferred Alternative
Alternative I8(b) would amend the HMS regulations at § 635.5(a)(1) to require the
submission of “no-fishing” reporting forms for selected vessels if no fishing trips occurred
during the preceding month to be postmarked no later than seven days after the end of the month.
This alternative would clarify HMS logbook reporting requirements and provide important
information to conduct stock assessments, monitor quotas, and prevent overfishing.
Alternative I8(c) Require submission of the trip "cost-earnings” reporting form for selected
vessels 30 days after a trip, and the” annual expenditures” report form by the
date specified on the form – Preferred Alternative
Alternative I8(c) would amend the HMS regulations to require the submission of trip
“cost-earnings” reporting forms for selected vessels 30 days after a trip, and the “annual
expenditures” report form by the date specified on the form (presently January 31st). This
alternative would better clarify HMS reporting requirement and provide important information to
estimate the economic impacts of different management measures.
Issue 9: Non-Tournament Recreational Landings Reporting
HMS regulations currently specify that anglers are required to report non-tournament
recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and swordfish, whereas other HMS regulations specify
that vessel owners are required to report recreational landings of bluefin tuna under the Angling
category. NMFS is considering clarifying that owners of vessels permitted, or required to be
permitted, in the Atlantic HMS Angling or Atlantic HMS Charter/headboat category (or their
designee) must report all non-tournament recreational landings of billfish and swordfish. This
action is being considered to remove inconsistencies in reporting requirements and to clarify
NMFS’ intent that the vessel owner, rather than the angler, is responsible for reporting nontournament recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and swordfish.
Alternative I9(a) Retain existing regulations at § 635.5(c)(2) requiring anglers to report nontournament recreational landings of North Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic
billfish (No Action)
Alternative I9(a) would retain existing HMS regulations that specify that anglers are
required to report non-tournament recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and swordfish. These
regulations are inconsistent with other HMS regulations specifying that vessel owners are
required to report recreational landings of bluefin tuna under the Angling category.
Alternative I9(b) Require vessel owners (or their designee) to report non-tournament
recreational landings of North Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic billfish –
Preferred Alternative
Alternative I9(b) would amend the HMS regulations to specify that vessel owners (or
their designee) are required to report non-tournament recreational landings of Atlantic billfish
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-79

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

and swordfish. The vessel owner would be responsible for reporting, but the owner’s designee
could fulfill the requirement. This alternative would be consistent with other HMS regulations
specifying that vessel owners are required to report recreational landings of bluefin tuna under
the Angling category.
Issue 10: Pelagic Longline 25 mt (ww) NED Incidental BFT Allocation
In November 2002, ICCAT recommended an annual U. S. Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
of western Atlantic BFT of 1,489.6 mt (ww). A specific allocation of 25 mt (ww) was included
in this TAC to account for the incidental catch of BFT by longline fisheries directed on other
species “in the vicinity of the management boundary area” for the eastern and western BFT
stocks. This area was defined by NMFS in the 2003 BFT annual specification as the Northeast
Distant (NED) statistical reporting area (approximately the Grand Banks fishing grounds) (68 FR
56783, October 2, 2003). The regulatory text at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(3) was revised to include this
additional allocation, and specifically states that “25 mt shall be allocated for incidental catch by
pelagic longline vessel fishing in the NED.”
As the language contained in the ICCAT recommendation is not explicit regarding
application of any unharvested quota to the following year’s quota, NMFS prefers to clarify the
regulatory text and the procedures implementing that text, as it directly relates to this specific
set-aside. Since the implementation of the 25 mt (ww) recommendation, NMFS has allocated an
additional 25 mt (ww) for this incidental catch each year. However, because previous year’s
longline activity has not resulted in full incidental set-aside quota attainment, NMFS has carried
forward un-utilized quota and added it to the subsequent fishing year’s annual 25 mt (ww)
allocation. This has resulted in revised totals that exceed 25 mt (ww). This accumulation of
incidental quota has led to revised set-aside quotas exceeding that of the ICCAT recommended
amount and therefore, may not fully reflect the intent of the recommendation. Several
alternatives are presented below to clarify the amount of available incidental BFT quota for
pelagic longline activity in the vicinity of the NED statistical reporting area.
Alternative I10(a):

Retain the current regulations specifically referring to 25 mt (ww)
(No Action)

Under this alternative, the status quo regulatory text implementing this ICCAT
recommendation would remain unchanged and would indicate that 25 mt (ww) shall be allocated
for incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the NED. This alternative
would not clarify the applicability of quota carry-over provisions to this set-aside quota, and may
allow for implementing practices to not fully reflect the original intent of the recommendation.
Under this alternative, NMFS would allocate 25 mt (ww) for this incidental catch on an annual
basis. If the previous year’s longline activity has not resulted in full incidental set-aside quota
attainment, NMFS would carry forward un-utilized quota and add it to the subsequent fishing
year’s 25 mt (ww) allocation. If the previous year’s longline activity has exceeded the incidental
set-aside quota, NMFS would deduct the overharvest from the subsequent fishing year’s 25 mt
(ww) allocation. Thus, this alternative may result in a revised quota that differs from the
25 mt (ww).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-80

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Alternative I10(b):

Modify the HMS regulations to state that “In addition, each year, 25 mt
(ww) will be allocated for incidental catch by pelagic longline vessels
fishing in the NED”

Under Alternative I10(b), the regulatory text would be modified to include the phrase
“each year” to clarify that the annual baseline allocation equals 25 mt (ww), but the total
available quota for a given year would not be limited and may be modified to account for
under/overharvests from prior year’s activity. This alternative would clarify that carryover
provisions apply to this set-aside quota. This was a preferred alternative in the Draft HMS FMP.
Alternative I10(c):

Conduct additional discussions at ICCAT regarding quota rollovers and
adjust quotas allocated to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline
fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary accordingly
Preferred Alternative

Under this alternative, the United States would conduct additional discussions at the
annual ICCAT meeting regarding the long-term implications of allowing unused BFT quota from
the previous year being added to the subsequent year’s allocation that can be retained.
Depending on the results of any additional discussions at ICCAT, the regulations and operational
procedures that account for BFT bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the vicinity of
the management area boundary may need to be further amended in the future. In the interim,
NMFS would maintain the current regulatory text implementing the ICCAT recommendation, as
described in alternative I10(a), but would amend the current practice of allowing
under/overharvest of this set-aside allocation to be rolled into, or deducted from, the subsequent
fishing year’s set-aside allocation. Therefore, regardless of the amount of the set-aside harvested
or unused in a given year, the balance would return to 25 mt (ww) at the start of each fishing
year. If landings were to exceed the 25 mt (ww) allotment, they would be accounted for via
Longline category quota that applies to the entire Western Atlantic management area.
Issue 11: Permit Condition for Recreational Trips
In the HMS regulations, as a condition of their permits, vessels that have a commercial
shark or swordfish permit must currently comply with Federal regulations regardless of where
vessels are fishing, unless a state has more restrictive regulations (50 CFR § 635.4(a)(10)).
However, vessels fishing recreationally for sharks, swordfish, billfish, and tunas in a few states
are currently able to fish under state regulations while in state waters, and under Federal
regulations when in Federal waters. This has generated confusion due to the differences between
state and Federal regulations and the inability to verify whether or not a particular fish onboard a
vessel was caught in state waters or Federal waters. The alternatives below consider modifying
the status quo to remove this ambiguity.
Alternative I11(a)

No permit condition for recreational trips (No Action)

Under this alternative, the regulations would remain as they currently are. Thus, vessels
issued an HMS Angling permit, an Atlantic Tunas General Category permit that was
participating in a registered tournament, or an HMS Charter/headboat permit that was on a for­

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-81

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

hire trip would fish under Federal requirements in Federal waters and under state requirements in
state waters.
Alternative I11(b)

Require recreational vessels with a Federal permit to abide by Federal
regulations, regardless of where they are fishing, unless a state has more
restrictive regulations - Preferred Alternative

Under this alternative, vessels that have been issued an HMS Angling permit, an Atlantic
Tunas General category permit that was participating in a registered tournament, or an HMS
Charter/headboat permit on a for-hire trip would be required to fish for, retain, or possess
Atlantic HMS in accordance with Federal regulations regardless of fishing location, unless the
state where the fish is caught has more restrictive regulations. For example, if the Federal bag
limit is three fish per vessel, and the state bag limit is two fish per vessel, a vessel with a Federal
permit fishing in state waters would be limited to two fish per vessel. However, if the Federal
bag limit is three fish per vessel, and the state bag limit is four fish per vessel, a vessel with a
Federal permit fishing in state waters would be limited to three fish per vessel. Vessels that have
not been issued a Federal permit that allows for recreational Atlantic HMS fishing would need to
abide by state regulations when fishing for HMS in state waters. A vessel without a Federal
permit cannot legally fish in Federal waters for Atlantic HMS.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-82

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES
Reference for Section 2.1.2
Blue Ocean Institute, Monterrey Bay Aquarium, National Coalition for Marine Conservation,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana Inc., 2005. Petition for Immediate
Rulemaking to Protect Spawning Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. Submitted
to Secretary of Commerce on June 8, 2005. 13 p.
Block, B.A., S.L.H. Teo, A. Walli, A. Boustany, M.J.W. Stokesbury, C.J. Farwell, K.C. Weng,
H. Dewar, T.D. Williams 2005. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic
bluefin tuna. Nature. Vol. 434. April 2005. 1121-1127.
References for Section 2.3.3
IBSRC. 2005. International Bluewater Spearfishing Records Committee Rules.
http://freedive.net/ibsrc/index.html .
Wescott, W. 1996. The Wanchese Green Stick Tuna Rig. North Carolina Sea Grant.UNC-SG­
96-04.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2-83

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
REFERENCES

CHAPTER 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 3 Table of Contents......................................................................................................3-i

Chapter 3 List of Tables ............................................................................................................ 3-v

Chapter 3 List of Figures ........................................................................................................3-xii

3.0

Description of Affected Environment .......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction to HMS Management and HMS Fisheries ............................................... 3-1

3.1.1 History of Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark Management........................ 3-2

3.1.1.1 Pre-1999 Atlantic Tunas Management.............................................................. 3-2

3.1.1.2 Pre-1999 Atlantic Swordfish Fishery and Management ................................... 3-7

3.1.1.3 Pre-1999 Atlantic Shark Fisheries and Management ...................................... 3-10

3.1.1.4 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, & Sharks .... 3-14

3.1.1.5 Post 1999 FMP ................................................................................................ 3-15

3.1.1.6 Regulatory Amendments Relating to the Pelagic Longline Fishery ............... 3-15

3.1.1.7 Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish,

and Sharks ....................................................................................................... 3-18

3.1.1.8 Other Post-1999 FMP Regulations for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks . 3­
19

3.1.2 History of Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management ........................................... 3-21

3.1.2.1 Preliminary Fishery Management Plan (PMP) for Atlantic Billfish and Sharks 3­
21

3.1.2.2 The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Billfishes .............................. 3-22

3.1.2.3 Interim Rules ................................................................................................... 3-23

3.1.2.4 Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan.............. 3-23

3.1.2.5 ICCAT 2000 .................................................................................................... 3-25

3.1.2.6 White Marlin Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Review....................... 3-25

3.1.2.7 ICCAT 2002 .................................................................................................... 3-25

3.1.2.8 Recreational Permitting and Reporting Rules ................................................. 3-26

3.1.2.9 Proposed Rule to Codify the 250 Marlin Landing Limit ................................ 3-26

3.1.2.10 ICCAT 2004 .................................................................................................... 3-27

3.1.3 Summary and Update of Management Measures Taken in 2005 and Early 2006

3-27

3.1.4 2005 Accomplishments of the International Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).................................................................................. 3-30

3.1.4.1 Atlantic Tunas ................................................................................................. 3-30

3.1.4.2 Atlantic Sharks ................................................................................................ 3-31

3.1.4.3 Trade and Trade Monitoring ........................................................................... 3-31

3.1.4.4 Data Compliance ............................................................................................. 3-31

3.1.4.5 Circle Hooks.................................................................................................... 3-31

3.1.5 Existing State Regulations............................................................................... 3-32

3.2 Status of the Stocks..................................................................................................... 3-41

3.2.1
Atlantic Swordfish........................................................................................... 3-44

3.2.1.1 Life History and Species Biology.................................................................... 3-44

3.2.1.2 Stock Status and Outlook ................................................................................ 3-46

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-i

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT

3.2.1.3 Effect of Regulations....................................................................................... 3-49

3.2.1.4 Recent and Ongoing Research......................................................................... 3-51

3.2.2
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna ...................................................................................... 3-51

3.2.2.1 Life History and Species Biology.................................................................... 3-52

3.2.2.2 Stock Status and Outlook ................................................................................ 3-52

3.2.2.3 Effects of Regulations ..................................................................................... 3-57

3.2.2.4 Recent and Ongoing Research......................................................................... 3-59

3.2.3
Atlantic BAYS Tuna ....................................................................................... 3-63

3.2.3.1 Atlantic Bigeye Tuna....................................................................................... 3-63

3.2.3.2 Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna.................................................................................. 3-68

3.2.3.3 Atlantic Albacore Tuna ................................................................................... 3-74

3.2.3.4 Atlantic Skipjack Tuna .................................................................................... 3-79

3.2.4
Atlantic Billfish ............................................................................................... 3-83

3.2.4.1 Blue Marlin...................................................................................................... 3-83

3.2.4.2 White Marlin ................................................................................................... 3-92

3.2.4.3 Sailfish............................................................................................................. 3-98

3.2.4.4 Longbill Spearfish ......................................................................................... 3-105

3.2.5
Atlantic Sharks .............................................................................................. 3-107

3.2.5.1 Life History/Species Biology ........................................................................ 3-107

3.2.5.2 Stock Status and Outlook .............................................................................. 3-109

3.2.5.3 Large Coastal Sharks..................................................................................... 3-109

3.2.5.4 Small Coastal Sharks..................................................................................... 3-112

3.2.5.5 Pelagic Sharks ............................................................................................... 3-117

3.2.5.6 Effects of Regulations ................................................................................... 3-118

3.2.5.7 Recent and Ongoing Research....................................................................... 3-120

3.3 Habitat....................................................................................................................... 3-128

3.3.1
Regulatory Requirements .............................................................................. 3-128

3.3.1.1 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.............................................................. 3-129

3.3.2
Habitat Types and Distributions.................................................................... 3-129

3.3.2.1 Atlantic Ocean ............................................................................................... 3-130

3.3.2.2 Gulf of Mexico .............................................................................................. 3-135

3.3.2.3 U.S. Caribbean............................................................................................... 3-138

3.4 Fishery Data Update ................................................................................................. 3-140

3.4.1
Pelagic Longline Fishery............................................................................... 3-143

3.4.1.1 Domestic History and Current Management ................................................. 3-143

3.4.1.2 Recent Catch and Landings ........................................................................... 3-149

3.4.1.3 Safety Issues .................................................................................................. 3-162

3.4.1.4 International Issues and Catch....................................................................... 3-163

3.4.2
Purse Seine .................................................................................................... 3-172

3.4.2.1 Domestic History and Current Management ................................................. 3-172

3.4.2.2 Recent Catch and Landings ........................................................................... 3-173

3.4.2.3 Safety Issues .................................................................................................. 3-173

3.4.2.4 International Issues and Catch....................................................................... 3-173

3.4.3
Commercial Handgear................................................................................... 3-174

3.4.3.1 Domestic History and Current Management ................................................. 3-174

3.4.3.2 Recent Catch and Landings ........................................................................... 3-176

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-ii

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.4.3.3 Safety Issues Associated with the Fishery..................................................... 3-179

3.4.3.4 U.S. vs. International Issues and Catch ......................................................... 3-180

3.4.4
Recreational Handgear .................................................................................. 3-180

3.4.4.1 Overview of History and Current Management ............................................ 3-180

3.4.4.2 Most Recent Catch and Landings Data ......................................................... 3-181

3.4.4.3 Bycatch Issues and Data Associated with the Fishery .................................. 3-190

3.4.4.4 Safety Issues Associated with the Fishery..................................................... 3-194

3.4.4.5 U.S. vs. International Catch........................................................................... 3-195

3.4.5
Bottom Longline............................................................................................ 3-196

3.4.5.1 Domestic History and Current Management ................................................. 3-196

3.4.5.2 Recent Catch and Landings Data .................................................................. 3-197

3.4.5.3 Bottom Longline Bycatch.............................................................................. 3-198

3.4.6
Gillnet Fishery ............................................................................................... 3-207

3.4.6.1 Domestic History and Current Management ................................................. 3-207

3.4.6.2 Recent Catch and Landings ........................................................................... 3-207

3.4.7
Fishery Data: Landings by Species ............................................................... 3-213

3.5 Economic Status of HMS Fisheries .......................................................................... 3-228

3.5.1
Commercial Fisheries.................................................................................... 3-229

3.5.1.1 Ex-Vessel Prices............................................................................................ 3-230

3.5.1.2 Revenues........................................................................................................ 3-237

3.5.1.3 Wholesale Market.......................................................................................... 3-239

3.5.2
Recreational Fisheries ................................................................................... 3-240

3.6 Community and Social Update ................................................................................. 3-244

3.6.1
Overview of Current Information and Rationale........................................... 3-244

3.6.2
Social Impacts of Selected 2005 Regulatory Actions ................................... 3-246

3.6.3
Summary of New Social and Economic Data Available............................... 3-247

3.6.3.1 2005 Social Science Publications.................................................................. 3-247

3.6.3.2 Summary of Social Data and Information for FEIS...................................... 3-248

3.6.3.3 HMS Community Profile Needs ................................................................... 3-249

3.7 International Trade and Fish Processing................................................................... 3-250

3.7.1
Overview of International Trade for Atlantic HMS ...................................... 3-250

3.7.1.1 Trade Monitoring........................................................................................... 3-250

3.7.1.2 Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document ............................................................... 3-250

3.7.1.3 Swordfish Certificate of Eligibility and Statistical Document ...................... 3-251

3.7.1.4 Bigeye Tuna Statistical Document ................................................................ 3-251

3.7.1.5 Yellowfin Tuna Form 370 ............................................................................. 3-251

3.7.1.6 Billfish Certificate of Eligibility.................................................................... 3-252

3.7.2
U.S. Exports of HMS..................................................................................... 3-252

3.7.2.1 Atlantic and Pacific Bluefin Tuna Exports.................................................... 3-252

3.7.2.2 Other Tuna Exports ....................................................................................... 3-253

3.7.2.3 Shark Exports ................................................................................................ 3-254

3.7.2.4 Re-exports of Atlantic HMS.......................................................................... 3-255

3.7.2.5 Summary of Atlantic HMS Exports .............................................................. 3-255

3.7.3
U.S. Imports of Atlantic HMS....................................................................... 3-256

3.7.3.1 Bluefin Tuna Imports .................................................................................... 3-256

3.7.3.2 Other Tuna Imports ....................................................................................... 3-257

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-iii

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7.3.3 Swordfish Imports ......................................................................................... 3-258

3.7.3.4 Shark Imports ................................................................................................ 3-260

3.7.3.5 Summary of U.S. Imports of Atlantic HMS.................................................. 3-261

3.7.4
The Use of Trade Data for Conservation Purposes ....................................... 3-261

3.7.5
Overview of the Processing Industry for Atlantic HMS ............................... 3-263

3.7.5.1 Processing and Wholesale Sectors ................................................................ 3-264

3.8 Bycatch, Incidental Catch, and Protected Species .................................................... 3-264

3.8.1
Bycatch Reduction and the Magnuson-Stevens Act ..................................... 3-265

3.8.2
Standardized Reporting of Bycatch............................................................... 3-266

3.8.2.1 U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery......................................................... 3-270

3.8.2.2 Purse Seine Fishery ....................................................................................... 3-271

3.8.2.3 Shark Bottom Longline Fishery .................................................................... 3-271

3.8.2.4 Shark Gillnet Fishery..................................................................................... 3-272

3.8.2.5 Commercial Handgear Fishery...................................................................... 3-272

3.8.2.6 Recreational Handgear Fishery ..................................................................... 3-273

3.8.3
Bycatch Reduction in HMS Fisheries ........................................................... 3-273

3.9 HMS Permits and Tournaments................................................................................ 3-274

3.9.1 Upgrading and Safety Issues ......................................................................... 3-276

3.9.2 Atlantic Tunas Permits .................................................................................. 3-276

3.9.3
HMS CHB Permits ........................................................................................ 3-277

3.9.6 HMS Angling Permit..................................................................................... 3-278

3.9.4
Dealer Permits ............................................................................................... 3-278

3.9.5 Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Display Permits, Chartering Permits, and

Scientific Research Permits (SRPs)............................................................... 3-282

3.9.6 Atlantic HMS Tournaments .......................................................................... 3-283

3.9.7 Evaluation and Monitoring of Bycatch ......................................................... 3-291

3.9.8
Bycatch Mortality.......................................................................................... 3-291

3.9.8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 3-291

3.9.8.2 Mortality by Fishery ...................................................................................... 3-292

3.9.8.3 Code of Angling Ethics ................................................................................. 3-294

3.9.9 Interactions of HMS Fishing Gears with Protected Species ......................... 3-294

3.9.9.1 Interactions and the Marine Mammal Protection Act ................................... 3-295

3.9.9.2 Interactions and the ESA ............................................................................... 3-297

3.9.9.3 Interactions with Seabirds ............................................................................. 3-300

3.9.10 Measures to Address Protected Species Concerns ........................................ 3-301

3.9.11 Bycatch of HMS in Other Fisheries .............................................................. 3-301

3.9.11.1 Squid Mid-Water Trawl ................................................................................ 3-302

3.9.11.2 Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery ..................................................................... 3-302

3.9.11.3 Shrimp Trawl Fishery.................................................................................... 3-303

3.9.11.4 Southeast Gillnet Fishery .............................................................................. 3-304

3.9.12 Effectiveness of Existing Time/Area Closures in Reducing Bycatch ........... 3-304

3.9.12.1 Prohibition of Live Bait in the Gulf of Mexico............................................. 3-305

3.9.12.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 3-306

3.9.13 Evaluation of Other Bycatch Reduction Measures ....................................... 3-306

Chapter 3 References............................................................................................................. 3-309

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-iv

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER 3 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 3.13
Table 3.14
Table 3.15
Table 3.16
Table 3.17
Table 3.18
Table 3.19

Table 3.20

Summary of 2005 Federal Register Notices Related to HMS. .......................... 3-28

State Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Atlantic HMS, as of May 30, 2006.3-33

Stock Assessment Summary Table. Source: SCRS, 2004 and 2005, Cortes, 2002,

and Cortes et al. 2002. ....................................................................................... 3-43

Atlantic Swordfish Stock Summary (weights given in mt ww). Source: SCRS,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-49

Summary Table for the Status of West Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-54

Summary Table for the Status of East Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-54

Probability of western Atlantic bluefin tuna achieving rebuilding target by 2018.

Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................................................... 3-57

Summary Table for the Status of Atlantic Bigeye Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005... 3­
66

Summary Table for the Status of Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

............................................................................................................................ 3-70

Summary Table for the Status of North Atlantic Albacore Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-76

Summary Table for the Status of South Atlantic Albacore Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-77

Summary Table for the Status of West Atlantic Skipjack Tuna. Source: ICCAT,

2005.................................................................................................................... 3-82

Summary of Atlantic Blue Marlin Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric

tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................................... 3-86

Summary of Atlantic White Marlin Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric

tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................................... 3-95

Summary of Atlantic Sailfish Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric tons,

whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2004................................................................. 3-101

Common names of shark species included within the four species management

units under the purview of the HMS management division. ........................... 3-109

Summary Table of Biomass and Fishing Mortality for Large Coastal Sharks

(LCS). Source: Cortes et al., 2002................................................................... 3-115

Summary Table of Biomass and Fishing Mortality for Small Coastal Sharks (SCS)

Source: Cortes, 2002........................................................................................ 3-115

Summary table of the status of the biomass of finetooth sharks. Sources: 2002

SCS stock assessment; E. Cortes, personal communication. LRSG=lagged

recruitment, survival, and growth model; SPM=surplus production model.... 3-116

Summary table of the status of the biomass of finetooth sharks. Sources: 2002

SCS stock assessment; E. Cortes, personal communication. LRSG=lagged

recruitment, survival, and growth; SPM=surplus production model............... 3-116

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-v

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.21
Table 3.22
Table 3.23

Table 3.24
Table 3.25
Table 3.26
Table 3.27

Table 3.28

Table 3.29
Table 3.30
Table 3.31

Table 3.32
Table 3.33
Table 3.34

Table 3.35

Table 3.36

Table 3.37

Calendar Year 2004 U.S. vs International Catch of HMS (mt ww) other than
sharks. Source: SCRS, 2005. ........................................................................... 3-142
Average Number of Hooks per Pelagic Longline Set, 1999-2004. Source: Data
reported in pelagic longline logbook. .............................................................. 3-144
Observer Coverage of the Pelagic Longline Fishery. Source: Yeung, 2001;
Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison, 2005; Walsh and
Garrison, 2006.................................................................................................. 3-149
Reported Catch of Species Caught by U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longlines, in Number
of Fish, for 1999-2004. Source: Pelagic Longline Logbook Data................... 3-150
Reported Landings in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (in mt ww) for
1999-2004. Source: NMFS, 2004a; NMFS, 2005. .......................................... 3-151
Summary of Marine Mammal Interactions in the Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992­
1998. Source: Yeung, 1999a; Yeung, 1999b. .................................................. 3-152
Summary of Marine Mammal Interactions in the Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1999­
2005. Sources: Yeung, 2001; Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004;
Garrison, 2005; Walsh and Garrison, 2006. .................................................... 3-153
Estimated number of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle interactions in the U.S.
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, 2001-2005 by statistical area. Sources: Walsh
and Garrison, 2006; Garrison, 2005; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison 2003.
.......................................................................................................................... 3-155
Seabird Bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992-2005. Source:
NMFS, 2004a; NMFS PLL fishery observer program (POP) data.................. 3-158
Status of Seabird Bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992­
2005. Source: NMFS PLL fishery observer program (POP) data. .................. 3-159
Preliminary Expanded Estimates of Seabird Bycatch (D = discarded dead and A =
discarded alive) and bycatch rates (all seabirds per 1,000 hooks) in the U.S.
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2004a; NMFS PLL
fishery observer program (POP) data. ............................................................. 3-160
ICCAT Bycatch Table (LL, longline; GILL, gillnets; PS, purse-seine; BB,
baitboat; HARP, harpoon; Trap, traps). Source: SCRS, 2004. ........................ 3-165
Estimated International Longline Landings of HMS, Other than Sharks, for All
Countries in the Atlantic: 1999-2004 (mt ww)1. Source: SCRS, 2005............ 3-166
Nominal Catches of Blue Shark Reported to ICCAT (landings and discards in t)
by Major Gear and Flag between 1990 and 2002. Source: SCRS, 2004; SCRS,
2005.................................................................................................................. 3-168
Nominal Catches of Shortfin Mako Shark Reported to ICCAT (landings and
discards in t) by Major Gear and Flag between 1990 and 2002. Source: SCRS,
2004; SCRS, 2005............................................................................................ 3-169
Domestic Atlantic Tuna Landings for the Purse Seine Fishery: 1999-2004 (mt
ww). Northwest Atlantic Fishing Area. Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT:
2005.................................................................................................................. 3-173
Estimated International Purse Seine Atlantic Tuna Landings in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean: 1999-2004 (mt ww). Source: SCRS, 2005 ............................. 3-174

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-vi

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.38
Table 3.39
Table 3.40
Table 3.41

Table 3.42
Table 3.43
Table 3.44

Table 3.45

Table 3.46

Table 3.47

Table 3.48

Table 3.49
Table 3.50
Table 3.51
Table 3.52
Table 3.53
Table 3.54

Domestic Landings for the Commercial Handgear Fishery, by Species and Gear,
for 1999-2004 (mt ww). Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT: 2005........ 3-177
Domestic Landings for the Commercial Handgear Fishery by Species and Region
for 1999-2004 (mt ww). Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT: 2005....... 3-178
Estimated number of vessel trips targeting large pelagic species, 2001-2004.
Source: Large Pelagics Survey database.......................................................... 3-178
Updated Domestic Landings for the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Billfish
Recreational Rod and Reel Fishery, 1997-2004 (mt ww)*. Sources: NMFS, 2004;
NMFS, 2005. (Recreational shark landings are provided in Table 3.44 through
Table 3.47). ...................................................................................................... 3-183
Preliminary RBS Recreational Billfish Landings in numbers of fish (calendar
year). Source: NMFS Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS). ............................ 3-185
Number of billfish reported to NMFS via call-in system by fishing year, 2002­
2005. Source: G. Fairclough, pers. comm. ...................................................... 3-185
Estimates of Total Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Sharks: 1998-2004 (numbers
of fish in thousands). Source: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004
(Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Estimates for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited
species. ............................................................................................................. 3-188
Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks (LCS) by Species, in
number of fish: 1998-2004. Sources: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001­
2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Total estimates for 2001-2004 do not include
prohibited species............................................................................................. 3-188
Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Pelagic Sharks by Species, in number of fish:
1998-2004. Sources: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés, 2005a;
2005b). Total estimates for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited species. ..... 3-189
Recreational Harvest of Atlantic SCS by Species, in number of fish: 1998-2004.
Source: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b).
Total estimates for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited species. .................. 3-189
Observed or reported number of HMS kept 1 and released in the rod and reel
fishery, Maine through Virginia, 1997-2004. Source: Large Pelagic Survey (LPS)
Preliminary Data. ............................................................................................. 3-192
Total 2004 Reported Boating Accident Types. Source: USCG Boating Statistics,
2004.................................................................................................................. 3-194
Overall 2004 Reported Boating Accident Cause-of-Death Statistics. Source:
USCG Boating Statistics, 2004........................................................................ 3-195
Species composition of observed bottom longline catch during 2003. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2004. ............................................................................. 3-200
Species composition of observed bottom longline catch during 2004. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2005. ............................................................................. 3-201
Directed bottom longline shark observed catch and disposition, 2003. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2004. ............................................................................. 3-203
Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Species by Month for Years
1994-2006 in the Shark Bottom Longline Fishery. Source: Shark Bottom
Longline Observer Program............................................................................. 3-204

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-vii

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.55

Table 3.56

Table 3.57

Table 3.58

Table 3.59

Table 3.60
Table 3.61
Table 3.62
Table 3.63
Table 3.64
Table 3.65
Table 3.66
Table 3.67
Table 3.68

Table 3.69
Table 3.70
Table 3.71

Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Year for Years 1994-2006 in
the Shark Bottom Longline Fishery. Source: Shark Bottom Longline Observer
Program. Letters in parentheses indicate whether the sea turtle was released alive
(A), dead (D), or in an unknown (U) condition. .............................................. 3-204
Total Strikenet Shark Catch and Bycatch by Species in order of Decreasing
Abundance for all Observed Trips, 2003. Source: Carlson and Baremore, 2003.. 3­
211
Total Shark Catch by Species and Species Disposition in Order of Decreasing
Abundance for all Observed Driftnet Sets, 2003. Source: Carlson and Baremore,
2003.................................................................................................................. 3-211
Total bycatch in NMFS observed drift gillnet sets in order of decreasing
abundance and species disposition for all observed trips, 2003. Source: Carlson,
2003.................................................................................................................. 3-212
Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Year from 2000-2006 in the
Shark Gillnet Fishery. Source: Directed Shark Gillnet Observer Program. Letters
in parentheses indicate whether the sea turtle was released alive (A), dead (D), or
unknown (U). ................................................................................................... 3-212
Protected Species Interactions in Drift Gillnet Sets During the Directed Shark
Gillnet Fishery for All Observed Trips, 2003. Source: Carlson, 2003. ........... 3-213
U.S. Landings (mt) of Bluefin Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-213
U.S. Landings (mt) of Yellowfin Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-214
U.S. Landings (mt) of Skipjack Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-215
U.S. Landings (mt) of Bigeye Tuna by Area and Gear, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS,
2005.................................................................................................................. 3-216
U.S. Landings (mt) of Albacore Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2005..................................................................................................... 3-217
U.S. Catches and Landings (mt) of Swordfish by Gear and Area, 1997-2004.
Source: NMFS, 2005. ...................................................................................... 3-218
U.S. Landings (mt) and dead discards of Blue Marlin, White Marlin and Sailfish
by Gear and Area, 1998-2002. Source: NMFS, 2003...................................... 3-219
Commercial landings of large coastal sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Sources: Data
from 1999-2001, Cortés pers. Comm.; data from 2002-2003, Cortés 2003; Cortés
and Neer, 2005. ................................................................................................ 3-221
Commercial landings of small coastal sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Source: Cortés
and Neer, 2002; Cortés, 2003. Cortés and Neer, 2005. ................................... 3-223
Commercial landings of pelagic sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Sources: Data from
2000-2001, Cortés pers. comm.; Cortés, 2003; Cortés and Neer, 2005. ......... 3-223
Estimates of total landings and dead discards for large coastal sharks from 1981
through 2004 (numbers of fish in thousands). Modified from the 1998 and 2002
Report of the Shark Evaluation Workshop (NMFS 1998, 2002), Cortés and Neer
(2002), and Cortés (2003, 2005). ..................................................................... 3-224

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-viii

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.72

Table 3.73

Table 3.74

Table 3.75

Table 3.76
Table 3.77

Table 3.78

Table 3.79

Table 3.80
Table 3.81

Table 3.82

Commercial landings of LCS (including unclassified sharks) in the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico by region and year in mt dw for QMS and Logbook data and mt
ww for Canvass and CFDBS data from 1999-2003......................................... 3-226
Commercial landings of SCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by region and
year year in mt dw for QMS and Logbook data and mt ww for Canvass and
CFDBS data from 1999-2003. ......................................................................... 3-227
Inflation Price Indexes. The CPI-U is the standard Consumer Price Index for all
urban consumers (1982-1984=100) produced by U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The source of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for
unprocessed finfish (1982=100) is also the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Gross
Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator (200=100) is produced by the U.S.
Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis and obtained from the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (http://www.stlouisfed.org/)..................... 3-229
Average ex-vessel prices per lb dw for Atlantic HMS by gear and area. Source:
Dealer weighout slips from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, and bluefin tuna dealer reports from the Northeast
Regional Office. HND=Handline, harpoon, spears, trot lines, and trolls,
PLL=Pelagic longline, BLL=Bottom longline, Net=Gillnets and pound nets,
TWL=Trawls, SEN=Seines, TRP=Pots and traps, DRG=Dredge, and
UNK=Unknown. Gulf of Mexico includes: TX, LA, MS, AL, and the west coast
of FL. S. Atlantic includes: east coast of FL. GA, SC, and NC dealers reporting to
Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Mid-Atlantic includes: NC dealers reporting
to Northeast Fisheries Science Center, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, and CT. N. Atlantic
includes: RI, MA, NH, and ME. For bluefin tuna, all NC landings are included in
the Mid-Atlantic............................................................................................... 3-230
Average ex-vessel prices per lb for Atlantic HMS by area. ............................ 3-235

Estimates of the total ex-vessel annual revenues of Atlantic HMS fisheries.
Sources: NMFS, 1997; NMFS 2004a; Cortes, 2003; and bluefin tuna dealer
reports from the Northeast Regional Office..................................................... 3-238
The overall average wholesale price per lb of fresh HMS sold in Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico states as reported by the Fulton Fish Market. Source: NMFS, 2004.... 3­
239
Average Atlantic HMS charterboat rates for day trips. Source: NMFS searches for
advertised daily charter rates of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders.
(Observations=99) ........................................................................................... 3-241
United States exports of Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna, 1999-2004. Sources:
NMFS BSD Program, NERO, and Census Bureau. ........................................ 3-252
Amount and value of U.S. exports of albacore tuna from all ocean areas, 1999­
2004 (Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of North Atlantic albacore tuna
(2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT)............................................................ 3-253
Amount and value of U.S. exports of yellowfin tuna from all ocean areas, 1999­
2004 (Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of Atlantic yellowfin tuna (2005
U.S. National Report to ICCAT). ..................................................................... 3-253

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-ix

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.83

Amount and value of U.S. exports of skipjack tuna from all ocean areas, 1999­
2004 (Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of West Atlantic skipjack tuna
(2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT)............................................................ 3-254
Table 3.84 Amount and value of U.S. exports of bigeye tuna from all ocean areas, 1999-2004
(Census Bureau data) and U.S. landings of Atlantic bigeye tuna (2005 U.S.
National Report to ICCAT).............................................................................. 3-254
Table 3.85
Amount and value of U.S. shark product exports from 1999-2004. Source: Census
Bureau. ............................................................................................................. 3-255
Table 3.86
Imports of Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna into the United States: 1999-2004.
Sources: NMFS BSD program and CBP data.................................................. 3-256
Table 3.87
Imports of bigeye tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined:
2001-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. ........................................................ 3-257
Table 3.88
Imports of yellowfin tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined:
1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. ........................................................ 3-257
Table 3.89
Imports of albacore tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined:
1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. ........................................................ 3-258
Table 3.90
Imports of skipjack tuna from all ocean areas combined into the United States:
1999-2004. Source: U.S. Census Bureau data. ................................................ 3-258
Table 3.91
Swordfish import data for the 2004 calendar year collected under the NMFS
Swordfish Import Monitoring Program. .......................................................... 3-259
Table 3.92
Imported swordfish products by year: 1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau data. . 3­
260
Table 3.93 U.S. imports of shark products from all ocean areas combined: 1999-2004. Source:
Census Bureau data.......................................................................................... 3-261
Table 3.94
Summary and current status of ICCAT recommended trade sanctions for bluefin
tuna, swordfish, and bigeye tuna implemented by the United States. ............. 3-262
Table 3.95 Distribution of Shark, Swordfish, and Tuna longline Limited Access Permits
Between 2001 and 2006. Data for 2001-2005 are as of October 1 for each year.. 3­
275
Table 3.96 The number of Atlantic tuna permit holders in each category as of October 2001
through 2005. Permit numbers for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006. The actual
number of 2006 permit holders in each category is subject to change as
individuals renew or allow their permits to expire. ......................................... 3-277
Table 3.97
CHB Permits by State as of February 1, 2006. ................................................ 3-278
Table 3.98
Number of shark and swordfish dealer permits issued in each state or country as
of October 2001-2005. Permits for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006. The actual
number of permits per may change as permit holders move or sell their businesses.
.......................................................................................................................... 3-279
Table 3.99
Number of Atlantic tuna dealer permits by state issued in the 2005 calendar year.
Dealers may obtain a permit to sell and purchase only bluefin tuna, only BAYS
tunas, or both bluefin and BAYS tunas. .......................................................... 3-280
Table 3.100 Number of International Trade Permits (ITP) by state (province) as of February 1,
2006.................................................................................................................. 3-281

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-x

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.101 Number of Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Display Permits, and Scientific
Research Permits (SRPs) issued between 2002 and 2006. .............................. 3-283
Table 3.102 Number of Registered HMS Tournaments by State between 2001 and 2005.
Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration Database ................. 3-285
Table 3.103 Number and Percent of All 2005 HMS Tournaments Awarding Points or Prizes
for an HMS. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration Database .. 3­
286
Table 3.104 Registered Blue Marlin Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS
Tournament Registration Database.................................................................. 3-287
Table 3.105 Registered White Marlin Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS
Tournament Registration Database.................................................................. 3-287
Table 3.106 Registered Sailfish Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS
Tournament Registration Database.................................................................. 3-288
Table 3.107 Summary of bycatch species in HMS fisheries, Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) category, endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements, data collection,
and management measures by fishery/gear type. (Excerpted from HMS Bycatch
Priorities and Implementation Plan and updated through May 2006) ............. 3-289
Table 3.108 Atlantic HMS Landed (mt ww) Incidental to Trawl Fisheries, 1998-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2003, NMFS, 2005.............................................................................. 3-302
Table 3.109 Expanded estimates of bycatch (number of fish) of bonnethead, Atlantic
sharpnose, and finetooth sharks in the U.S. south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery
based on within stratum expansion by effort as trips by fishing year. Source:
Cortés, 2002. .................................................................................................... 3-303
Table 3.110 Estimates (in thousands of individuals and pounds dressed weight) of the bycatch
of small coastal sharks (as a complex and by species) in the shrimp trawl fishery
operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Source: S. Nichols, NMFS Pascagoula Lab., pers.
comm. as cited in Cortés, 2002........................................................................ 3-303
Table 3.111 Comparison of the number of hooks reported set in the Gulf of Mexico with dead
or live bait, or a combination of both baits, 1999-2004 (numbers in parentheses
are percent of the total number of hooks set in the Gulf of Mexico). Source: PLL
Logbook data. .................................................................................................. 3-305

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-xi

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER 3 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7

Figure 3.8
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11

Figure 3.12

Figure 3.13

Figure 3.14
Figure 3.15
Figure 3.16

Illustration of the status determination criteria and rebuilding terms. ............... 3-41
Reported catches (mt whole weight) of Atlantic Swordfish, including discards for
1950-2004. Source: SCRS, 2005. ...................................................................... 3-48
Estimated fishing mortality rate relative to FMSY (F/FMSY) for the period 1959­
2001 (median with 80 percent confidence bounds based on bootstrapping are
shown). Source: SCRS 2004.............................................................................. 3-48
Annual yield (mt) (whole weight) for North Atlantic swordfish relative to the
estimated MSY level. Source: SCRS 2004........................................................ 3-49
Western Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning biomass (t), recruitment (numbers) and
fishing mortality rates for fish of age 8+, estimated by the Base Case VPA run.
Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................................................... 3-55
Abundance indices in numbers of BET. All ages are aggregated. Source: ICCAT,
2004.................................................................................................................... 3-65
Trajectory of the BET biomass modeled in production model analysis (middle
line) bounded by upper and lower lines denoting 80 percent confidence intervals.
Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................................................... 3-66
Comparison of relative biomass trends calculated using VPA and non-equilibrium
production models. Source: ICCAT, 2004. ....................................................... 3-70
Comparison of relative fishing mortality trends calculated using VPA and nonequilibrium production models. Source: ICCAT, 2004..................................... 3-71
North Atlantic albacore spawning stock biomass and recruits with 80 percent
confidence limits. Source: ICCAT, 2004........................................................... 3-76
Estimated catches (including landings and dead discards in mt) of blue marlin in
the Atlantic by region. The 2003 catch reported to ICCAT is preliminary and is
not included in this figure. Weights are in metric tones, whole weight. Source:
SCRS, 2005........................................................................................................ 3-87
Composite CPUE series (symbols) used in the blue marlin assessment compared
to model estimated median relative biomass (solid lines) from bootstrap results
(80 percent confidence bounds shown by dotted lines). Source: SCRS, 2005. . 3-88
Estimated median relative fishing mortality trajectory for Atlantic blue marlin
(center, dark line) with approximate 80 percent confidence range (light lines)
obtained from bootstrapping. Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................... 3-88
Geographical distribution of reported catches of blue marlin for the period 1956­
2003. Source: SCRS, 2005. ............................................................................... 3-89
Estimated catches (including landings and dead discards in t) of blue marlin in the
Atlantic by region (1950-2004). Source: SCRS, 2005. ..................................... 3-89
Estimated biomass ratio B2000/ BMSY (solid line, no symbols) and fishing mortality
ratio F2000/FMSY (solid line with symbols) from the production model fitted to
the continuity case for white marlin. Ratios of last three years have been adjusted
for retrospective pattern. Broken lines show unadjusted ratios. Note that scales
are different for each ratio. Source: SCRS, 2004............................................... 3-95

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-xii

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19

Figure 3.20

Figure 3.21

Figure 3.22
Figure 3.23

Figure 3.24

Figure 3.25
Figure 3.26
Figure 3.27
Figure 3.28
Figure 3.29
Figure 3.30

Figure 3.31

Figure 3.32

Figure 3.33

Geographical distribution of white marlin catches for the period 1956-2003.
Source: SCRS, 2005. ......................................................................................... 3-96
Reported catch of white marlin (Task I) in the North and South Atlantic for
longline (LL) gear and other (OTH) gears. Source: SCRS, 2005...................... 3-96
Evolution of estimated sailfish/spearfish catches in the Atlantic (landings and
dead discards, reported and carried over) in the ICCAT Task I database during
1956-2002 for the east and west stocks. The 2003 catch reported to ICCAT is
preliminary and is not included in this figure. Weights are in metric tons, whole
weight. Source: SCRS, 2005............................................................................ 3-101
Available standardized CPUE for western Atlantic sailfish/spearfish for the period
1967-2000, including Japanese, U.S., and Venezuelan time series data. Source:
SCRS, 2005...................................................................................................... 3-102
Estimated sailfish “only” catches based on the new procedure for splitting
combined sailfish and longbill spearfish catches from 1956-2000. Weights are in
metric tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ............................................ 3-102
Geographical distribution of sailfish/spearfish catches between 1950-2003. Source:
SCRS, 2005...................................................................................................... 3-103
Evolution of estimated sailfish/spearfish catches in the Atlantic (landings and
dead discards, reported and carried over) in the ICCAT Task I database during
1956-2004 for the east and west stocks. Source: SCRS, 2005. ....................... 3-104
Estimated spearfish “only” catches in the Atlantic based on the new procedure for
splitting combined sailfish and spearfish catches from 1956-2000. Weights are in
metric tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005. ............................................ 3-106
Typical U.S. Pelagic Longline Gear. Source: Arocha, 1996 ........................... 3-143
Different Pelagic Longline Gear Deployment Techniques. Source: Hawaii
Longline Association and Honolulu Advertiser. ............................................. 3-145
Geographic Areas Used in Summaries of Pelagic Logbook Data. Source: Cramer
and Adams, 2000 ............................................................................................. 3-154
Areas Closed to Pelagic Longline Fishing by U.S. Flagged Vessels............... 3-162
Distribution of Atlantic Longline Catches for all Countries 1990-1999. Source:
SCRS, 2004...................................................................................................... 3-164
Total Number of Swordfish Caught, Kept and Released in Three Sampled
Recreational Swordfish Tournaments off Southeast Florida during 2002. Source: J.
Levesque, pers. comm...................................................................................... 3-187
Observed sea turtle interactions and observed sets (smaller grey circles) in the
shark bottom longline fishery from 1994-2004. Source: Burgess and Morgan,
2004.................................................................................................................. 3-205
Observed sawfish interactions and observed sets (smaller grey circles) in the
shark bottom longline fishery from 1994-2006. Source: Burgess and Morgan,
2004.................................................................................................................. 3-206
Average Annual Yen/$ Exchange Rate and Average U.S. BFT Ex-vessel $/lb (dw)
for all gears: 1971-2003. Source: Federal Reserve Bank (www.stls.frb.org) and
Northeast Regional Office. .............................................................................. 3-236

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-xiii

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.0

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This Chapter serves several purposes. As part of an EIS, this Chapter describes the
affected environment (the fisheries, the gears used, the communities involved, etc.). The
description should provide a view on the current conditions and serves as a baseline against
which to compare impacts of the alternatives. This Chapter also serves as the 2006 SAFE Report
required under the guidelines for National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (50 CFR
600.315(e)). The SAFE Report should provide a summary of information concerning the
biological status of the stocks; the marine ecosystems in the fishery management unit; the social
and economic condition of the fishing interests, fishing communities, and fish processing
industries; and, the best available scientific information concerning the past, present, and
possible future condition of the stocks, ecosystems, and fisheries.
3.1

Introduction to HMS Management and HMS Fisheries

Atlantic HMS fisheries are primarily managed directly by the Secretary of Commerce,
who designated that responsibility to NMFS. The HMS Management Division within NMFS is
the lead in developing regulations for HMS fisheries, although some actions (e.g., Large Whale
Take Reduction Plan) are taken by other NMFS offices outside of the HMS Management
Division if the main legislation (e.g., Marine Mammal Protection Act) driving the action are not
the Magnuson-Stevens Act or ACTA. Because of their migratory nature, HMS fishery
management necessitates management at the international, national, and state levels. NMFS
primarily coordinates the management of HMS fisheries in Federal waters (domestic) and the
high seas (international) while individual States establish regulations for HMS in their own
waters. There are exceptions to this generalization. For example, Federal bluefin tuna
regulations apply in most state waters, and Federal shark and swordfish fishermen, as a condition
of their permit, are required to follow Federal regulations in all waters unless that state has more
restrictive regulations (see Sections 2.3.4 and 4.3.4 for a preferred alternative that would apply
the permit condition to recreationally caught HMS). Additionally, in 2005, the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission agreed to develop an interstate coastal shark FMP. Once complete,
this interstate FMP would coordinate management measures among all states along the Atlantic
coast (Florida to Maine). NMFS is participating in the development of this interstate FMP. A
brief history of HMS management is provided in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
Generally, on the domestic level, NMFS implements international agreements, as
appropriate, and management measures that are required under domestic laws such as the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. While NMFS does not generally manage HMS fisheries in state waters,
states are invited to send representatives to AP meetings and to participate in stock assessments,
public hearings, or other fora. NMFS is working to improve its communication and coordination
with state agencies. In the past year, NMFS has reviewed the shark regulations of several states
and has asked for some states to consider changing their regulations to become more consistent
with Federal regulations. As of May 2006, this request resulted in changes and dialogs with
certain states regarding the regulations such as the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of
Florida. Additionally, as a result of ASMFC’s decision to develop an interstate FMP, the State
of Maine opened a dialog with the NMFS regarding shark regulations. See section 3.1.5 for
more information regarding state regulations by state.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-1

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

On the international level, NMFS participates in the stock assessments conducted by
ICCAT’s SCRS and in the annual ICCAT meetings. The stock assessments and management
recommendations or resolutions are listed on ICCAT’s website at http://www.iccat.es/. NMFS
also actively participates in other international bodies that could affect U.S. fishermen and the
fishing industry including CITES and FAO. A summary of 2005 ICCAT accomplishments is
provided in section 3.1.4 below. NMFS expects ICCAT to assess a number of stocks in 2006
including marlin, bluefin tuna, and swordfish. More information on the current status of HMS
and the dates of the next ICCAT stock assessments is provided in section 3.2.
3.1.1 History of Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark Management
This section and section 3.1.2 give a relatively brief history of the management of HMS.
This history is organized by the previous FMPs, with Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks in one
section and Atlantic billfish in the next section. For more detail regarding the history of
management, please see the original documents. Proposed rule, final rules, and other official
notices can be found in the Federal Register at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Supporting documents can be found on the HMS Management Division’s webpage at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms. Documents can also be requested by calling the HMS
Management Division at (301) 713-2347. Section 3.1.3 provides information on more recent
actions.
3.1.1.1 Pre-1999 Atlantic Tunas Management
Unless otherwise specified, the following history is a combination of a variety of sources
including ICCAT recommendations, the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tuna, Swordfish, and Sharks,
and a 1996 document on the historic rationale and effectiveness of the regulations for U.S.
Atlantic BFT fisheries (NMFS, 1996).
Bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack (BAYS) tunas, as well as bluefin tuna have
been exploited in the western Atlantic for many years. In the early 1900s, a sport fishery
developed for small and medium tunas off New York and New Jersey, and for giant bluefin tuna
in the Gulf of Maine. The rod and reel fishery expanded rapidly during the 1950s and 1960s, as
hundreds of private, charter, and partyboats targeted tunas along the Mid-Atlantic coast. This
recreational fishery continues today from Cape Hatteras to the Canadian border. In addition, it is
locally important in the Straits of Florida. Sport catches of BAYS, particularly yellowfin tuna,
are also made in the Gulf of Mexico.
Until the late 1950s, the U.S. commercial fishery for tunas employed mostly harpoons,
handlines, and traps. There was no commercial market for bluefin tuna, and giant bluefin tuna
(greater than 310 pounds (lb)) were regarded as a nuisance because of the damage they caused to
fishing gear. Much of the bluefin tuna catch was incidental to operations targeting other species.
In 1958, commercial purse seining for Atlantic tunas began with a single vessel in Cape Cod Bay
and expanded rapidly into the region between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod during the early
1960s. The purse seine fishery between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod was directed mainly at
small and medium bluefin tuna, and at skipjack tuna, all for the canning industry. North of Cape
Cod, purse seining was directed at giant bluefin tuna. A pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-2

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

tunas also developed rapidly during the 1960s, comprised mainly of Japanese vessels fishing in
the Gulf of Mexico. Today U.S. pelagic longline vessels target bigeye and yellowfin tuna, and
catch bluefin tuna incidentally.
The U.S. handgear fishery for Atlantic tunas is mainly a summer through early winter
fishery. The recreational tuna fishery takes place mainly in the Mid-Atlantic region through the
Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Private vessels targeting tuna for recreational purposes only are
permitted in the Angling category, while the charter/headboats targeting tunas are permitted in
the Charter/Headboat category. Many fishermen who might normally consider themselves
“recreational” fishermen participate in the General category in northeast waters during the
summer and fall and are classified as commercial fishermen. Recently, a commercial bluefin
tuna fishery has developed off of some south Atlantic states, particularly the State of North
Carolina, in the early winter. General category permit holders may sell tuna, and specifically
bluefin tuna greater than 73 inches. A 1998 regulation prohibiting the retention of bluefin tuna
less than 73 inches by fishermen in the General category clarified the distinction between the
commercial and recreational fisheries. The commercial handgear fishery for bluefin tuna occurs
mainly in New England, with vessels targeting fish using handline, rod and reel, and harpoon.
Bluefin Tuna
Peak yields of bluefin tuna from the western Atlantic (about 8,000 to 19,000 metric tons
(mt) whole weight (ww)) occurred between 1963 and 1966 when much of the catch was taken by
Asian longline vessels off Brazil. During the late 1960s and 1970s, annual yields averaged about
5,000 mt ww. High catches of juvenile bluefin tuna were sustained throughout the 1960s and
into the early 1970s. During the 1960s and 1970s, a North American purse seine fishery for
juveniles and the longline fishery, mostly Japanese vessels, usually took 70 to 80 percent of the
yield and recreational fisheries usually took 10 percent. By 1973, the United States and other
nations began to express concern about the decrease in the abundance of bluefin tuna. In
response to this concern, in 1974, ICCAT recommended a minimum size limit of 6.4 kg (14 lb)
and recommended that all countries limit fishing mortality to recent (at that time) levels for one
year. As a result, the United States limited U.S. harvest by imposing quotas and size limits. In
the late 1970s, approximately 10,000 giant bluefin tuna were taken in one year alone from the
Gulf of Mexico.
After conducting a series of stock assessments, the ICCAT Standing Committee on
Research and Statistics (SCRS) recommended in 1981 that catches of western Atlantic bluefin
tuna be reduced to as near zero as possible to stop the decline of the stock and established a 800
mt ww total allowable catch (TAC). This recommendation also prohibited fishing effort in the
western Atlantic from transferring to the eastern Atlantic (the stocks were split at 450 W
longitude through 100 N latitude before moving to 250 W longitude at the equator). At the 1982
meeting, the TAC was increased to 2,660 mt ww, to be split proportionately between the relevant
Contracting Parties. This level was maintained through 1991. Also at the 1982 meeting, ICCAT
recommended that there be no directed fishery on bluefin tuna spawning stocks in the western
Atlantic in spawning areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.
By the late 1980s, high ex-vessel prices and the increased importance of the Japanese
market had blurred the distinction between the commercial and recreational fisheries for bluefin
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-3

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

tuna and much of the traditionally recreational catch for medium and giant bluefin tuna was
being sold for shipment to Japan. In 1992, NMFS responded by banning the sale of school, large
school, and small medium bluefin tuna (27 inches to less than 73 inches curved fork length).
At the 1991 meeting, ICCAT recommended additional measures to prevent further
declines in the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock, including a ten percent reduction in the total
allowable catch. In 1993, the western Atlantic bluefin tuna quota was reduced further from
2,394 mt ww to 1,995 mt ww in 1994 and 1,200 mt ww in 1995. At the 1991 meeting, the
United States was allocated 693 mt ww per year for both 1993 and 1994. This 1991
recommendation also increased the minimum size to 30 kg (66 lb) or 115 cm (45 in) fork length
with a tolerance level of eight percent. Fishermen who caught fish smaller than this size were
encouraged to tag and release them.
In 1992, NMFS established base quotas for each permit category in the bluefin tuna
fishery based upon the historical share of catch in each of these categories during the period 1983
to 1991. These quotas were used in 1992, 1993, and 1994, with overharvests and underharvests
added and subtracted as required by ICCAT, as well as some inseason transfers. At the 1992
ICCAT meeting, ICCAT recommended that by September 1, 1993, all bluefin tuna imports into
a Contracting Party be accompanied by an ICCAT Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document that
included, among other things, the area that the fish was harvested in, the gear, and a validation
by a government official of the flag state of the vessel that harvested the tuna.
The SCRS projections in 1994 indicated that the stock could support higher quota levels
and still begin to rebuild, albeit more slowly. Based on the new stock assessment, ICCAT
members adopted a recommendation to increase the annual bluefin tuna total allowable catch in
the western Atlantic Ocean from 1,995 to 2,200 mt ww. The share allocated to the United States
was set at 1,311 mt ww. This allocation reflected trends in fleet size, effort and landings by
category, as well as the ICCAT recommendation which specifies that data should be collected
for the broadest range of size-classes possible, given size restrictions. At the 1996 meeting,
ICCAT recommended an annual western Atlantic bluefin tuna TAC of 2,354 mt ww for 1997
and 1998. The annual quota allocated to the United States for 1997 and 1998 was 1,344 mt ww.
In 1998, the Commission adopted a 20-year Rebuilding Program for the western Atlantic
bluefin management area (ICCAT Ref. 98-07) aimed at rebuilding to the stock size that will
produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2018 with a 50 percent or greater probability.
The Program states that the TAC for the west would only be adjusted from the 2,500 mt ww
level adopted for 2003 – 2004 if SCRS advises that (a) a catch of 2,700 mt ww or more has a 50
percent or greater probability of rebuilding or (b) a catch of 2,300 t or less is necessary to have a
50 percent or greater probability of rebuilding. According to the Program, the MSY rebuilding
target can be adjusted according to advice from SCRS. In 2002, the Commission set the annual
TAC, inclusive of dead discards, for the western Atlantic management area to 2,700 mt ww,
effective beginning in 2003 (ICCAT Ref. 02-07). The current U.S. share of this TAC equals
1,496 mt ww inclusive of 25 mt ww for pelagic longline incidental catch in the Northeast Distant
Statistical Reporting area and an allowance for dead discards of an additional 68 mt ww. If there
are dead discards in excess of this allowance, they must be counted against the following year’s
quota. If there are fewer dead discards, then half of the underharvest may be added to the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-4

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

following year’s quota while the other half is conserved. The recommendation also allowed four
years to balance the eight percent tolerance for bluefin tuna under 115 cm (young school and
school bluefin tuna).
Bigeye Tuna
ICCAT adopted a minimum size of 3.2 kg (7 lb) with a 15 percent tolerance level for
undersized bigeye tuna in 1979. In 1995, noting the large increases in longline and purse seine
catches of bigeye tuna and the large number of undersized fish, ICCAT urged countries to reduce
catches below MSY and reduce catches of undersized fish. ICCAT also asked countries that had
equatorial fisheries catching undersized fish to place observers on the vessels and allow SCRS to
study the data. In 1997, ICCAT issued two resolutions to limit the catch of larger vessels in the
Atlantic and the catch of countries that caught more than an average of 200 mt ww between 1992
and 1996 and to collect information on the larger vessels in the fleet (those greater than 80 GRT).
Large numbers of undersized fish are still harvested by the surface fleets operating near
the equator. SCRS estimates that approximately 70 percent by number of bigeye tuna landed are
smaller than the minimum size, well in excess of the 15 percent tolerance. Total Atlantic bigeye
tuna catch has increased substantially since 1990. ICCAT has not recommended Atlantic-wide
quotas for bigeye tuna. However, in 1998, ICCAT adopted two new management
recommendations that are designed to limit effort in commercial fisheries for bigeye tuna
throughout the Atlantic. ICCAT also adopted a resolution in 1998 that tasks SCRS with
developing stock rebuilding scenarios for bigeye.
Purse seine fleets in the east Atlantic have developed a fishery that targets schools of tuna
near artificial floating objects, also known as fish aggregating devices (FADs). This method of
fishing has increased harvesting efficiency and contributed to excessive catch of undersized
bigeye tuna. Favorable oceanographic conditions as well as the extensive use of sonar and
deeper nets have also contributed to increased bigeye tuna harvest in recent years. In 1998,
ICCAT established a mandatory time/area closure for purse seiners using fish aggregating
devices in equatorial waters.
Albacore Tuna
Although albacore tuna harvests in the north Atlantic have declined since 1970, catch and
effort in newer surface fisheries have increased since 1987. In 1997, SCRS determined that
North Atlantic albacore tuna was at or near a level of full exploitation. In 1998, ICCAT adopted
a recommendation to limit fishing capacity to the number of vessels in the directed albacore tuna
fishery during the years of 1993 to 1995 and for countries to submit a list of vessels fishing for
northern albacore. In 2003, ICCAT recommended a TAC of 34,500 mt ww for 2004, 2005, and
2006, of which the United States is allocated 607 mt ww per year.
ICCAT began managing southern Albacore when, in 1994, the SCRS found that catches
of southern Albacore exceeded MSY. At this time, ICCAT recommended that countries limit the
catch to 90 percent of previous levels. In 1996, ICCAT recommended a 22,000 mt ww quota for
all countries fishing below 5º N latitude with the goal of achieving MSY by 2005. In 1998, this
TAC was increased to 28,200 mt ww. In 2003, SCRS determined that southern albacore is not
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-5

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

overexploited at current fishing levels. Thus, SCRS recommended that the TAC be 29,200 mt
ww.
Yellowfin Tuna
Since the early 1970s, ICCAT has expressed concern over the high proportion of juvenile
yellowfin tuna that are landed. In 1972, ICCAT passed a recommendation that prohibited the
landing of yellowfin tuna less than 3.2 kg (7 lb). This recommendation also included an allowed
15 percent tolerance level on this minimum size. In 1995, an estimated 50 percent by number of
yellowfin tuna landed were less than the minimum size. As in the bigeye tuna fisheries, these
high catches of juveniles are largely a result of the use of FADs.
Atlantic yellowfin tuna landings reached a record high in 1990, primarily due to
increased landings in the east Atlantic. Since 1990, catches across the Atlantic have declined
somewhat and then remained stable. In 1993, ICCAT recommended that there be no increase in
the level of effective fishing effort over 1992 levels.
Skipjack Tuna
The stock structure of Atlantic skipjack tuna is uncertain; separate management units are
maintained in the eastern and western Atlantic. Skipjack tuna fisheries have changed
significantly since 1991, with the introduction of fishing on floating objects and the expansion of
the purse seine fishery towards the western Atlantic and closer to the equator. SCRS has noted
that additional research on skipjack tuna is needed. At this time, there are no ICCAT
recommendations or resolutions specific to skipjack tunas.
All Tunas
In April 1999, NMFS published the Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). This was the first FMP for Atlantic tunas. Some of the
specific tuna management measures included:
ƒ

Prohibition of pelagic driftnets for tunas;

ƒ

Implementation of the BFT ICCAT Rebuilding Program;

ƒ

Establishment of category-specific percent BFT quota allocations;

ƒ

Implementation of a Cap on the Purse Seine category of 250 mt ww for BFT (later
rescinded);

ƒ

Time/area closure in Mid-Atlantic to reduce bluefin tuna dead discards;

ƒ

Establishment of the foundation for developing an international 10-year rebuilding
program for bigeye tuna;

ƒ

Establishment of a recreational retention limit of three yellowfin tuna per person per day;
and

ƒ

Establishment a fishing year of June 1 to the following May 31.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-6

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

3.1.1.2 Pre-1999 Atlantic Swordfish Fishery and Management
Unless otherwise specified, the following paragraphs regarding the early history of the
swordfish fishery summarize information found in the Source Document to the 1985 Atlantic
Swordfish Fishery Management Plan (SAFMC, 1985a). The summary of more recent history is
a combination of information from the 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks and various ICCAT recommendations.
The recreational fishery for swordfish has existed since the 1920s when the fish were
taken mainly by handline trailing a baited hook or occasionally by rod and reel or harpoon. This
early fishery was located from Massachusetts to New York and, because it relied on locating the
fish and enticing it to strike, occurred mainly during the day. Occasionally, an angler fishing for
billfish in the Mid-Atlantic Bight would catch a swordfish.
In the 1970s, a recreational rod and reel fishery developed in Florida. This fishery
borrowed techniques from longline fishermen and drifted the bait below the surface at night.
Prior to the development of this fishery, fewer than 2,000 swordfish were estimated caught by all
recreational fishermen over time in aggregate. In 1976, approximately 25 – 30 swordfish were
taken off of Florida by rod and reel. By 1977, approximately 400 to 500 swordfish were taken.
In 1978, swordfish tournaments were held in Florida, South Carolina, and New Jersey (the first
ones ever for South Carolina and New Jersey) using this new technique. Due to a loss of interest
by anglers and a relatively poor fishing year in 1979, there was a decrease in recreational effort
in the early 1980s. In 1981 and 1982, only 86 and 53 swordfish were reported captured.
The commercial fishery began as a harpoon fishery between New York and Canada. In
the 1960s, longline gear was introduced. This new gear expanded the range of the fishery down
to the Gulf of Mexico and dramatically increased the amount of fish caught from approximately
2,800 mt ww in 1960 to 8,800 mt ww in 1963. Landings stabilized in the 1970s at around 5,000
mt ww.
In 1971, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration prohibited the sale of swordfish with
more than 0.5 parts per million (ppm) tissue mercury content, leading to decreased landings of
swordfish worldwide. In 1978, the permissible level of mercury was raised to 1.0 ppm, which
rejuvenated the commercial fishery and landings increased as a result.
In the early years, there were essentially four primary components to the commercial
swordfish fleet. There were approximately 25 vessels that used harpoons and spotter aircraft to
catch swordfish in northern waters during the summer months. These vessels also participated in
other fisheries because of the seasonal nature of the fishery. A mobile New England pelagic
longline vessel component was comprised of vessels greater than 50 feet in length, and fished the
Florida Straits primarily in winter and spring. Florida longline vessels, approximately 35 – 50
feet in length, fished mainly between Miami and Cape Canaveral and on the west coast of
Florida. There were also Cuban-American vessels, usually between 25 to 40 feet in length,
which fished between Key West and Miami. The harpoon fishery usually took female swordfish
greater than 200 lb. The longline fleet usually took a mixture of male and female fish weighing
between 10 and 300 lb.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-7

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

By the early 1980s, the early styles of longline gear had been replaced by monofilament
style gear. Additionally, the components of the fishery had changed. The larger New England
vessels were still highly mobile and were now fishing from the Gulf of Mexico to the Florida
Keys. The smaller Florida vessels became more mobile and began expanding into the Carolinas
and the Mid-Atlantic area. Smaller vessels began to operate up and down the coast and even
ventured into the edge of the Grand Banks. Many of these fishermen were either part-time
swordfish fishermen who supplemented their income with charterboat fishing or full-time
commercial fishermen who also fished for snappers, groupers, tilefish, and tunas.
From the late 1970s until the Atlantic swordfish FMP was approved in 1985, Federal
management of swordfish was accomplished through the Preliminary Fishery Management Plan
for Atlantic Billfishes and Sharks. This Preliminary FMP (43 FR 3818, January 27, 1978) was
prepared by the Department of Commerce and established a number of requirements for foreign
vessels fishing within the Atlantic fishery conservation zone (see section 1.1.2 for additional
detail on the Preliminary FMP). Starting in June 1984, all vessels intending to catch swordfish
by methods other than rod and reel were required to obtain a permit from NMFS Southeast
Regional Office. By January 1985, 340 permit applications had been received (SAFMC, 1985b).
The Atlantic Swordfish FMP (February 1985) was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC) in cooperation with the Caribbean Fishery Management Council
(CFMC), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC), and the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC).
The final rule implementing the FMP published on August 22, 1985 (50 FR 33952; correction
notice 50 FR 35563, September 3, 1985). This plan separated the swordfish fishery from the
billfish fishery because, by this time, virtually all swordfish were taken commercially with
longline or harpoon gear, while the majority of billfish were taken recreationally with rod and
reel. However, it should be noted that there was a rapidly expanding market for marlin with
increasing commercial landings from the late 1970s until the implementation of the Atlantic
Billfish Fishery Management Plan in 1988. In the mid-1980s, Atlantic swordfish were
considered to be in or near a state of growth overfishing. 1 The plan specified the following five
management objectives (SAFMC, 1985b):
1. Maintain high landings in the form of the larger fish that are preferred in the market by
controlling (reducing) the harvest of smaller swordfish.
2. Prevent or reduce growth overfishing to create a buffer against possible recruitment
overfishing. This was to be done by maintaining a sufficient number of larger fish by
controlling the harvest of smaller fish.
3. Obtain scientific information to continually monitor and refine the management of the
swordfish fishery by an onboard technician program on a sample number of commercial
boats.
4. Monitor and mitigate user group conflicts using the onboard technician program.

Growth overfishing occurs when excessive numbers of small fish are harvested from a stock, thereby
preventing growth to the size at which the maximum yield-per-recruit would be obtained from the stock.
1

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-8

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

5. Minimize the impacts of foreign fishing on the domestic U.S. swordfish fishery by
minimizing the swordfish bycatch of foreign longliners and squid trawls consistent with
the requirement to allow opportunities to harvest tuna or catch squid under a Governing
International Fisheries Agreement.
Some of the management measures implemented in the Swordfish FMP were: variable
season closures to control landings of small swordfish; requiring all commercially-caught
swordfish to be landed whole or as carcasses; gear restrictions for closed areas; restrictions to
foreign fishing for tuna longliners and squid trawlers; commercial permit requirement; observer
or technician requirements; and reporting requirements for vessels in Puerto Rico or the U.S.
Virgin Islands. In September 1986, NMFS published a notice stating that the variable season
closures would not be implemented (51 FR 31151, September 2, 1986). In August 1990, a final
rule published requiring mandatory dealer reporting (55 FR 35643, August 31, 1990).
In November 1990, ICCAT adopted its first Atlantic swordfish recommendation. This
recommendation required members to reduce fishing mortality on fish weighing more than 25 kg
(55 lb) by 15 percent from 1988 fishing levels and to prohibit the landing of swordfish less than
25 kg with a 15 percent tolerance level. NMFS implemented this recommendation with an
emergency rule (56 FR 26934, June 12, 1991) and later a final rule (56 FR 65007; December 13,
1991).
At its 1994 meeting, ICCAT established specific TAC levels for nations fishing for both
North and South Atlantic swordfish stocks (the United States was allocated 3,970 mt ww and
3,500 mt ww for 1995 and 1996, respectively). At the 1995 meeting, ICCAT adopted
recommendations that allowed nations to maintain the existing minimum size for swordfish with
a 15 percent tolerance of smaller fish or alternatively to abide by a smaller minimum size (119
cm or equivalent weight) with no tolerance. ICCAT also adjusted the percentages each country
received of the total allowable catch levels for North Atlantic swordfish, and established
measures to account for over- and underharvests. Under the 1995 recommendation, the United
States receives 29 percent of the available total allowable quota. From 1995 to 1999, NMFS
modified the existing U.S. quotas for Atlantic swordfish based on these recommendations and a
1996 recommendation that established the TAC at 11,300, 11,000, and 10,700 mt ww in 1997,
1998, and 1999, respectively (the United States’ allocation was 3,277, 3,190, and 3,103 mt ww in
1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively).
In 1999, NMFS implemented a number of regulations that affected swordfish fishermen,
including a prohibition on the use of driftnets in the swordfish fishery, and regulations to aid in
tracking swordfish trade including dealer permitting and reporting for all swordfish importers, a
documentation scheme that indicated the country of origin and flag of the vessel, and a
prohibition on importing swordfish less than the minimum size. These regulations were codified
in the first quarter of 1999. In April 1999, NMFS published the 1999 FMP. This FMP replaced
the 1985 Swordfish FMP that had been drafted by the Fishery Management Councils. The 1999
FMP maintained a number of the management measures from the previous FMP including
reporting requirements, annual quotas, authorized gear, and the minimum size. However, the
1999 FMP also called for the United States to negotiate an international rebuilding plan, required

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-9

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

that recreational landings be counted against the U.S. portion of the ICCAT-established TAC,
and implemented a limited access program for commercial vessel permits.
In November 1999, ICCAT established a 10-year rebuilding program for Atlantic
swordfish. This rebuilding program reduced the North Atlantic TAC (10,600, 10,500, and
10,400 mt ww for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, respectively; 2951 mt ww for the United
States in all years), established a dead discard allowance (400 , 300, and 200 mt ww in 2000,
2001, and 2002, respectively; 80 percent to the United States; phased out by 2004; the TAC
minus the allowance for dead discards is the amount that could be retained) , restated the need
for data reporting, and maintained the existing minimum size limits. In 2002, noting the
improvement on the stock, ICCAT increased the overall TAC slightly while simultaneously
reemphasizing the need to protect juvenile swordfish.
3.1.1.3 Pre-1999 Atlantic Shark Fisheries and Management
Unless otherwise specified, the main sources of the following history are the 1993
Atlantic Shark Fishery Management Plan and the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks.
Recreational fishing for Atlantic sharks occurs in Federal and state waters from New
England to the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. In the past, sharks were often called “the
poor man’s marlin.” Recreational shark fishing with rod and reel is now a popular sport at all
social and economic levels, largely because of accessibility to the resource. Sharks can be
caught virtually anywhere in salt water, with even large specimens available in the nearshore
area to surf anglers or small boaters. Most recreational shark fishing takes place from small to
medium-size vessels. Mako, white, and large pelagic sharks are generally accessible only to
those aboard ocean-going vessels. Recreational shark fisheries are exploited primarily by private
vessels and charter/headboats although there are some shore-based fishermen active in the
Florida Keys.
The commercial shark fishery has been sporadic in nature. In the early 1900s, a Pacific
shark fishery supplied limited demands for fresh shark fillets and fish meal as well as a more
substantial market for dried fins of soupfin sharks. In 1937, the price of soupfin shark liver
skyrocketed when it was discovered to be the richest source of vitamin A available in
commercial quantities. A shark fishery in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of Florida, and in the
Gulf of Mexico developed in response to this demand (Wagner, 1966). At this time, shark
fishing gear included gillnets, hook and line, anchored bottom longlines, floating longlines, and
benthic lines for deepwater fishing. These gear types are slightly different than the gears used
today and are fully described in Wagner (1966). By 1950, the availability of synthetic vitamin A
caused most shark fisheries to be abandoned (Wagner, 1966).
A small fishery for porbeagle existed in the early 1960s off the U.S. Atlantic coast
involving Norwegian fishermen. Between the World Wars, Norwegians and Danes had
pioneered fishing for porbeagles in the North Sea and in the region of the Shetland, Orkney, and
the Faroe Islands. In the late 1940s, these fishermen caught from 1,360 to 2,720 mt yearly, with
lesser amounts in the early 1950s (Rae, 1962). The subsequent scarcity of porbeagles in their
fishing area forced the Norwegians to explore other grounds, and around 1960, they began
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-10

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

fishing the Newfoundland Banks and the waters east of New York. Between 1961 and 1964,
their catch increased from 1,800 to 9,300 mt, then declined to 200 mt (Casey et al., 1978).
The U.S. Atlantic shark fishery developed rapidly in the late 1970s due to increased
demand for their meat, fins, and cartilage. At the time, sharks were perceived to be underutilized
as a fishery resource. The high commercial value of shark fins led to the controversial practice
of finning, or removing the valuable fins from sharks and discarding the carcass. Growing
demand for shark products encouraged expansion of the commercial fishery throughout the late
1970s and the 1980s. Tuna and swordfish vessels began to retain a greater proportion of their
shark incidental catch, and some directed fishery effort expanded as well. The Secretary of
Commerce published the Preliminary Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish and Sharks
in 1978, which noted, among other things, the need for international management regarding
sharks. As catches accelerated through the 1980s, shark stocks suffered a precipitous decline.
Peak commercial landings of large coastal and pelagic sharks were reported in 1989.
In 1989, the five Atlantic Fishery Management Councils asked the Secretary of
Commerce to develop a Shark FMP. The Councils were concerned about the late maturity and
low fecundity of sharks, the increase in fishing mortality, and the possibility of the resource
being overfished. The Councils requested that the FMP cap commercial fishing effort, establish
a recreational bag limit, prohibit "finning,” and begin a data collection system.
In 1993, the Secretary of Commerce, through NMFS, implemented the FMP for Sharks
of the Atlantic Ocean. The management measures in the 1993 FMP included:
• Establishing a fishery management unit (FMU) consisting of 39 frequently caught
species of Atlantic sharks, separated into three groups for assessment and regulatory
purposes (Large Coastal Sharks (LCS), Small Coastal Sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks);
• Establishing calendar year commercial quotas for the LCS and pelagic sharks and
dividing the annual quota into two equal half-year quotas that apply to the following two
fishing periods – January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31;
• Establishing a recreational trip limit of four sharks per vessel for LCS or pelagic shark
species groups and a daily bag limit of five sharks per person for sharks in the SCS
species group;
• Requiring that all sharks not taken as part of a commercial or recreational fishery be
released uninjured;
• Establishing a framework procedure for adjusting commercial quotas, recreational bag
limits, species size limits, management unit, fishing year, species groups, estimates of
maximum sustainable yield, and permitting and reporting requirements;
• Prohibiting finning by requiring that the ratio between wet fins/dressed carcass weight
not exceed five percent;
• Prohibiting the sale by recreational fishermen of sharks or shark products caught in the
Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ);

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-11

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

• Requiring annual commercial permits for fishermen who harvest and sell shark (meat
products and fins);
• Establishing a permit eligibility requirement that the owner or operator (including charter
vessel and headboat owners/operators who intend to sell their catch) must show proof
that at least 50 percent of earned income has been derived from the sale of the fish or fish
products or charter vessel and headboat operations or at least $20,000 from the sale of
fish during one of three years preceding the permit request;
• Requiring trip reports by permitted fishermen and persons conducting shark tournaments
and requiring fishermen to provide information to NMFS under the Trip Interview
Program; and,
• Requiring NMFS observers on selected shark fishing vessels to document mortality of
marine mammals and endangered species.
At that time, NMFS identified LCS as overfished and pelagic and SCS as fully fished.
The quotas were 2,436 mt dressed weight (dw) for LCS and 580 mt dw for pelagic sharks. No
quota was established for SCS. Under the rebuilding plan established in the 1993 FMP, the LCS
quota was expected to increase every year up to the maximum sustainable yield estimated in the
1992 stock assessment, which was 3,787 mt dw.
A number of difficulties arose in the initial year of implementation of the Shark FMP that
resulted in a short season and low ex-vessel prices. To address these problems, a commercial
trip limit of 4,000 lb. for permitted vessels for LCS was implemented on December 28, 1993 (58
FR 68556), and a control date for the Atlantic shark fishery was established on February 22,
1994 (59 FR 8457). A final rule to implement additional measures authorized by the FMP
published on October 18, 1994 (59 FR 52453), which:
• Clarified operation of vessels with a Federal commercial permit;
• Established the fishing year;
• Consolidated the regulations for drift gillnets;
• Required dealers to obtain a permit to purchase sharks;
•

Required dealer reports;

• Established recreational bag limits;
•

E
stablished quotas for commercial landings; and

• Provided for commercial fishery closures when quotas were reached.
In 1994, under the rebuilding plan implemented in the 1993 Shark FMP, the LCS quota
was increased to 2,570 mt dw. Additionally, a new stock assessment was completed in March
1994 that indicated rebuilding LCS could take as long as 30 years and suggested a more cautious
approach for pelagic sharks and SCS. A final rule that capped quotas for LCS and pelagic sharks
at the 1994 levels was published on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21468).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-12

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

In June 1996, NMFS convened another stock assessment to examine the status of LCS
stocks. The 1996 stock assessment found no clear evidence that LCS stocks were rebuilding and
concluded that “[a]nalyses indicate that recovery is more likely to occur with reductions in
effective fishing mortality rate of 50 [percent] or more.” In response to these results, in 1997,
NMFS reduced the LCS commercial quota by 50 percent to 1,285 mt dw and the recreational
retention limit to two LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks combined per trip with an additional
allowance of two Atlantic sharpnose sharks per person per trip (62 FR 16648, April 2, 1997). In
this same rule, NMFS established an annual commercial quota for SCS of 1,760 mt dw and
prohibited possession of five species. As a result of litigation, NMFS prepared additional
economic analyses on the 1997 LCS quotas and was allowed to maintain those quotas during
resolution of the case.
In June 1998, NMFS held another LCS stock assessment. The 1998 stock assessment
found that LCS were overfished and would not rebuild under 1997 harvest levels. Based in part
on the results of the 1998 stock assessment, in April 1999, NMFS published the 1999 FMP
which included numerous measures to rebuild or prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks in
commercial and recreational fisheries. The 1999 FMP replaced the 1993 Atlantic Shark FMP.
Management measures related to sharks that changed in the 1999 FMP included:
• Reducing commercial LCS and SCS quotas;
• Establishing ridgeback and non-ridgeback categories of LCS;
• Implementing a commercial minimum size for ridgeback LCS;
• Establishing blue shark, porbeagle shark, and other pelagic shark subgroups of the
pelagic sharks and establishing a commercial quota for each subgroup;
• Reducing recreational retention limits for all sharks;
• Establishing a recreational minimum size for all sharks except Atlantic sharpnose;
• Expanding the list of prohibited shark species to 19 species;
• Implementing limited access in commercial fisheries;
• Establishing a shark public display quota;
• Establishing new procedures for counting dead discards and state landings of sharks after
Federal fishing season closures against Federal quotas; and
•

E
stablishing season-specific over- and underharvest adjustment procedures.

The implementing regulations were published on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 29090).
However, in 1999, a court enjoined implementation of the 1999 regulations, as they related to the
ongoing litigation on the 1997 quotas. Further history of this litigation and shark management is
provided under Section 3.1.1.7 below. A year later, on June 12, 2000, the court issued an order
clarifying that NMFS could proceed with implementation and enforcement of the 1999
prohibited species provisions (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-13

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

3.1.1.4 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, & Sharks
As described, the 1999 FMP replaced the existing Atlantic Shark and Atlantic Swordfish
FMPs, and established the first FMP for Atlantic tunas. Before the 1999 FMP, Atlantic tunas
were managed only under the ATCA; after the 1999 FMP, Atlantic tunas were managed under
both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA.
NMFS began working on the 1999 FMP shortly after the U.S. Congress reauthorized the
Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996. The 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments added new
fishery management requirements including requiring NMFS to halt overfishing; rebuild
overfished fisheries; minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, to the extent practicable; and
identify and protect essential fish habitat (EFH). These provisions were coupled with the
recognition that the management of HMS requires international cooperation and that rebuilding
programs must reflect traditional participation in the fisheries by U.S. fishermen, relative to
foreign fleets.
Development of the 1999 HMS FMP began in September 1997 with the formation of the
HMS Advisory Panel (AP). The HMS AP was established under a requirement of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is composed of representatives of the commercial and recreational
fishing communities, conservation and academic organizations, the five regional fishery
management councils involved in Atlantic HMS management, the Atlantic and Gulf coastal
states, and the U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee. The HMS AP met seven times during
development of the 1999 FMP, including once during the public comment period on the draft
FMP, and provided extensive comment and advice to NMFS.
In October 1997, NMFS prepared and distributed a scoping document to serve as the
starting point for consideration of issues for the 1999 FMP. The scoping document described
major issues in the fishery, legal requirements for management, and potential management
measures that could be considered for adoption in the FMP and solicited public comment on
these issues. The scoping document was the subject of 21 public hearings that were held in
October and November 1997 throughout the management area. The scoping meetings allowed
NMFS to gather information from participants in the fisheries, and provided a mechanism by
which the public could provide input to NMFS early in the FMP development process.
In October 1998, NMFS announced in the Federal Register the availability of the draft FMP.
The comment period on the draft FMP lasted from October 25, 1998, to March 12, 1999. The
proposed rule that accompanied the draft FMP was published in the Federal Register on January
20, 1999. The supplemental part that related to the bluefin tuna rebuilding program published in
the Federal Register on February 25, 1999. The comment period on the proposed rule and its
supplement also went until March 12, 1999. Subsequent to the release of the proposed rule,
NMFS held 27 public hearings in communities from Texas to Maine and the Caribbean. During
the comment period, NMFS received several thousand comments from commercial and
recreational fishermen, scientists, conservationists, and concerned individuals. An HMS AP
meeting was held toward the end of the comment period to allow HMS AP members to view
most of the comments NMFS had received on the draft FMP and accompanying proposed rule.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-14

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

The 1999 FMP incorporated all existing management measures for Atlantic tuna and north
Atlantic swordfish that have been issued previously under the authority of the ATCA. It also
incorporated all existing management measures for north Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic sharks
that had previously been issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Southern
Atlantic swordfish and southern Atlantic albacore tuna continue to be managed only under
ATCA. In November 2004, ICCAT adopted its first recommendation for Atlantic sharks.
Some of the non-species specific management measures of the 1999 FMP included vessel
monitoring systems for all pelagic longline vessels; gear and vessel marking requirements;
moving pelagic longline gear after an interaction with a protected species; a requirement for
charter/headboats to obtain an annual vessel permit; tournament registration for all HMS
tournaments; time limits on completing a vessel logbook; and expanded observer coverage. The
1999 FMP also established the threshold levels to determine if a stock is overfished, if
overfishing is occurring, or if the stock is rebuilt. Finally, the 1999 FMP identified essential fish
habitat (EFH) for all Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks. As part of the 1999 FMP, the
regulations for all Atlantic HMS, including billfish, were consolidated into one part of the Code
of Federal Regulations, 50 CFR part 635. Before then, each species had its own part. This often
led to confusion and, in some cases, conflicting regulations.
3.1.1.5

Post 1999 FMP

After issuance of the 1999 FMP, a number of constituents (environmental, commercial
fishermen, and recreational fishermen) sued the NMFS (the Agency) over aspects of the plan,
including the BFT rebuilding program, the use of vessel monitoring systems in the pelagic
longline fleet, the time/area closure for the pelagic longline fleet, the pelagic shark quotas, the
shark and yellowfin tuna recreational retention limits, the large and small coastal shark quotas,
and the bluefin tuna purse seine allocation. The Agency received favorable court rulings,
upholding its actions, in most of these cases, and resolved some matters via settlement
agreements. All of the briefings and court orders are a matter of the public record.
3.1.1.6

Regulatory Amendments Relating to the Pelagic Longline Fishery

In the 1999 FMP, NMFS committed to implement a closed area that would effectively
protect small swordfish. NMFS began to work towards this goal shortly after the publication of
the 1999 FMP. After the publication of the 1999 FMP, NMFS was sued by environmentalists
who felt, among other things, that the Agency had not done enough to reduce bycatch in HMS
fisheries. As a result, NMFS expanded the goal of the rule to reduce all bycatch and bycatch
mortality, to the extent practicable, in the HMS pelagic longline fishery. The following
objectives were developed to guide agency action for this goal:
ƒ

Maximize the reduction in finfish bycatch;

ƒ

Minimize the reduction in the target catch of swordfish and other species;

ƒ

Consider impacts on the incidental catch of other species to minimize or reduce

incidental catch levels; and

ƒ

Optimize survival of bycatch and incidental catch species.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-15

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

NMFS published the final rule implementing the first regulatory amendment to the 1999
FMP on August 1, 2000 (65 FR 47214), which closed three large areas (DeSoto Canyon, Florida
East Coast, and Charleston Bump) and prohibited the use of live bait in the Gulf of Mexico
During the course of this rulemaking, the pelagic longline fleet exceeded the incidental
take statement for sea turtles established during the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7
Consultation for the 1999 FMP. That, combined with new information on sea turtles and the
uncertainty regarding what the closures would mean for sea turtles, resulted in a new Biological
Opinion (BiOp) (June 30, 2000) that concluded that the continuation of the pelagic longline
fishery would jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles.
As a result of the jeopardy finding, NMFS needed to implement certain measures to reduce sea
turtle bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery.
Shortly after this conclusion, NMFS decided that further analyses of observer data and
additional population modeling of loggerhead sea turtles were needed to determine more
precisely the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on turtles. Because of this, NMFS reinitiated
consultation on the HMS fisheries on September 7, 2000. In the interim, NMFS implemented
emergency regulations, based on historical data on sea turtle interactions, to reduce the shortterm effects of the pelagic longline fishery on sea turtles. An emergency rule that closed a
portion of the Northeast Distant Statistical Area (NED) and required dipnets and line clippers to
be carried and used on pelagic longline vessels to aid in the release of any captured sea turtle
published on October 13, 2000 (65 FR 60889).
NMFS issued a BiOp on June 8, 2001 (revised on June 14, 2001), that again concluded
that the continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Accordingly, the BiOp provided a
reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to avoid jeopardy. This BiOp concluded no jeopardy
for other HMS fisheries, but did require additional management measures to reduce sea turtle
takes in these fisheries. The RPA included the following elements: closing the NED area
effective July 15, 2001, and conducting a research experiment in this area to reduce sea turtle
bycatch and bycatch mortality in the PLL fishery; requiring gangions to be placed no closer than
twice the average gangion length from the suspending floatlines effective August 1, 2001;
requiring gangion lengths to be 110 percent of the length of the floatline in sets of 100 meters or
less in depth effective August 1, 2001; and, requiring the use of corrodible hooks effective
August 1, 2001. Also, the BiOp included a term and condition for the incidental take statement
that required NMFS to issue a regulation requiring that all vessels permitted for HMS fisheries,
commercial and recreational, post the sea turtle guidelines for safe handling and release
following longline interactions inside the wheelhouse by September 15, 2001. The requirement
that all vessels permitted for HMS fisheries post sea turtle handling and release guidelines was
modified to specify only bottom and pelagic longline vessels by an August 31, 2001,
memorandum from the Office of Protected Resources.
On July 13, 2001, NMFS published an emergency rule (66 FR 36711) to implement
several of the BiOp requirements. NMFS published an amendment to the emergency rule to
incorporate the change in requirement for the handling and release guidelines that was published
in the Federal Register on September 24, 2001 (66 FR 48812).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-16

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

On July 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule (67 FR 45393) implementing measures
required under the June 14, 2001, BiOp on Atlantic HMS to reduce the incidental catch and postrelease mortality of sea turtles and other protected species in HMS Fisheries, with the exception
of the gangion placement measure. The rule implemented the NED closure, required the length
of any gangion to be 10 percent longer than the length of any floatline if the total length of any
gangion plus the total length of any floatline is less than 100 meters, and prohibited vessels from
having hooks on board other than corrodible, non-stainless steel hooks. In the HMS shark gillnet
fishery, both the observer and vessel operator must look for whales, the vessel operator must
contact NMFS if a listed whale is taken and shark gillnet fishermen must conduct net checks
every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and remove any sea turtles or marine mammals from their gear.
The final rule also required all HMS bottom and pelagic longline vessels to post sea turtle
handling and release guidelines in the wheelhouse. NMFS did not implement the gangion
placement requirement because it appeared to result in an unchanged number of interactions with
loggerhead sea turtles and an apparent increase in interactions with leatherback sea turtles.
In 2001, 2002, and 2003, NMFS in conjunction with the fishing industry conducted an
experiment in the NED to see if certain gear restrictions or requirements could reduce sea turtle
captures and mortality. The results of this experiment indicated that certain gear types could
reduce sea turtle interactions and mortality and that certain methods of handling and releasing
turtles could further reduce mortality. For example, using 16/0 non-offset or 18/0 offset hooks of
at least 10 degrees could reduce leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle interactions by
approximately 50 and 0 percent, respectively. Using 18/0 hooks flat or offset up to 10 degrees
could reduce leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle interactions by approximately 50 and 65
percent, respectively. NMFS is currently, in conjunction with the fishing industry, conducting
additional experiments to verify these results throughout the fishery. Additionally, NMFS is
working to export these results to other countries to reduce sea turtle interactions and mortality
throughout the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
On November 28, 2003, based on the conclusion of this experiment and based on
preliminary data that indicated that the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery may have exceeded the
ITS in the June 14, 2001 BiOp, NMFS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to assess the potential effects on the
human environment of proposed alternatives and actions under a proposed rule to reduce sea
turtle bycatch (68 FR 66783).
In January 2004, NMFS reinitiated consultation after receiving data that indicated the
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery exceeded the incidental take statement for leatherback sea
turtles in 2001 – 2002 and for loggerhead sea turtles in 2002. In the spring of 2004, NMFS
released a proposed rule that would require fishermen to use certain hook and bait types and take
other measures to reduce sea turtle takes and mortality. The resulting June 1, 2004, BiOp
considered these measures and concluded that the pelagic longline fishery was not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles, but was still likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of leatherback sea turtles. NMFS published a final rule implementing many
gear and bait restrictions and requiring certain handling and release tools and methods on July 6,
2004 (69 FR 40734). NMFS also published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
receive comments on how to further reduce sea turtle mortality (69 FR 49858, August 12, 2004),
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-17

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

held several workshops to demonstrate sea turtle release equipment and techniques (69 FR
44513), and released revised sea turtle handling and release placards, protocols, and a video.
The placards, protocols, and video are available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. NMFS
continues to monitor the sea turtle takes in the pelagic longline fishery and may need to take
further action if sea turtle takes do not remain below the levels specified in the June 2004 BiOp.
3.1.1.7 Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks
As noted under Section 3.1.1.3, in 1999, a court enjoined the Agency from implementing
many of the shark-specific regulations in the 1999 FMP. In 2000, the injunction was lifted when
a settlement agreement was entered to resolve the 1997 and 1999 lawsuits. The settlement
agreement required, among other things, an independent (i.e., non-NMFS) review of the 1998
LCS stock assessment. The settlement agreement did not address any regulations affecting the
pelagic shark, prohibited species, or recreational shark fisheries. Once the injunction was lifted,
on January 1, 2001, the pelagic shark quotas adopted in the 1999 HMS FMP were implemented
(66 FR 55). Additionally, on March 6, 2001, NMFS published an emergency rule implementing
the settlement agreement (66 FR 13441). This emergency rule expired on September 4, 2001,
and established the LCS and SCS commercial quotas at 1997 levels.
In late 2001, the Agency received the results of the peer review of the 1998 LCS stock
assessment. These peer reviews found that the 1998 LCS stock assessment was not the best
available science for LCS. Taking into consideration the settlement agreement, the results of the
peer reviews of the 1998 LCS stock assessment, current catch rates, and the best available
scientific information (not including the 1998 stock assessment projections), NMFS
implemented another emergency rule for the 2002 fishing year that suspended certain measures
under the 1999 regulations pending completion of new LCS and SCS stock assessments and a
peer review of the new LCS stock assessment (66 FR 67118, December 28, 2001; extended 67
FR 37354, May 29, 2002). Specifically, NMFS maintained the 1997 LCS commercial quota
(1,285 mt dw), maintained the 1997 SCS commercial quota (1,760 mt dw), suspended the
commercial ridgeback LCS minimum size, suspended counting dead discards and state landings
after a Federal closure against the quota, and replaced season-specific quota accounting methods
with subsequent-season quota accounting methods. That emergency rule expired on December
30, 2002.
On May 8, 2002, NMFS announced the availability of a SCS stock assessment (67 FR
30879). The Mote Marine Laboratory and the University of Florida provided NMFS with
another SCS assessment in August 2002. Both of these stock assessments indicate that
overfishing is occurring on finetooth sharks while the three other species in the SCS complex
(Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and blacknose) are not overfished and overfishing is not
occurring. On October 17, 2002, NMFS announced the availability of the 2002 LCS stock
assessment and the workshop meeting report (67 FR 64098). The results of this stock
assessment indicate that the LCS complex is still overfished and overfishing is occurring.
Additionally, the 2002 LCS stock assessment found that sandbar sharks are no longer overfished
but that overfishing is still occurring and that blacktip sharks are rebuilt and overfishing is not
occurring.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-18

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

Based on the results of both the 2002 SCS and LCS stock assessments, NMFS
implemented an emergency rule to ensure that the commercial management measures in place
for the 2003 fishing year were based on the best available science (67 FR 78990, December 27,
2002; extended 68 FR 31987, May 29, 2003). Specifically, the emergency rule implemented the
LCS ridgeback/non-ridgeback split, set the LCS and SCS quotas based on the results of stock
assessments, suspended the commercial ridgeback LCS minimum size, and allowed both the
season-specific quota adjustments and the counting of all mortality measures to go into place.
In December 2003, NMFS implemented the regulations in Amendment 1 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (68 FR 74746). These regulations
were based on the 2002 small and large coastal shark stock assessments. Some of the measures
taken in Amendment 1 included revising the rebuilding timeframe for LCS; re-aggregating the
LCS complex; establishing a method of changing the quota based on maximum sustainable yield
(MSY); updating some shark EFH identifications; modifying the quotas, seasons, and regions;
adjusting the recreational bag limit; establishing criteria to add or remove species to the
prohibited shark list; establishing gear restrictions to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality;
establishing a time/area closure off of North Carolina for bottom longline fishermen; and
establishing VMS requirements for bottom longline and gillnet fishermen.
3.1.1.8 Other Post-1999 FMP Regulations for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks
Since the 1999 FMP, there have been a number of other regulatory actions in addition to
the rules mentioned above. Below is a short list of some of these actions.
ƒ

Removal of the bluefin tuna purse seine category cap: In the 1999 FMP, NMFS finalized
an alternative that would have capped the quota for vessels in the purse seine category at
250 mt ww. On November 1, 1999, NMFS published a final rule that removed the purse
seine category quota cap (64 FR 58793). In that rule, the purse seine category was given
18.6 percent of the total landings quota available to the United States.

ƒ

Change to bluefin tuna incidental category catch limits: In May 2003 (68 FR 32414),
NMFS modified the target catch requirements for vessels participating in the Atlantic
Tunas Longline category such that pelagic longline vessels would have to land 2,000 lb.
of other fish in order to land one bluefin tuna on a trip, 6,000 lb. of other fish in order to
land two bluefin tuna on a trip, and 30,000 lb. of other fish to land three bluefin tuna.
The rule was designed to reduce the discards of bluefin tuna. This change in the target
catch requirements applies to all fishing areas. This rule also maintained separate quotas
for the seasonal fisheries, adjusted the Longline category North/South division line to
31°00’ N. latitude and adjust the Longline category subquotas to allocate 60 percent to
the southern area and 40 percent to the northern area.

ƒ

Bluefin tuna amendment: On December 24 , 2003 (68 FR 74504), NMFS published a
final rule that changed the opening date of the Purse seine category, established closure
dates of the Harpoon and General categories, and set size tolerances of large medium
BFT for the Purse seine and Harpoon categories.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-19

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

ƒ

Recreational permits and reporting requirements: On December 18, 2002 (67 FR 77434),
NMFS published a final rule requiring all vessel owners fishing recreationally (i.e., no
sale) for Atlantic HMS, including billfish, to obtain an Atlantic HMS recreational angling
category permit. On January 7, 2003 (68 FR 711), a final rule establishing a mandatory
reporting system for all non-tournament recreational landings of Atlantic marlins, sailfish,
and swordfish was published. These requirements became effective in March 2003.

ƒ

International trade permit: On November 17, 2004, NMFS published a final rule that
implements the recommendations of ICCAT and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC) for bluefin tuna, swordfish, and bigeye tuna (69 FR 67268). The
rule requires all importers and exporters, regardless of ocean basin, of bluefin tuna,
swordfish, and bigeye tuna to obtain an HMS International Trade Permit on an annual
basis, report imports and exports on species-specific statistical documents and re-export
certificates, and submit biweekly activity reports to NMFS. The rule is effective on July
1, 2005.

ƒ

Import restrictions: Due to compliance concerns, ICCAT has recommended numerous
import restrictions on countries that have not shown that they are complying with ICCAT
recommendations. Over the years, the countries and species that have import restrictions
placed on them have changed. As of July 2, 2005, bigeye tuna from Bolivia or Georgia
will not be allowed to be imported into the United States (May 17, 2005, 70 FR 28218).
Additionally, ICCAT established “positive” and “negative” lists. These lists outline all
the vessels that have permits and do not conduct IUU fishing (positive list) and those
vessels that are not permitted and have conducted IUU fishing in the past (negative list).
Fish that were caught on vessels that are not on the positive list or that are on the negative
list cannot be imported into the United States (December 6, 2004, 69 FR 70396).

ƒ

Quota adjustments: Based on various ICCAT recommendations, NMFS has adjusted the
quotas for North and South Atlantic swordfish (69 FR 68090, November 23, 2004) and
Atlantic bluefin tuna.

ƒ
ƒ

National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management Of Sharks: On February
15, 2001, NMFS released the final National Plan of Action (NPOA) for the Conservation
and Management of Sharks (66 FR 10484). The NPOA was developed pursuant to the
endorsement of the International Plan of Action (IPOA) by the United Nations’ Food and
Agriculture Organization Committee on Fisheries Ministerial Meeting in February 1999.
The overall objective of the IPOA is to ensure conservation and management of sharks
and their long-term sustainable use. The final NPOA, consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act, requires NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils to
undertake extensive data collection, analysis, and management measures in order to
ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. shark fisheries. The NPOA also encourages
Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions and State agencies to initiate or expand current
data collection, analysis, and management measures and to implement regulations
consistent with federal regulations, as needed. For additional information on the U.S.
NPOA and its implementation, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov.

ƒ

Shark Finning Prohibition Act: On December 21, 2000, President Clinton signed the
Shark Finning Prohibition Act into law (Public Law 106-557). This amended the

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-20

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit any person
under U.S. jurisdiction from (i) engaging in the finning of sharks; (ii) possessing shark
fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; and (iii) landing shark fins
without the corresponding carcass. NMFS published final regulations on February 11,
2002 (67 FR 6194). These regulations prohibit the finning of sharks, possession of
sharks without the corresponding carcasses, and landings of shark carcasses without the
corresponding carcasses in U.S. fisheries in the exclusive economic zone and on the high
seas.
Other regulatory actions that have been taken including opening and closing of fisheries and
adjustments to quota allocations. All of these actions are not listed here but can be found by
searching the Federal Register webpage at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html or by
reviewing the annual HMS SAFE reports (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms).
3.1.2

History of Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management

Atlantic billfish managed by NMFS are Atlantic blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), white
marlin (Tetrapturus albidus), sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), and longbill spearfish
(Tetrapturus pfluegeri). Atlantic billfish management strategies have been guided by
international and domestic considerations and mechanisms since the 1970s.
3.1.2.1 Preliminary Fishery Management Plan (PMP) for Atlantic Billfish and
Sharks
Domestic management of Atlantic billfish resources has been developed, modified, and
implemented in three primary stages and through a series of other rulemakings. In January 1978,
NMFS published the Preliminary Fishery Management Plan (PMP) for Atlantic Billfish and
Sharks (43 FR 3818), which was supported by an EIS (42 FR 57716). This PMP was a
Secretarial effort. The management measures contained in the plan were designed to:
1. minimize conflict between domestic and foreign users of billfish and shark resources;
2. encourage development of an international management regime; and
3. maintain availability of billfishes and sharks to the expanding U.S. fisheries.
Primary management measures in the Atlantic Billfish and Shark PMP included:
ƒ

Mandatory data reporting requirements for foreign vessels;

ƒ

A prohibition on the foreign commercial retention of all billfishes caught within the
Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) of the United States and stipulated release in a manner
that will maximize the probability of survival;

ƒ

A hard cap on the catch of sharks by foreign vessels, which when achieved would
prohibit further landings of sharks by foreign vessels;

ƒ

Permit requirements for foreign vessels to fish in the FCZ of the United States;

ƒ

Radio checks by foreign vessels upon entering and leaving the FCZ;

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-21

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

ƒ

Boarding and inspection privileges for U.S. observers; and

ƒ

Prohibition on intentional discarding of fishing gears by foreign fishing vessels within
the FCZ that may pose environmental or navigational hazards.
3.1.2.2

The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Billfishes

Building upon the PMP for Atlantic Billfish and Sharks was the Fishery Management
Plan for the Atlantic Billfishes (53 FR 21501). This plan was jointly developed by five Atlantic
regional councils (Caribbean, Gulf, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England) and
implemented in October 1988 (53 FR 37765). The 1988 FMP defined the Atlantic billfish
management unit to include sailfish from the western Atlantic Ocean, white marlin and blue
marlin from the North Atlantic Ocean, and longbill spearfish from the entire Atlantic Ocean;
described objectives for the Atlantic billfish fishery; and established management measures to
achieve those objectives. The objectives identified in the Billfish FMP were to:
1. Maintain the highest availability of billfishes to the U.S. recreational fishery by

implementing conservation measures that will reduce fishing mortality;

2. Optimize the social and economic benefits to the nation by reserving the billfish resource
for its traditional use, which in the continental United States is almost entirely a
recreational fishery; and
3. Increase understanding of the condition of billfish stocks and the billfish fishery.
The primary management measures adopted to achieve the stated objectives of the 1988
Billfish FMP included:
ƒ

Defining OY in qualitative terms;

ƒ

A prohibition on the sale of Atlantic billfish, with an exemption for small-scale handline
(artisanal) fishery in Puerto Rico;

ƒ

Establishment of minimum sizes for Atlantic billfish;

ƒ

A prohibition on possession of Atlantic billfish by commercial longline and drift net
vessels; and

ƒ

Establishment of data reporting requirements.

As previously mentioned, passage of the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act initiated
fundamental changes in U.S. fishery management policy, shifting emphasis to precautionary
management strategies. In September 1997, NMFS listed fishery resources considered to be
overfished, which included Atlantic blue and white marlin. This action triggered a suite of
management requirements, including development of a rebuilding plan for overfished stocks, and
reduction in bycatch and bycatch mortality. Further, in 1998, western Atlantic sailfish was
added to the list of overfished species. In the international arena, ICCAT made its first-ever
binding recommendation for Atlantic blue and white marlin in 1997. ICCAT Recommendation
97-09 required landing reductions of at least 25 percent from 1996 levels by the end of 1999.
Improvements in data and monitoring were also included in this recommendation.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-22

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

3.1.2.3

Interim Rules

On March 24, 1998, NMFS published an interim rule (63 FR 14030) under section 305(c)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that increased the minimum size limits for Atlantic blue marlin
and Atlantic white marlin to 96 inches lower jaw-fork length (LJFL) and 66 inches LJFL,
respectively, and required tournament operators to notify NMFS of tournaments involving any
Atlantic billfish at least four weeks prior to commencement. NMFS utilized the increases in size
limits to immediately reduce overfishing, and to implement the 1997 ICCAT recommendation,
as required by the ATCA. NMFS published an extension and amendment of the interim rule on
September 29, 1998 (63 FR 51859), that:
ƒ

Further increased the minimum size for Atlantic blue marlin to 99 inches LJFL;

ƒ

Restated the minimum size for Atlantic white marlin as 66 inches LJFL;

ƒ

Established a recreational bag limit of one Atlantic marlin (blue or white marlin) per
vessel per trip;

ƒ

Granted the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) the authority to adjust the bag
limit, with a three-day notice, including adjustment to a zero bag limit, if necessary to
meet international and domestic management objectives; and

ƒ

Continued requirements to notify NMFS of tournaments involving any Atlantic billfish at
least 4 weeks prior to commencement. NMFS amended the interim rule on November 13,
1998 (63 FR 63421) by removing the adjustable bag limit provision.

Internationally, ICCAT adopted its second binding recommendation regarding billfish in
November 1998. ICCAT Recommendation 98-10 built upon the previously discussed ICCAT
Recommendation 97-09 by limiting landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin in the year 2000
to no more than levels required to be achieved by the end of 1999.
3.1.2.4

Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan

In response to Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and concurrent with efforts on the
interim rule discussed above, NMFS prepared Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery
Management Plan and published final regulations on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 29090). Amendment
One maintained the objectives of the original 1988 Billfish FMP and identified the following
additional objectives. As described in Chapter 1, this document consolidates these objectives
with the objectives of the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP.
1. Prevent and/or end overfishing of Atlantic billfish and adopt the precautionary approach
to fishery management;
2. Rebuild overfished Atlantic billfish stocks, and monitor and control all components of
fishing mortality, both directed and incidental, so as to ensure the long term sustainability
of the stocks and promote Atlantic-wide stock recovery to the level where MSY can be
supported on a continuing basis;
3. Establish a foundation for the adoption of comparable international conservation and
management measures, through international entities such as ICCAT, to rebuild
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-23

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

overfished fisheries and to promote achievement of optimum yield for these species
throughout their range, both within and beyond the EEZ;
4. Minimize, to the extent practicable, release mortality in the directed billfish fishery, and
minimize, to the extend practicable, bycatch and discard mortality of billfish on gears
used in other fisheries;
5. Better coordinate domestic conservation and management of the fisheries for Atlantic
tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, considering the multispecies nature of many highly
migratory species (HMS) fisheries, overlapping regional and individual participation,
international management concerns, and other relevant factors;
6. Provide the data necessary for assessing the fish stocks and managing the fisheries,
including addressing inadequacies in collection and ongoing collection of social,
economic, and bycatch data on Atlantic billfish fisheries;
7. Coordinate domestic regulations and ICCAT conservation measures for controlling
Atlantic-wide fishing mortality;
8. Consistent with other objectives of the amendment, manage Atlantic billfish fisheries for
the continuing OY, so as to provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly
with respect to recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine
ecosystems. Optimum yield is the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as
reduced by any relevant social, economic, or ecological factors;
9. Minimize adverse social and economic effects on recreational and commercial activities
to the extent practicable, consistent with ensuring achievement of the other objectives of
this plan, and with all applicable laws;
10. Maximize protection of areas identified as essential fish habitat for Atlantic billfish,
particularly for critical life stages; and
11. Promote the live release of Atlantic billfish through active outreach and educational
programs.
Primary management measures included:
ƒ

Adjustment of minimum size regulations for Atlantic billfish;

ƒ

A prohibition on the retention of longbill spearfish;

ƒ

Maintenance of prohibitions on commercial possession and retention;

ƒ

Allowed removal of the hook from Atlantic billfish;

ƒ

A requirement for permits and logbook reporting for charterboats targeting billfish, if
selected, as part of an HMS charter/headboat system;

ƒ

Implementation of billfish tournament notification requirements;

ƒ

Implementation of a June 1 to May 31 fishing year;

ƒ

Development and implementation of outreach programs; and

ƒ

An extension of the management unit for Atlantic marlins.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-24

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

3.1.2.5 ICCAT 2000

ICCAT adopted additional recommendations (00-13) regarding Atlantic billfish,
including an international two-phased rebuilding plan for Atlantic blue and white marlin, in
November 2000. Phase I of the plan required that countries (other than the United States)
capturing marlins in commercial fisheries reduce white marlin landings from pelagic longline
and purse seine fisheries by 67 percent and blue marlin landings by 50 percent from 1999 levels.
ICCAT adopted the marlin rebuilding strategy based on the SCRS’ most recent stock
assessments that indicated that marlin stocks continued to be severely overfished. ICCAT
Recommendation 00-13 also recommended that the United States restrict annual landings by U.S.
recreational fishermen to 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin, combined, for 2001 and 2002
(Phase I). This recommendation was subsequently extended through 2006.
3.1.2.6

White Marlin Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Review

In September 2001, NMFS received a petition filed pursuant to ESA to list white marlin
as endangered or threatened throughout its range and to designate critical habitat. After
conducting a comprehensive review of the status of the species, NMFS determined in September
2002 that, while Atlantic white marlin abundance had declined from historical levels, the stock
was not at a level that warranted listing under the ESA. The ESA determination specified that
another stock status review would occur in 2007. Also, in 2001, the HMS and Billfish Advisory
Panels (Billfish AP), a group of state representatives, regional Fishery Management Council
members, commercial fishing representatives, recreational fishing representatives, academics,
and environmental interest group representatives, indicated that it was necessary to improve the
monitoring of recreational swordfish and Atlantic billfish landings.
3.1.2.7 ICCAT 2002
In 2002, Phase 1 of the ICCAT Atlantic marlin rebuilding plan was extended through the
year 2005 by adoption of ICCAT Recommendation 02-13. ICCAT amended the rebuilding
program by specifying that, through 2005, the annual amount of blue marlin that can be
harvested and retained by pelagic longline and purse seine vessels must be no more than 50
percent of the 1996 or 1999 landing levels, whichever is greater. For white marlin, the annual
amount allowed to be harvested and retained by pelagic longline and purse seine vessels must be
no more than 33 percent of the 1996 or 1999 landing levels, whichever is greater. The United
States had already prohibited commercial retention of billfish since the implementation of the
1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP, so it was already compliant with this recommendation. For ICCAT
members other than the United States, the plan required the release of all live marlins taken as
bycatch in commercial fisheries, but provided an allowance for the landing of fish unavoidably
killed, provided that they were not sold. For its part of the rebuilding program, the United States
agreed to continue limiting recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin to 250 fish,
annually, maintain its regulations prohibiting the retention of marlins by U.S. pelagic longline
vessels, and continue monitoring billfish tournaments through scientific observer coverage of at
least five percent initially, with the objective of 10 percent coverage by 2002. As recorded in
ICCAT compliance tables, the United States remained within its 250 marlin limit in 2001 and
2003, but exceeded the 250 fish limit in 2002. At present, the United States complies with the
ICCAT observer requirements by requiring that all HMS tournaments register with NMFS,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-25

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

selecting all billfish tournaments for reporting their results, and assigning observers to many
billfish tournaments.
3.1.2.8

Recreational Permitting and Reporting Rules

A key element in complying with Phase I of the ICCAT marlin rebuilding plan and
improving the monitoring of recreational billfish and swordfish landings was establishing a
comprehensive monitoring program for all recreational landings of marlin, sailfish and swordfish,
particularly those landed outside of fishing tournaments, which are monitored through the
Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS).
In early 2002, the HMS and Billfish APs again discussed monitoring U.S. recreational
billfish landings, and focused upon both a landings tag program (similar to those operating for
the recreational bluefin tuna fisheries in North Carolina and Maryland) and a call-in requirement
for all billfish landings.
On December 18, 2002 (67 FR 77434), NMFS published a final rule requiring all vessel
owners fishing for Atlantic HMS to obtain an Atlantic HMS recreational angling category permit.
On January 7, 2003 (68 FR 711), a final rule establishing a mandatory reporting system for all
non-tournament recreational landings of Atlantic marlins, sailfish, and swordfish was published.
These requirements became effective in March 2003. These requirements, in combination with
mandatory tournament reporting, are improving the ability of the United States to accurately
monitor all recreational landings of Atlantic marlins, sailfish, and swordfish, however, non­
compliance by recreational anglers remains a significant issue.
3.1.2.9

Proposed Rule to Codify the 250 Marlin Landing Limit

On September 17, 2003, NMFS published a proposed rule (68 FR 54410) to codify an
annual landings limit of 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin combined, and to implement a
provision to carry forward over- and underharvest of the Atlantic blue and white marlin landing
limit into subsequent fishing years, consistent with ICCAT recommendations. To remain in
compliance with the landing limit and to maximize allowable landings, NMFS proposed to
increase the legal recreational minimum size of Atlantic blue and white marlin for the remainder
of a fishing year when 80 percent of the landing limit was projected to be achieved. If the
landing limit was attained, NMFS proposed to allow only catch-and-release fishing for these
species for the remainder of the fishing year. The proposed rule was not finalized due to a need
to review the methodology of calculating recreational marlin landings. The proposed rule
incorporated landings as reported by the Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS), and indicated
landings levels of 129 fish for 2002. Application of a new methodology (scalar expansion)
resulted in the United States reporting 279 marlin to ICCAT for compliance purposes for 2002,
which exceeded the annual 250 fish landings limit by 29 fish. NMFS is continuing to review
various methodologies to identify the most appropriate approach for estimating recreational
marlin landings. The proposed rule for this current Draft HMS FMP formally withdrew this
2003 proposed rule. Similar measures to those in the 2003 proposed rule are analyzed in Chapter
4 of this document.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-26

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

3.1.2.10 ICCAT 2004

At the November 2004 ICCAT meeting, the United States chose not to apply the scalar
expansion methodology for compliance purposes, but rather applied a methodology (RBS +
Non-Tournament Reporting System + State Landing Tags) similar, but not identical to that used
in the 2001 compliance report and the September 2003 Proposed Rule. Application of this
methodology resulted in the United States reporting 131 marlin to ICCAT for compliance
purposes in 2004. The United States is continuing to review its methodology to quantify
recreationally landed marlins. Further, a new ICCAT Recommendation (as yet unnumbered)
was adopted which extended Phase I of the Marlin Rebuilding Plan and delayed the planned
2005 assessment by SCRS of blue and white marlin to 2006 on the basis of inadequate data.
This action resulted in an extension of the cap of 250 blue and white marlin, combined, for U.S.
recreational landings through 2006.
3.1.3 Summary and Update of Management Measures Taken in 2005 and Early
2006
During calendar year 2005, NMFS’ HMS Management Division completed numerous
actions, including the release of the Draft HMS FMP, several inseason actions and proposed and
final rules, and responses to several petition for rulemakings. Each of the regulatory actions is
consistent with existing HMS rebuilding plans, and is supported by a regulatory analysis, as
required, of the action’s socio-economic and/or ecological effects. These analyses are
supplements or updates to previous environmental impact statements and regulatory impact
analyses, and are found in supporting documents including but not limited to environmental
assessments (EA), environmental impact statements (EIS), and/or regulatory impact reviews
(RIR). As reflected in these supporting documents, which are available from NMFS upon
request or on the NMFS HMS Management Division’s webpage, these actions are not expected
to have adverse ecological impacts on target, non-target, or protected species, but are expected
overall to have positive cumulative impacts. Table 3.1 provides a list of all Federal Register
notices filed during 2005 relating to specific actions taken by NMFS’ HMS Management
Division.
In the beginning of 2006, NMFS’ HMS Management Division completed additional
actions including proposing and finalizing adjustment to the U.S. swordfish annual quota,
proposing and finalizing the second and third 2006 fishing seasons for the Atlantic shark fishery,
proposing the annual specifications for the 2006 BFT fishery, and proposing dehooking and
complementary closures for the Atlantic shark bottom longline fishery. NMFS will provide a
similar table of all 2006 actions related to Atlantic HMS in the 2007 SAFE Report.
Currently, there is one active lawsuit (The Ocean Conservancy v. Evans, Civ. No. 1:04­
cv-1155 (D.D.C.)) relating to an HMS management action. In the summer of 2004,
environmental groups challenged the July 2004 sea turtle bycatch mitigation rule that NMFS
implemented for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery and accompanying BiOp. The judge ruled
in favor of NMFS in 2005; the plaintiffs have appealed the ruling.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-27

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

Table 3.1

Summary of 2005 Federal Register Notices Related to HMS.

Action Type
NOAA Fisheries ID #

CFR
Part

Action Description

Action Pub
Info

Rules and Regulations
ID 122704C

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Bluefin Tuna Fisheries;
Fishery reopening; quota transfer.

1/4/2005
70 FR 302

Notice
ID 020205B

Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Highly
Migratory Species Vessel Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Data
Reports; Notice.

2/7/2005
70 FR 6419

Notice
ID 020205C

Notice; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request;
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Vessel and Gear Marking;
Notice.

2/7/2005
70 FR 6420

Notice
ID 020105N

Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic 2/7/2005
Highly Migratory Species Observer Notification Requirements; 70 FR 6418
Notice.

Notice

Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic
Highly Migratory Species Permit Family of Forms; Notice.

2/17/2005
70 FR 8074

Rules and Regulations ID 635
07234B
RIN 0648-AR86

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Quota Specifications, General Category Effort Controls, and
Catch-and-Release Provision; Final rule.

3/7/2005
70 FR 10897

Proposed Rules
ID 021105C
RIN 0648-AT05

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Lifting Trade Restrictive
Measures; Proposed rule, request for comments, notice of
public hearing.

3/8/2005
70 FR 11190

Proposed Rule
ID 020205F
RIN 0648-AT07

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark 3/10/2005
Management Measures; Proposed rule; request for comments. 70 FR 11922

Rules and Regulations ID 635
030405B

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Bluefin Tuna Fisheries;
Closure.

Proposed Rules
ID 030405C
RIN 0648-AT01

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
3/23/2005
Quota Specifications and General Category Effort Controls;
70 FR 14630
Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings.

635

3/11/2005
70 FR 12142

Notices
ID 032805A

Highly Migratory Species; Notice of availability; request for
comments.

4/4/2005
70 FR 17069

Rules and Regulations
ID020205F
RIN 0648-AT07

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark 4/27/2005
Management Measures; Temporary rule; fishing season
70 FR 21673
notification.

Notices
ID 032805A

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing Permits,
Notice.

5/9/2005
70 FR 24397

Proposed Rules
ID 020205F
RIN 0648-AT07

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Receipt of a petition for
rulemaking; request for comments.

5/10/2005
70 FR 11922

Final Rule
ID 021105C
RIN 0648-AT05

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Lifting Trade Restrictive
Measures; Final rule.

5/17/2005
70 FR 28218

Notices
ID 032805A

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Notice of public workshops. 5/20/2005
70 FR 29285

3-28

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Action Type
NOAA Fisheries ID #

CFR
Part

Action Pub
Info

Action Description

Rules and Regulations ID 635
030405C
RIN 0648-AT01

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Quota Specifications and General Category Effort Controls;
Final rule.

Rules and Regulations ID 635
052405D

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
6/7/2005
Fisheries; Temporary rule; in season retention limit adjustment. 70 FR 33039

Rules and Regulations ID 635
080405B

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
8/18/2005
Fisheries; Temporary rule; in season retention limit adjustment. 70 FR 48490

Proposed Rules
ID 051603
RIN 0648-AQ65

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Recreational Atlantic Blue
and White Marlin Landings Limit; amendments to the Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks
and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish.
Proposed rule; availability of the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP); petition for rulemaking; proposed rule withdrawal;
request for comments; public hearings.

8/19/2005
70 FR 48804

Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Highly
Migratory Species Scientific Research Permits, Exempted
Fishing Permits, and Letters of Authorization; Notice.

8/31/2005
70 FR 51754

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Cancelling and changing
the location and time of certain public hearings.

9/7/2005
70 FR 53146

Notices
ID 081705D

Notice; advisory panel meetings; request for nominations.

9/12/2005
70 FR 53777

Notices
ID 090205B

Large Coastal Shark 2005/2006 Stock Assessment Data
Workshop; Notification of workshop.

9/15/2005
70 FR 54537

300
600
635

Notices

Proposed Rules
ID 051603C
RIN 0648-AQ65

635

6/7/2005
70 FR 33033

Proposed Rules
ID 051603C
RIN 0648-AQ65

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Cancellation of a public
hearing.

9/23/2005
70 FR 55814

Rules and Regulations
ID 091405F

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries; Temporary rule; inseason catch limit adjustment.

9/28/2005
70 FR 56595

Proposed Rule
ID 051603C
RIN 0648-AQ65

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Extension of comment
period; rescheduling of the Joint Advisory Panel meeting.

10/5/2005
70 FR 58177

Proposed Rules
ID 090805C
RIN 06448-AT74

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark 10/6/2005
Management Measures; Proposed rule; request for comments. 70 FR 58366

Rules and Regulations
ID 102505

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries; Temporary rule; inseason retention limit adjustment.

11/09/2005
70 FR 67929

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species; Exempted Fishing, Scientific Research, Display, and
Chartering Permits; Notice of intent to issue exempted fishing,
scientific research, display, and chartering permits; request for
comments.

11/29/2005
70 FR 71469

Notices
ID 110905B

Rules and Regulations
ID 090805C
RIN 0648-AT74

635

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark 12/1/2005
Management Measures; Final rule; fishing season notification. 70 FR 72080

3-29

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Action Type
NOAA Fisheries ID #

CFR
Part

Notices

Action Pub
Info

Action Description
Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Vessel
Monitoring System for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Notice.

12/6/2005
70 FR 72611

Rules and Regulations
ID 112305D

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries; Temporary rule; quota transfer.

12/7/2005
70 FR 72724

Proposed Rules
ID 040605D

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Shark
Management Measures; Petition for rulemaking; decision.

12/14/2005
70 FR 73980

Rules and Regulations
ID 121205F

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries; Temporary rule; inseason retention limit adjustment.

12/16/2005
70 FR 74712

Large Coastal Shark 2005/2006 Stock Assessment Workshop;
Notice; Public Workshop.

12/22/2005
70 FR 76031

Notices
ID 120505C
Notices
ID 051603C
RIN 0648-AQ65

635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Amendments to the Fishery 12/27/2005
Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
70 FR 76441
Sharks and the FMP for Atlantic Billfish; Rescheduling and
addition of public hearings.

3.1.4 2005 Accomplishments of the International Commission for the Conservation
of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
The 2005 Regular Meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was held November 14 – 20, 2005, in Seville, Spain. There was no new
species stock assessments conducted in 2005. As such, much of the work at the 2005
Commission meeting dealt with issues such as trade and trade monitoring, compliance with
existing ICCAT recommendations, bycatch, data collection, and the functioning of the
Commission. For purposes of clarity, it should be understood that ICCAT recommendations are
binding instruments for Contracting Parties while ICCAT resolutions are non-binding and
express the will of the Commission. All ICCAT recommendations and resolutions are available
on the ICCAT website at http://www.ICCAT.es.
3.1.4.1

Atlantic Tunas

Despite U.S. concerns over increasing catches of juvenile yellowfin tuna, ICCAT adopted
Recommendation 05-01, which repealed the longstanding 3.2 kg size limit on Atlantic yellowfin
tuna, as originally established by Recommendation 72-01. The Commission also adopted
Recommendation 05-02 which severely reduced the Taiwan’s bigeye tuna quota in the Atlantic
from 16,500 mt to 4,600 mt. This recommendation provided 3,300 mt to the directed Taiwanese
bigeye tuna fleet and 1,300 mt as bycatch in the Taiwanese albacore fishery. Under this
recommendation, Taiwan’s directed bigeye fleet is also limited to 15 vessels and its albacore
fleet is limited to 60 vessels in 2006. In addition, the measure requires Taiwan to improve
monitoring and control of its fleet, to reduce overall fleet capacity in the Atlantic, and to take
steps to control its business entities involved in supporting illegal, unregulated, and unreported
(IUU) activities.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-30

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT &
HMS FISHERIES

3.1.4.2

Atlantic Sharks

ICCAT adopted Recommendation 05-05 which requires contracting parties to report on
domestic implementation of Recommendation 04-10 Concerning the Conservation of Sharks
Caught in Association with Fisheries Managed by ICCAT. For those contracting parties that had
not implemented ICCAT Recommendation 04-10 at the time of the 2005 Commission meeting,
Recommendation 05-05 reinforced the requirement to do so.
3.1.4.3 Trade and Trade Monitoring
ICCAT adopted a number of recommendations regarding trade of HMS or tracking of
trade during the 2005 Commission meeting. Recommendation 05-04 implements new
requirements regarding farmed bluefin tuna including improved tracking of farmed fish for quota
monitoring and trade purposes, sampling and data collection programs for assessment purposes,
and other requirements to ensure the effectiveness of ICCAT conservation and management
measures. To better combat IUU fishing activities, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 05-06 that
establishes a program for transshipment by large-scale tuna longline fishing vessels, and
procedures for transshipments that occur on the high seas and within areas of national
jurisdiction. The measure establishes a record of carrier vessels authorized to receive ICCATmanaged species, and requires carrier vessels to use VMS and to have an ICCAT observer on
board. It also establishes the ICCAT Regional Observer Program for placing observers on
carrier vessels in the Atlantic – the first of its kind at ICCAT. The observer program will be
funded by members and cooperating parties engaging in transshipment operations. The program
will be operated by the ICCAT Secretariat, who is responsible for training and placement of
observers.
3.1.4.4

Data Compliance

ICCAT adopted Recommendation 05-09, a U.S. sponsored proposal establishing a
process and procedure for reviewing compliance by ICCAT parties and cooperating parties with
data submission requirements. Specifically, Recommendation 05-09 established a procedure for
identifying data gaps and their causes and for developing appropriate actions to address those
data problems. The measure tasks the SCRS with providing a report of data gaps and their
impacts on assessments. It requires the responsible member or cooperating party to explain the
reporting deficiency and provide a plan for corrective action. In addition, the measure provides
that the Compliance Committee of the Commission should recommend appropriate action based
on relevant information to address problematic data deficiencies.
3.1.4.5

Circle Hooks

A U.S. proposal encouraging ICCAT parties to undertake research on the use of circle
hooks in pelagic longline, recreational, and artisanal fisheries was adopted by the Commission as
Resolution 05-08. The measure is non-binding and also includes a provision encouraging parties
to share information on fishing methods and technological gear changes that improve the safe
handling and release of incidentally caught species.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-31

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

A number of other non-binding resolutions were adopted which can be found on the
ICCAT website identified above.
3.1.5

Existing State Regulations

Table 3.2 outlines the existing State regulations as of May 30, 2006, with regard to HMS
species. The HMS Management Division updates this table periodically throughout the year.
While the HMS Management Division updates this table periodically throughout the year,
persons interested in the current regulations for any state should contact that state directly.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-32

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Table 3.2

State Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Atlantic HMS, as of May 30, 2006.

Please note that state regulations are subject to change. Please contact the appropriate state personnel to ensure that the regulations listed below remain current. X = Regulations
in Effect; n = Regulation Repealed; FL = Fork Length; CL = Carcass Length; TL = Total Length; LJFL = Lower Jaw Fork Length; CFL = Curved Fork Length; DW = Dressed
Weight; and SCS = Small Coastal Sharks; LCS = Large Coastal Sharks.
Cite Reference

Regulatory Details

Contact Information

X

Tuna -ME Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.
12, '' 6001, 6502, and 6551
Sharks - Code ME R. 13-188 '
50.02

Tuna - Retention limit - 1 tuna/year - non resident special
tuna permit holder; Unlawful to fish for tuna with gear
other than harpoon or hook and line or possess tuna taken
in unlawful manner. No minimum size limits.
Sharks - Regulations apply to Spiny dogfish only

ME Department of Marine
Resources
George Lapointe
Phone: 207/624-6553
Fax: 207/624-6024

X

Tuna - FIS 603.10
(REPEALED)
Billfish - FIS 603.13
Sharks - FIS 603.19

Billfish - Possession limit - 1 billfish/trip; Minimum size
(LJFL) - Blue marlin - 99"; White marlin - 66";
Sailfish - 57"; May be taken by hook and line only;
Unlawful to sell billfish
Sharks - Regulations apply to Spiny dogfish only

NH Fish and Game
Clare McBane
Phone: 603/868-1095
Fax: 603/868-3305

X

Tuna - 322 CMR ' 6.04
Billfish – 322 CMR ' 6.11
(REPEALED)
Sharks – 322 CMR ' 6.35 &
6.37 CMRs available online at
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/
dmf/commercialfishing/cmr_i
ndex.htm

Tuna - Reference to ATCA and Federal regulations
Billfish – repealed as of December 2005
Sharks - Regulations apply to Spiny dogfish; Prohibition
on harvest, catch, take, possession, transportation, selling
or offer to sell any basking, dusky, sand tiger, or white
sharks.

MA Division of Marine
Fisheries
Melanie Griffin
Phone: 617/626-1520
Fax: 617/626-1509

RI

X

Sharks - RIMFC Regulations '
7.15

Sharks - Regulations apply to spiny dogfish only

RI Department of
Environment Management
Brian Murphy
Phone: 401/783-2304

CT

X

Dogfish – Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies §
26-159a-19

Sharks - Regulations apply to spiny dogfish only

CT Department of
Environmental Protection
David Simpson
Phone: 860/434-6043
Fax: 860/434-6150

Species

State
Tuna
ME

X

NH

R

MA

X

Swords

Billfish

X

Sharks

R

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-33

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Species

State
Tuna

Swords

NY

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Regulatory Details

Contact Information

Billfish

Sharks

X

X

Billfish -NY Environmental
Conservation ' 13-0339 (5)
Sharks - NY Environmental
Conservation ' 13-0338; State
of New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations (Section
40.1)

Billfish - Blue marlin, White marlin, Sailfish, and
Longbill spearfish shall not be bought, sold or offered for
sale; Striped marlin, Black marlin, Shortbill spearfish shall
not be bought, sold or offered for sale
Sharks - Shark finning prohibited; Reference to the
Federal regulations 50 CFR part 635; Prohibited sharks
listed

NY Department of
Environmental
Conservation
Gordon Colvin
Phone: 631/444-0435
Fax: 631/444-0449

X

Sharks-NJ Administrative
Code, Title 7. Department of
Environmental Protection,
NJAC 7:25-18.1 and 7:25­
18.12(d)

Sharks - Commercial/Recreational: min size 48” TL or
23” from the origin of the first dorsal fin to pre-caudal pit;
possession limit - 2 fish/vessel or 2 fish per person if
fishing from shore or a land based structure, must hold
Federal permit to possess or sell more than 2 sharks; no
sale during Federal closures; Finning prohibited;
Prohibited Species: basking, bigeye sand tiger, sand tiger,
whale and white sharks.

NJ Fish and Wildlife
Hugh Carberry
Phone: 609/748-2020
Fax: 609/748-2032

X

Billfish - DE Code Ann. tit. 7,
' 1310
Sharks - DE Code Regulations
3541

Billfish/Sharks - Reference to Federal regulations for
sharks; Prohibition on sale of Atlantic Sailfish and
Blue/White/Striped marlin
Sharks – Recreational/Commercial: min size – 54” FL;
bag limit – 1 shark/vessel/trip; shorebound anglers – 1
shark/person/day; 2 Atlantic sharpnose/vessel/trip with no
min size; Prohibited Species: same as Federal species.
Prohibition against fins without being naturally attached to
the body.

DE Division of Fish and
Wildlife
Roy Miller
Phone: 302/739-9914

NJ

DE

Cite Reference

X

3-34

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Species

State

MD

Cite Reference

Regulatory Details

Contact Information

Tuna

Swords

Billfish

Sharks

X

X

X

X

Tuna - Code of Maryland
Regulations tit. 8, ' 02.12.01
and tit. 8, ' 02.05.23
Swordfish - Code of Maryland
Regulations tit. 8, ' 02.12.01
and tit. 8, ' 02.05.27
Billfish - Code of Maryland
Regulations tit. 8, ' 02.12.01
and tit. 8, ' 02.05.26
Sharks - Code of Maryland
Regulations tit 8, ' 02.05.17

Tuna - Reference to listing Bluefin Tuna as Ain need of
conservation@; Federal regulations used to control size
and seasons and recreational catch required to be tagged
Swordfish - Reference to listing Swordfish as Ain need of
conservation@; Federal regulations used to control size
and seasons and recreational catch required to be tagged
Billfish (blue and white marlin and sailfish) - Reference to
listing Billfish as Ain need of conservation@; Federal
regulations control size and seasons and recreational catch
required to be tagged
Sharks – Recreational: min size - 54" FL or 31" carcass; 1
shark/vessel/trip; 1 Atlantic sharpnose/person/trip with no
min size; Commercial: same as Federal regulations;
Finning prohibition; Prohibited Species: same as Federal
regulations.

MD Department of Natural
Resources
Harley Speir
Phone: 410/260-8303

X

X

Billfish - 4 VA Administrative
Code 20-350
Sharks - 4 VA Administrative
Code 20-490

Billfish - Prohibition on sale of billfish
Sharks – Recreational: bag limit – 1 LCS, SCS, or pelagic
shark/vessel/day with a min size of less than 54” FL or
30” CL; 1 Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead/person/day
with no min size; No limits on rec harvest of smooth and
spiny dogfish; Commercial: possession limit - 4000 lb
dw/day, min size - 58" FL or 31" CL west of the
COLREGS line and no min size limit east of the
COLREGS line; Prohibitions: fillet at sea, finning,
longlining, same prohibited shark species as Federal
regulations; and spiny dogfish commercial regulations.

VA Marine Resources
Commission
Jack Travelstead
Phone: 757/247-2247
Fax: 757/247-2020

VA

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-35

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Tuna

Swords

NC

SC

Cite Reference

Species

State

X

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Regulatory Details

Contact Information

Billfish

Sharks

X

X
* Modify
closed area
off NC to
allow
fishing
outside 15
fathoms
during 1st
trimester
(Jan 1 - Feb
15)

Billfish -NC Administrative
Code tit. 15A, r.3M.0507
Sharks -NC Administrative
Code tit. 15A, r.3M.0505;
Proclamation FF-24-2004

Billfish - Recreational possession limit - 1 Blue or White
marlin/vessel/trip; 1 Sailfish/person/day; Minimum size Blue marlin - 99"; White marlin - 66"; Sailfish - 63";
unlawful to sell or offer for sale Blue or White marlin and
Sailfish
Sharks - Director may impose restrictions for size,
seasons, areas, quantity, etc. via proclamation;
Commercial: open seasons and species groups same as
Federal; 4000 lb trip limit for LCS; retain fins with
carcass through point of landing; LL shall only be used to
harvest LCS during open season, shall not exceed 500 yds
or have more than 50 hooks; Recreational: LCS (54” FL
min size) - no more than 1 shark/vessel/day or 1
shark/person/day, SCS (no min size) – no more than 1
finetooth or blacknose shark/vessel/day and no more than
1 Atlantic sharpnose and 1 bonnethead/person/day,
pelagics (no min size) -1 shark/vessel/day; Same
prohibited shark species as Federal regulations.

NC Division of Marine
Fisheries
Preston Pate
Phone: 252/726-7021
Fax: 252/726-0254

X

X

Tuna -SC Code Ann. ' 50-5­
2730
Billfish - SC Code Ann. '
50-5-1700
Sharks -SC Code Ann. '
50-5-2725

Tuna - Reference to ATCA and MSA regulations for
Tuna
Billfish - Unlawful to sell billfish; hook and line gear
only; unlawful to possess while transporting gillnets,
seines, or other commercial gear
Sharks – Recreational: 2 Atlantic sharpnose/per/day and 1
Bonnethead/person/day, no min size; All others – 1
shark/boat/trip, min size – 54” FL; Reference to Federal
commercial regulations and prohibited species

SC Department of Natural
Resources
Robert Boyles
Phone: 843/953-9050
Fax: 912/262-2318

3-36

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Species

State
Tuna

Swords

GA

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Billfish

Sharks

X

X

Cite Reference

Regulatory Details

Contact Information

Gear Restrictions/Prohibitions
- GA Code Ann. ' 27-4-7;
Billfish - GA Code Ann. ' 27­
4-130.2; GA Comp. R. &
Regs. ' 391-2-4-.04
Sharks - GA Code Ann. ' 27­
4-130.1; OCGA ' 27-4-7(b);
GA Comp. R. & Regs. ' 391­
2-4-.04

Gear Restrictions/Prohibitions - Use of gillnets is
prohibited in state waters.
Billfish - Possession prohibited in state waters, except for
catch and release.
Sharks – Commercial/Recreational: 2 sharks from the
Small Shark Composite (bonnethead, sharpnose, and
spiny dogfish, daily limit may consist of 2 of the same
species (eg., 2 bonnetheads, 2 sharpnoses) or 2 different
species, SCS min size 30” TL; All other sharks - 2
sharks/person or boat, whichever is less, min size 48” TL,
may include only 1 greater than 84”; Prohibited Species:
sand tiger sharks. All species must be landed head and fins
intact. Sharks may not be landed in Georgia if harvested
using gill nets.

GA Department of Natural
Resources
Phone: 912/264-7218
Fax: 912/262-3143

3-37

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Tuna
FL

AL

Cite Reference

Species

State

X

Regulatory Details

Contact Information

Swords

Billfish

Sharks

X

X

X

Sharks -FL Administrative
Code Ann. r.68B-44, F.A.C
Swordfish/ Billfish - FL
Administrative Cod Ann. r.
68B-33 F.A.C

Billfish – Longbill/Mediterranean/roundscale spearfish –
harvest/possession/landing/purchase/sale/exchange
prohibited.
Blue/White Marlin and Sailfish – Sale prohibited;
Aggregate possession of 1 fish/person; Gear restriction
(hook and line only); Minimum size limit (Blue Marlin –
99” LJFL; White Marlin – 66” LJFL; Sailfish – 63”
LJFL); Recreational catch reporting requirement (all nontournament landings must be reported NOAA within 24
hours); Must land in whole condition (gutting allowed)
Swordfish - Minimum size - 47 in LJFL/29” cleithrum to
keel/33 lbs. dw; Possession limit 1 fish/person/day or 3
fish/vessel/day (with 3 or more persons onboard);
Commercial harvest and sale allowed only with Florida
saltwater products license and a federal LAP for
swordfish; Recreational catch reporting requirement (all
non-tournament landings must be reported NOAA within
24 hours)
Sharks – Commercial/Recreational: min size - none;
possession limit – 1 shark/person/day or 2 sharks/vessel
on any vessel with 2 or more persons on board; State
waters close to commercial harvest when adjacent Federal
waters close; Federal permit required for commercial
harvest, so Federal regulations apply unless state
regulations are more restrictive; Finning & Filleting
prohibited; and same prohibited species as Federal
regulations, except Caribbean sharpnose is not included.

FL Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission
Phone: 850/488-6058
Fax: 850/488-7152

X

X

X

Sharks - AL Administrative
Code r. 220-2-.46, r.220-3­
.30, r.220-3-.37

Tuna/Swordfish/Billfish/Sharks - Reference to Federal
regulations
Sharks – Recreational & Commercial: bag limit – 2
sharpnose/person/day; no min size; all other sharks –
1/person/day; min size – 54” FL or 30” dressed; state
waters close when Federal season closes; Prohibition:
Atlantic angel, bigeye thresher, dusky, longfin make, sand
tiger, basking, whale, white, and nurse sharks.

AL Department of
Conservation and Natural
Resources
Major Jenkins
[email protected]
Phone: 251 861 2882

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-38

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Species

State

LA

MS

Cite Reference

Regulatory Details

Contact Information

Tuna

Swords

Billfish

Sharks

X

X

X

X

Tuna -LA Administrative
Code Title 76, Pt. VII, Ch. 3,
§ 361
Swords/Billfish - LA
Administrative Code Title76,
Pt. VII, Ch. 3, § 355
Sharks - LA Administrative
Code Title 76, Pt. VII, Ch. 3,
§ 357

Tuna - Recreational bag and possession limit Yellowfin
(3 fish/person); Rec/Commercial minimum size Yellowfin, Bigeye and Bluefin (27 in CFL)
Billfish/Swordfish - Minimum size - Blue marlin (99 in
LJFL), White marlin (66" LJFL), Sailfish (63 in LJFL),
Swordfish (29 in carcass length or 33 lbs dw);
Recreational creel limit - 5 swordfish/vessel/trip
Sharks - Recreational: min size – 54” FL, except Atlantic
sharpnose and bonnethead; bag limit - 1
sharpnose/person/day; all other sharks – 1 fish/person/day;
Commercial: 4,000 lb LCS trip limit, no min size; Com &
Rec Harvest Prohibited: 4/1-6/30; Prohibition: same as
Federal regulations, as well as smalltooth and largetooth
sawfish

LA Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries
Harry Blanchet
225 765-2889
fax (225) 765-2489
[email protected]
ov

X

X

Tuna/Billfish/Sharks - MS
Code Title-22 part 7

Tuna – Min size - Bigeye 27” CFL; Yellowfin 27” CFL;
Bag limit none in commercial; Bag limit of 3 yellowfin
tuna/person in recreational; No commercial take of bluefin
tuna; 1 bluefin tuna/vessel/week and landing must be
reported to MDMR.
Billfish - No take provisions for commercially harvested
Blue and White marlin and Sailfish; Recreational
minimum size - Blue marlin 99” LJFL; White marlin 66”
LJFL; Sailfish 63” LJFL; No position for longbill spear
fish.
Sharks – Recreational: min size - LCS/Pelagics 37” TL;
SCS 25” TL; bag limit - LCS/Pelagics 1/person up to
3/vessel; SCS 4/person; Commercial & Prohibited Species
- Reference to Federal regulations.

MS Department of Marine
Resources
Kerwin Cuevas
Phone: 228/374-5000

X

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-39

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

Species

State
Tuna
TX

Puerto
Rico

U.S.
Virgin
Islands

X

X

Swords

Billfish

Sharks

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

X

X

Cite Reference

Regulatory Details

Billfish/Swordfish/Sharks TX Administrative Code Title
31, Part 2, Parks and Wildlife
Code Title 5, Parks and
Wildlife Proclamations 65.3
and 65.72

Blue Marlin, White Marlin, Sailfish, Sharks, Longbill
spearfish, and Broadbill swordfish are gamefish and
may only be taken with pole and line (including rod and
reel);
Blue Marlin, White Marlin, Sailfish, and Longbill
spearfish may not be sold for any purpose;
Billfish - Bag limit none; min size Blue Marlin – 131” TL;
White Marlin – 86” TL; Sailfish – 84” TL;
Sharks - Commercial/Recreational: bag limit - 1
shark/person/day; Commercial/Recreational possession
limit is twice the daily bag limit (i.e., 2
sharks/person/day); min size 24” TL.

TX Parks & Wildlife
Randy Blankinship
Phone: 956/350-4490
Fax: 956/350-3470

Regulation #6768
Article 8 – General Fishing
Limits

Sell, offer for sale, or traffic in any billfish or marlin,
either whole or processed, captured in jurisdictional
waters of Puerto Rico.

Article 13 – Limitations

Swordfish or billfish, tuna and shark are covered under the
federal regulation known as Highly Migratory Species of
the United States Department of Commerce (50 CFR, Part
635). Fishers who capture these species shall comply with
said regulation. Billfish captured incidentally with long
line must be released by cutting the line close to the
fishhook, avoiding the removal of the fish from the water.

Puerto Rico
Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources
Craig Lilyestrom
Phone: 787-724-8774
x4042
[email protected]

Article 17 – Permits for
Recreational Fishing
(March 2004)

In the case of tuna and swordfish, fishers shall obtain a
permit according to the requirements of the Federal
government.

US VI Commercial and
Recreational Fisher’s
Information Booklet Revised
June 2004

Federal regulations and federal permit requirements apply
in territorial waters.

3-40

Contact Information

www.caribbeanfmc.com
http://www.caribbeanfmc.c
om/usvi%20booklet/fisher
%20booklet%20final.pdf

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS MANAGEMENT & HMS FISHERIES

3.2

Status of the Stocks

The thresholds used to determine the status of Atlantic HMS are fully described in
Chapter 3 of the 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP and Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP,
and are presented in Figure 3.1. These thresholds are based on the thresholds described in a
paper describing the technical guidance for implementing National Standard 1 of the MagnusonStevens Act (Restrepo et al., 1998). These thresholds will not change as a result this Final
Consolidated HMS FMP.

Figure 3.1

Illustration of the status determination criteria and rebuilding terms.

In summary, a species is considered overfished when the current biomass (B) is less than
the minimum stock size threshold (B < BMSST). The minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is
determined based on the natural mortality of the stock and the biomass at maximum sustainable
yield (BMSY). Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the maximum long-term average yield that
can be produced by a stock on a continuing basis. The biomass can be lower than BMSY, and the
stock not be declared overfished as long as the biomass is above BMSST.
Overfishing may be occurring on a species if the current fishing mortality (F) is greater
than the fishing mortality at MSY (FMSY) (F > FMSY). In the case of F, the maximum fishing
mortality threshold is FMSY. Thus, if F exceeds FMSY, the stock is experiencing overfishing.
If a species is declared overfished or has overfishing occurring, action to rebuild the stock
and/or prevent further overfishing is required by law. A species is considered rebuilt when B is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-41

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

greater than BMSY and F is less than FMSY. A species is considered healthy when B is greater
than or equal to the biomass at optimum yield (BOY) and F is less than or equal to the fishing
mortality at optimum yield (FOY).
In summary, the thresholds to use to calculate the status of Atlantic HMS, as described in
the 1999 FMP and Amendment, are:
• Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT) = Flimit = FMSY;
• Overfishing is occurring when Fyear > FMSY;
• Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) = Blimit = (1-M)BMSY when M < 0.5 = 0.5BMSY
when M >= 0.5 (for billfish, the specific MSST values are: blue marlin = 0.9BMSY; white
marlin = 0.85BMSY; west Atlantic sailfish = 0.75BMSY);
• Overfished when Byear/BMSY < MSST;
• Biomass target during rebuilding = BMSY;
• Fishing mortality during rebuilding < FMSY;
• Fishing mortality for healthy stocks = 0.75FMSY;
• Biomass for healthy stocks = BOY = ~1.25 to 1.30BMSY;
• Minimum biomass flag = (1-M)BOY; and
• Level of certainty of at least 50 percent but depends on species and circumstances.
This final Consolidated HMS FMP does not change these threshold levels. The current
status of Atlantic HMS is provided in the table below. Numerous stock assessments are expected
to occur in 2006 that could change this status. Those species expected to have new stock
assessments in the near future are: LCS (the review workshop – last of three – June 5-9, 2006);
marlin (May 15-19, 2006); BFT (June 12-18, 2006); swordfish (September 4-8, 2006); and SCS
(first workshop of three early 2007). The results of the LCS stock assessment will not be
considered complete until the review workshop document is finalized, likely in summer 2006.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-42

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.3

Species

West Atlantic
Bluefin Tuna

Stock Assessment Summary Table. Source: SCRS, 2004 and 2005, Cortes, 2002, and Cortes et al.
2002.

Current Relative
Biomass Level
SSB01/SSBMSY = 0.31
(low recruitment );
0.06 (high recruitment )

Minimum
Stock Size
Threshold

Current Relative
Fishing Mortality
Rate

0.86SSBMSY

F01/FMSY = 2.35 (low
recruitment
scenario)

SSB01/SSB75 = 0.13
(low recruitment );
0.13 (high recruitment )

Maximum
Fishing
Mortality
Threshold

Outlook**

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Overfished;
overfishing is
occurring.

F01/FMSY = 4.64
(high recruitment
scenario)

East Atlantic
Bluefin Tuna

SSB00/SSB70 = 0.86

Not
estimated

F00/Fmax = 2.4

Not estimated

Overfished;
overfishing is
occurring.*

Atlantic Bigeye
Tuna

B03/BMSY = 0.85-1.07

0.6BMSY (age
2+)

F02/FMSY = 0.73-1.01

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Overfished;
overfishing is
occurring.

Atlantic Yellowfin
Tuna

B01/BMSY = 0.73 - 1.10

0.5BMSY
(age 2+)

F01/FMSY = 0.871.46

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Approaching an
overfished condition.

North Atlantic
Albacore Tuna

B00/BMSY = 0.68 (0.52­ 0.7BMSY
0.86)

F00/FMSY = 1.10
(0.99 - 1.30)

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Overfished;
overfishing is
occurring.

South Atlantic
Albacore Tuna

B02/BMSY = 1.66
(0.74-1.81)

Not
estimated

F02/FMSY = 0.62
(0.46-1.48)

Not estimated

Not overfished;
overfishing not
occurring.*

West Atlantic
Skipjack Tuna

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Unknown

North Atlantic
Swordfish

B02 /BMSY = 0.94 (0.75 ­ Unknown
1.26)

F01/FMSY = 0.75 (0.54
- 1.06)

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Overfished;
overfishing not
occurring

South Atlantic
Swordfish

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Unknown

Blue Marlin

B00/BMSY = 0.4 (0.25 –
0.6)

0.9BMSY

F99/FMSY = 4.0 (2.5 –
6.0)

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Overfished:
overfishing is
occurring

White Marlin

B01/BMSY = 0.12 (0.06 –
0.25)

0.85BMSY

F00/FMSY = 8.28 (4.5
– 15.8)

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Overfished:
overfishing is
occurring

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-43

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Current Relative
Biomass Level

Species

Minimum
Stock Size
Threshold
0.75BMSY

Current Relative
Fishing Mortality
Rate
Unknown

Maximum
Fishing
Mortality
Threshold
Not estimated

West Atlantic
Sailfish

Unknown

Spearfish

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Not estimated

LCS

B01/BMSY = 0.46-1.18

0.8BMSY

F01/FMSY = 0.89 –
4.48

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Sandbar

B01/BMSY = 3.25E4-2.22

0.85BMSY

F01/FMSY = 0.0015 –
2.45

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Blacktip

B01/BMSY = 0.79-1.66

0.8BMSY

F01/FMSY = 0.13 –
1.72

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

SCS

B01/BMSY = 1.38-2.39

0.5 BMSY to
0.8BMSY

F00/FMSY = 0.24 ­
0.78

Fyear/FMSY =
1.00

Outlook**

Overfished:
Overfishing is
occurring
Unknown
Overfished;
Overfishing is
occurring
Not overfished;
Overfishing is
occurring
Not overfished;
No overfishing
occurring
Not overfished; No
overfishing F2000 = >
FOY

Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown***
Pelagic sharks
* South Atlantic albacore and East Atlantic bluefin tuna are not found in the U.S. EEZ.

** Based on “Sustaining and Rebuilding”, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2004, - Report to Congress - The

Status of U.S. Fisheries, August 2005.

*** Section 3.2.5 provides more information on the results of the stock assessment conducted by the SCRS in 2004

for blue and shortfin mako sharks and the stock assessment conducted by COSEWIC in 2005 for porbeagle sharks.

3.2.1
3.2.1.1

Atlantic Swordfish
Life History and Species Biology

Swordfish are members of the family Xiphiidae, in the suborder Scombroidei. Atlantic
swordfish (Xiphias gladius) are one of the largest and fastest predators in the Atlantic Ocean,
reaching a maximum size of 530 kg (1165 lb). Like other highly migratory species, they have
developed a number of specialized anatomical, physiological, and behavioral adaptations
(Helfman et al., 1997). Swordfish are distinguished by a long bill that grows forward from the
upper jaw. This bill differs from that of marlins (family Istiophoridae) in that it is flattened
rather than round in cross section, and smooth rather than rough. Swordfish capture prey by
slashing this bill back and forth in schools of smaller fish or squid, stunning or injuring their prey
in the process. They may also use the bill to spear prey, or as a defense during territorial
encounters. Broken swordfish bills have been found embedded in vessel hulls and other objects
(Helfman et al., 1997).
Atlantic swordfish are usually found in surface waters but occasionally dive as deep as
650 meters. These large pelagic fishes feed throughout the water column on a wide variety of
prey including groundfish, pelagics, deep-water fish, and invertebrate. Swordfish show
extensive diel migrations and are typically caught on pelagic longlines at night when they feed in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-44

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

surface waters (SCRS, 2004). They are capable of migrating long distances to maximize prey
availability and, as noted above, can prey upon various trophic levels during their daily vertical
migrations (NMFS, 1999). As adults and juveniles, swordfish feed at the highest levels of the
trophic food chain, implying that their prey species occur at low densities. The foraging behavior
of swordfish reflects the broad distribution and scarcity of appropriate prey; they often aggregate
in places where they are likely to encounter high densities of prey, including areas near current
boundaries, convergence zones, and upwellings (Helfman et al., 1997).
Swordfish move thousands of kilometers annually and are distributed globally in tropical
and subtropical marine waters. Their broad distribution, large spawning area, and prolific nature
have contributed to the resilience of the species in spite of the heavy fishing pressure being
exerted on it by many nations. During their annual migration, North Atlantic swordfish follow
the major currents which circle the North Atlantic Ocean (including the Gulf Stream, Canary and
North Equatorial Currents) and the currents of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. The
primary habitat in the western north Atlantic is the Gulf Stream, which flows northeasterly along
the U.S. coast, then turns eastward across the Grand Banks. North-south movement along the
eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada is significant (NMFS, 2003). They are found
in the colder waters during summer months and all year in the subtropical and tropical area
(SCRS, 2003). Additional information on life history relating to habitat can be found in Section
3.3, Essential Fish Habitat, as well as the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks.
Like most large pelagic species, swordfish have adapted body contours that enable them
to swim at high speeds. Their streamlined bodies are round or slightly compressed in cross
section (fusiform), and their stiff, deeply forked tails minimize drag. This streamlined physical
form is enhanced by depressions or grooves on the body surface into which the fins can fit
during swimming. The extremely small second dorsal and anal fins of the swordfish may
function like the finlets of tuna, reducing turbulence and enhancing swimming performance.
Their method of respiration, known as ram gill ventilation, requires continuous swimming with
the mouth open to keep water flowing across the gill surfaces, thereby maintaining an oxygen
supply. This respiratory process is believed to conserve energy compared to the more common
mechanism whereby water is actively pumped across the gills (Helfman et al., 1997). In addition
to the benefits of speed and efficiency, their search for prey is aided by coloring that provides
camouflage in pelagic waters. This shading is darker along the dorsal side and lighter
underneath, enhanced by silvery tones.
Swordfish exhibit other physiological characteristics that enable them to extend their
hunting range. For example, swordfish can maintain elevated body temperatures, conserving the
heat generated by active swimming muscles. Swordfish have developed a heat exchange system
that allows them to swim into colder, deep water in pursuit of prey. Because warm muscles
contract faster than cool ones, heat conservation is believed to enable these predatory fishes to
channel more energy into swimming speed. The internal temperatures of these fishes remain
fairly stable even as they move from surface waters to deep waters. Swordfish have also adapted
specialized eye muscles for deep water hunting. Because their eye muscles do not have the
ability to contract, they produce heat when stimulated by the nervous system, locally warming
both the brain and eye tissues (Helfman et al., 1997). With this modification, swordfish are able
to hunt in the frigid temperatures of deep-water ocean environments without experiencing a
decrease in brain and visual function that might be expected under such harsh conditions.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-45

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Juvenile swordfish are characterized as having exceptionally fast growth during the first
year (NMFS, 1999). Swordfish exhibit dimorphic growth, where females show faster growth
rates and attain larger sizes than males. Young swordfish grow very rapidly, reaching about 130
cm lower jaw-fork length (LJFL) by age two. Swordfish are difficult to age, but 53 percent of
females are considered mature by age 5, at a length of about 130 cm LJFL (SCRS, 2003; SCRS,
2004). Approximately 50 percent of males attain maturity by 112 cm LJFL (Arocha, 1997). All
males are mature by 145 to 160 cm LJFL (37 to 50 kg ww), approximately age five, and all
females are mature by 195 to 220 cm LJFL (93 to 136 kg ww), approximately age nine. In
general, swordfish reach 140 cm LJFL (33 kg ww) by age three and are considered mature by
age five. Individual females may spawn numerous times throughout the year (NMFS, 1999).
Swordfish stocks consist of several age classes, a condition that may serve as a buffer
against adverse environmental conditions and confer some degree of stability on the stocks.
Swordfish are also at a high trophic level, which may make the species less vulnerable to shortterm fluctuations in environmental conditions (NMFS, 1999).
When ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) scientists assess
the status of Atlantic swordfish, the stock is split between the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and
Mediterranean Sea. The SCRS continues to examine existing information, including spawning
data, tagging information, genetic studies, and abundance indices to better define stock structure.
For the purposes of domestic management, the swordfish population is considered to consist of
two discrete stocks divided at 5° N.
3.2.1.2

Stock Status and Outlook

The most recent assessment of North and South Atlantic swordfish stocks was conducted
in 2002. In that assessment, updated CPUE and catch data through 2001 were examined. Sex
and age-specific (North Atlantic) and biomass standardized catch rates (North and South Atlantic)
from the various fleets were updated. The updated North Atlantic CPUE data showed similar
trends to previous years, and also showed signs of improvement in stock status since 1998. In
particular, the recruitment index (1997 – 2001) and the catch-at-age used in the 2002 North
Atlantic assessment showed signs of substantially improved recruitment (age one), which has
manifested in several age classes and the biomass index of some fisheries, and have allowed for
increases in spawning biomass and a more optimistic outlook. The strong recruitments of the
late 1990s promoted improvement in spawning stock biomass and should result in further
improvement, if these year classes are not heavily harvested. The CPUE patterns in the South
Atlantic by fleet showed contradictory patterns. Lack of important CPUE information from
some fleets fishing in the South Atlantic prevented the SCRS from reconciling these conflicts
(SCRS, 2004).
North Atlantic Swordfish (all weights are given in whole weight)
An updated estimate of maximum sustainable yield from production model analyses is
14,340 mt (range 11,500 to 15,500 mt). Since 1997, North Atlantic swordfish catches have been
estimated to have remained below 14,340 mt, but the most recent years are provisional and
probably represent underestimates. Details of catches for recent years are presented below in
section 3.2.1.3. The biomass at the beginning of 2002 was estimated to be 94 percent (range: 75
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-46

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

to 124 percent) of the biomass needed to produce MSY. This estimate is up from an estimate of
65 percent of MSY in the 1998 assessment. The 2001 fishing mortality rate was estimated to be
0.75 times the fishing mortality rate at MSY (range: 0.54 to 1.06). The replacement yield for the
year 2003 and beyond was estimated to be about the MSY level. As the TAC for North Atlantic
swordfish for 2002 was 10,400 mt, it was considered likely that biomass would increase further
under those catch levels. The TAC set for 2003 – 2005 was 14,000 mt (ICCAT
Recommendation 02 – 02). Given recent fishing mortality patterns, the spawning biomass likely
will increase largely owing to the very large recruitments estimated for 1997 – 2000 (SCRS,
2005). Further, given that recent (2002 – 2003) reported catch has been below estimated
replacement yield, the North Atlantic swordfish biomass may have already achieved the BMSY
level. However, noting the uncertainties inherent in the assessment, the SCRS warned against
large increases over the current TAC (SCRS, 2004). The next assessment is scheduled for 2006.
South Atlantic Swordfish
The SCRS noted that reported total catches have been reduced since 1995, as was
recommended by the SCRS. SCRS had previously expressed serious concern about the trends in
stock biomass of South Atlantic swordfish based on the pattern of rapid increases in catch before
1995 that could result in rapid stock depletion, and in declining CPUE trends of some bycatch
fisheries. For the 2002 stock assessment, standardized CPUE series were available for three
fleets, the targeted fishery of European Community (EC) - Spain, and the bycatch fisheries of
Chinese Taipei and Japan. There was considerable conflict in trends among the three CPUE
series and it is unclear which, if any, of the series tracks total biomass. It was noted that there
was little overlap in fishing area among the three fleets, and that the three CPUE trends could
track different components (or cohorts) of the population. To address this possibility, an agestructured production model was run as a sensitivity test. For the base case production model,
the Committee selected the bycatch CPUE series combined using a simple unweighted mean and
the targeted CPUE series. Due to some inconsistencies in the available CPUE trends reliable
stock assessment results could not be obtained (SCRS, 2004). As stated above, the next
assessment is scheduled for 2006.
Reported catches of Atlantic swordfish, including discards for the period 1950 – 2004 can
be found in Figure 3.2. Estimated fishing mortality rate relative to the FMSY for the period 1959
– 2001 can be found in Figure 3.3. Annual yield for North Atlantic swordfish relative to the
estimated MSY can be found in Figure 3.4. A summary of Atlantic swordfish stock status can be
found in Table 3.4

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-47

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.2

Reported catches (mt whole weight) of Atlantic Swordfish, including discards for 1950-2004.
Source: SCRS, 2005.

Figure 3.3

Estimated fishing mortality rate relative to FMSY (F/FMSY) for the period 1959-2001 (median
with 80 percent confidence bounds based on bootstrapping are shown). Source: SCRS 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-48

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.4

Annual yield (mt) (whole weight) for North Atlantic swordfish relative to the estimated MSY
level. Source: SCRS 2004

Table 3.4

Atlantic Swordfish Stock Summary (weights given in mt ww). Source: SCRS, 2005.

3.2.1.3

Effect of Regulations

ICCAT Catch limits (all weights in this section are given in whole weight)
The total allowable catch in the North Atlantic in 2002 was 10,400 mt (10,200 mt
retained and 200 mt discarded). The reported landings were about 9,000 mt and the estimated
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-49

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

discards were about 535 mt. The total allowable catch in the North Atlantic in 2003 was 14,000
mt (13,900 mt retained and 100 mt discarded). The reported landings in 2003 were about 10,800
mt and the estimated discards were about 460 mt. The total allowable catch in the North Atlantic
in 2004 was 14,000 mt. The reported landings in 2004 were 11,867 mt with discards totaling an
estimated 417 mt. Reports for year 2004 are considered provisional and subject to change
(SCRS, 2005).
The total allowable catch in the South Atlantic in 2002 was 14,620 mt. The reported
landings for 2002 were about 13,660 mt and reported discards were 1 mt. The total allowable
catch in the South Atlantic in 2003 was 15,631 mt. The reported landings for 2003 were about
10,900 mt and reported discards were estimated to be less than 1 mt. The total allowable catch in
the South Atlantic in 2004 was 15,776. The reported landings in 2004 were 12,778 mt with
discards totaling an estimated 1 mt. Reports for year 2004 are considered provisional and subject
to change (SCRS, 2005).
ICCAT Minimum size limits (all weights in this section are given in whole weight)
There are two minimum size options that are applied to the entire Atlantic: 125 cm LJFL
with a 15 percent tolerance for undersized fish, or 119 cm LJFL with zero tolerance and
evaluation of the discards. In the absence of size data, these calculations could not be updated or
examined for 2004. In 2000, the percentage of swordfish reported landed (throughout the
Atlantic) less than 125 cm LJFL was about 21 percent (in number) overall for all nations fishing
in the Atlantic. If this calculation is made using reported landings plus estimated discards, then
the percentage less than 125 cm LJFL would be about 25 percent. The SCRS noted that this
proportion of small fish did not increase very much even though recruitment in the North has
been at a high level in recent years (SCRS, 2005). Literature Cited.
Domestic Regulations
The domestic commercial swordfish fishery is governed by a limited access permit
system with three types of permits: directed swordfish, incidental swordfish, and swordfish
handgear. Anglers must also possess either a HMS Angling category permit or a CHB permit to
for fish for, retain, or possess a North Atlantic swordfish. Only commercial permit holders may
sell swordfish. Details of the permitting programs, including the number of permit holders can
be found in section 3.9. Data on commercial catches and landings of North Atlantic swordfish
are captured through observer programs, logbook reports, and dealer reports. Additional
information on commercial catches, landings, and discards can be found in Chapter 0 of this
document. Approximately 154,000 square miles of the Atlantic, Gulf and Caribbean have been
closed to pelagic longline fishing in an effort to reduce bycatch and discards of Atlantic HMS
including juvenile swordfish. Effects of the area closures on bycatch and discards can be found
in Chapter 4. Recreational landings of North Atlantic swordfish are captured through mandatory
tournament reports (if a tournament is selected for reporting), mandatory self-reporting of nontournament landings, and various surveys, including the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics
Survey and the Large Pelagics Survey. .
The United States has implemented minimum legal size regulations for Atlantic
swordfish that correspond to the ICCAT 119 cm minimum size limit. Domestic minimum sizes
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-50

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

include: the 47” lower jaw fork length, 29” cleithrum to keel length, or 33 lbs. Vessels with
commercial directed and handgear swordfish permits are not constrained by trip limits when the
fishery is open. Directed swordfish permit holders are limited to 15 swordfish per vessel per trip
when the directed swordfish fishery is closed. Incidental commercial permit holders are limited
to two swordfish per trip, except for vessels deploying squid trawl gear, which may retain five.
There is a recreational bag limit of one North Atlantic swordfish per person per trip, up to a
maximum of three per vessel, regardless of the length of the trip.
3.2.1.4

Recent and Ongoing Research

(The following information was taken directly from the 2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT)
In 2005, data from observer samples were compared against self-reported information
from the U.S. large pelagic mandatory logbook reporting system, and estimates of discard
mortality of swordfish, billfish, sharks and other species from the U.S. fleet were developed from
that analysis for the 2005 SCRS. Estimates of small swordfish bycatch for 2002 – 2004 were
compared to the average levels estimated for the late 1990's and were found to be substantially
lower. Reported and observed swordfish catches, and size and catch rate patterns through 2004
were examined in support of monitoring the recovery of north Atlantic swordfish. Standardized
indices of abundance were updated for the Western North Atlantic using data from the U.S.
pelagic longline fleet (SCRS/2005/085). Collaborative research between various ICCAT nations
and Venezuelan scientists continues on estimating the age-structure of the catch of swordfish.
Results of this research will be available for the next assessment of north Atlantic swordfish.
Scientists from the United States collaborated with Brazilian scientists to improve catch rate
standardization procedures by offering a course on the topic in Brazil in mid-2005. Central to
this collaboration is development of fisheries research capacity in Brazil through graduate
student training and of stronger scientific cooperation between Brazil and the United States.
Research on measures to mitigate the interactions between pelagic longline and bycatch
of marine turtles continued under a cooperative research program involving the US Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery. The Northeast Distant Fishery Experiment was conducted from 2001
through 2003 on the high seas of the Western Atlantic Ocean, in an area off New Foundland
known as the Grand Banks. Results of this research which was focused on reducing mortality of
marine turtles interacting with pelagic longlines was recently published (Watson, et.al. 2005.
Fishing methods to reduce sea turtle mortality associated with pelagic longlines. (Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci.. 62(5): 965-981). Additional cooperative research in the Gulf of Mexico was carried
out in 2004 and in additional regions in 2005.
3.2.2

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

All text, figures and tables for this section are from the SCRS 2004 and 2005 Reports and
the U.S. National Report to ICCAT, 2005. All weights are reported as whole weights unless
indicated as otherwise.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-51

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

3.2.2.1

Life History and Species Biology

Atlantic bluefin tuna are distributed from the Gulf of Mexico to Newfoundland in the
West Atlantic, from roughly the Canary Islands to south of Iceland in the East Atlantic, and
throughout the Mediterranean Sea. Historically, catches of bluefin were made from a broad
geographic range in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Atlantic bluefin tuna can grow to over 300 cm and reach more than 650 kg. The oldest
age considered reliable is 20 years, based on an estimated age at tagging of two years and about
18 years at liberty, although it is believed that bluefin tuna may live to older ages. Bluefin tuna
are, thus, characterized by a late age at maturity (thus, a large number of juvenile classes) and a
long life span. These factors contribute to make bluefin tuna well adapted to variations in
recruitment success, but more vulnerable to fishing pressure than rapid growth species such as
tropical tuna species. Bluefin tuna in the West Atlantic generally reach a larger maximum size
compared to bluefin caught in the East Atlantic.
Bluefin tuna in the West Atlantic are assumed to first spawn at age eight compared to
ages four to five in the east Atlantic. Distribution expands with age; large bluefin are adapted for
migration to colder waters. Bluefin tuna are opportunistic feeders, with fish, squid, and
crustaceans common in their diet. In the West Atlantic, bluefin tuna are thought to spawn from
mid-April into June in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Florida Straits. Juveniles are thought to
occur in the summer over the continental shelf, primarily from about 35°N to 41°N and offshore
of that area in the winter. In the East Atlantic, bluefin tuna generally spawn from late May to
July depending on the spawning area, primarily in the Mediterranean, with highest
concentrations of larvae around the Balearic Islands, Tyrrhenian Sea, and central and eastern
Mediterranean where the sea-surface temperature of the water is about 24°C. Sexually mature
fishes have also been recently observed in May and June in the eastern Mediterranean (between
Cyprus and Turkey). Bluefin tuna are known to be highly migratory and the nature and extent of
their ability to conduct transoceanic migrations are the subject of significant research (see section
on Research below).
3.2.2.2

Stock Status and Outlook

The last full stock assessments for western Atlantic bluefin tuna were conducted in 2002
by the SCRS with the next scheduled for 2006. Although the next stock assessment will not be
conducted until mid-2006, the 2005 SCRS reported a significant number of new research reports
and studies (see Research Section below). The assessment results are similar to those from
previous assessments (see

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-52

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.5). They indicate that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) declined steadily from 1970
(the first year in the assessment time series) through the late 1980s, before leveling off at about
20 percent of the level in 1975 (which has been a reference year used in previous assessments).
A steady decline in SSB since 1997 is estimated and leaves SSB in 2001 at 13 percent of the
1975 level. The assessment also indicates that the fishing mortality rate during 2001 on the SSB
is the highest level in the series.
A noteworthy pattern of change in the fisheries since 1998 has been the trend of increase
followed by a trend of decrease in catches to below TAC level. The reported total catches of
western Atlantic bluefin tuna increased from about 2600 mt in 1998 to about 3,200 mt in 2002
and has subsequently fallen below 2,000 mt in 2004. The 2002 catches were the highest since
1981; however the 2004 catches were the lowest since 1982, when ICCAT catch restrictions
were first established.
The Japanese longline fishery catch in the West Atlantic in 2003 was a substantial
decrease from its 2002 catch level, but increased in 2004 to a level somewhat below its average
catch from 1993 – 2002. This variation resulted from the adjustments made by Japan for
previous quota overages. The Canadian reported landings remained at relatively stable levels
over the past decade. Recent declines in U.S. landings have been attributed to a general lack of
availability of large fish in the fisheries off the northeastern U.S. coast for the past several years.
Estimates of recruitment of age one fish have been generally lower since 1976. However,
recruitment of age one fish in 1995 and 1998 is estimated to be comparable in size to some of the
year classes produced in the first half of the 1970s. While the large decline in SSB since the
early 1970s is clear from the assessment, the potential for rebuilding is less clear. Key issues are
the reasons for relatively poor recruitment since 1976, and the outlook for recruitment in the
future. One school of thought is that recruitment has been poor because the SSB has been low.
If so, recruitment should improve to historical levels if SSB is rebuilt. Another school of thought
is that the ecosystem changed such that it is less favorable for recruitment and thus recruitment
may not improve even if SSB increases. To address both schools of thought, the SCRS
considered two recruitment scenarios as described below and summarized in Table 3.5. (East
Atlantic Bluefin tuna summary data are also provided for comparison purposes). For both
scenarios, the assessment indicates that the fishing mortality on the western Atlantic bluefin
resource exceeds FMSY and the SSB is below BMSY (thus overfished according to ICCAT’s
objective of maintaining stocks at the MSY-biomass level and as indicated in NMFS, Report to
Congress, Status of Fisheries, 2005).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-53

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.5

Summary Table for the Status of West Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

Age/size at Maturity

Age 8/~ 200 cm fork length

Spawning Sites

Primarily Gulf of Mexico and Florida Straits

Current Relative Biomass Level

SSB01/SSB75 (low recruitment) = .13 (.07-.20)
SSB01/SSB75 (high recruitment) = .13 (.07-.20)
SSB01/SSBmsy (low recruitment) = .31 (.20-.47)
SSB01/SSBmsy (high recruitment) = .06 (.03-.10)
0.86BMSY

Minimum Stock Size Threshold
Current Relative Fishing Mortality Rate
Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold

F01/FMSY (low recruitment) = 2.35 (1.72-3.24)
F01/FMSY (high recruitment) = 4.64 (3.63-6.00)
F/FMSY = 1.00

Maximum Sustainable Yield

Low recruitment scenario: 3,500 mt (3,300-3,700)
High recruitment scenario: 7,200 mt (5,900-9,500)

Catch (2004) including discards

~2,000 mt

Short Term Sustainable Yield

Probably > 3,000 mt

Outlook

Overfished; overfishing continues to occur

Table 3.6

Summary Table for the Status of East Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

Age/size at Maturity

Age 4-5

Spawning Sites

Mediterranean Sea

Current Relative Biomass Level

SSB00/SSB1970 = .86

Current Relative Fishing Mortality Rate

F00/FMAX = 2.4

Maximum Sustainable Yield

Not estimated

Current (2004) Yield

26,961 mt

Replacement Yield

Not estimated

Outlook

Overfished; overfishing continues to occur.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-54

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.5

Western Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning biomass (t), recruitment (numbers) and fishing
mortality rates for fish of age 8+, estimated by the Base Case VPA run. Source: ICCAT, 2004.

In general, the outlook for bluefin tuna in the West Atlantic is similar to the outlook
reported based on the 2000 western Atlantic bluefin tuna assessment session. The assessment
and projection results for the present assessment are somewhat less optimistic than in 2000 but
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-55

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

the confidence in the strength of the 1994 year class has increased. Therefore, the increases
associated with different levels of future catch projected for the short-term are smaller but are
estimated more confidently. It should be noted that the 1995 year class was estimated to be
strong in 2000, but it is now estimated to be only of average strength.
As noted by the previous assessment session, western Atlantic bluefin tuna catches have
not varied very much since 1983 (the range over this period is 2,106 to 3,011 mt), and the
estimated spawning stock size (Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) measured as the biomass of fish
age 8+) has been relatively stable, notwithstanding the indication of a decline in the most recent
years. Thus, over an extended period of time, catches around recent levels have maintained
stock size at about the same level, in spite of several past assessments that predicted the stock
would either decline or grow if the current catch was maintained. This observation highlights the
challenge of predicting the outlook for this stock.
In order to provide advice relative to rebuilding the western Atlantic bluefin resource, the
SCRS conducted projections for two scenarios about future recruitment. One scenario assumed
that future average recruitment will approximate the average estimated recruitment (at age one)
since 1976, unless spawning stock size declines to low levels (such as the current level estimated
in the assessment, but generally lower than estimates during most of the assessment history).
The second scenario allowed average recruitment to increase with spawning stock size up to a
maximum level no greater than the average estimated recruitment for 1970 to 1974. These
scenarios are referred to as the low recruitment and high recruitment scenarios, respectively. The
low and high recruitment scenarios implied that the BMSY (expressed in SSB) is 42 percent and
183 percent of the biomass in 1975, respectively. With the current information, the SCRS could
not determine which recruitment scenario is more likely, but both are plausible, and
recommended that management strategies should be chosen to be reasonably robust to this
uncertainty.
Table 3.7 below summarizes the results of projections of both scenarios at different catch
levels. The projections for the low recruitment scenario estimated that a constant catch of 3,000
mt per year has an 83 percent probability of allowing rebuilding to the associated SSBMSY by
2018. A constant catch of 2,500 mt per year has a 35 percent probability of allowing rebuilding
to the 1975 SSB by 2018.
The results of projections based on the high recruitment scenario estimated that a
constant catch of 2,500 mt per year has a 60 percent probability of allowing rebuilding to the
1975 level of SSB, and there is a 20 percent chance of rebuilding SSB to SSBMSY by 2018. If the
low recruitment scenario is valid, the TAC could be increased to at least 3,000 mt without
violating ICCAT’s rebuilding plan. If the high recruitment scenario is valid, the TAC should be
decreased to less than 1,500 mt to comply with the plan.
The estimate of SSBMSY for the high recruitment scenario is critical to inferences
regarding the probability of achieving rebuilding under different future levels of catch, and also
less well determined by the data than SSBMSY for the low recruitment scenario. In particular, the
estimates of SSBMSY based on the high recruitment scenario are substantially larger than the
largest spawning stock size included in the assessment. This extrapolation considerably
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-56

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

increases the uncertainty associated with these estimates of SSBMSY. Previous meetings have
used SSB1975 as a rebuilding target in the context of interpreting projections. Arguably SSB1975 is
appropriate as a target level for interpreting the implications of projections based on the high
recruitment scenario. Under such a target level for the high recruitment scenario, a TAC of
2,700 mt has an estimated probability of reaching the rebuilding level of about 50 percent.
The SCRS cautioned that these conclusions do not capture the full degree of uncertainty
in the assessments and projections. An important factor contributing to uncertainty is mixing
between fish of eastern and western origin. Furthermore, the projected increases in stock size are
strongly dependent on estimates of recent recruitment, which are a particularly uncertain part of
the assessment. A sensitivity test in which the estimates of the below average 1996 and the
strong 1997 year classes were excluded from the analysis gave somewhat less optimistic results
in terms of the estimated probabilities of recovery by 2018. However, these projections still
predicted increases in spawning biomass for both recruitment scenarios, except for extreme
increases in catch.
Table 3.7

Probability of western Atlantic bluefin tuna achieving rebuilding target by 2018. Source:
ICCAT, 2004.

Catch

Low Recruitment Scenario

High Recruitment Scenario

(MT)

SSB1975

SSBMSY

SSB1975

SSBMSY

500

95 %

100 %

98 %

73 %

1,000

89 %

100 %

96 %

62 %

1,500

77 %

100 %

87 %

47 %

2,000

60 %

99 %

75 %

30 %

2,300

45 %

98 %

66 %

24 %

2,500

35 %

97 %

60 %

20 %

2,700

26 %

95 %

52 %

17 %

3,000

14 %

83 %

38 %

11 %

5,000

0%

1%

2%

0%

3.2.2.3

Effects of Regulations

The SCRS’ management recommendation for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna
management area is directed at the Rebuilding Program adopted by ICCAT in 1998. According
to the Program, the MSY rebuilding target can be adjusted according to advice from SCRS. In
2002, ICCAT set the annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC), inclusive of dead discards, for the
western Atlantic management area at 2,700 mt, effective beginning in 2003. The Program states
that the TAC for the west would only be adjusted from the 2,500 mt level adopted for 2003 –
2004 if SCRS advises that (a) a catch of 2,700 mt or more has a 50 percent or greater probability
of rebuilding or (b) a catch of 2,300 mt or less is necessary to have a 50 percent or greater
probability of rebuilding.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-57

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

The Program is designed with the intent to rebuild with 50 percent probability by 2018 to
the spawning biomass level associated with MSY. In light of the uncertainty in the assessment,
the choice between recruitment scenarios and rebuilding targets, and assumptions about mixing,
the weight of scientific opinion within the SCRS favored no change from the current TAC of
2,500 mt per year. Projections based on the low recruitment scenario indicate that the TAC
could be increased without violating the Rebuilding Program, assuming that relatively large
recruitment estimates for some recent year classes are realistic. The high levels of recruitment
estimated for some recent year classes are consistent with a higher biomass level as a rebuilding
target. In previous assessment sessions, the spawning biomass level in 1975 was considered a
useful rebuilding target. The 1975 biomass is more than twice the MSY spawning biomass level
associated with the low recruitment scenario. The projections indicate a 35 – 60 percent
probability of rebuilding to the 1975 spawning biomass level for a catch of 2,500 mt per year,
depending on the recruitment scenario assumed. It seems likely that a recruitment scenario
corresponding to a SSBMSY equal to the level in 1975 would indicate a probability of rebuilding
by 2018 for a catch of 2,500 mt per year within the range of 35 – 60 percent.
The MSY spawning biomass associated with the high recruitment scenario, which is nearly
twice the 1975 level, is unlikely to be reached by 2018 if the recent level of catch (and TAC) is
maintained. However, the SCRS does not recommend the sharp reduction in TAC that would be
necessary to comply with the rebuilding Program based on the high recruitment scenario because
of:
• Uncertainty about the most appropriate recruitment scenario;
• Recognition that for the high recruitment scenario, the spawning biomass associated with
MSY is not well determined (because estimation leads to extrapolation beyond biomass
levels included within the current assessment); and
• The generally positive outlook for the resource according to the current assessment

regardless of the recruitment scenario assumed.

As emphasized in previous assessments, mixing across management unit boundaries of
fish of western and eastern origin could be important for management of the resource in both
areas. In particular, the condition of the eastern Atlantic stock and fishery could adversely affect
recovery in the West Atlantic, which was also noted in the SCRS’s 1998, 2000, and 2001 reports.
Therefore, the SCRS stressed the importance of continuing efforts to manage the fisheries in
both the east and West Atlantic according to ICCAT’s objectives.
The first regulatory measure for a scientific monitoring level was adopted for western
Atlantic bluefin catches in 1981. Since then, monitoring levels have been changed in various
years. Until 1987, both estimated catches and landings were below or equal to the level of the
catch limits. However, from 1988 to 1997, estimated landings were very close to the level of the
limits and, for some years, exceeded the limit by a maximum of 100 mt. Estimated catches
(including discards) were higher than the limits every year during this period (by about 200 to
300 mt) with the exceptions of 1992 and 1997. The estimated catches exceeded the 2,500 mt
limit in 2000 by 165 mt, by 218 mt in 2001, and by 715 mt in 2002. It should be pointed out that
for compliance purposes, some countries (including the United States) are using fishing years
that do not correspond to calendar years. Also, according to the ICCAT regulatory measure, the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-58

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

amount of catch that exceeded quota or was left over from the quota can be carried over to
succeeding years. Hence, the catch limit set for each year could have been adjusted accordingly.
The SCRS notes that the excess of the catch limits in most recent years is due to some new
fisheries that operated without a quota.
For the West Atlantic, a size limit of 6.4 kg with 15 percent allowance, in number of fish,
has been in effect since 1975. In addition, a prohibition on the taking and landing bluefin tuna
less than 30 kg (or 115 cm) with an eight percent tolerance, by weight on a national basis,
became effective in 1992. The SCRS notes that, since 1992, the proportion of undersized fish
for all catches combined has been below the allowance level (e.g., one percent and three percent
<115cm in 2000 and 2001, respectively). Updated estimates will be available at the upcoming
2006 SCRS stock assessment.
The U.S. bluefin fishery continues to be regulated by quotas, seasons, gear restrictions,
limits on catches per trip, and size limits. To varying degrees, these regulations are designed to
restrict total U.S. landings and to conform to ICCAT recommendations. U.S. 2004 provisional
estimated landings and discards from the northwest Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico), as
reported by the United States to ICCAT in its annual National Report (NMFS 2005), were 899
mt and 71 mt, respectively. Those estimated landings and discards represent a decrease of 509 mt
from the 2003 estimates. (Out of a total western Atlantic management area TAC of 2,700 mt,
total reported catches were 2,191 mt in 2003 and about 2,000 mt in 2004). The 2004 United
States landings by gear were: 32 mt by purse seine, 41 mt by harpoon, 1 mt by handline, 180 mt
by longline (including discards) of which 103 mt were from the Gulf of Mexico, and 716 mt by
rod and reel.
In response to 1992 regulations limiting the allowable catch of small fish by U.S.
fishermen, in conformity with ICCAT agreements, enhanced monitoring of the rod and reel
fishery was implemented in 1993 for the purpose of providing near real-time advice on catch
levels by this fishery. This monitoring activity has continued and has included estimation of
catches by finer scale size categories than reported above. The preliminary estimates for the
2004 rod and reel fishery off the northeastern United States (including the North Carolina winter
fishery) for landings in several size categories were 264 fish < 66 cm, 10,193 fish 66-114 cm,
3,414 fish 115-144 cm, and 634 fish 145-177 cm (an estimated 1.5, 198, 142, and 49 mt,
respectively), (NMFS 2005).
3.2.2.4

Recent and Ongoing Research

As part of its commitment to the Bluefin Program, research supported by the United
States has concentrated on ichthyoplankton sampling, reproductive biology, and methods to
evaluate hypotheses about movement patterns, spawning area fidelity, stock structure
investigations and population modeling analyses.
Ichthyoplankton surveys in the Gulf of Mexico during the bluefin spawning season were
continued in 2004 and 2005. Data resulting from these surveys, which began in 1977, are used
to develop a fishery-independent abundance index of spawning West Atlantic bluefin tuna. This
index has continued to provide one measure of bluefin abundance that is used in SCRS
assessments of the status of the resource. During the 2004 U.S. ichthyoplankton survey, a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-59

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

plankton net of a type used in the Spanish surveys was fished in addition to the nets normally
used to determine the impact of using a wider net mouth and larger mesh on the size and catch
rates of bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico. The results of this work will be reported as they become
available. U.S. scientists also collaborated in development of the larval working group agenda
for the Climate Impacts on Oceanic Top Predators (CLIOTOP) program managed by GLOBEC
(Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics) initiated by SCOR and the IOC of UNESCO in 1991.
Since 1998, researchers from Texas A & M University and the University of Maryland
with assistance of researchers from Canada, Europe, and Japan have studied the feasibility of
using otolith chemical composition (microconstituents and isotopes) to distinguish bluefin stocks.
Recent research has investigated the value of using additional microconstituent elements
(transitional metals) to enhance classification success. By themselves the transitional metals
provided little discriminatory power, but when combined with the other trace elements (for 13
elements in all), the classification success for several year-classes has been moderate ranging
from 60 – 90 percent, and classification functions show strong year-to-year variability. In
SCRS/2005/083 the utility of an alternative chemical marker in otoliths, carbon and oxygen
stable isotopes, to discriminate bluefin tuna from natal regions were reported upon. The
discriminatory power of stable isotopes (δ13C, δ18O) in otoliths of yearlings (age-1) was high,
with 91 percent of individuals classified correctly to eastern and western nurseries. These stable
isotopes and in particular δ18O can be used to reliably predict nursery origin of Atlantic bluefin
tuna. An initial application compared otolith core material (corresponding to the first year of life)
of large school, medium, and giant category bluefin tuna to reference samples of yearling
signatures to determine their origin. A large fraction (~43 – 64 percent) of the Atlantic bluefin
tuna collected in the western Atlantic fishery (comprised primarily of large school and medium
category fish) originated from nurseries in the east. Alternatively, medium and giant category
bluefin tuna from the Mediterranean were largely (~82 – 86 percent) of eastern origin. Thus,
initial evidence suggests that the western fishery received high input from the Mediterranean
population. (See generally SCRS/2003/105, and Rooker et al 2001a, 2001b and 2003).
Scientists from the University of Maryland, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and
Texas A&M University have continued to sample specimens for genetic and otolith chemistry
studies of stock structure. Roughly 10 – 20 young of the year were collected in 2004. In
addition, limited sampling of ages 1 and older continues. Efforts are also continuing to obtain
samples from juveniles and mature bluefin from the Mediterranean Sea and adjacent waters.
In response to the ICCAT Commission’s request for options for alternative approaches
for managing mixed populations of Atlantic bluefin tuna, SCRS/2005/108 further examined
some implications of incorporating electronic tagging information on transfer rates into virtual
population analyses. SCRS/2005/084 examined yield and spawner per recruit consequences of
different assumed levels of mixing between eastern and western bluefin stocks to provide
guidance to the Commission as requested at the 3rd Meeting of Working Group to Develop
Coordinated and Integrated Bluefin Tuna Management Strategies. Researchers at the Imperial
College, London, continue work with the University of Miami, the University of New Hampshire
and the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop methods to estimate bluefin movement and
fishing mortality rate patterns (SCRS/2005/048). Operating models are being developed which
will use conventional and electronic tagging data and fishing effort by management area. These
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-60

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

models will be used to examine possible harvest control rules and the evaluation of possible
management procedures.
U.S. scientists from Stanford and Duke University along with the Monterey Bay
Aquarium and NMFS have placed over 700 electronic tags in bluefin tuna in the region along the
U.S. coast of North Carolina. The data from implantable archival tags has been critical for
establishing the basic biology of Atlantic bluefin and the patterns of movements to feeding and
breeding grounds. Results from a large number of these tags were interpreted in a paper in the
journal Nature in 2005 (Block et al. 2005). Tagging off the Carolinas, in the Gulf of Maine, and
elsewhere continued in 2004 and 2005 and more than 90 tags were placed in fish off the
Carolinas in 2005. The tags are due to report 7 – 9 months from the deployment dates and will
be further reported upon as results become available.
U.S. scientists from the University of New Hampshire have placed over 200 pop-up
satellite archival tags on New England bluefin tuna. Ongoing efforts include examining short
and long-term dispersals of bluefin in the Gulf of Maine, the identification of spawning grounds,
the spatial correlation between bluefin locations and oceanographic features and continuing to
determine Atlantic-wide migratory paths. Results from much of this tagging effort were recently
published in the journal Marine Biology (Wilson, et.al. 2005).
A new research initiative in 2005 involving scientists from the University of New
Hampshire, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and Virginia SeaGrant will place electronic
tags on juvenile bluefin from off the U.S. coast of Virginia. As results become available, they
will be reported upon.
A recent publication by Fromentin and Powers (2005), titled “Atlantic bluefin tuna:
population dynamics, ecology, fisheries and management” provides an extensive summary of old
and new information on the biology and ecology of Atlantic bluefin tuna and associated fishery
management implications. The abstract reads as follows:
“Both old and new information on the biology and ecology of Atlantic bluefin
tuna have confronted scientists with research challenges: research needs to be connected
to current stock-assessment and management issues. We review recent studies on habitat,
migrations and population structure, stressing the importance of electronic tagging results
in the modification of our perception of bluefin tuna population dynamics and behavior.
Additionally, we question, from both scientific and management perspectives, the
usefulness of the classical stock concept and suggest other approaches, such as Clark’s
contingent and metapopulation theories. Current biological information confirms that a
substantial amount of uncertainty still exists in the understanding of reproduction and
growth. In particular, we focus on intriguing issues such as the difference in age-at­
maturity between West Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna. Our description of
Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries places today’s fishing patterns within the two millennium
history of exploitation of this species: we discuss trap fisheries that existed between the
17th and the early 20th centuries; Atlantic fisheries during the 1950s and 1960s; and the
consequences of the recent development of the sushi–sashimi market. Finally, we
evaluate stock status and management issues since the early 1970s. While important
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-61

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

uncertainties remain, when the fisheries history is confronted with evidence from
biological and stock-assessment studies, results indicate that Atlantic bluefin tuna has
been undergoing heavy overfishing for a decade. We conclude that the current
exploitation of bluefin tuna has many biological and economic traits that have led several
fish stocks to extreme depletion in the past.”
In 1982, ICCAT established a line separating the eastern and western Atlantic
management units based on discontinuities in the distribution of catches at that time in the
Atlantic and supported by limited biological knowledge. The United States is allocated quota
from the western Atlantic management unit where the U.S. fisheries primarily occur. However,
the overall distribution of the catch in the 1990s is much more continuous across the North
Atlantic than was seen in previous decades. Tagging evidence indicates that movement of
bluefin across the current east/west management boundary in the Atlantic does occur, that
movements can be extensive (including trans-atlantic) and complex, that there are areas of
concentration of electronically tagged fish (released in the west) in the central North Atlantic just
east of the management boundary, and that fisheries for bluefin tuna have developed in this area
in the last decade. At least some of these fish have moved from west of the current boundary.
Complementary studies, which might show east to west movement, are less advanced.
The composition and natal origin of these fish in the central North Atlantic area are not known.
The SCRS emphasizes that “it is clear that the current boundary does not depict our present
understanding of the biological distribution and biological stock structure of Atlantic bluefin
tuna.” The SCRS also notes that “the current boundary is a management boundary and its
effectiveness for management is a different issue.”
There has been an accumulation of evidence on bluefin tuna mixing in the last few years
through the collection of tagging data and its examination through the modeling of mixing
scenarios for evaluating their effect on management. However, the origin of fish older than one
year still remains unknown. Mixing results were reviewed in 2001 by the Workshop on Bluefin
Tuna Mixing. This research led to a long-term plan for modeling finer scale spatial mixing and
to short-term strategies for assessment to assist the advice for management. The data and
research were reviewed again in 2002.
ICCAT, at its 2002 Meeting in Bilbao, called for a Working Group to Develop Integrated
and Coordinated Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Management Strategies, which met in 2003 and again in
2004. In response to the recommendations from these meetings, the SCRS is developing a
revised proposal for initiating a coordinated Bluefin Tuna Research Program to address priority
research and data needs for providing scientific advice to ICCAT related to revised management
procedures for bluefin tuna. Uncertainty exists regarding the importance and impacts of mixing
on western stocks. The most important uncertainty regarding management advice by the SCRS
for the eastern stock is the uncertainty in the catch data that are being taken.
More than 20 scientific documents related to bluefin tuna biology were presented to the
2005 SCRS. Many of the contributions dealt with the important issue of stock structure and
mixing, and new information is available for both stocks. In particular, studies of otolith
microchemistry and genetics have resulted in advances in our understanding of this component
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-62

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

of the biology of bluefin tuna. These results continue to advance our knowledge about the
overlapping distribution of fish originating from the east and the west. Therefore, the SCRS
continues to question present hypotheses on stock identification. While these results are
promising, more complete sampling and development of appropriate analytical approaches are
required. The SCRS also received contributions relating to age and growth, sampling,
parasitology and condition of bluefin tuna.
3.2.3 Atlantic BAYS Tuna
All text, figures and tables for this Section are from the SCRS 2004 and 2005 Reports and
the U.S. National Report to ICCAT, 2005. All weights are reported as whole weights unless
indicated as otherwise.
3.2.3.1

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna

Life History and Species Biology
The geographical distribution of bigeye tuna is very wide and covers almost the entire
Atlantic Ocean between 50°N and 45°S. This species is able to dive deeper than other tuna
species and exhibits extensive vertical movements. Similar to the results obtained in other
oceans, pop-up tagging and sonic tracking studies conducted on adult fish in the Atlantic has
revealed that they exhibit clear diurnal patterns being much deeper in the daytime than at night.
Spawning takes place in tropical waters when the environment is favorable. From the nursery
areas in tropical waters, juvenile fish tend to diffuse into temperate waters as they grow larger.
Catch information from the surface gears indicate that the Gulf of Guinea is a major nursery
ground for this species.
Dietary habits of bigeye tuna are varied such that prey organisms like fish, mollusks, and
crustaceans are found in stomach contents. A growth study based on otolith and tagging data
resulted in the adoption by the SCRS of a new growth curve (Report of the SCRS, 2004). The
curve shows bigeye tuna exhibit relatively fast growth: about 105 cm in fork length at age three,
140 cm at age five, and 163 cm at age seven. Bigeye tuna become mature at about age three and
a half. Young fish form schools mostly mixed with other tunas such as yellowfin and skipjack.
These schools are often associated with drifting objects, whale sharks, and sea mounts. This
association appears to weaken as bigeye tuna grow larger. An estimate of natural mortality (M)
for juvenile fish was provided based on the results of a tagging program. According to this study,
mortality for juvenile fish only is at a similar level of M as that currently used for the entire
Atlantic stock as well as the level of M used for all other oceans. Various evidence including a
genetic study, the time-area distribution of fish, and movements of tagged fish suggest an
Atlantic-wide single stock for this species, which is currently accepted by the SCRS. However,
the possibility of other scenarios, such as north and south stocks, should not be disregarded.
Stock Status and Outlook
ICCAT’s SCRS conducted a new stock assessment for bigeye tuna in July 2004 using
various types of models. However, there were considerable sources of uncertainty arising from
the lack of information regarding (a) reliable indices of abundance for small bigeye from surface
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-63

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

fisheries, (b) the species composition of Ghanaian fisheries that target tropical tunas, and (c)
details on the historical catch and fishing activities of Illegal, Unregulated, Unreported (IUU)
fleets (e.g., size, location and total catch).
Three indices of relative abundance were available to assess the status of the stock
(Figure 3.6). All were from longline fisheries conducted by Japan, Chinese Taipei, and United
States. While the Japanese indices have the longest duration since 1961 and represent roughly
20 – 40 percent of the total catch, the other two indices are shorter and generally account for a
smaller fraction of the catch than the Japanese fishery. These three indices primarily relate to
medium and large-size fish.
Various types of production models were applied to the available data and the SCRS
notes that the current year’s model fits to the data were better than in past assessments, although
they required similar assumptions regarding stock productivity. The point estimates of MSY
obtained from different production models ranged from 93,000 mt to 113,000 mt. The lower
limit of this range is higher than the one estimated in the 2002 assessment, probably due to the
revised indices and the addition of a new index. An estimate obtained from another ageaggregated model was 114,000 mt. The inclusion of estimation uncertainty would broaden this
range considerably.
These analyses estimate that the total catch was larger than the upper limit of MSY
estimates for most years between 1993 and 1999, causing the stock to decline considerably, and
leveling off thereafter as total catches decreased. These results also indicate that the current
biomass is slightly below or above (85 – 107 percent) the biomass at MSY (Figure 3.7), and that
current fishing mortality is also in the range of 73 percent to 101 percent of the level that would
allow production of MSY (Table 3.8). However, indications from the most targeted and wideranging fishery are of a more pessimistic status than implied by these model results. Several
types of age-structured analyses were conducted using the above-mentioned longline indices
from the central fishing grounds and catch-at-age data converted from the available catch-at-size
data. In general, the trajectories of biomass and fishing mortality rates are in accordance with the
production model analyses. Model fits appeared improved over those of past assessments,
apparently as a result of using a new growth curve for the calculation of catch at age.
The most noteworthy trend in fisheries observed is the general declining trend in catches
for all gears after a high peak (121,000 mt) in 1999. After that, the total annual catch has
steadily declined to a current low of 72,000 mt for 2004. The decline of longline catch is mostly
attributable to the decrease of Japanese and estimated IUU catches while the other
country/entity’s catches are generally maintained. Other gears (purse seine and baitboat) also
indicated a similar but more variable decline. The decline of the Japanese catch is related to the
reduced fishing effort as well as the declined CPUE in the major fishing grounds in tropical
waters.
Among the fisheries catching bigeye, two changes are noted. One is an increase in catch
from the northern Islands (Azores and Madeira) area due to baitboat fisheries after four years of
low catch for 2000 – 2003. Another change is also observed for the fishing area of Japanese
longline fishery. Since around 2001, some of the fleet had operated in central north Atlantic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-64

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

between 25°N – 35°N and 40°W – 75°W. In addition to the above changes in fisheries, several
countries increased their individual catch levels in 2004, although the overall catch total did not
significantly increase. Such increases are reported for Philippines (1,850 mt), Venezuela (1,060
mt) and Korea (630 mt). The current reported catch of Chinese Taipei for 2003 is considered
under-estimated. Chinese Taipei will re-estimate the bigeye catch for 2003 in near future. The
new estimate is expected to be higher than the current reported catch.

Figure 3.6

Abundance indices in numbers of BET. All ages are aggregated. Source: ICCAT, 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-65

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.7

Trajectory of the BET biomass modeled in production model analysis (middle line) bounded
by upper and lower lines denoting 80 percent confidence intervals. Source: ICCAT, 2004.

Table 3.8

Summary Table for the Status of Atlantic Bigeye Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

Age/size at Maturity

Age 3/~100 cm curved fork length

Spawning Sites

Tropical waters

Current Relative Biomass Level

B03/BMSY = 0.85 - 1.07

Minimum Stock Size Threshold

0.6BMSY (age 2+)

Current Relative Fishing Mortality Rate

F02/FMSY = 0.73-1.01

Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold

Fyear/FMSY = 1.00

Maximum Sustainable Yield

93,000 - 114,000 mt

Current (2004) Yield

72,000 mt

Current (2003) Replacement Yield

89,000 - 103,000 mt

Outlook

Overfished; overfishing is occurring

This assessment indicated that the stock has declined due to the large catches made since
the mid-1990s to around or below the level that produces the MSY, and that fishing mortality
exceeded FMSY for several years during that time period. Projections indicate that catches of more
than 100,000 mt will result in continued stock decline. ICCAT should be aware that if major
countries were to take the entire catch limit set under the ICCAT Recommendations and other
countries were to maintain recent catch levels, then the total catch could exceed 100,000 mt. The
SCRS highly recommended that catch levels of around 90,000 mt or lower be maintained at least
for the near future for ICCAT to rebuild the stock.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-66

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Effects of Regulations
The bigeye minimum size regulation of 3.2 kg (Recommendation 79-01) was adopted in
1980 to reinforce the same regulation for yellowfin, and was in effect until 2004. The
Committee did not evaluate this regulation at this time. However, the recommendation regarding
the minimum size regulation was dropped as it was not feasible to sort the undersized bigeye and
yellowfin tuna from purse seine and bait-boat catch mixed with regulation sized small skipjack
without large quantities of dead discards of small bigeye and yellowfin tuna. Conversely strict
enforcement of the regulation would have likely meant the closure of one of the largest tuna
fisheries in the Atlantic. While the measure was in effect, it is believed that a large quantity
(around 50 percent in total number of fish) of juvenile bigeye tuna smaller than 3.2 kg was
caught in 2004 as well, because there are no substantial changes in the fisheries (the equatorial
surface fleets) that account for most of the juvenile catch.
ICCAT asked the SCRS to examine the impact on stocks of the current minimum size
regulation (bigeye tuna Recommendation 04-01). At the same time, ICCAT also asked the
SCRS to recommend the necessary modifications that would improve its effectiveness as well as
to review possible modifications to be applied to the closure. Although the new regulation has
not been implemented yet, the SCRS met to provide a response to the Commission.
Previous yield-per-recruit and spawner-per-recruit analyses highlighted the potential
importance of reducing fishing mortality on small fish. However, the percentage of fish caught
less than this minimum size (3.2 kg) is very high (46 – 62 percent of the total fish caught) since
1989. The SCRS, therefore, recommends the full implementation of the moratorium on Fish
Aggregation Device (FAD) fishing by all surface fisheries in the Gulf of Guinea. The
moratorium on FAD fishing by surface gears in the Gulf of Guinea were observed by all fishing
sectors, including Ghanaian surface fleet during 2004/2005 season. However, available purse
seine catch and effort data indicated significant fishing on FADs in the moratorium area.
Limiting the annual catch to the average catch in two years of 1991 and 1992 entered into
force for the major fishing countries whose 1999 catch reported to the 2000 SCRS was larger
than 2,100 mt (Recommendation 01-01). The 2003 and 2004 total reported catch for the major
countries and fishing entities to which the catch limit applies (EC-Spain, EC-France, ECPortugal, Japan, Ghana, China and Chinese Taipei) were 67,000 mt and 59,500 mt, respectively.
These were much lower than the total catch limit (84,200 mt) for these counties/entities. As a
whole, the total catch in 2003 and 2004 for all countries is about 12,000 mt and 24,000 mt lower
than the average total catch of 1991 and 1992 (96,000 mt).
Total reported U.S. bigeye tuna catches and landings (preliminary) for 2004 decreased by
69 mt from 483 mt in 2003 to 414 mt. Note that like yellowfin tuna, the estimates of rod and reel
catch are considered provisional and may be revised based on results of a future review of
recreational harvest estimates.
The SCRS noted its appreciation for the effort made by ICCAT in establishing the
Statistical Document Program for bigeye tuna and expressed hope that the data to be submitted
to the Secretariat will be useful to improve estimates of unreported catches. The SCRS also
stated its appreciation regarding the initiatives to reduce the IUU activities taken by several
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-67

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

fishing authorities. These efforts are helpful in identifying and reducing the unreported catches
in the Atlantic and will make the catch limit regulation more effective, and thus will contribute to
reduce uncertainties in the bigeye stock assessment. As far as the IUU catches of bigeye tuna are
concerned, they are almost disappearing according to the available estimates. Nevertheless, the
SCRS expressed concern that unreported catches may have been underestimated.
Recent and Ongoing Research
In addition to monitoring catch and effort statistics for tropical tunas that include bigeye
tuna, United States scientists participated in the 2005 ICCAT Workshop on Methods to Reduce
Mortality of Juvenile Tropical Tunas, held in Madrid from 4 – 8 July, 2005. Document
SCRS/2005/063 used the ICCAT Task 2 catch and effort data to estimate expected changes in
the catches of tropical tunas attributable to replacing the current moratorium with a time-area
closure (Recommendation 04-01). The results indicate that catches of tropical tunas are expected
to increase substantially if the time-area closure replaces the current moratorium. Considering
that the current ICCAT hypothesis is that purse-seine fleet efficiency gains three percent per year,
the net change could in fact be a large overall increase to levels above the pre-moratoria fishing
mortality rate levels. SCRS/2005/079 explored the expectations for catches of undersized bigeye
tuna considering the agreement reached in Recommendation 04-01. In all cases examined, total
catches can be expected to increase from 5.5 to 6.7 percent as a result of Recommendation 04-01,
and catches of bigeye tuna can be expected to increase from 16 to 22.1 percent. In all cases,
catch of juvenile bigeye tuna increases.
U.S. scientists from the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science continue to collaborate with EC scientists on the EU-funded assessment
and management modeling project titled Framework for the Evaluation of Management
Strategies (FEMS) project, on management strategy evaluations related to tropical tuna fisheries.
3.2.3.2 Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna
Life History and Species Biology
Yellowfin tuna is a cosmopolitan species distributed mainly in the tropical and
subtropical oceanic waters of the three oceans, where they form large schools. The sizes
exploited range from 30 cm to 170 cm fork length (FL). Smaller fish (juveniles) form mixed
schools with skipjack and juvenile bigeye tuna, and are mainly limited to surface waters, while
larger fish are found in surface and sub-surface waters. The majority of the long-term recoveries
of tagged fish have been tagged in the western Atlantic and recovered in the eastern Atlantic,
where several recaptures are recorded each year.
Sexual maturity occurs at about 100 cm FL. Reproductive output among females has
been shown to be highly variable, although the extent of this is unknown. The main spawning
ground is the equatorial zone of the Gulf of Guinea, with spawning occurring from January to
April. Juveniles are generally found in coastal waters off Africa. In addition, spawning occurs
in the Gulf of Mexico, in the southeastern Caribbean Sea, and off Cape Verde, although the
relative importance of these spawning grounds is unknown.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-68

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Although such separate spawning areas might imply separate stocks or substantial
heterogeneity in the distribution of yellowfin tuna, a single stock for the entire Atlantic is
assumed as a working hypothesis (Atlantic Yellowfin Working Group, Tenerife, 1993). This
hypothesis indicates yellowfin are distributed continuously throughout the entire tropical Atlantic
Ocean by taking into account tagging data showing transatlantic migration (from west to east), a
40-year time series of longline catch data, and other information such as time-area size frequency
distributions and locations of fishing grounds).
Growth patterns are variable with size, being relatively slow initially, and increasing by
the time the fish leave the nursery grounds. Males are predominant in the catches of larger sized
fish. Natural mortality is assumed to be higher for juveniles than for adults. Tagging studies for
Pacific yellowfin supports this assumption.
Stock Status and Outlook
A full assessment was conducted by the SCRS/ICCAT for yellowfin tuna in 2003
applying various age-structured and production models to the available catch data through 2001.
The variability in overall catch-at-age is primarily due to variability in catches of ages
zero and one (note that the catches in numbers of age zero and especially age one were
particularly high during the period 1998 – 2001). Both equilibrium and non-equilibrium
production models were examined in 2003 and the results are summarized in Table 3.9. The
estimate of MSY based upon the equilibrium models ranged from 151,300 to 161,300 mt; the
estimates of F2001/FMSY ranged from 0.87 to 1.29. The point estimates of MSY, based upon the
non-equilibrium models, ranged from 147,200 – 148,300 mt. The point estimates for F2001/FMSY
ranged from 1.02 to 1.46. The main differences in the results were related to the assumptions of
each model. The SCRS was unable to estimate the level of uncertainty associated with these
point estimates. An age-structured virtual population analysis (VPA) was made using eight
indices of abundance. The results from this model were more comparable to production model
results than in previous assessments, owing in part to a greater consistency between several of
the indices used. The VPA results compare well to the trends in fishing mortality and biomass
estimated from production models. The VPA estimates that the spawning biomass (Table 3.7)
and the levels of fishing mortality (Table 3.8) in recent years have been very close to MSY levels.
The estimate of MSY derived from these analyses was 148,200 mt.
In summary, the age-structured and production model analyses implied that although the
2001 catches of 159,000 mt were slightly higher than MSY levels, effective effort may have
been either slightly below or above (up to 46 percent) the MSY level, depending on the
assumptions. Consistent with these model results, yield-per-recruit analyses also indicated that
2001 fishing mortality rates could have been either above or about the level which could produce
MSY. Yield-per-recruit analyses further indicated that an increase in effort is likely to decrease
the yield-per-recruit, while reductions in fishing mortality on fish less than 3.2 kg could result in
substantial gains in yield-per-recruit and modest gains in spawning biomass-per-recruit.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-69

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Summary Table for the Status of Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

Table 3.9

Age/size at Maturity

Age 3/~110 cm curved fork length

Spawning Sites

Tropical waters

Relative Biomass Level

B01/BMSY = 0.73 - 1.10

Minimum Stock Size Threshold

0.5BMSY (age 2+)

Relative Fishing Mortality Rate

F01/FMSY = 0.87 - 1.46

Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold

Fyear/FMSY = 1.00

Maximum Sustainable Yield

~ 148,000 mt

Current (2004) Yield

116,000 mt

Replacement Yield (2001)

May be somewhat below the 2001 yield (159,000 mt)

Outlook

Approaching an overfished condition

Figure 3.8

Comparison of relative biomass trends calculated using VPA and non-equilibrium production
models. Source: ICCAT, 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-70

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.9

Comparison of relative fishing mortality trends calculated using VPA and non-equilibrium
production models. Source: ICCAT, 2004.

In contrast to the increasing catches of yellowfin tuna in other oceans worldwide, there
has been a steady decline in overall Atlantic catches since 2001. Atlantic surface fishery catches
have shown a declining trend from 2001 to 2004, whereas longline catches have increased. In
the eastern Atlantic, purse seine catches declined from 89,569 mt in 2001 to 58,632 mt in 2004, a
35 percent reduction. Baitboat catches declined by 23 percent, from 19,886 mt to 15,277 mt.
This decrease is almost entirely due to reduced catches by Ghana baitboats, which resulted from
a combination of reduced days fishing, a lower number of operational vessels, and the
observance of the moratorium on fishing using floating objects. Catches by other baitboat fleets
were generally increasing. In the western Atlantic, with the majority of the landings reported by
the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and St. Vincent and Grenadines, purse seine
catches declined from 13,072 mt to 3,217 mt, a 75 percent reduction. In addition, baitboat
catches also declined by eight percent from 7,027 mt to 6,735 mt. However, for the same time
period, longline catches were increasing. In the eastern Atlantic, longline catches increased from
5,311 mt to 10,851 mt, a 104 percent increase. In the western Atlantic, longline catches
increased from 12,740 mt to 15,008 mt, an 18 percent increase.
At the same time, the nominal effort in the purse seine fishery was declining. As an
indicator, the number of purse seiners from the European and associated fleet operating in the
Atlantic declined from 46 vessels in 2001 to 34 vessels in 2004. On the other hand, the
European and associated baitboat fleet increased from 16 to 22 vessels during the same period.
Of the relevant scientific documents presented to the 2005 SCRS, most were descriptive of the
catches by country fleets. Three papers discussed observer programs in Ghana, Uruguay, and
Spain, and three papers analyzed catches in the context of the moratorium. No new standardized
catch rate information has been presented since the last assessment. However, examination of
nominal catch rate trends from purse seine data suggest that catch-per-unit effort was stable or
possibly declining since 2001 in the East Atlantic, and was clearly declining in the West Atlantic.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-71

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Since effort efficiency was estimated to have continued to increase, adjustments for such
efficiency change would be expected to result in a steeper decline. Also, the average weights in
European purse seine catches have been declining since 1994, which is at least in part due to
changes in selectivity associated with fishing on floating objects.
Recent signals in the fishery data could result in a substantially different evaluation of
stock status than that which is summarized above. It is important that the next assessment take
these and other indicators (such as age of vessels and any loss of regional yellowfin fisheries)
into account.
Effects of Regulations
Estimated catches of yellowfin tuna have averaged 141,000 mt over the past three years.
This average falls near the lower estimate of the range of MSY from the age-structured and
production model analyses conducted during the 2003 assessment. The SCRS considers that the
yield of 159,000 mt in 2001 is likely somewhat above the replacement yield and those levels of
fishing effort and fishing mortality may have been near MSY. Total catches since 2001 have
been declining, but without a new assessment the SCRS in 2005 reaffirms its support for
ICCAT’s 1993 recommendation “that there be no increase in the level of effective fishing effort
exerted on Atlantic yellowfin tuna, over the level observed in 1992.” (During the 2003
assessment, the SCRS’ estimates of effective fishing effort for recent years fell near the estimate
for 1992).
In 1973, ICCAT adopted a regulation that imposed a minimum size of 3.2 kg for
yellowfin tuna, with a 15 percent tolerance in the number of undersized fish per landing. This
regulation has not been adhered to internationally, as the proportion of landings of yellowfin tuna
less than 3.2 kg has been far in excess of 15 percent per year for the purse seine and baitboat
fisheries. Based on the catch species composition and catch-at-size data available during the
2003 assessment, yearly catches in number ranged between 54 percent and 72 percent undersized
yellowfin tuna by purse seiners and from 63 percent to 82 percent undersized fish for baitboats
over the period 1997 – 2001. Landings of undersized fish occur primarily in the equatorial
fisheries. Unfortunately, it is difficult to realize substantial reductions in catches of undersized
fish in these fisheries because small yellowfin tuna are mostly associated with skipjack tuna,
especially when fishing occurs on floating objects; thus it is difficult to avoid catching small
yellowfin when catching skipjack, the latter being an important component of eastern Atlantic
(equatorial) purse seine fleet catches.
Unfortunately, the use of minimum size limits as a means of reducing the mortality of
juvenile tuna remains extremely problematic in this fishery for several reasons which are
described in detail in “Report of the 2005 ICCAT Workshop on Methods to Reduce Mortality of
Juvenile Tropical Tunas (Madrid, July 4 – 8, 2005).” In accordance with the Committee’s
current recommendation, any minimum size limit (or lack thereof) should be consistent for all
species in a multi-species fishery. It follows that, since the minimum size limit for bigeye tuna
has been eliminated, the minimum size limit for yellowfin tuna should likewise be eliminated.
Notwithstanding this, the protection of juvenile tunas may be important and alternative
approaches to accomplish this should be studied.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-72

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

In 1993, ICCAT recommended “that there be no increase in the level of effective fishing
effort exerted on Atlantic yellowfin tuna, over the level observed in 1992.” As measured by
fishing mortality estimates from the 2003 assessment, effective effort in 2001 appeared to be
approaching or exceeding the 1992 levels. Since the relatively high catch levels of 2001 (159,000
t), catches have declined each year to a current level of 116,000 mt, a reduction of 27 percent.
(Estimates of total yellowfin landings in 2002 and 2003, which were not available at the time of
the assessment, are 139,000 mt and 124,000 mt, respectively). A potential explanation for this
decline is the reduction in purse seine effort, but until a full assessment is conducted it is not
possible to confirm this, since declines in nominal catch rates could suggest decreases in
abundance or availability. Although the catches have been declining since 2001, as has the
nominal effort of the purse seiners, the trend in effective effort is not clear.
Yellowfin tuna is listed as approaching an overfished condition by the United States.
Several management measures have been implemented in the United States, consistent with
ICCAT advice to limit fishing effort and to prevent overfishing. In 1999, NMFS implemented
limited access in the pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic tunas, as well as a recreational retention
limit for yellowfin tuna. The United States has also maintained its minimum size limit for YFT
of 27” which was greater than that recommended by ICCAT before the organization repealed the
recommendation.
Yellowfin tuna is the principal species of tropical tuna landed by U.S. fisheries in the
western North Atlantic. Total estimated landings decreased to 6,500 mt in 2004, from the 2003
landings estimate of 7,702 mt. The 2004 estimate is considered provisional and may change
owing to incorporation of late reports of commercial catches as they become available and to
possible revisions in estimates of rod and reel catches made by recreational anglers. A high
proportion of the estimated landings were due to rod and reel catches of recreational anglers in
the NW Atlantic (3,434 mt). Estimates of U.S. recreational harvests for tuna and tuna-like
species continue to be reviewed and this may result in the need to report additional revisions to
the available estimates in the future.
Recent and Ongoing Research
In addition to the United States research findings for tropical tunas discussed above under
bigeye tuna, one document was presented to the SCRS in 2005 that gave an overview of fishery
trends and stock status for yellowfin tuna worldwide. It was noted that the natural mortality
vector used by ICCAT in the Atlantic, while the same as that used by the IOTC for the Indian
Ocean, is lower than is used by other scientific bodies for other oceans, particularly for the
youngest ages. It was further noted that more recent information and methodologies may be
available to potentially improve the estimates of natural mortality. Another document
considered the estimation of natural mortality from multi-species tagging data. Due to
limitations in the data (such as unbalanced design and different size distributions of released fish)
and potential fishing differences between fleets, conclusions were limited to ratios of total
mortality between fishing periods rather than any direct statement about natural mortality.
Considering the importance of natural mortality estimates in the assessment of the stock, the
improvement of natural mortality estimates remains a high research priority. It was noted that
future stock assessments should include an evaluation of the sensitivity of results to the
uncertainty in natural mortality estimates. Differences were also noted for other biological
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-73

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

parameters used by the various scientific bodies, such as growth and maturity vectors, the extent
to which these differences reflect estimation methodology, data quality, or real differences
between stocks warrants investigation.
3.2.3.3

Atlantic Albacore Tuna

Life History and Species Biology
Albacore is a temperate tuna widely distributed throughout the Atlantic Ocean and
Mediterranean Sea. For assessment purposes, the existence of three stocks is assumed based on
available biological information: northern and southern Atlantic stocks (separated at 5ºN), and a
Mediterranean stock. Albacore spawning areas in the Atlantic are found in subtropical western
areas of both hemispheres and throughout the Mediterranean Sea. Spawning takes place during
austral and boreal spring-summer. Sexual maturity is considered to occur at about 90 cm FL
(age five) in the Atlantic, and at smaller size (62 cm, age two) in the Mediterranean. Until this
age, they are mainly found in surface waters, where they are targeted by surface gears. Some
adult albacore are also caught using surface gears but, as a result of their deeper distribution, they
are mainly caught using longlines. Young albacore tuna are also caught by longlines in
temperate waters.
Stock Status and Outlook
The last assessment of the northern stock by ICCAT/SCRS was conducted in 2000, using
data from 1975 to 1999, and that of the southern stock in 2003; no assessment of the
Mediterranean stock has ever been carried out. To coordinate the timing of the assessments of
northern and southern albacore tuna, the stock assessment for northern albacore was postponed at
the 2004 ICCAT meeting from 2006 to 2007 (note the management measures for northern
albacore expire at the end of 2006). The SCRS noted the considerable uncertainty that continues
to remain in the catch-at-size data for the northern and southern stocks, and the profound impact
this has had on attempts to complete a satisfactory assessment of northern albacore tuna.
North Atlantic
In 2003, the SCRS concluded that it was inappropriate to proceed with a VPA assessment
based on the catch-at-age until the catch-at-size to catch-at-age transformation is reviewed and
validated. In 2005, a document was presented on the analyses of catch-at-size and identifying
the source of bias in the catch-at-age of the North Atlantic albacore stock. The SCRS
recommends holding a data preparatory working group meeting to allow for a thorough revision
of the North Atlantic stock prior to the next assessment in 2007. Consequently, the current state
of the northern albacore stock is based primarily on the last assessment conducted in 2000
together with observations of CPUE and catch data provided to the SCRS in 2003. The results,
obtained in 2000, showed consistency with those from previous assessments (Table 3.10).
The SCRS noted that CPUE trends have varied since the last assessment in 2000, and in
particular differed between those representatives of the surface fleets (Spain Troll age two and
Spain Troll age three) and those of the longline fleets of Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United
States. The Spanish age two troll series, while displaying an upward trend since the last
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-74

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

assessment, nonetheless declined over the last ten years. For the Spanish age three troll series,
the trend in the years since the last assessment is down; however, the trend for the remainder of
the last decade is generally unchanged. For the longline fleets, the trend in CPUE indices is
either upwards (Chinese Taipei and United States) or unchanged (Japan) in the period since the
last assessment. However, variability associated with all of these catch rate estimates prevented
definitive conclusions about recent trends of albacore catch rates.
Equilibrium yield analyses, carried out in 2000 and made on the basis of an estimated
relationship between stock size and recruitment, indicate that spawning stock biomass was about
30 percent below that associated with MSY. However, the SCRS noted considerable
uncertainties in these estimates of current biomass relative to the biomass associated with MSY
(BMSY), owing to the difficulty of estimating how recruitment might decline below historical
levels of stock biomass. Thus, the SCRS concluded that the northern stock is probably below
BMSY, but the possibility that it is above it should not be dismissed (Figure 3.10). However,
equilibrium yield-per-recruit analyses made by the SCRS in 2000 indicate that the northern stock
is not being growth overfished (F < Fmax).
In terms of yield per recruit, the assessment carried out in 2000 indicates that the fishing
intensity is at, or below, the fully exploited level. Concerning MSY-related quantities, the SCRS
recalls that they are highly dependent on the specific choice of stock-recruitment relationship.
The SCRS believed that using a particular form of stock-recruitment relationship that allows
recruitment to increase with spawning stock size provided a reasonable view of reality. This
hypothesis together with the results of the assessment conducted in 2000 indicate that the
spawning stock biomass (B1999) for the northern stock (29,000 mt) was about 30 percent below
the biomass associated with MSY (42,300 mt) and that current F (2000) was about 10 percent
above FMSY. However, an alternative model allowing for more stable recruitment values in the
range of observed SSB values would provide a lower estimate of SSB at MSY, below the current
value.
South Atlantic
In 2003, an age-structured production model, using the same specifications as in 2000,
was used to provide a base case assessment for southern Atlantic albacore. Results were similar
to those obtained in 2000, but the confidence intervals were substantially narrower in 2003 than
in 2000 (Table 3.11). In part, this may be a consequence of additional data now available, but
the underlying causes need to be investigated further. The estimated MSY and replacement yield
from the 2003 base case (30,915 mt and 29,256 mt, respectively) were similar to those estimated
in 2000 (30,274 mt and 29,165 mt). In both 2000 and 2003, the fishing mortality rate was
estimated to be about 60 percent of FMSY. Spawning stock biomass has declined substantially
relative to the late 1980s, but the decline appears to have leveled off in recent years and the
estimate for 2002 remains well above the spawning stock biomass corresponding to MSY.
Catches of albacore in the South Atlantic in 2001 and 2002 were above replacement yield,
and were below estimates of MSY in 2003. Nevertheless, both the 2000 and 2003 albacore
assessments estimated that the stock is above BMSY. There is now greater confidence in these
estimates of MSY and therefore there is justification to base a TAC recommendation on MSY
instead of replacement yield estimates from the model as in 2000. This results from the SCRS’
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-75

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

view that current stock status is somewhat above BMSY and catch of this level, on average, would
be expected to reduce the stock further towards BMSY. Recent estimates of high recruitment could
allow for some temporary increase in adult stock abundance under a 31,000 mt catch, but this
result is uncertain.
Mediterranean
Given the lack of an assessment, the implications of the rapid increase in landings are
unknown.

Figure 3.10

North Atlantic albacore spawning stock biomass and recruits with 80 percent confidence
limits. Source: ICCAT, 2004.

Table 3.10

Summary Table for the Status of North Atlantic Albacore Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

Age/size at Maturity

Age 5/~90 cm curved fork length

Spawning Sites

Subtropical western waters of the northern Hemisphere

Current Relative Biomass Level
Minimum Stock Size Threshold

B99/BMSY = 0.68 (0.52 - 0.86)
0.7BMSY

Current Relative Fishing Mortality Rate
Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold

F99/FMSY = 1.10 (0.99 - 1.30)
Fyear/FMSY = 1.00

Maximum Sustainable Yield

32,600 mt [32,400 - 33,100 mt]

Current (2004) Yield

25,460 mt

Current (2004) Replacement Yield

not estimated

Outlook

Overfished; overfishing is occurring

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-76

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.11

Summary Table for the Status of South Atlantic Albacore Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

Age/size at Maturity

Age 5/~90 cm curved fork length

Spawning Sites

Subtropical western waters of the southern Hemisphere

Current Relative Biomass Level

B02/BMSY = 1.66 (0.74 - 1.81)

Current Relative Fishing Mortality Rate

F02/FMSY = 0.62 (0.46 - 1.48)

Maximum Sustainable Yield

30,915 mt (26,333 - 30,915)

Current (2004) Yield

22,468 mt

Current (2004) Replacement Yield

29,256 mt (24,530 - 32,277)

Outlook

Not overfished; overfishing is not occurring

Effects of Regulations
North Atlantic
In 2000, the SCRS recommended that in order to maintain a stable Spawning Stock
Biomass in the near future the catch should not exceed 34,500 mt (the 1999 catch level) in the
period 2001 – 2002. The SCRS further noted that should ICCAT wish the spawning stock
biomass to begin increasing towards the level estimated to support MSY, and then catches in
2001 and 2002 should not exceed 31,000 mt. In 2004, the SCRS reiterated its previous advice
and extended it until the next assessment in 2007. There is no ICCAT rebuilding plan for this
species.
Since 2001, ICCAT established a TAC of 34,500 mt for this stock. In 2003, ICCAT
extended this TAC through 2006. The SCRS noted that reported catches for 2001, 2002, 2003,
and 2004 have been below the TAC. A 1998 recommendation that limits fishing capacity to the
average of 1993 – 1995 also remains in force. The SCRS is unable to assess whether or not these
recommendations have had a direct effect on the stock.
U.S. harvest of albacore tuna, based on 1997 through 2004 data, is landed primarily by
rod and reel and pelagic longline fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic. Approximately 98 percent
of total U.S. landings are harvested in the Northwest Atlantic. U.S. landings from the Caribbean
increased in 1995 to make up over 14 percent of the total U.S. harvest of Albacore, but have
since remained below four percent of the total.
Historically, albacore has not been a main focus of the U.S. commercial tuna fisheries
operating in the North Atlantic. The commercial pelagic longline fishery harvests northern
albacore tuna as incidental catch in the swordfish and other tuna pelagic fisheries. Reported
commercial catches were relatively low prior to 1986; however, these catches increased
substantially and have remained at higher levels throughout the 1990s. Commercial longline
landings from the Northwest Atlantic over the past five years have ranged from a high of 172 mt
in 2001 to a low of approximately 96 mt in 2003. In contrast, recreational estimates show a
growing targeted albacore fishery off the United States Atlantic coast with landings increasing
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-77

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

from approximately 122 mt in 2001 to over 500 mt in 2004. Calendar year landings vary
between years by up to 30 percent for the longline fleet and by as high as a factor of four for the
rod and reel fishery.
Since the ICCAT recommendation of a 607 mt TAC was implemented, total U.S.
landings have been 453 mt (74 percent), 488 mt (80 percent), and 446 mt (73 percent) in 2001,
2002, and 2003 respectively. Calendar year landings for 2004 were 646 mt. These landings
have been well below the annual TAC of 607 mt until 2004. The United States has annually
taken less than two percent of the recorded total annual international landings (Table 3.6). In
2004, U.S. calendar year landings remained below the adjusted annual quotas. ICCAT
recommendation provides for an adjusted TAC by adding the remaining balance from the
previous year as carryover. The U.S. caught only 84 percent of the adjusted quota in 2004 and
has a domestic adjusted quota in 2005 of 729 metric tons.
South Atlantic
Recent catches of albacore tuna in the South Atlantic are in the vicinity of the current and
recent estimates of MSY (30,915 mt). Both the 2000 and the 2003 albacore assessments
estimated that the stock is above BMSY (2003 estimates Bcurrent/BMSY = 1.66, Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.62).
The SCRS recommends that in order to maintain SSB in the near future the catch should not
exceed 31,000 mt until the next assessment in 2007.
Since 1999, ICCAT established the TAC for this stock (in 2001 – 2003, the TAC had
been set at 29,200 mt). In 2003, ICCAT extended this TAC through 2004. The SCRS noted that
reported catches have not exceeded the TAC in 2004. Also, the total catch by Chinese Taipei,
South Africa, Brazil, and Namibia (26,620 mt) did not exceed the 27,500 mt catch limit of
parties actively fishing for southern albacore, as stipulated by resolution 02-06. It should be
noted that sufficient capacity exists within the fisheries to exceed the TAC as was done in 2000,
2001, and 2002. U.S. landings of South Atlantic Albacore over the past five years have been
minimal (two or less mt / year). Japan adhered to its bycatch limit of four percent of the total
catch of bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean. However, the SCRS is unable to assess whether or
not these catch limits have had a direct effect on the stock.
Mediterranean
There are no ICCAT management recommendations for the Mediterranean stock.
However, the SCRS recommended to ICCAT that reliable data be provided on catch, effort and
size for Mediterranean albacore tuna. The SCRS also recommended that an effort be made to
recover historical data. Improvements to these basic inputs are essential before a stock
assessment of Mediterranean albacore tuna can be attempted.
Recent and Ongoing Research
U.S. scientists prepared document SCRS/2005/081 which described population models
for North Pacific albacore (Thunnus alalunga) that have been developed and reviewed within the
North Pacific Albacore Workshop (NPALBW) forum since 2000. Currently, the NPALBW
relies on a Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) model for the purposes of formulating an
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-78

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

international-based consensus regarding the “status” of this fish stock. Recently, an equally
important research directive from the NPALBW has been to develop alternative, more detailed
statistical-based models, in efforts to evaluate more fully the relationship between this species’
population dynamics and associated fishery operations (i.e., areas of uncertainty in an overall
stock assessment). Participants on the NPALBW developed one candidate model based on the
Age-structured Assessment Program (ASAP), which generally represents a maximum likelihoodbased numerical approach for conducting relatively straightforward, forward-simulation catch-at­
age analyses. In addition, the document presents a brief discussion concerning development of
other alternative stock assessment models, particularly length-based/age-structured platforms
(e.g., MULTIFAN-CL and Stock Synthesis 2).
3.2.3.4 Atlantic Skipjack Tuna
Life History and Species Biology
Skipjack tuna is a gregarious species forming schools in the tropical and subtropical
waters of the three oceans. Skipjack spawn opportunistically throughout the year in vast areas of
the Atlantic Ocean. The size at first maturity is about 45 cm for males and about 42 cm for
females in the East Atlantic, while in the West Atlantic sexual maturity is reached at around 51
cm for females and 52 cm for males. Skipjack growth is seasonal, with substantial differences
according to the latitude. There remains considerable uncertainty about the variability of the
growth parameters between areas. It is, therefore, a priority to gain more knowledge on the
growth schemes of this species.
Skipjack is a species that is often associated with floating objects, both natural objects or
fish aggregating devices (FADs) that have been used extensively since the early 1990s by purse
seiners and baitboats (during the 1991 to 2003 period, about 55 percent of skipjack were caught
with FADs). The concept of viscosity (low interchange between areas) could be appropriate for
the skipjack stocks. A stock qualified as “viscous” can have the following characteristics:
• It may be possible to observe a decline in abundance for a local segment of the stock;
• Overfishing of that component may have little, if any, repercussion on the abundance of
the stock in other areas; and,
• Only a minor proportion of fish may make large-scale migrations.
The increasing use of FADs could have changed the behavior of the schools and the
migrations of this species. It is noted that, in effect, the free schools of mixed species were much
more common prior to the introduction of FADs than now. These possible behavioral changes
(“ecological trap” concept) may lead to changes in the biological parameters of this species as a
result of the changes in the availability of food, predation, and fishing mortality. Skipjack caught
with FADs are usually found associated with other species. The typical catch with floating
objects is comprised of about 63 percent skipjack, 20 percent small yellowfin, and 17 percent
juvenile bigeye and other small tunas. A comparison of size distributions of skipjack between
periods prior to and after the introduction of FADs show that, in the eastern Atlantic, there has

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-79

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

been an increase in the proportion of small fish in the catches, as well as a decline in the total
catch in recent years in some areas.
The SCRS reviewed the current stock structure hypothesis that consists of two separate
management units, one in the east Atlantic and another in the West Atlantic, separated at 30°W.
The boundary of 30°W was established when the fisheries were coastal, whereas in recent years
the East Atlantic fisheries have extended towards the west, surpassing this longitude, and
showing the presence of juvenile skipjack tuna along the Equator, west of 30°W, following the
drift of the FADs. This implies the potential existence of a certain degree of mixing.
Nevertheless, taking into account the large distances between the east and west areas of the
ocean, various environmental constraints, the existence of a spawning area in the east Atlantic as
well as in the northern zone of the Brazilian fishery, and the lack of additional evidence (e.g.,
transatlantic migrations in the tagging data), the hypothesis of separate east and west Atlantic
stock is maintained as the most plausible alternative. On the other hand, in taking into account
the biological characteristics of the species and the different fishing areas, smaller management
units could be considered.
Stock Status and Outlook
The last ICCAT/SCRS assessment on Atlantic skipjack tuna was carried out in 1999
(Table 3.12). The state of the Atlantic skipjack stock(s), as well as the stocks of this species in
other oceans, show a series of characteristics that make it extremely difficult to conduct an
assessment using current models. Among these characteristics, the most noteworthy are:
• The continuous recruitment throughout the year, but heterogeneous in time and area,
making it impossible to identify and monitor the individual cohorts;
• Apparent variable growth between areas, which makes it difficult to interpret the size
distributions and their conversion to ages; and,
• Exploitation by many and diverse fishing fleets (baitboat and purse seine), having distinct
and changing catchabilities, which makes it difficult to estimate the effective effort
exerted on the stock in the East Atlantic.
For these reasons, no standardized assessments have been able to be carried out on the
Atlantic skipjack stocks. Notwithstanding, some estimates were made by means of different
indices of the fishery and some exploratory runs were conducted using a new development of the
generalized production model.
Western stock
Standardized abundance indices up to 1998 were available from the Brazilian baitboat
fishery and the Venezuelan purse seine fishery, and in both cases the indices seem to show a
stable stock status. Uncertainties in the underlying assumptions for the analyses prevent the
extracting of definitive conclusions regarding the state of the stock. However, the results suggest
that there may be over-exploitation within the FAD fisheries, although it was not clear to what
extent this applies to the entire stock. The SCRS could not determine if the effect of the FADs
on the resource is only at the local level or if it had a broader impact, affecting the biology and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-80

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

behavior of the species. Under this supposition, maintaining high concentrations of FADs would
reduce the productivity of the overall stock. However, since 1997, and due to the
implementation of a voluntary Protection Plan for Atlantic tunas, agreed upon by the Spanish
and French boat owners in the usual areas of fishing with objects, which later resulted in an
ICCAT regulation on the surface fleets that practice this type of fishing, there has been a
reduction in the skipjack tuna catches associated with FADs. Maintaining this closure would
continue to have a positive effect on the resource. The development of nominal abundance
indices of Brazilian baitboat fisheries and Venezuelan purse seiners, obtained up to 2004,
seemed to show a stable stock status.
Eastern stock
Standardized catch rates are not available. However, an analysis was made, for the 1969
– 2002 period, of the different indices of the purse seine fishery that could provide valuable
information on the state of the stock. For the majority of the indices, the trends were divergent,
depending on the area, which may indicate the viscosity of the skipjack stock, with limited
mixing rates between areas. Because of the difficulties in assigning ages to the skipjack catches,
the estimates of the values of natural mortality by age and obtaining indices of abundance
(especially for the eastern stock), no catch-by-age matrices were developed and, consequently,
no analytical assessment methods were applied.
There is no quantified information available on the effective fishing effort exerted on
skipjack tuna in the East Atlantic. It is supposed, however, that the increase in fishing power
linked to the introduction to improved technologies on board the vessels as well as to the
development of fishing under floating objects have resulted in an increase in the efficiency of the
various fleets. An estimate of the increase in the coefficient of total mortality (Z) between the
early 1980s and the end of the 1990s was carried out with a model using tagging data (Workshop
on the mortality of juveniles in July 2005). For the range of sizes considered (about 40 – 60 cm
FL), the increase in Z on the order of a factor 3 would reflect this increase in efficiency. This
interpretation is supported by a comparison of skipjack size distributions in the East Atlantic
between the periods prior to, and following, the use of FADs as an increase is observed in the
proportion of small fish in the catches.
A document on the Spanish observer program on board purse seiners, presented during
the 2005 SCRS, shows that for the 2001-2005 period the average rate of discards of skipjack
tunas under FADs in the East Atlantic is estimated at 42 kg per ton of skipjack landed. In the
West Atlantic, fishing effort of the Brazilian baitboats (which comprises the major skipjack
fishery) decreased by half between 1985 and 1996, but seems to be stabilized since, after a slight
increase.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-81

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.12

Summary Table for the Status of West Atlantic Skipjack Tuna. Source: ICCAT, 2005.

Age/size at Maturity

Age 1 to 2/~50 cm curved fork length

Spawning Sites

Opportunistically in tropical and subtropical waters

Current Relative Biomass Level
Minimum Stock Size Threshold

Unknown
Unknown

Current Relative Fishing Mortality Rate
F2003/FMSY
Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold

Unknown

Maximum Sustainable Yield

Not Estimated

Current (2004) Yield

26,910 mt

Current Replacement Yield

Not Estimated

Outlook

Unknown

Fyear/FMSY = 1.00

Effects of Regulations
There is currently no specific ICCAT regulation in effect for skipjack tuna. However, the
French and Spanish boat owners voluntarily applied a moratorium on fishing under FADs for the
period of November 1997 through January 1998, and November 1998 through January 1999.
The moratorium, which was implemented in order to protect juvenile bigeye tuna, has had an
influence on the skipjack catches made with FADs. Since 1999, a similar moratorium was
applied, recommended by ICCAT, and is still in force. The average purse seine skipjack catches
during the months from November to January by the fleets that applied the moratoria were
reduced by 64 percent compared to the average catches between the 1993 – 1996 period (before
the moratoria) and those corresponding to the 1998 – 2002 period. For the entire period in which
the moratoria have been in effect (1998 – 2002), the average annual skipjack catches by the
purse seine fleets that applied the moratoria decreased by 41 percent, which is equivalent to
42,000 mt per year. However, this decrease is likely a combined result of the decrease in effort
and the moratorium impact; this is supported by the observation that the mean annual catch by
boats has decreased only 18 percent between the two periods.
Total catches in 2004 in the Atlantic Ocean amounted to almost 161,000 mt which
represents an increase of approximately 12.9 percent compared to the average of the last five
years. Since the early 1990s, numerous changes in the fishery (such as the use the FADs and the
expansion of the fishing area to the west) have increased skipjack catchability as well as the
proportion of the skipjack stock which is exploited. At present, the major fisheries are the purse
seine fisheries, particularly those of EC-Spain, EC-France, NEI, Ghana and Netherlands Antilles,
followed by the baitboat fisheries of Ghana, EC-Spain and EC-France. The catches made in
2004 in the East Atlantic reached 134,000 mt, representing a 15.8 percent increase as compared
to the average of 1999 – 2003. In the West Atlantic, the major fishery is the Brazilian baitboat
fishery, followed by the Venezuelan purse seine fleet. The 2004 caches in the West Atlantic
amounted to 26,900 mt, which is a level close to the average of the historical period in recent
years.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-82

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Skipjack tuna are caught by U.S. vessels in the western North Atlantic. Total reported
skipjack landings (preliminary) increased from 78 mt in 2003 to 102 mt in 2004. Almost 70
percent of U.S. landings are from recreational rod and reel catches and landings from the NW
Atlantic and Caribbean areas, based on LPS statistical surveys of the U.S. recreational harvesting
sector. Estimates of recreational harvests of skipjack continue to be reviewed and could be
revised again in the future.
Recent and Ongoing Research
U.S. small tuna research is directed mainly on king and Spanish mackerel stocks, as the
amount landed of other small tunas such by U.S. fishermen is generally low. The focus of
research on skipjack research by the international scientific community is on basic stock
structure and abundance and the influence of FADs on increase in efficiency of the various fleets.
During the ICCAT Workshop on Methods to Reduce Mortality of Juvenile Tropical Tunas in
July 2005 (Document SCI-032), a re-analysis on the tagging data in the Senegalese area showed
however that the parameters of the skipjack growth curve obtained in this region were in fact
closer to the growth estimates made in the Gulf of Guinea or in other oceans than those done
previously in Senegal. In 2004 and 2005, U.S. scientists collaborated with Caribbean nations
under the banner of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism in initiating stock assessment
analyses for small tuna (and other) stocks of mutual concern.
3.2.4
3.2.4.1

Atlantic Billfish
Blue Marlin

Life History/Species Biology
Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) range from Canada to Argentina in the western Atlantic,
and from the Azores to South Africa in the eastern Atlantic. Blue marlin are large apex predators
with an average weight of 100 – 175 kg (220 – 385 lb). Female blue marlin grow faster and
reach a larger maximum size than males. Young blue marlin are one of the fastest growing
teleosts, reaching 30 – 45 kg (66 – 99 lb) after the first year. The maximum growth rate of these
fish is 1.66 cm/day (0.65 inches/day) which occurs at 39 cm LJFL (15.3 inches) (NMFS, 1999).
Life expectancy for blue marlin is between 20 – 30 years based on age and growth analyses of
dorsal spines.
Estimates of natural mortality rates for juvenile and adult billfish would be expected to be
relatively low, generally in the range of 0.15 to 0.30, based on body size, behavior and
physiology (NMFS, 1999). Sagitta otolith weight is suggested to be proportional to age,
indicating that both sexes are equally long-lived, based on the maximum otolith weight observed
for each sex. Predicting age from length or weight is imprecise due to many age classes in the
fishery, and otoliths may provide a more accurate measure of age.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-83

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Blue marlin have an extensive geographical range, migratory patterns that include transAtlantic as well as trans-equatorial movements, and are generally considered to be a rare and
solitary species relative to the schooling Scombrids (tunas). Graves et al. (2002) captured eight
blue marlin with recreational fishing gear and then implanted fish with satellite pop-up tags.
These fish moved 74 – 248 km (40–134 nautical miles (nm)) over five days, with a mean
displacement of 166 km (90 nm). Fish spent the vast majority of their time in waters with
temperatures between 22 and 26°C (71–78°F) and at depths less than 10 m. Prince et al. (2005)
tagged one blue marlin with a PSAT tag off the coast of Punta Cana, Dominican Republic and
found that this fish moved 406.2 km (219.3 nm) during a 40-d deployment (10.15 km/day (5.48
nm/day)). The maximum time at liberty recorded of a tagged individual was 4,024 days (about
11 years) for a blue marlin that was estimated to weigh 29.5 kg (65 lb) at the time of release.
Junior et al. (2004) found the depth of capture for blue marlin with pelagic longline gear ranged
from 50 – 190 m (164 – 623 feet), with most individuals captured at 90 m (295 feet).
The Cooperative Tagging Center (CTC) program has tagged 24,108 and recaptured over
220 blue marlin and found that these fish moved an average of 903 km (488 nm) (Ortiz et al.,
2003). Some individuals have exhibited extended movement patterns, and strong seasonal
patterns of movement of individuals between the United States and Venezuela are evident. A
blue marlin released off Delaware and recovered off the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean
represents the only documented inter-ocean movement of a highly migratory species in the
history of the CTC. The minimum straight-line distance traveled for a blue marlin was 14,893
km (8,041 nm) and the maximum number of days at large was 4,024 d.
Adults are found primarily in the tropics within the 24°C (75°F) isotherm, and make
seasonal movements related to changes in sea surface temperatures. In the northern Gulf of
Mexico they are associated with the Loop Current, and are found in blue waters of low
productivity rather than in more productive green waters. Off of Puerto Rico, the largest
numbers of blue marlin are caught during August, September, and October. Equal numbers of
both sexes occur off northwest Puerto Rico in July and August, with larger males found there in
May and smaller males in September. Very large individuals, probably females, are found off
the southern coast of Jamaica in the summer and off the northern coast in winter, where males
are caught in December and January.
There has not been an Atlantic wide survey of spawning activity for blue marlin, however,
these fish generally reproduce between the ages of two and four, at 220 – 230 cm (86 – 90 inches)
in length, and weigh approximately 120 kg (264 lb). Female blue marlin begin to mature at
approximately 47 – 60 kg (104 – 134 lb), while males mature at smaller weights, generally from
35 – 44 kg (77 – 97 lb). There are likely two separate spawning events that occur at different
times in the North and South Atlantic. South Atlantic spawning takes place between February
and March (NMFS, 1999). Peak spawning activity in the North Atlantic Ocean occurs between
July and October, with females capable of spawning up to four times per reproductive season (de
Sylva and Breder, 1997). Prince et al. (2005) conducted 23 neuston tows in the vicinity of Punta
Cana, Dominican Republic between 23 April and 17 May and successfully identified four larval
blue marlin; the size of the larvae indicated that spawning activity was taking place in the same
general area where these samples were conducted. Serafy et al. (2003) identified 90 blue marlin

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-84

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

larvae in the vicinity of Exuma Sound, Bahamas in the month of July, indicating that spawning
activity had taken place 18 days prior to sampling.
During the spawning season, blue marlin release between one and eleven million small
(1 – 2 mm), transparent pelagic planktonic eggs. The number of eggs has been correlated to
interspecific sizes among billfish and the size of individuals within the same species. Ovaries
from a 147 kg (324 lb) female blue marlin from the northwest Atlantic Ocean were estimated to
contain 10.9 million eggs, while ovaries of a 125 kg (275 lb) female were estimated to contain
seven million eggs. Males are capable of spawning at any time.
Blue marlin are generalist predators feeding primarily on epipelagic fish and cephalopods
in coastal and oceanic waters, however, mesopelagic fish and crustaceans associated with rocky,
sandy, and reef bottoms are also important components of the diet. Feeding in mesopelagic areas
probably takes place at night (Rosas-Alayola et al., 2002). Diet studies of blue marlin off the
northeastern coast of Brazil indicate that oceanic pomfret (Brama brama) and squid
(Ornithoteuthis antillarum) were the main prey items and present in at least 50 percent of
stomachs. Other important prey species vary by location and include dolphin fishes, bullet tuna
(Auxis. spp) around the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica, and dolphin fishes and scombrids in
the Gulf of Mexico. Stomach contents have also included deep-sea fishes such as
chiasmodontids.
Constant ingestion of small quantities of food is necessary. Blue marlin have relatively
small stomachs, reducing the proportion of the body allocated for visceral mass, and allocating
more volume to musculature for swimming speed and endurance (Junior et al., 2004). In the
Pacific Ocean, changes in the diet observed are related more with abundance and distribution of
prey than preferences in food items, with Auxis spp. (bullet and frigate tunas) well represented in
all locations. Predators of blue marlin are relatively unknown. Sharks will attack hooked blue
marlin, but it is not known if they attack free-swimming, healthy individuals.
Stock Status and Outlook
Since 1995, blue marlin have been managed under a single stock hypothesis because of
tagging data and mitochondrial DNA evidence that are consistent with one Atlantic-wide stock.
The last stock assessment for blue marlin was in 2000 using similar methods to the previous
assessment (1996), however, data was revised in response to concerns raised since the 1996
assessment. The assessment reflects a retrospective pattern wherein improvement in estimated
biomass ratios result in estimated lower productivity. The 2000 assessment was slightly more
optimistic than the 1996 assessment. Atlantic blue marlin are at approximately 40 percent of
BMSY and overfishing has taken place for the last 10 – 15 years. BMSY is estimated at 2,000 mt
(4,409,245 lb) and current fishing mortality is approximately four times higher than FMSY (Table
3.13) (SCRS, 2005) . There is uncertainty in the assessment because the historical data is not
well quantified. The 2000 assessment estimated that overfishing was still occurring and that
productivity (MSY and a stock’s capacity to replenish) was lower than previously estimated.
Therefore, it is expected that landings in excess of estimated replacement yield would result in
further stock decline (SCRS, 2005).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-85

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

No additional assessment information became available in 2005 to modify
recommendations currently in force. The current assessment indicates that the stock is unlikely
to recover if the landings contemplated by the 1996 ICCAT recommendation continue into the
future. While there is additional uncertainty in stock status and replacement yield, estimates are
not reflected in bootstrap results, these uncertainties can only be addressed through substantial
investment in research into habitat requirements of blue marlin and further verification of
historical data. The SCRS recommended that the ICCAT take steps to reduce the catch of blue
marlin as much as possible, including: reductions in fleet-wide effort, a better estimation of dead
discards, establishment of time area closures, and scientific observer sampling for verification of
logbook data. The SCRS noted that future evaluation of management measures relative to the
recovery of the blue marlin stock are unlikely to be productive unless new quantitative
information on the biology and catch statistics of blue marlin, and additional years of data are
available (SCRS, 2004 and 2005).
A summary of Atlantic blue marlin stock assessment data can be found in Table 3.13.
Estimated catches of Atlantic blue marlin by region for the period 1956 – 2001 can be found in
Figure 3.11. A composite CPUE series for blue marlin for the period 1955 – 2000 can be found
in Figure 3.12. The estimated median relative fishing mortality trajectory for Atlantic blue
marlin can be found in Figure 3.13. A stock assessment for blue marlin is scheduled for 2006.
Table 3.13

Summary of Atlantic Blue Marlin Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric tons, whole
weight. Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-86

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.11 Estimated catches (including landings and dead discards in mt) of blue marlin in the Atlantic
by region. The 2003 catch reported to ICCAT is preliminary and is not included in this figure.
Weights are in metric tones, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-87

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.12 Composite CPUE series (symbols) used in the blue marlin assessment compared to model
estimated median relative biomass (solid lines) from bootstrap results (80 percent confidence
bounds shown by dotted lines). Source: SCRS, 2005.

Figure 3.13 Estimated median relative fishing mortality trajectory for Atlantic blue marlin (center, dark
line) with approximate 80 percent confidence range (light lines) obtained from bootstrapping.
Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-88

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.14

Geographical distribution of reported catches of blue marlin for the period 1956-2003. Source:
SCRS, 2005.

Figure 3.15

Estimated catches (including landings and dead discards in t) of blue marlin in the Atlantic by
region (1950-2004). Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-89

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Effect of Regulations
ICCAT Management Recommendations
ICCAT Recommendation 97-09 required Contracting Parties to reduce, starting in 1998,
blue marlin and white marlin landings by at least 25 percent for each species from 1996 landings,
by the end of 1999. Recommendations 00-13, 01-10, 02-13, and 04-09 imposed or extended
additional catch restrictions for blue marlin. These included limiting the annual amount of blue
marlin that can be harvested by pelagic longline and purse seine vessels and retained for landing
to no more than 50 percent of the 1996 or 1999 landing levels, whichever is greater, as well as
requiring that all blue marlin and white marlin brought to pelagic longline and purse seine
vessels alive be released in a manner that maximizes their survival. The live release provision
does not apply to marlins that are dead when brought along the side of the vessel or that are not
sold or entered into commerce (SCRS, 2004). Globally, catches of blue marlin appear to have
been reduced as a result of ICCAT recommendations, which tied reductions in blue marlin
landings to 1996 or 1999 levels, whichever was greater. Total Atlantic-wide catches of blue
marlin, as reported to ICCAT, decreased by approximately 46 percent from 3,836 mt in 1999 to
2,076 mt in 2004. Total Atlantic-wide longline landings of blue marlin, as reported to ICCAT,
decreased by approximately 41 percent from 2,276 mt in 1999 to 1,343 in 2004.
In addition, these recommendations limited recreational landings in the United States to
250 blue and white marlin combined, on an annual basis. Also in 2000, ICCAT recommended
that a blue marlin minimum size be established for recreational fisheries (251 cm (98.8 inches)
LJFL). Most recently, ICCAT recommendation 04-09, extended phase one of the ICCAT
mortality reduction plan, as established and modified by recommendations 00-13, 01-10, 02-13,
through 2006 and postponed the next scheduled assessment of Atlantic blue marlin until 2006.
The SCRS noted that it does not expect to have enough new information to provide an
assessment of these recent regulations until 2006.
Domestic Regulations
The U.S. Atlantic billfish fishery, including blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, and
spearfish, has been reserved as a recreational fishery through domestic regulation since 1988.
Possession of Atlantic billfish is prohibited by U.S. pelagic longline vessels and no sales of
Atlantic billfish are allowed. Data on bycatch of Atlantic billfish in the domestic Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery can be found in Section 3.4.1 and Appendix C. The recreational fishery
is an open access fishery. Anglers must possess either a HMS Angling category permit or a
CHB category permit to possess a billfish. General category tuna permit holders may possess
Atlantic billfish only when participating in a registered HMS tournament. Details of the
permitting program, including the number of permit holders can be found in Section 3.9. Data
on domestic recreational catches of Atlantic billfish are obtained from a combination of sources,
including: the Recreational Billfish Survey; the HMS swordfish and billfish non-tournament
reporting line; MRFSS, and LPS. U.S. recreational billfish landings can be seen in section 4.2.3
of this document. The U.S. implemented a minimum legal size of 251 cm (99 inches), 167 cm
(66 inches), 160 cm (63 inches) for blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish respectively, in 1999.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-90

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Possession of Atlantic longbill spearfish have been prohibited since 1988. Rod and reel is the
only type of gear authorized in the domestic billfish fishery.
Recent and Ongoing Research
The NMFS SEFSC played a substantial role in the ICCAT Enhanced Research Program
for Billfish in 2004, with SEFSC scientists acting as the coordinator for the western Atlantic
Ocean. Major accomplishments in the western Atlantic in 2004 were documented in
SCRS/04/028. Highlights include 11 at-sea sampling trips with observers on Venezuelan
industrial longline vessels in September 2004. Of the trips accomplished to date, 4 observer trips
were on Korean type vessels fishing under the Venezuelan flag. Most of these vessels are based
out of Cumana targeting tuna, swordfish, or both at the same time. Biological sampling of
swordfish, Istiophorids, and yellowfin tuna for reproductive and age determination studies, as
well as genetics research were continued during the 2004 sampling season. Shore-based
sampling of billfish landings for size frequency data, as well as tournament sampling was
obtained from Venezuela, Grenada, U.S. Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Barbados, and Turks and
Caicos Islands. Program participants in Venezuela, Grenada, and Barbados continued to assist in
obtaining information on tag-recaptured billfish, as well as numerous sharks, in the western
Atlantic Ocean during 2004; a total of 44 tag recovered billfish and sharks were submitted to the
Program Coordinator in 2004. Age, growth, and reproductive samples from several very large
billfish were also obtained during 2004.
A study conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) to evaluate post
release survival and habitat use from the recreational fishery for Atlantic white marlin using popup satellite archival tags (PSATs) was finalized in 2004 and published in the peer review
literature. A separate study conducted by VIMS on U.S. longline vessels to evaluate post release
survival of marlin, as well as evaluating hook performance and related mortality was also
finalized in 2004. These data have been submitted to a peer reviewed journal and are currently
under review. The SEFSC has conducted several studies in the Northwest Atlantic and the
Pacific coast of Central America to evaluate habitat use and reproductive biology of billfish
using PSAT technology. About 200 PSATs have been deployed in this effort over the last 4
years with deployments ranging from a month to 5.5 months. Several peer reviewed papers
summarizing these results are in press at this time, while other papers are currently in preparation.
In addition, SEFSC is also currently conducting pelagic longline research to evaluate gear
behavior, and the effects of gear modification on catch rate and survival of target and non-target
species. Three cruises have been completed to date. This work in ongoing and should be
finished sometime in 2006. Cooperative billfish research between US and Brazilian scientists
was initiated in 2005.
The Fishery Management Group of the University of Miami is carrying out research on
Atlantic billfish on three areas, population parameter estimation, population modeling and
development of socio-economic indicators. Others at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel
School and elsewhere are conducting research on early life history, reproductive biology and
ecology of billfishes, as well as age and growth estimation.
Updates of standardized CPUE for blue and white marlin from the United States pelagic
longline fishery in the NW Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. recreational tournament
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-91

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

fishery in the NW Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were developed and presented to ICCAT in 2005
(Document SCRS/2005/30 and SCRS/2005/31). Numerous additional papers were presented
regarding standardization of CPUEs. Please see http//:www.iccat.es for additional information.
Multiple papers on habitat use were submitted to the ICCAT SCRS in 2005. These
included papers on: vertical habitat use of white marlin in numerous locations of the western
North Atlantic using PSAT tags (SCRS/2005/034); the depth distributions of 52 blue marlin in
relation to exposure to longline gear using PSAT tags (SCRS/2005/035); and, a quantitative
framework and numerical method for characterizing vertical habitat use by large pelagic animals
using pop-up satellite tag data (SCRS/2005/). Additional information on spawning area research
and other topics can be found at http//:www.iccat.es.
3.2.4.2

White Marlin

Life History/Species Biology
White marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) are found exclusively in tropical and temperate
waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas, unlike sailfish and blue marlin, which are also
found in the Pacific Ocean. White marlin are found at the higher latitudes of their range only in
the warmer months. Junior et al. (2004) captured white marlin with pelagic longline gear off
northeastern Brazil in depths ranging from 50 – 230 m (164 – 754 feet), with no obvious depth
layer preference. White marlin generally prefer water temperatures above 22°C (71° F) with
salinities between 35 – 37 ppt (NMFS, 1999). They may occur in small, same-age schools,
however, are generally solitary compared to the Scombrids (tunas). Catches in some areas may
include a rare species (Tetrapturus georgei) which is superficially similar to white marlin. The
so-called “hatchet marlin” may also represent (T. georgei), and has been caught occasionally in
the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (NMFS, 1999).
White marlin are generally 20 – 30 kg (44 – 66 lb) at harvest. These fish grow quickly,
with females attaining a larger maximum size than males, and have a life span of 18 years (SCRS
2004). Adult white marlin grow to over 280 cm (110 inches) TL and 82 kg (184 lb). White
marlin exhibit sexually dimorphic growth patterns; females grow larger than males, but the
dimorphic growth differences are not as extreme as noted for blue marlin. This species
undergoes extensive movements, although not as extreme as those of the bluefin tuna and
albacore. Trans-equatorial movements have not been documented for the species. There have
been 31,483 white marlin tagged and released by the CTC program, with 577 reported recaptures
(1.83 percent of all releases) (Ortiz et al., 2003). The majority of releases took place in the
months of July through September, in the western Atlantic off the east coast of the United States.
Releases of tagged white marlin also occurred off Venezuela, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the
central west Atlantic. The longest distance traveled is 6,517 km (4,049 miles) and the maximum
days at large is 5,488 days (approx. 15 years). A substantial number of individuals moved
between the Mid-Atlantic coast of the United States and the northeast coast of South America.
Overall, 1.1 percent of documented white marlin recaptures have made trans-Atlantic
movements. The longest movement was for a white marlin tagged during July 1995 off the east
coast near Cape May, NJ and recaptured off Sierra Leone, West Africa, in November, 1996. The
fish traveled a distance of at least 6,517 km (3,519 nm) over 476 days (NMFS, 1999). Prince et
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-92

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

al. (2005) tagged six white marlin off the coast of Punta Cana, Dominican Republic and found
their displacement to be between 58.7 and 495.8 km (31.7 – 267.7 nm), ranging from 2.1 – 13.3
km/day (mean = 6.3 km/day).
White marlin spawn in the spring (March through June) in the northwestern Atlantic
Ocean and females are generally 20 kg (44 lb) in mass and 130 cm (51.2 inches) in length at
sexual maturity. White marlin spawn in tropical and sub-tropical waters with relatively high
surface temperatures and salinities (20 – 29°C (68 – 84°F) and over 35 ppt) and move to higher
latitudes during the summer. There has not been an Atlantic-wide study of the spawning
behavior of white marlin. Spawning seems to take place in more offshore areas than for sailfish,
although larvae are not found as far offshore as blue marlin. Females may spawn up to four
times per spawning season (de Sylva and Breder, 1997). It is believed there are at least three
spawning areas in the western north Atlantic: northeast of Little Bahama Bank off the Abaco
Islands; northwest of Grand Bahama Island; and southwest of Bermuda. Prince et al. (2005)
found eight white marlin larvae in neuston tows in April/May off the coast of Punta Cana,
Dominican Republic indicating that there had been recent spawning activity in this general area.
Larvae have also been collected from November to April, but these may have been sailfish larvae
(Istiophorus platypterus), as the two can not readily be distinguished (NMFS, 1999). Spawning
concentrations occur off the Bahamas, Cuba, and the Greater Antilles, probably beyond the U.S.
EEZ, although the locations are unconfirmed. Concentrations of white marlin in the northern
Gulf of Mexico and from Cape Hatteras, NC to Cape Cod, MA are probably related to feeding
rather than spawning (NMFS, 1999).
White marlin are primarily piscivorous. Oceanic pomfret and squid were the most
important food items in a study that sampled stomachs collected off the coast of Brazil in the
southwestern Atlantic Ocean (Junior et al., 2004). The number of food items per stomach ranged
from 1 – 12 individuals. The largest prey observed in white marlin stomachs were snake
mackerel (Gempylus serpens), that were 40 – 73 cm (15.7 – 28.7 inches) in length (Junior et al.,
2004). Squid, dolphin, hardtail jack, flying fish, bonitos, mackerels, barracuda, and puffer fish
are the most important prey items in the Gulf of Mexico.
Data from a large sport fishery for white marlin that occurs during the summer between
Cape Hatteras, NC and Cape Cod, MA indicates that white marlin inhabit offshore (148 km (80
nm)) submarine canyons, extending from Norfolk Canyon in the Mid-Atlantic to Block Canyon
off eastern Long Island. Concentrations of white marlin are associated with rip currents and
weed lines (fronts), and with bottom features such as steep drop-offs, submarine canyons, and
shoals. Sport fishing for white marlin also occurs in the Straits of Florida, southeast Florida, the
Bahamas, and off the north coasts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Summer concentrations
in the Gulf of Mexico are found off the Mississippi River Delta and at DeSoto Canyon, with a
peak off the delta in July, and in the vicinity of DeSoto Canyon in August. In the Gulf of
Mexico, adults appear to be associated with blue waters of low productivity, being found with
less frequency in more productive green waters. While this is also true of the blue marlin, there
appears to be a contrast between the factors controlling blue and white marlin abundance, as
higher numbers of blue marlin are generally caught when catches of white marlin are low, and
vice versa. It is believed that white marlin prefer slightly cooler temperatures than blue marlin.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-93

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Stock Status and Outlook
White marlin have been managed under a single stock hypothesis by ICCAT since 2000.
The most recent stock assessments for white marlin (1996, 2000, and 2002) all indicated that
biomass of white marlin has been below BMSY for more than two decades and the stock is
overfished. In 2004, the SCRS indicated that in spite of significant improvements in the relative
abundance estimates made available during the last three assessments, they are still not
informative enough to provide an accurate estimate of stock status (SCRS, 2004). The 2002
assessment indicated that the relative fishing mortality is 8.28 times that permissible at FMSY
(Table 3.14). Given that the stock is severely depressed, the SCRS concluded that ICCAT
should take steps to reduce the catch of white marlin as much as possible, first by increasing
observer coverage to improve estimates of catch and dead discards of white marlin. Furthermore,
SCRS recommended that Contracting Parties conduct research into habitat requirements and
post-release survival of white marlin and take steps to verify historical fishery data.
The SCRS suggested that ICCAT take steps to make sure that the intended reductions in
catch are complied with, and monitored, so that proper evaluation can be carried out in the future.
The SCRS recommended improving observer programs so that better estimates of catch and dead
discards of white marlin are obtained. The SCRS further recommended that, in the absence of
observing a change in population status resulting from the most recent management measures,
the potential for increasing stock size of white marlin may require future catches to be reduced
beyond the level apparently intended by its most recent recommendations. However, the SCRS
also stated that more definitive advice should be available after several years of data become
available. The SCRS also noted that future evaluation of management measures relative to the
recovery of the white marlin stock is unlikely to be productive unless new quantitative
information on the biology and catch statistics of white marlin, and additional years of data, are
available (SCRS, 2004). As such, ICCAT postponed the next white marlin assessment until
2006. A summary of Atlantic white marlin stock assessment data can be found in Table 3.14.
New standardized catch rate information was presented in 2005, updating catch rates
from U.S. recreational fisheries in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and the
Venezuelan longline and artesinal fisheries. In spite of the progress made, the SCRS can not
interpret the historic CPUE trends for white marlin (SCRS, 2005). In 2002, an ESA listing
review was completed by NMFS. NMFS determined that listing Atlantic white marlin under the
Endangered Species Act was not warranted at that time. NMFS has committed to conducting
another ESA listing review in 2007.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-94

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.14

Summary of Atlantic White Marlin Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric tons, whole
weight. Source: SCRS, 2005.

Figure 3.16

Estimated biomass ratio B2000/ BMSY (solid line, no symbols) and fishing mortality ratio
F2000/FMSY (solid line with symbols) from the production model fitted to the continuity case
for white marlin. Ratios of last three years have been adjusted for retrospective pattern.
Broken lines show unadjusted ratios. Note that scales are different for each ratio. Source:
SCRS, 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-95

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.17

Geographical distribution of white marlin catches for the period 1956-2003. Source: SCRS,
2005.

Figure 3.18

Reported catch of white marlin (Task I) in the North and South Atlantic for longline (LL) gear
and other (OTH) gears. Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-96

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Effect of Regulations
ICCAT Management Recommendations
Recommendation 97-09 required ICCAT Contracting Parties to reduce, starting in 1998,
blue marlin and white marlin landings by at least 25 percent for each species from 1996 landings,
such reduction to be accomplished by the end of 1999. ICCAT Recommendations 00-13, 01-10,
and 02-13 imposed or extended additional catch restrictions for white marlin. These included
reductions to no more than 33 percent of the 1996 or 1999 landing levels, whichever is greater,
in the annual amount of white marlin that can be harvested and retained for landing by pelagic
longline and purse seine vessels. Further, all blue marlin and white marlin brought to pelagic
longline and purse seine vessels alive are required to be released in a manner that maximizes
their survival (SCRS, 2004). Post-release survival studies concluded that white marlin can
generally survive the trauma of being captured on pelagic longline gear (SCRS, 2005) and
suggest that current management practices requiring the release of live white marlin (Rec. 00-13)
will reduce fishing mortality on the stock. The live release provision does not apply to marlins
that are dead when brought along the side of the vessel or that are not sold or entered into
commerce. While the stock status evaluations are uncertain, projections indicated that the
apparent intent of the ICCAT Billfish recommendations has, in the short term, some potential for
stabilizing the stock biomass near current levels. Since 2000 is the last year of data used for the
last stock assessment, it is too early to evaluate the effect of these recommendations on the stock.
A stock assessment for white marlin is scheduled for 2006.
Globally, catches of white marlin appear to have been reduced as a result of ICCAT
recommendations to less than 1,000 mt since 2000. Preliminary catches for 2004 were 532 mt, a
slight decrease from 2003. Reported catches in 2004 by Brazil are lower than in previous years
as a result of the implementation of the ICCAT recommendation to release live marlins,
increased observer coverage, and a reduction in longline fishing effort (SCRS, 2005). Total
Atlantic-wide catches of white marlin, as reported to ICCAT, decreased by approximately 48
percent from 1,028 mt in 1999 to 532 mt in 2004. Total Atlantic-wide longline landings of white
marlin, as reported to ICCAT, decreased by approximately 46 percent from 924 mt in 1999 to
501 mt in 2004. Purse seine fisheries have incidental catches of white marlin, especially those
that set on FADs. A temporary ban on FADs implemented by the EU resulted in a 300 – 400 mt
(661,386 – 881,849 lb) decrease in incidental purse seine catches of all marlins (Gaertner et al.,
2002). In the United States, white marlin are managed exclusively for recreational fisheries.
This fishery is subject to an ICCAT imposed, 250-fish limit, annually for both blue and white
marlin combined. In 2005, 31 recreationally landed white marlin were reported to ICCAT by the
United States. In 2001, time area closures were established in the United States to reduce
interactions between longline fisheries and white marlin and other billfish.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-97

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Domestic Regulations
Please see the discussion of domestic regulations contained in section 3.2.4.1, above.
Recent and Ongoing Research
Please see the discussion of recent and ongoing research contained in section 3.2.4.1,
above.
3.2.4.3 Sailfish
Life History/Species Biology
Sailfish have a pan-tropical distribution and prefer water temperatures between 21 and
28°C (69 – 82°F). Although sailfish are the least oceanic of the Atlantic billfish and have higher
concentrations in coastal waters (more than any other Istiophorid), they are also found in
offshore waters. They range from 40°N to 40°S in the western Atlantic and 50°N to 32°S in the
eastern Atlantic. No trans-Atlantic movements have been recorded, suggesting a lack of mixing
between east and west. Although sailfish are generally considered to be rare and solitary species
relative to the schooling Scombrids, sailfish are known to occur along tropical coastal waters in
small groups consisting of at least a dozen individuals. Junior et al. (2004) captured sailfish in
the southwestern Atlantic Ocean with pelagic longline gear at depths between 50 – 210 m (164 –
688 feet), with most individuals captured at 50 m. Sailfish are the most common representative
of the Atlantic Istiophorids in U.S. waters (SCRS, 2005). Female sailfish grow faster, and attain
a larger maximum size, than males while both sexes have a life expectancy of 15 years (NMFS,
1999).
In the winter, sailfish are found in schools around the Florida Keys and eastern Florida,
in the Caribbean, and in offshore waters throughout the Gulf of Mexico. In the summer, they
appear to migrate northward along the U.S. coast as far north as the coast of Maine, although
there is a population off the east coast of Florida year-round. During the summer, some of these
fish move north along the inside edge of the Gulf Stream. In the winter, they regroup off the east
coast of Florida. Sailfish appear to spend most of their time above the thermocline, which occurs
at depths of 10 – 20 m (32.8 – 65.6 feet) and 200 – 250 m (656 – 820 feet), depending on
location. The 28EC (82°F) isotherm appears to be the optimal temperature for this species.
Sailfish are mainly oceanic but migrate into shallow coastal waters. Larvae are associated with
the warm waters of the Gulf Stream (NMFS, 1999).
A total of 65,868 sailfish have been tagged and released through the efforts of the CTC
program, with reported recapture of 1,204 sailfish (1.83 percent of all releases). Most releases
occurred off southeast Florida, from north Florida to the Carolinas, the Gulf of Mexico,
Venezuela, Mexico, the northern Bahamas and the U.S. Virgin Islands. One tagged and
recaptured specimen traveled from Juno, FL to the Mid-Atlantic, a distance of 2,972 km (1,745
miles). The longest movement tracked by tagging was 3,861 km (2,084 miles) and the longest
time at large was 6,658 days (18.2 years) (Ortiz et al., 2003). During the winter, sailfish are
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-98

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

restricted to the warmer parts of their range and move farther from the tropics during the summer.
The summer distribution of sailfish does not extend as far north as for marlins, especially white
marlin. Tag-and-recapture efforts have recovered specimens only as far north as Cape Hatteras,
NC. Few trans-Atlantic or trans-equatorial movements have been documented using tagrecapture methods (NMFS, 1999).
Most sailfish examined that have been caught off Florida are under three years of age.
Mortality is estimated to be high in this area, as most of the population consists of only two year
classes. The longest period a recaptured-tagged animal was found to be at-large was 16.1 years.
Unfortunately, the size at release is not available for this fish. Growth rate in older individuals is
very slow (0.59 kg/yr (1.3 lb/year). Sailfish are probably the slowest growing of the Atlantic
istiophorids. Sexual dimorphic growth is found in sailfish, but it is not as extreme as with blue
marlin (NMFS, 1999).
Female sailfish spawn at age three and are generally 13 – 18 kg and 157 cm (28.6 – 39.6
lb and 61.8 inches), whereas males generally mature earlier at 10 kg and 140 cm (22 lb and 55.1
inches). Spawning takes place between April and October (de Sylva and Breder, 1997).
Spawning has been reported to occur in shallow waters 9 – 12 m (30 – 40 ft) around Florida,
from the Florida Keys to the region off Palm Beach on the east coast. Spawning is also assumed
to occur, based on presence of larvae, offshore beyond the 100 m (328 feet) isobath from Cuba to
the Carolinas, from April to September. However, these spawning activities have not been
observed. Sailfish can spawn multiple times in one year, with spawning activity-moving
northward in the western Atlantic as the summer progresses. Larvae are found in Gulf Stream
waters in the western Atlantic, and in offshore waters throughout the Gulf of Mexico from March
to October (NMFS, 1999). Serafy et al. (2003) found three larval sailfish in Exuma Sound,
Bahamas, in the month of July indicating that there had been recent spawning activity in this
vicinity. In the Pacific Ocean, sailfish spawn in waters between 27 – 30°C (Hernandez-H and
Ramirez-H, 1998).
Sailfish are generally piscivorous, but also consume squid. Larvae eat copepods early in
life then switch to fish at 6.0 mm (0.2 inches) in length (NMFS, 1999). The diet of adult sailfish
caught around Florida consists mainly of pelagic fishes such as little tunny (Euthynnus
alletteratus), halfbeaks (Hemiramphus spp.), cutlassfish (Trichiurus lepturus), rudderfish
(Strongylura notatus), jacks (Caranx spp.), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), and squids
(Argonauta argo and Ommastrephes bartrami). Sailfish are opportunistic feeders and there is
evidence that they may feed on demersal species such as sea robin (Triglidae), cephalopods and
gastropods found in deep water.
Sailfish collected in the western Gulf of Mexico contained a large proportion of shrimp in
their stomachs in addition to little tunny, bullet tuna (Auxis spp.), squid, and Atlantic moonfish
(Vomer setapinnis). Junior et al. (2004) determined that squid were actually the second most
important food item in the southwestern Atlantic off the coast of Brazil. Number of food items
per stomach ranged from 1-14, and 6 percent of the stomachs were empty upon collection (Junior
et al., 2004). Adult sailfish are probably not preyed upon often, but predators include killer
whales (Orcinus orca), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops turncatus), and sharks.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-99

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Participants from many nations target sailfish in both the western and eastern Atlantic
Ocean. Sailfish are found predominantly in the upper reaches of the water column and are
caught in directed sport fisheries (recreational) and as bycatch in the offshore longline fisheries
for swordfish and tunas and as a directed catch in coastal fisheries. In coastal waters, artisanal
fisheries use many types of shallow water gear to target sailfish (NMFS, 2003).
Stock Status and Outlook
Sailfish and longbill spearfish landings have historically been reported together in annual
ICCAT landing statistics. An assessment was conducted in 2001 for the western Atlantic sailfish
stock based on sailfish/spearfish composite catches and sailfish “only” catches. The assessment
tried to address shortcomings of previous assessments by improving abundance indices and
separating the catch of sailfish from that of spearfish in the offshore longline fleets. The 2001
assessment looked at catches reported between 1956 and 2000 and all the quantitative
assessment models used produced unsatisfactory fits, therefore the SCRS recommended applying
population models that better accounted for these dynamics in order to provide improved
assessment advice. For the western Atlantic stock, annual sailfish catches have averaged about
700 mt (1,543,235 lb) over the past two decades and the abundance indices have remained
relatively stable. The 2000 yield was 506 mt (1,115,539 lb) (Table 3.15). The reported catches
of sailfish/spearfish (Task I) for 2004 were 1,017 and 1,088 mt for the west and east Atlantic,
respectively. Recent analyses did not provide any information on the MSY or other stock
benchmarks for the ‘sailfish only’ stock. In the eastern Atlantic, abundance indices based on
coastal/inshore fisheries for sailfish have decreased in recent years, while those attained from the
Japanese longline fishery indicate constant estimates of abundance since the mid-1970s (SCRS,
2004).
Based on the 2001 assessment, it is unknown if the western or eastern sailfish stocks are
undergoing overfishing or if the stocks are currently overfished. Therefore, SCRS recommended
that Contracting Parties consider methods to reduce fishing mortality rates, overall, and that
western Atlantic catches should not be increased above current levels. Furthermore, the SCRS
expressed concern about the incomplete reporting of catches, particularly in recent years.
A summary of Atlantic sailfish stock assessment data is given in Table 3.15. The
evolution of estimated sailfish/spearfish catches in the Atlantic during the period 1956 – 2002 for
both east and west stocks is given in Figure 3.19. Available CPUE for western Atlantic
sailfish/spearfish for the period 1967 – 2000 is shown in Figure 3.20. Estimated sailfish only
catches from 1956 – 2000 are shown in Figure 3.21.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-100

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.15

Summary of Atlantic Sailfish Stock Assessment data. Weights are in metric tons, whole weight.
Source: SCRS, 2004.

Figure 3.19

Evolution of estimated sailfish/spearfish catches in the Atlantic (landings and dead discards,
reported and carried over) in the ICCAT Task I database during 1956-2002 for the east and
west stocks. The 2003 catch reported to ICCAT is preliminary and is not included in this
figure. Weights are in metric tons, whole weight. Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-101

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.20

Available standardized CPUE for western Atlantic sailfish/spearfish for the period 1967-2000,
including Japanese, U.S., and Venezuelan time series data. Source: SCRS, 2005.

Figure 3.21 Estimated sailfish “only” catches based on the new procedure for splitting combined sailfish
and longbill spearfish catches from 1956-2000. Weights are in metric tons, whole weight.
Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-102

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.22

Geographical distribution of sailfish/spearfish catches between 1950-2003. Source: SCRS, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-103

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Figure 3.23

Evolution of estimated sailfish/spearfish catches in the Atlantic (landings and dead discards,
reported and carried over) in the ICCAT Task I database during 1956-2004 for the east and
west stocks. Source: SCRS, 2005.

Effect of Regulations
ICCAT Management Recommendations
No ICCAT management regulations are currently in effect for Atlantic sailfish. Sailfish
are managed as distinct eastern and western Atlantic stocks. This separation into two
management units is based on life history information. General management recommendations
made by the SCRS to ICCAT have remained consistent in recent years. These management
recommendations indicated that ICCAT should consider methods for reducing fishing mortality
rates. The current western Atlantic assessment led the SCRS to recommend that the West
Atlantic sailfish “only” catches should not exceed current levels. For the East Atlantic, the
SCRS recommended that sailfish “only” catches should not exceed current levels and that
ICCAT should consider practical and alternative methods to reduce fishing mortality and assure
data collection systems. SCRS expressed concern about the incomplete reporting of catches,
particularly for the most recent years, the lack of sufficient reports by species, and evaluations of
the new methods used to split the sailfish and spearfish catch and to index abundance. The
SCRS recommended all countries landing sailfish/spearfish or having dead discards, report these
data to the ICCAT Secretariat and that the SCRS should consider the possibility of a spearfish
“only” assessment in the future (SCRS, 2004).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-104

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Domestic Regulations
Please see the discussion of domestic regulations contained in section 3.2.4.1, above.
Recent and Ongoing Research
Please see the discussion of recent and ongoing research contained in section 3.2.4.1,
above.
3.2.4.4 Longbill Spearfish
The longbill spearfish (Tetrapturus pfluegeri) are the most rare of the Atlantic
istiophorids, and were identified as a distinct species in 1963. There is relatively little
information available on spearfish life history. A related istiophorid, the Mediterranean spearfish
(Tetrapturus belone), is the most common representative of this family in the Mediterranean Sea.
Longbill spearfish are known to occur in epipelagic waters above the thermocline, off the eastcoast of Florida, the Bahamas, the Gulf of Mexico, and from Georges Bank to Puerto Rico.
Junior et al. (2004) captured spearfish off the coast of Brazil at depths ranging from 50 – 190 m
(164 – 623 feet). The geographic range for this species is from 40°N to 35°S.
Spearfish spawn from November to May and females are generally 17 – 19 kg (37.4 –
41.8 lb) and 160 – 170 cm (63 – 66 inches) at first maturity. These fish are unique among
istiophorids in that they are winter spawners. Larval spearfish have been identified from the
vicinity of the Mid-Atlantic ridge from December to February, indicating that this species
spawns in offshore waters (de Sylva and Breder, 1997).
Common prey items include fish and squid. Specifically, Junior et al. (2004) observed 37
stomachs and found that oceanic pomfret and squid comprised 63 percent of the items identified
in stomachs. Most prey items were between 1 – 10 cm (0.39 – 3.9 inches) in length, with a mean
length of 6.7 cm (2.63 inches). The maximum number of prey items found in any individual
stomach was 33.
Similar to sailfish, spearfish are caught incidentally or as bycatch in offshore longline
fisheries by many nations. There are also artisinal fisheries that take place in the Caribbean Sea
and in the Gulf of Guinea. Directed recreational fisheries for spearfish are limited due to the fact
that the fish are generally located further offshore than other istiophorids. The reported catches
of sailfish/spearfish (Task I) for 2003 are 1,310 and 416 mt (2,888,055 and 917,123 lb) for the
west and east Atlantic, respectively. The 2001 – 2003 reported catch of unclassified billfish was
12 percent of the reported catch for all billfish and, for some fisheries, this proportion is much
greater. This is a problem for species like spearfish for which there is already a paucity of data
(SCRS, 2004).
Stock Status and Outlook
Initial stock assessments conducted on spearfish aggregated these landings with sailfish.
As mentioned in the Sailfish section, the 2001 assessment included a ‘sailfish only’ in addition to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-105

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

an aggregate sailfish/spearfish assessment. West Atlantic catch levels for sailfish/spearfish
combined seem sustainable because, over the past two decades, CPUE and catch levels have
remained constant, however, MSY is unknown. As a result, it is unknown whether or not
spearfish are experiencing overfishing or are overfished. Spearfish catch levels are shown in
Figure 3.24. The SCRS recommends implementing measures to reduce or keep fishing mortality
levels constant and evaluating new methods to split sailfish and spearfish indices of abundance
(SCRS, 2004).

Figure 3.24 Estimated spearfish “only” catches in the Atlantic based on the new procedure for splitting
combined sailfish and spearfish catches from 1956-2000. Weights are in metric tons, whole
weight. Source: SCRS, 2005.

Effect of Regulations
ICCAT Management Recommendations
No ICCAT management regulations are currently in effect for Atlantic longbill spearfish.
Management recommendations are similar to those listed for sailfish, including: consider
methods for Contracting Parties to reduce mortality rates, encourage Contracting Parties to
provide complete reporting of spearfish catches, evaluate new methods to split the sailfish and
spearfish catch/index abundance, and assess sailfish independently of spearfish.
Domestic Regulations
Please see the discussion of domestic regulations contained in section 3.2.4.1, above.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-106

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS
OF THE STOCKS

Recent and Ongoing Research
Please see the discussion of recent and ongoing research contained in section 3.2.4.1,
above.
3.2.5

Atlantic Sharks

3.2.5.1 Life History/Species Biology
Sharks belong to the class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) that also includes rays,
skates, and deepwater chimaeras (ratfishes). From an evolutionary perspective, sharks are an old
group of fishes characterized by skeletons lacking true bones. The earliest known sharks have
been identified from fossils from the Devonian period, over 400 million years ago. These
primitive sharks were small creatures, about 60 to 100 cm long, that were preyed upon by larger
armored fishes that dominated the seas. The life span of all shark species in the wild is not
known, but it is believed that many species may live 30 to 40 years or longer.
Relative to other marine fish, sharks have a very low reproductive potential. Several
important commercial species, including large coastal carcharhinids, such as sandbar
(Carcharhinus plumbeus) (Casey and Hoey, 1985; Sminkey and Musick, 1995; Heist et al.,
1995), lemon (Negaprion brevirostris) (Brown and Gruber, 1988), and bull sharks (Branstetter
and Stiles, 1987), do not reach maturity until 12 to 18 years of age. Various factors determine
this low reproductive rate: slow growth, late sexual maturity, one to two-year reproductive cycles,
a small number of young per brood, and specific requirements for nursery areas. These
biological factors leave many species of sharks vulnerable to overfishing.
There is extreme diversity among the approximately 350 species of sharks, ranging from
tiny pygmy sharks of only 20 cm (7.8 in) in length to the giant whale sharks, over 12 meters (39
feet) in length. There are fast-moving, streamlined species such as mako (Isurus spp.) and
thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), and sharks with flattened, ray-like bodies, such as angel sharks
(Squatina dumerili). The most commonly known sharks are large apex predators including the
white (Carcharadon carcharias), mako, tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), bull (Carcharhinus leucas),
and great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran). Some shark species reproduce by laying eggs,
others nourish their embryos through a placenta. Despite their diversity in size, feeding habits,
behavior and reproduction, many of these adaptations have contributed greatly to the
evolutionary success of sharks.
The most significant reproductive adaptations of sharks are internal fertilization and the
production of fully developed young or “pups.” These pups are large at birth, effectively
reducing the number of potential predators and enhancing their chances of survival. During
mating, the male shark inseminates the female with copulatory organs, known as claspers that
develop on the pelvic fins. In most species, the embryos spend their entire developmental period
protected within their mother’s body, although some species lay eggs. The number of young
produced by most shark species in each litter is small, usually ranging from two to 25, although
large females of some species can produce litters of 100 or more pups. The production of fullydeveloped pups requires great amounts of nutrients to nourish the developing embryo.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-107

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Traditionally, these adaptations have been grouped into three modes of reproduction: oviparity
(eggs hatch outside body), ovoviviparity (eggs hatch inside body), and viviparity (live birth).
Adults usually congregate in specific areas to mate and females travel to specific nursery
areas to pup. These nurseries are discrete geographic areas, usually in waters shallower than
those inhabited by the adults. Frequently, the nursery areas are in highly productive coastal or
estuarine waters where abundant small fishes and crustaceans provide food for the growing pups.
These areas also may have fewer large predators, thus enhancing the chances of survival of the
young sharks. In temperate zones, the young leave the nursery with the onset of winter; in
tropical areas, young sharks may stay in the nursery area for a few years.
Shark habitat can be described in four broad categories: (1) coastal, (2) pelagic, (3)
coastal-pelagic, and (4) deep-dwelling. Coastal species inhabit estuaries, the nearshore and
waters of the continental shelves, e.g., blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus), finetooth, bull, lemon,
and sharpnose sharks (Rhizoprionondon terraenovae). Pelagic species, on the other hand, range
widely in the upper zones of the oceans, often traveling over entire ocean basins. Examples
include shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), blue (Prionace glauca), and oceanic whitetip
(Carcharhinus longimanus) sharks. Coastal-pelagic species are intermediate in that they occur
both inshore and beyond the continental shelves, but have not demonstrated mid-ocean or
transoceanic movements. Sandbar sharks are examples of a coastal-pelagic species. Deepdwelling species, e.g., most cat sharks (Apristurus spp.) and gulper sharks (Centrophorus spp.)
inhabit the dark, cold waters of the continental slopes and deeper waters of the ocean basins.
Seventy-three species of sharks are known to inhabit the waters along the U.S. Atlantic
coast, including the Gulf of Mexico and the waters around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Thirty-nine species are managed by HMS; spiny dogfish also occur along the U.S. coast,
however management for this species is under the authority of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission as well as the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils. Deep-water sharks were removed from the management unit in 2003. Based on the
ecology and fishery dynamics, the sharks have been divided into four species groups for
management: (1) large coastal sharks, (2) small coastal sharks, (3) pelagic sharks, and (4)
prohibited species (Table 3.16).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-108

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.16

Common names of shark species included within the four species management units under the
purview of the HMS management division.
Management Unit

Shark Species Included

Large Coastal Sharks (11)

Sandbar, silky, tiger, blacktip, bull, spinner, lemon,
nurse, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead,
and great hammerhead sharks

Small Coastal Sharks (4)

Atlantic sharpnose, blacknose, finetooth, and
bonnethead sharks

Pelagic Sharks (5)

Shortfin mako, thresher, oceanic whitetip, porbeagle,
and blue sharks

Prohibited Species (19)

Whale, basking, sandtiger, bigeye sandtiger, white,
dusky, night, bignose, Galapagos, Caribbean reef,
narrowtooth, longfin mako, bigeye thresher, sevengill,
sixgill, bigeye sixgill, Caribbean sharpnose, smalltail,
and Atlantic angel sharks

3.2.5.2

Stock Status and Outlook

NMFS is responsible for conducting stock assessments for the Large and Small Coastal
Shark complexes (LCS and SCS) (Cortes, 2002; Cortes et al., 2002). ICCAT and the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) have recently conducted
assessments of three pelagic shark species. Stock assessments were conducted for the LCS and
SCS in 2002. NMFS is conducting stock assessments for LCS and SCS in 2006 and 2007,
respectively. NMFS also recently released a stock assessment for dusky sharks (May 25, 2006,
71 FR 30123). Species-specific assessments for blacktip and sandbar sharks within the LCS
complex and finetooth sharks, Atlantic sharpnose sharks, blacknose sharks (Carcharhinus
acronotus), and bonnethead sharks (Sphyrna tiburo) within the SCS complex, were also
conducted in 2002. The conclusions of these assessments are summarized in Table 3.18 and
Table 3.17 and are fully described in Amendment 1 to the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks FMP. Summaries of recent stock assessments and reports on several species of pelagic
sharks (blue sharks, shortfin mako sharks, and porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) by Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and ICCAT are also included in this
section. More detailed information on life history and distribution of sharks can be found in
Appendix B (EFH).
3.2.5.3 Large Coastal Sharks
The last LCS stock assessment was held in June 2002, however, results from a new stock
assessment should be released in 2006. Discussions of the 2002 stock assessment focused on the
availability of four additional years worth of catch estimates, biological data, catch rate series,
and the types of models that should be used. The modeling itself was performed after the Shark
Evaluation Workshop and incorporated new catch and effort estimates for the years 1998 – 2001
as well as over 20 catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) series for the LCS complex, sandbar, and
blacktip sharks (

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-109

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.17).
A variety of stock assessment models were used to investigate the population dynamics
of LCS including: (1) a non-equilibrium Schaefer biomass dynamic model using the
sampling/importance re-sampling (SIR) algorithm (Bayesian SPM) and several weighting
schemes; (2) a non-equilibrium Schaefer state-space surplus production model (SSSPM) using a
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method for numerical integration; (3) a lagged recruitment,
survival, and growth (SSLRSG) state-space model; (4) the maximum likelihood estimation
model (MLE); and (5) a fully age-structured, state-space population dynamic model (ASPM).
General descriptions of these models can be found in the stock assessment. The use of multiple
approaches in evaluating stock status can reduce uncertainty in the best available data and can
balance individual model strengths and weaknesses.
Due to concerns that catch series may underestimate mortality from the commercial
fishery, four separate catch scenarios were considered to evaluate catch histories: updated,
baseline, and the alternative scenarios. The updated catch scenario was comprised of catches
used in the 1998 SEW, including data through 1997, and additional catches for 1998 – 2001.
The baseline catch scenario included similar information and discards from the menhaden fishery,
and Mexican catches, bottom longline discards back to 1981, and commercial and recreational
catches back to 1981. The alternative scenario reconstructed historical catches back in time
(calendar years 1960 – 2001) and applied to the LCS complex only. The age-structured models
for sandbar and blacktip shark included both updated and baseline scenarios in which specific
catch series were linked to specific catchability and selectivity parameters. The alternative
scenarios were used for sandbar and blacktip shark catch history evaluation.
Catch rates were also analyzed for other species included in the LCS complex such as
tiger, hammerhead, dusky, and silky shark. Generally, commercial data indicate increasing catch
rates for tiger shark (Brown and Cramer, 2002; Cortes et al., 2002) as well as decreasing trends
for dusky shark, sand tiger shark, and hammerhead shark (Brown, 2002; Cortes et al., 2002;
Brown and Cramer, 2002). Recreational catch data for hammerhead and bull shark point towards
declining trends for both species (Cortes et al., 2002).
Considering the outputs of all model analyses combined, the assessment results were
considerably more pessimistic for the LCS aggregate as compared to those for individual species
within the complex (i.e., sandbar and blacktip sharks). While results illustrate improvements in
the LCS complex since 1998, all of the models and catch scenarios described above, with the
exception of the Bayesian SPM scenario which used only fishery-independent CPUE series,
indicate that overfishing may be occurring and that the LCS complex may be overfished. Tables
3.4 and 3.5 provide biomass and fishing mortality estimates used to make these determinations.
As such, the stock assessment finds that at least a 50-percent reduction in 2000 catch levels for
the complex could be required for the biomass to reach maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in 10,
20 or 30 years. Furthermore, a 20-percent reduction in 2000 catch levels for the complex would
result in less than a 50-percent probability of achieving MSY even after 30 years of
implementation under those catch levels. Overall, the stock assessment found that the LCS
complex as a whole is overfished and overfishing is occurring (Cortes et al., 2002).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-110

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

The assessment acknowledges that the results between the complex and sandbar and
blacktip sharks may be considered conflicting, given that sandbar and blacktip sharks comprise
the majority of LCS commercial harvests. Specifically, sandbar and blacktip sharks make up
approximately 44 percent of the total commercial catch (Burgess and Morgan, 2003) and over 70
percent of the landings (Cortes and Neer, 2002). The remainder of the catch is comprised mostly
of tiger, scalloped hammerhead, silky, and sand tiger, with catch composition varying by region
(Burgess and Morgan, 2003). These species are less marketable and are often released, so they
are reflected in the overall catch but not the landings. Nonetheless, the complex represents a
variety of species beyond sandbar and blacktip shark, some of which are in apparent decline.
In December 2002, the peer review process of the 2002 LCS stock assessment was
completed as required by a court settlement agreement. The peer reviews were conducted by
three separate non-NMFS reviewers who were asked to respond to five questions regarding the
appropriateness of specific modeling approaches and the selection there of, consideration of
available data and the quality of data sets, application of available data in selected models,
reliability of projections, and the effects of various catch scenarios on stock trajectories. Peer
review findings were generally positive in that reviewers agreed that a state-of-the-art assessment
was performed and that the best available science was employed. Reviewers noted assessment
strengths including (1) compilation of several indices of abundance, (2) consideration of multiple
stock assessment models, including Bayesian analyses, (3) discussion of myriad alternative
harvest policies, and (4) analytical changes to address concerns raised by previous reviewers.
Further investigation of catch series indices, assessment of individual species within the LCS
complex, investigation of age and age-sex-area assessment models, consideration of alternative
harvest policies in contrast to the current constant-catch policy, and NMFS support for observer
programs to obtain fishery independent estimates of abundance were among the
recommendations offered for improvements to future stock assessment for LCS.
The 2005/2006 stock assessment for LCS follows the Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Review (SEDAR) process. This process is a cooperative program designed to improve the
quality and reliability of the stock assessments. The SEDAR process emphasizes constituent and
stakeholder participation in the assessment development, transparency in the assessment process,
and a rigorous and independent scientific review of the completed stock assessment. The Data
Workshop for the stock assessment, which documented, analyzed, reviewed, and compiled the
data for conducting the assessment, was held from October 31 to November 4, 2005, in Panama
City, FL (September 15, 2005, 70 FR 54537; correction October 5, 2005, 70 FR 58190). The
Assessment Workshop, which developed and refined the population analyses and parameter
estimates, was held from February 6 to February 10, 2006, in Miami, FL (December 22, 2005, 70
FR 76031). At the time of writing this Final HMS FMP, the last workshop, the Review
Workshop, had not yet occurred. At the Review Workshop, independent scientists should review
the assessment and data. This Workshop should be held on June 5 to June 9, 2006, in Panama
City, FL (March 9, 2006, 71 FR 12185). The final results should be released after the review
workshop. All reports are posted on SEDAR webpage when complete
(http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/).
Recently, the SEFSC released the first dusky shark stock assessment (May 25, 2006, 71
FR 30123). Results from all of the models used were similar with all models indicating that the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-111

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

stock is heavily exploited. The stock assessment summarizes relevant biological data, discusses
the fisheries affecting the species, and details the data and methods used to assess the stock. At
the time of writing this Final HMS FMP, NMFS is reviewing the stock assessment and
considering implications for management.
3.2.5.4 Small Coastal Sharks
A stock assessment for small coastal sharks (SCS) was also conducted in 2002. This was
the first assessment since 1992 and as such the assessment included new information regarding
SCS age and growth, reproduction, and population dynamics. Additional information relative to
commercial and recreational catches as well as extended bycatch estimates for the shrimp trawl
fishery were also considered.
Trends in catch were analyzed for the SCS complex as well as the four species
comprising this aggregate grouping (Table 3.18). Overall, SCS commercial landings exceeded
recreational harvest in all years since 1996, with the exception of 2000. Of the four species of
SCS analyzed, bonnetheads contributed to over 50 percent of all SCS commercial landings in
1995, but Atlantic sharpnose and finetooth sharks each accounted for over 30 percent of the
commercial landings in years 1996 – 1999 and 1998 – 2000 respectively. Atlantic sharpnose
dominated recreational catch in all years between 1995 and 2000.
Also, in 2002, researchers at the Mote Marine Laboratory and the University of Florida,
conducted a stock assessment for SCS using similar data but different models. The results were
similar to the NMFS assessment in that current biomass levels for Atlantic sharpnose,
bonnethead, and blacknose were at least 69 percent of the biomass in 1972 while the current
biomass level for finetooth sharks was only nine percent the level in 1972 (Simpfendorfer and
Burgess, 2002). Both stock assessments note that the data used for finetooth sharks is not as
high a quality as the data used for Atlantic sharpnose due to shorter catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE)
and catch series, lack of bycatch estimates, and no catches reported in some years.
NMFS intends to conduct a new stock assessment for SCS starting in 2007. The new
stock assessment would follow the SEDAR process.
Finetooth Sharks
Additional information on finetooth sharks and the results specific to this species from
the 2002 SCS stock assessment are provided in this section because finetooth sharks were the
only exception to the results of the assessment, in that fishing mortality in the final five years of
data considered was above the mortality level associated with producing MSY. As such,
finetooth sharks are not overfished, however, overfishing is occurring (Table 3.17 and Table
3.20). Sections 2.2.2 and 4.2.2 provide more detail on the alternatives that were considered to
prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks.
Finetooth sharks inhabit shallow coastal waters to depths of 10 m (32.8 feet) near river
mouths in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Ocean between Texas and North Carolina.
These fish often form large schools and migrate to warmer waters when water temperatures drop
below 20°C (68°F). Finetooth sharks are relatively productive compared to other sharks as fish
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-112

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

are sexually mature at 3.9 (TL = 118 cm (46 inches)) and 4.3 (TL = 123 cm (48 inches)) years
for males and females, respectively (Carlson et al., 2003). Reproduction in finetooth sharks is
viviparous with yolk sac placenta and embryos nourished through a placental connection.
Females move into the nursery areas in late May and gestation is approximately 12 months.
Each litter can have 1 – 6 pups with individuals measuring 51 – 64 cm (20 – 25 inches) in length.
The finetooth shark feeds primarily on mullet, Spanish mackerel, spot, Atlantic menhaden,
cephalopods, and crustacean (Bester and Burgess, 2004).
In 2002, NMFS conducted a stock assessment for all SCS, including finetooth sharks. Five
catch rate series were used, including fishery-independent and -dependent data. The fisheryindependent data sources included the NMFS Pascagoula and Panama City Laboratory longline
surveys (NMFS SE LL and NMFS LL PC), and the NMFS Panama City Laboratory Gillnet
Survey (NMFS GN). Fishery-dependent catch series data were included from the combined
recreational series and the Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery Observer Program (DSGFOP). This
catch rate series data were combined with life history information for finetooth sharks and
evaluated with several stock assessment models. There were four models utilized for the
assessment and numerous scenarios within each model, producing a range of point estimates for
fishing mortality, relative fishing mortality, biomass, relative stock biomass, maximum fishing
mortality threshold, minimum stock size threshold, and other parameters.
Of the catch series data used in the analysis, three of the five showed a positive trend (i.e.,
had positive slopes) in catch over time, suggesting an increase in finetooth shark abundance.
The catch series data showing positive trends were DSGFOP (0.03), NMFS SE LL (0.34), and
NMFS LL PC (0.04); however only the slope for the DSGFOP catch series data was statistically
significant different from zero (P = 0.03). However, it should be noted that data were missing
from some years in the NMFS SE LL and the DSGFOP catch series data; therefore, one cannot
necessarily assume that finetooth sharks are increasing in abundance. The other two datasets,
NMFS LL PC and NMFS GN PC, had negative trends in catch over time as indicated by their
negative slopes (-0.24 and -0.11, respectively) but neither trend was statistically significant from
zero. Overall, the slopes for the small coastal shark (SCS) complex as a whole and other
individual species were relatively flat, indicating that the relative abundance of the stocks
remained fairly stable during the exploitation phase (Cortés, 2002).
Four different stock assessment models were used to evaluate the status of SCS using
Bayesian statistical techniques. Results of both surplus production models and the Lagged
Recruitment Survival and Growth State Space model (LRSG) (using several different scenarios)
indicate that the current level of removals is sustainable for the SCS aggregate and the individual
species within the complex. Relative stock biomass and fishing mortality trajectories obtained
with the Bayesian state-space Schaefer surplus production model (SPM) for the small coastal
aggregate and the Atlantic sharpnose sharks followed similar trends, since the catches were
dominated by these species. The model predicted that the stock biomass for the small coastal
shark complex in any given year from 1972 – 2000 exceeded the biomass producing MSY.
Relative fishing mortality (F/FMSY) was generally below one for the SCS complex, but for
finetooth sharks, the final five values of F in the series (1996 – 2002) estimated by the model
were above the level of F corresponding to MSY.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-113

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Results for finetooth sharks were directly influenced by the catch series used, which did
not include any bycatch estimates, and this, in turn, influenced certain parameters of the
Bayesian models (specifically, the priors chosen for K, which describes uncertainty in
assessment models) (Cortés, 2002). The lack of bycatch data in the catch series data lead to low
values of MSY predicted for finetooth sharks in the SCS stock assessment (especially those
obtained through the SPM models). This lack of bycatch data and shorter catch and catch per
unit effort (CPUE) series, coupled with no catches reported in some years, led to some
uncertainty in the stock assessment for finetooth sharks. In the case of finetooth sharks, model
estimates of recent F levels are above FMSY, indicating that recent levels of effort directed at this
species, if continued, could result in an overfished status in the relatively near future. The
various stock assessments models used and sensitivity analyses run support these general
conclusions (Cortés, 2002). Future work should continue to monitor the status of this individual
species (Cortés, 2002).
Landings of finetooth sharks in other fisheries are extensive; however, catch series data
from these fisheries are currently unavailable. The inclusion of such data in future stock
assessments will provide better information on both fishing effort and estimates of MSY. Thus,
it may be prudent to develop a plan to prevent overfishing that first investigates other sources of
fishing mortality before initiating a particular set of management actions. In order to capture
additional catch series data on fisheries contributing to finetooth fishing mortality, NMFS is
expanding observer programs to include DSGFOP observers on all boats that have directed or
incidental shark permits to determine if these gillnet vessels in the South Atlantic are
contributing to the majority of fishing mortality. A continuation of a pilot program initiated in
the spring of 2005 that placed observers on board additional gillnet vessels targeting other fish
species will improve data collection efforts. Furthermore, contacting Regional Fishery
Management Councils and Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions to determine sources of
mortality occurring under other fishery management plans, and having finetooth sharks included
as a select species for sub-sampling of bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Trawl Observer
Program will provide additional landings data necessary for appropriate management and
conservation actions in the future.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-114

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.17

Summary Table of Biomass and Fishing Mortality for Large Coastal Sharks (LCS). Source:
Cortes et al., 2002.

Fishing
Mortality Rate
(F2001)

Maximum
Fishing
Mortality
Threshold
(FMSY)

Outlook

Species/Complex

2001 Biomass
(N2001)

2001 Relative
Biomass
(N2001/NMSY)

Large Coastal
Complex

2,940-10,156

0.46-1.18

0.07-0.21

0.05-0.10

Overfished;
Overfishing is occurring

Sandbar Sharks

1,027-4.86 E-8

3.25E4-2.22

0.0001-0.70

0.05-0.46

Not overfished;
Overfishing is occurring

Blacktip Sharks

5,587-3.16 E7

0.79-1.66

0.01-0.21

0.06-0.18

Not overfished;
No overfishing occurring

Table 3.18

Summary Table of Biomass and Fishing Mortality for Small Coastal Sharks (SCS) Source:
Cortes, 2002.

Species/Complex

MSY
mill lb
dw

2001
Relative
Biomass
Level

Minimum Stock
Size Threshold
MSST =
(0.5)BMSY

(B2001/

if M>=0.5

BMSY)

MSST =
(1-M)Bmsy if
M<0.5

Fishing
Mortality
Rate
(F2000)

Maximum
Fishing
Mortality
Threshold

Outlook

(FMSY)

Small Coastal Sharks
(SCS)

7.0-2.2

1.38-2.39

16.2-50.2

0.03-0.24

0.04-0.28

Not overfished;
No overfishing
occuring

Bonnethead Sharks

1.8-0.5

1.46-2.78

2.3-7.3

0.03-0.18

0.05-0.53

Not overfished;
No overfishing
occuring

Atlantic Sharpnose
Sharks

7.8-1.9

1.69-3.16

11.5-33.4

0.02-0.06

0.04-0.42

Not overfished;
No overfishing
Occurring

Blacknose Sharks

0.8-0.2

1.92-3.15

1.6-4.5

0.02-0.19

0.03-0.32

Not overfished;
No overfishing
Occurring

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-115

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

Table 3.19

Species

Summary table of the status of the biomass of finetooth sharks. Sources: 2002 SCS stock assessment; E. Cortes, personal communication.
LRSG=lagged recruitment, survival, and growth model; SPM=surplus production model
Model

Current
Biomass

BMSY

Current
Relative
Biomass
Level

B2001

Overfished?

B2001/BMSY

Finetooth
Sharks

Table 3.20

Species

Bayesian
LRSG using
Gibbs sampler

1.9

Bayesian SPM
using Gibbs
sampler

2.3

0.8

2.37

Minimum Stock
Size Threshold

Minimum
Biomass Flag

Biomass
Target

MSST = (1M)BMSY if M<0.5

Bflag = (1M)BOY

BOY=
125%BMSY

0.5 to 0.8

1.00

MSST= 0.5 BMSY
if M>=0.5
No

0.4 to 0.7

0.26

Stock not
overfished
B2001 > BOY

1.65

1.39

No

0.8 to 1.4

1.0 to 1.7

2.06

0.05
(23)

Summary table of the status of the biomass of finetooth sharks. Sources: 2002 SCS stock assessment; E. Cortes, personal communication.
LRSG=lagged recruitment, survival, and growth; SPM=surplus production model.
Model

Current
F

Maximum
Fishing
Mortality
Threshold
MFFT = FMSY

Overfishing?

Current
Relative
fishing
Mortality
Rate

Fishing
Mortality
Target
FOY = 0.75FMSY

Management
Measures to
Reduce Fishing
Mortality
Required?

F2000/FMSY

Sharks

(million
lb dw)

(118)

F2000

Finetooth

Outlook

MSY

F2000 > FOY

Bayesian LRSG
using Gibbs
sampler

1.50

0.44

3.42

YES

0.33

YES

Bayesian SPM
using Gibbs
sampler

0.13

0.03

4.13

YES

0.02

YES

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Outlook

3-116

OVERFISHING

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
STATUS OF THE STOCKS

3.2.5.5

Pelagic Sharks

Pelagic sharks are subject to exploitation by many different nations and exhibit trans­
oceanic migration patterns. As a result, ICCAT=s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics
(SCRS) Subcommittee on Bycatch has recommended that ICCAT take the lead in conducting
stock assessments for pelagic sharks.
An ICCAT meeting was held in September 2001 to review available statistics for Atlantic
and Mediterranean pelagic sharks. Newly available biological and fishery information presented
for review included age and growth, length/weight relationships, species identification, species
composition of catch, catch per unit effort, mortality (both natural and fishing estimates for blue
sharks), bycatch, and tagging and migration studies. Landings estimates, which incorporated
data for both the Atlantic and Mediterranean populations of blue shark, suggested that landings
declined in 2000 (3,652 mt) following a peak of 32,654 mt in 1999. Landings of porbeagles
peaked in 1997, with an estimated total of 1,450 mt, and have slowly declined each year since
that time period (1998 – 2000). Similarly, landing estimates for Shortfin mako also peaked in
1997 (5,057 mt) and have declined by 83 percent (863 mt in 2000) since that time. Meeting
participants expressed concern regarding the lack of information pertaining to the number of
fleets catching sharks, landing statistics, and dead discards for sharks.
The SCRS decided to conduct an assessment of Atlantic pelagic sharks beginning in 2004.
Emphasis was placed on blue sharks and shortfin mako sharks. Several models such as nonequilibrium production and statistical age/length-structured models will be considered to analyze
the population dynamics of pelagic shark species.
ICCAT Stock Assessment on Blue and Shortfin Mako Sharks
At the 2004 Inter-Sessional Meeting of the ICCAT Subcommittee on bycatch, stock
assessments for Atlantic blue shark (Prionace glauca) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)
were conducted. This work included a review of their biology, a description of the fisheries,
analyses of the state of the stocks and outlook, analyses of the effects of current regulations, and
recommendations for statistics and research. The assessment indicated that the current biomass
of North and South Atlantic blue shark seems to be above MSY (B>BMSY), however, these results
are conditional and based on assumptions that were made by the committee. These assumptions
indicate that blue sharks are not currently overfished, again, this conclusion is conditional and
based on limited landings data. The committee estimates that between 82,000 and 114,000 mt
ww (180,779,054 – 251,326,978 lb) of blue shark are harvested from the Atlantic Ocean each
year.
The North Atlantic shortfin mako population has experienced some level of stock
depletion as suggested by the historical CPUE trend and model outputs. The current stock may
be below MSY (B54” FL for
all authorized species except Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks). Controlling fishing
effort is accomplished by the requirement to possess a limited access permits for commercial
shark fisheries and upgrading restrictions for transferred permits. Reducing fishing mortality of
prohibited dusky sharks and juvenile sandbar sharks is achieved by the Mid-Atlantic time area
closure (January 1 – July 31) and the requirement to use VMS when bottom longline gear is
onboard during this time period.
Shark landings are monitored for adherence to regional and trimester quotas by requiring
the submission of shark dealer landings reports every two weeks. Fishermen must also submit
trip reports describing target and incidental landings within seven days of offloading. These data
are used for stock assessments. Regulations are subject to change based on stock assessments,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-119

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

international obligations, litigation, and public sentiment. An updated LCS stock assessment
should be available in 2006 and data workshops for an updated SCS stock assessment are
scheduled to begin in early 2007. Domestic management measures affecting the U.S. shark
fishery are constantly being evaluated for their effectiveness; furthermore, the United States is
taking steps to improve the conservation and management of pelagic sharks within international
fora, including ICCAT.
At the 2004 ICCAT annual meeting in New Orleans, ICCAT adopted a recommendation
concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT.
This was the first binding measure passed by ICCAT dealing specifically with sharks. This
recommendation includes, among other measures: reporting of shark catch data by Contracting
Parties, a ban on shark finning, a request for Contracting Parties to live-release sharks that are
caught incidentally, a review of management alternatives from the 2004 assessment on blue and
shortfin mako sharks, and a commitment to conduct another stock assessment of selected pelagic
shark species no later than 2007. In 2005, additional measures pertaining to pelagic sharks were
added to the 2004 ICCAT recommendation. Measures included a requirement for contracting
parties that have not yet implemented the 2004 recommendation, to reduce shortfin mako
mortality, and annually report on their efforts to the commission.
3.2.5.7

Recent and Ongoing Research

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Fishery Independent Survey for Coastal Sharks
The biannual fishery independent survey of Atlantic large and small coastal sharks in US
waters from Florida to Delaware was conducted from April 19 to June 1, 2004. The goals of this
survey are to: (1) monitor the species composition, distribution, and abundance of sharks in the
coastal Atlantic; (2) tag sharks for migration and age validation studies; (3) collect biological
samples for age and growth, feeding ecology, and reproductive studies; and (4) collect
morphometric data for other studies. Results from this 2004 survey included 557 sharks
representing eight species caught on 69 longline sets. The time series of abundance indices from
this survey are critical to the evaluation of coastal Atlantic shark species.
Age and Growth of Coastal and Pelagic Sharks
A comprehensive aging and validation study for the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus),
continued in conjunction with scientists at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, California using
bomb carbon techniques. Additional validation studies have begun on the sandbar shark,
(Carcharhinus plumbeus), dusky shark, (Carcharhinus obscurus), tiger shark, (Galeocerdo
cuvieri), and white shark, (Carcharodon carcharias). Age and growth studies on the tiger shark
(with scientists at the University of New Hampshire), thresher shark, (Alopias vulpinus) (with
scientists at the University of Rhode Island), night shark, (Carcharhinus signatus) (with NMFS
scientists at the SEFSC Panama City Laboratory), and the bull shark, (Carcharhinus leucas)
(with scientists with the Florida Division of Natural Resources) are underway. Collection,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-120

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

processing, photographing, and reading of samples are in various stages for these species
including intercalibration of techniques, criteria, and band readings. This intercalibration process
involves sharing samples and comparing counts between researchers including a researcher from
the Natal Sharks Board, South Africa for joint work on shortfin mako, blue, and basking shark
band periodicity. Collections of vertebra took place at tournaments and on the biannual research
cruise with 285 sharks injected with OTC for validation. Night and dusky sharks were prepared
with gross sectioning to determine the best method for reading and all processing was initiated
using histology. Readings were completed on the thresher and tiger sharks towards
intercalibration to generate bias graphs. Vertebrae, length-frequency data, and tag/recapture data
collected from 1962 to present are being analyzed on each of these species to obtain growth
parameters.
Biology of the Thresher Shark
Life history studies of the thresher shark continued. Data collection was augmented to
include reproductive and food habits, in addition to age and growth information.
Biology of the Porbeagle Shark
A cooperative U.S./Canada research program continued on the life history of the
porbeagle shark, (Lamna nasus) with preliminary analysis of porbeagle tagging and recaptures
data using information from U.S., Canadian, and Norwegian sources.
Collection of Recreational Shark Fishing Data and Samples
Biological samples for age and growth, feeding ecology, and reproductive studies and
catch data for pelagic sharks were collected at recreational fishing tournaments in the Northeast.
Analysis of these tournament landings data was initiated by creating a database of historic
information (1961 – 2004) and producing preliminary summaries of one long term tournament.
The collection and analysis of these data are critical for input into species and age specific
population and demographic models for shark management.
Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP)
The Cooperative Shark Tagging Program, operated by the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, has involved over 6,500 volunteer recreational and commercial fishermen, scientists, and
fisheries observers conducted since 1962, continued to tag large coastal and pelagic sharks and
provide information to define essential fish habitat for shark species in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico waters. Since its inception, the CSTP has tagged over 128,000 sharks representing 40
species.
Atlantic Blue Shark Life History and Assessment Studies
A collaborative program to examine the biology and population dynamics of the blue
shark, Prionace glauca, in the North Atlantic is ongoing. Research on the food and feeding
ecology of the blue shark is being conducted cooperatively with University of Rhode Island staff
with additional samples collected and a manuscript under revision. A detailed reexamination of
the reproductive parameters of the blue shark continued with collection of additional biological
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-121

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

samples to determine if any changes have occurred since the 1970s. A manuscript on blue shark
stock structure based on tagging data was completed detailing size composition and movements
between Atlantic regions. Additionally, a research focus on the population dynamics in the
North Atlantic with the objectives of constructing a time series of blue shark catch rates (CPUE)
from research surveys, estimation of blue shark migration and survival rates, and the
development of an integrated tagging and population dynamics model for the North Atlantic for
use in stock assessment continued in collaboration between NEFSC scientists and scientists at
the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington. Progress to date
includes the preliminary recovery of historical research survey catch data, size composition, and
biological sampling data on pelagic sharks and preliminary analysis of survival and movement
rates for blue sharks based on tag and release data from the NMFS CSTP. Preparation of
standardized catch rate and size composition data compatible with pelagic longline observer data
continued with a resulting ICCAT submission. As part of this comprehensive program,
cooperative research continued with the Irish Marine Institute and Central Fisheries Board on
mark-recapture databases including coordination of formats and programs with the NMFS CSTP
for joint data analyses.
Atlantic Shortfin Mako Life History and Assessment Studies
A collaborative program with students and scientists at the University of Rhode Island to
examine the biology and population dynamics of the shortfin mako in the North Atlantic was
continued. Ongoing research included an update on age and growth and reproductive parameters
and an examination of the predator-prey relationships between the shortfin mako and its primary
prey, bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). A manuscript was completed comparing contemporary
and historic levels of bluefish predation. Future research includes the estimation of shortfin
mako migration rates and patterns and survival rates using CSTP mark/recapture data and
satellite tags with movements correlated with Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR) sea surface temperature data. Toward these goals, two shortfin mako sharks were
tagged with pop-up archival transmitting tags.
Blacktip Shark Migrations
Analysis of movements of the blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) in the western
North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico based on release and recapture data is ongoing with the
examination of general migration patterns and exchange between and within regions of U.S. and
Mexican waters. Release and recapture data were analyzed for evidence of Atlantic and Gulf
primary and secondary blacktip nursery grounds.
Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery Survey (COASTSPAN)
NEFSC Apex Predators Program staff manages and coordinates this project that uses
researchers in major coastal Atlantic states from Florida to Delaware to conduct a cooperative,
comprehensive, and standardized investigation of valuable shark nursery areas. This research
identifies which shark species utilize coastal zones as pupping and nursery grounds, gauges the
relative importance of these areas, and determines migration and distribution patterns of neonate
and juvenile sharks. This program is described in further detail in Section 3.3 of this document.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-122

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Juvenile Shark Survey for Monitoring and Assessing Delaware Bay Sandbar Sharks
NEFSC staff conduct this part of the COASTSPAN monitoring and assessment project
for the juvenile sandbar shark population in the Delaware Bay nursery grounds using monthly
longline surveys from June to September each year. A random stratified sampling plan based on
depth and geographic location is ongoing to assess and monitor the juvenile sandbar shark
population during the nursery season. In addition, the tagging and recapture data from this
project are being used to examine the temporal and spatial relative abundance and distribution of
sandbar sharks in Delaware Bay.
Habitat Utilization, Food Habits, and Essential Fish Habitat of Delaware Bay Sandbar and
Smooth Dogfish Sharks
The food habits portion of the study characterizes the diet, feeding periodicity, and
foraging habits of the sandbar shark as well as examines the overlap in diet and distribution with
the smooth dogfish shark (Mustelus canis). Stomach contents from over 800 sandbar sharks and
over 200 smooth dogfish sharks have been sampled through a non-lethal lavage method.
Acquired data will be coupled with environmental data, providing information on preferred
habitat. This information is an important contribution towards understanding essential fish
habitat and provides information necessary for nursery ground management and rebuilding of
depleted shark populations.
Ecosystems Modeling
Ecosystem modeling, focusing on the role of sharks as top predators, will be conducted
using ECOPATH - ECOSIM models, using the sandbar shark as a model species and examining
the ecological interactions between sandbar and smooth dogfish sharks in Delaware Bay.
Overview of Gulf and Atlantic Shark Nurseries
Due to the requirement for a better understanding of shark nursery habitat in U.S. coastal
waters, NEFSC staff serves as editors for an American Fisheries Society symposium proceedings
volume on U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal shark nursery ground and habitat studies.
Post-Release Recovery and Survivorship Studies in Sharks – Physiological Effects of Capture
Stress
This ongoing research is directed towards the sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus),
and is being conducted cooperatively with Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries biologists.
The study utilizes blood and muscle sampling methods in addition to acoustic tracking to obtain
physiological profiles of individual sharks to characterize stamina and to determine ultimate post
release survival. These analyses are requisite in view of the extensive current and proposed
catch-and-release management strategies for coastal and pelagic shark species.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-123

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Southeast Fisheries Science Center
Stock Assessments of Pelagic, Large Coastal, and Prohibited Sharks
The ICCAT Subcommittee on Bycatch conducted a stock assessment of blue sharks and
shortfin makos in Tokyo, Japan, in June 2004. All information available on biology, fisheries,
stock identity, catch, CPUE, and size of these species was reviewed and an evaluation of the
status of stocks conducted using surplus production, age-structured, and catch-free stock
assessment models. U.S. scientists contributed eight working documents for this meeting on
various aspects of shark biology and methods to assess stock status; SEFSC scientists
participated in the assessment process and authored or co-authored six of those documents. A
stock assessment of dusky shark, a prohibited species under the shark FMP and candidate for
listing under the ESA, is under way with expected completion in summer of 2006. Biological
and fishery information available for this species is being synthesized and stock status will be
evaluated using multiple stock assessment methodologies. The next assessment of large coastal
sharks is planned for FY06, but data collection, synthesis, analysis, and preliminary stock
evaluations will begin in late FY05.
Update on Catches of Atlantic Sharks
An update on catches of large and small coastal and pelagic sharks in U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean waters was generated in FY 05 for inclusion in the 2005 SAFE Annual
Report and future shark stock assessments. Time series of commercial and recreational landings
and discard estimates from several sources were compiled for the large coastal shark complex and
sandbar and blacktip sharks. In addition, recent species-specific commercial and recreational
landings were provided for sharks in the large coastal, small coastal, and pelagic groups. Speciesspecific information on the geographical distribution of commercial landings by gear type and
geographical distribution of the recreational catches was also provided. Trends in length-frequency
distributions and average weights and lengths of selected species reported from three separate
recreational surveys and in the directed shark bottom-longline observer program were also included.
Another update on catches of Atlantic sharks will be generated in FY 06.
Ecosystem Modeling
A dynamic mass-balance ecosystem model was used to investigate how relative changes
in fishing mortality on sharks can affect the structure and function of Apalachicola Bay, Florida,
a coastal marine ecosystem. Simulations were run for 25 years wherein fishing mortality rates
from recreational and trawl fisheries were doubled for ten years and then decreased to initial
levels. Effect of time/area closures on ecosystem components were also tested by eliminating
recreational fishing mortality on juvenile blacktip sharks. Simulations indicated biomass of
sharks declined up to 57 percent when recreational fishing mortality was doubled. Simulating a
time/area closure for juvenile blacktip sharks caused increases in their biomass but decreases in
juvenile coastal shark biomass, a competing multispecies assemblage that is the apparent
competitor. In general, reduction of targeted sharks did not cause strong top-down cascades.
Another update on catches of Atlantic sharks was generated in FY05

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-124

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Elasmobranch Feeding Ecology and Shark Diet Database
The current Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks gives little
consideration to ecosystem function because there is little quantitative species-specific data on diet,
competition, predator-prey interactions, and habitat requirements of sharks. Given this, several
studies are currently underway describing the diet and foraging ecology, habitat use, and predatorprey interactions of elasmobranchs in various communities. In 2005, a study on latitudinal variation
in diet and daily ration of the bonnethead shark from the eastern Gulf of Mexico was completed and
a manuscript is being prepared for publication. A database containing information on quantitative
food and feeding studies of sharks conducted around the world has been in development for several
years and presently includes over 200 studies. This fully searchable database will continue to be
updated and fine-tuned in FY 06. The goal is to make this tool available to researchers in the
relatively near future.
Cooperative Gulf of Mexico States Shark Pupping and Nursery Survey (GULFSPAN)
The SEFSC Panama City Shark Population Assessment Group manages and coordinates
a survey of coastal bays and estuaries between the Panhandle of Florida and Texas. Surveys
identify the presence/absence of neonate and juvenile sharks and attempt to quantify the relative
importance of each area as it pertains to essential fish habitat requirements for sharks. The
SEFSC Panama City Shark Population Assessment Group also initiated a juvenile shark
abundance index survey in 1996. The index is based on random, depth-stratified gillnet sets
conducted throughout coastal bays and estuaries in northwest Florida monthly from April to
October. The species targeted for the index of abundance are juvenile sharks in the large and
small coastal management groups. More information on this program can be found in Section
3.3 of this document.
Angel Shark Life History
The Atlantic Angel Shark is a benthic species inhabiting deep waters of the Gulf of
Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. This species is listed as prohibited by the 1999 Fisheries
Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks due to the lack of biological data
and a precautionary approach for species thought to be highly susceptible to exploitation. Life
history studies began in 2003. Samples are obtained from commercial fishers and fisheryindependent surveys. Preliminary reproductive parameters were determined in 2004 and results
presented at the annual American Elasmobranch Society meeting held in Norman, Oklahoma, in
May 2004.
Life History Studies of Elasmobranchs
Biological samples are obtained through research surveys and cruises, recreational fishers,
and through collection by onboard observers on commercial fishing vessels. Age and growth
rates and other life history aspects of selected species are processed and data analyzed following
standard methodology. This information is vital as input to population models incorporating
variation and uncertainty in estimates of life-history traits to predict the productivity of the stocks
and ensure that they are harvested at sustainable levels. The age and growth parameters of bull
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-125

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

shark (Carcharhinus leucas) and spinner shark (C. brevipinna) were completed and submitted
for publication in 2004.
Cooperative Research – Definition of Winter Habitats for Blacktip Sharks in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico
A collaborative effort between SEFSC Panama City Shark Population Assessment Group
and Mote Marine Laboratory is underway to define essential winter habitats for blacktip sharks
(Carcharhinus limbatus). Deployment of archival Pop-Up Archival Transmitting (PAT) tags on
sharks during January and February of FY05 in the Florida Keys and north Florida will be
executed with the cooperation of the charterboat industry. PAT tags will be programmed to
detach from individuals during late spring and early summer when sharks have recruited to
coastal areas.
Cooperative Research – Habitat Utilization among Coastal Sharks
Through a collaborative effort between SEFSC Panama City Shark Population
Assessment Group and Mote Marine Laboratory, the utilization of coastal habitats by neonate
and young-of-the-year blacktip and Atlantic sharpnose sharks will be monitored through an array
of underwater acoustic receivers (VR2, Vemco Ltd.) placed throughout each study site.
Movement patterns, home ranges, activity space, survival, and length of residence of individuals
will be compared by species and area to provide information to better manage critical species
and essential fish habitats.
Cooperative Research – Characterization of Bycatch in the Gulf Butterfish, (Peprilus burti),
Trawl Fishery, with an Emphasis on Identification of Life History Parameters for several
Potentially High-Risk Species
A proposal with the SEFSC Panama City Shark Population Assessment Group and the
University of Florida was submitted to MARFIN to quantify and qualify the elasmobranch
bycatch in the butterfish, (Peprilus triacanthus), trawl fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.
Determination of life history parameters for the roundel skate, (R. texana), the clearnose skate,
(R. eglanteria), the spreadfin skate (Dipturus olseni), and the Atlantic angel shark, (Squatina
dumerili) will be developed ultimately for the estimation of vital rates. Vital rate information
will be used to determine the productivity of the stocks and ensure that they are harvested at
sustainable levels.
Using elemental chemistry of shark vertebrae to reconstruct large-scale movement patterns of
sharks
A project examining ontogenetic shifts in habitat utilization of bull sharks using Sr:Ca
ratios of vertebrae will begin in FY06, funds permitting. Laser ablation ICPMS will be used to
assay transects across the entire vertebral section along the corpus calcareum. Given the
relationship of Sr:Ca to habitat developed from the reference samples, habitat type (freshwater,
estuarine, or marine) will be assigned to each growth band, thereby reconstructing the migration
history of the shark on a year-by-year basis over its lifetime.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-126

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Coastal Shark Assessment Research Surveys
The SEFSC Mississippi Laboratories in Pascagoula have been operating annual research
cruises aboard NOAA vessels since 1995. The objectives of this program are to conduct bottom
longline surveys to assess the distribution and relative abundance of coastal sharks along U.S.
and Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. eastern seaboard. This is the only long­
term, nearly stock-wide, fishery-independent survey of Atlantic sharks conducted in U.S. and
neighboring waters. Ancillary objectives are to collect biological and environmental data, and to
tag-and-release sharks. Starting in 2001 and under the auspices of the Mex-US-Gulf Program,
the Pascagoula Laboratories have provided logistical and technical support to Mexico=s Instituto
Nacional de la Pesca to conduct a cooperative research cruise aboard the Mexican research
vessel Onjuku in Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The cruise also took place in 2002, but
was suspended in 2003 and 2004 because of mechanical problems with the research vessel and
other issues.
A proposal was submitted in 2005 to gather data to help clarify the uncertainty on the
current status of oceanic whitetip sharks in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Data on behavior
and movement patterns will be collected using on-board observers on pelagic longline vessels.
Archival satellite pop-up tags will be utilized to monitor the movement patterns, depth, and
temperature preferences of this species. In addition, time-depth recorders, and hook-timers will
be used to determine the depth and times at which sharks take baits. These data will be
incorporated with sea surface temperature data from satellites and incorporated into new habitatbased analyses of the data to provide a better understanding of the status of oceanic whitetip
sharks.
Cooperative Research – The capture depth, time, and hooked survival rate for bottom longline­
caught large coastal sharks
A collaborative effort between SEFSC Panama City Shark Population Assessment Group
and the University of Florida to examine alternative measures in the shark bottom longline
fishery to reduce mortality on prohibited sharks such as reduced soak time, restrictions on the
length of gear, and fishing depth restrictions will be tested using hook timers. Funding is being
sought through the NMFS Cooperative Research Program.
Utilizing Bioenergetics and Matrix Projection Modeling to Quantify Population Fluctuations in
Long-lived Elasmobranchs: Tools for Fisheries Conservation and Management
Under the supervision of SEFSC scientists at the Panama City Laboratory, the NMFSSea Grant Fellow in Population Dynamics and Resource Economics conducted research that
sought to use a bioenergetics and matrix approach to examine the population dynamics of the
cownose ray (Rhinoptera bonasus). Laboratory experiments and field data were used to obtain
basic life history information, and that information configured the individual-based bioenergetics
model. The bioenergetics model was coupled to a matrix projection model, and the coupled
models were used to predict how warmer and cooler water temperatures would affect the growth
and population dynamics of the cownose rays. Changes in growth rates under the warmer and
cooler conditions lead to changes in age-specific survivorship, maturity, and pup production,
which were used as inputs to a matrix projection model. Faster growth of individuals under the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-127

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

cooler scenarios translated into an increased population growth rate (4.4 – 4.7 percent/year
versus 2.7 percent/year under baseline), shorter generation time, and higher net reproductive
rates, while slower growth under the warmer scenarios translated into slower population growth
rate (0.05 – 1.2 percent/year), longer generation times, and lower net reproductive rates.
Elasticity analysis indicated that population growth rate was most sensitive to adult survival.
Reproductive values by age were highest for intermediate ages.
Cooperative Research – Definition of Winter Habitats for Blacktip Sharks in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico
A collaborative effort between SEFSC Panama City Shark Population Assessment Group
and Mote Marine Laboratory is underway to define essential winter habitats for blacktip sharks
(Carcharhinus limbatus). Deployment of two pop-off satellite archival tags (PAT) on sharks
during January and February of 2005 in the Florida Keys was accomplished with the cooperation
of the charter boat industry. Preliminary results from these two sharks indicate one shark
remained in the Keys while the other moved to an area southwest of the coast of Cuba.
Additional PAT tags will be placed on sharks during the summer of 2005.
Cooperative Research – Definition of Summer Habitats and Migration Patterns for Bull Sharks
in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
A collaborative effort between SEFSC Panama City Shark Population Assessment Group,
University of Florida, and Mote Marine Laboratory is underway to determine summer habitat use
and short-term migration patterns of bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas). Sharks are being
outfitted with Pop-Up Satellite Archival Tags (PSAT) during July and August of 2005 and
scheduled to deploy in autumn. This project is driven by the lack of data for this species and its
current prominence within the Florida coastal community. A better understanding of this species
is required to effectively manage this species for both commercial and recreational fishers as
well as the general public. Concerns regarding this species will continue to be an issue as fishers
and the public demand that state and federal governments provide better information concerning
the presence and movements of these sharks.
3.3

Habitat

3.3.1 Regulatory Requirements
Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., as amended
by the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, requires FMPs to describe and identify essential fish
habitat (EFH), minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by
fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such
habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.” (16 U.S.C. § 1802 (10)). The EFH
regulations (at 50 C.F.R. 600 Subpart J) provide additional interpretation of the definition of
essential fish habitat:
“Waters’ include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical,
and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include aquatic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-128

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

areas historically used by fish where appropriate; ‘substrate’ includes
sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated
biological communities; ‘necessary’ means the habitat required to
support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to
a healthy ecosystem; and ‘spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity’ covers a species’ full life cycle.”
The EFH regulations require that EFH be described and identified within the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for all life stages of each species in a fishery management unit.
FMPs must describe EFH in text, tables, and figures that provide information on the biological
requirements for each life history stage of the species. According to the EFH regulations, an
initial inventory of available environmental and fisheries data sources should be undertaken to
compile information necessary to describe and identify EFH and to identify major speciesspecific habitat data gaps. Habitats that satisfy the criteria in the Magnuson-Stevens Act have
been identified and described as EFH in the 1999 FMPs and in Amendment 1 to the 1999 Tunas,
Swordfish, and Shark FMP.
NMFS originally described and identified EFH and related EFH regulatory elements for
all HMS in the management unit in the 1999 FMPs, and more recently updated EFH for five
shark species (blacktip, sandbar, dusky, nurse, and finetooth sharks) in Amendment 1 to the 1999
Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP, which was implemented in 2003. The EFH regulations
further require NMFS to conduct a comprehensive review of all EFH related information at least
once every five years and revise or amend the EFH boundaries if warranted. To that effect,
NMFS is currently undertaking the comprehensive five-year review of information pertaining to
EFH for all HMS in the management unit in this draft FMP. Based on the findings of this review,
NMFS may recommend that certain EFH boundaries may need to be modified in a subsequent
rulemaking. At that time, alternatives for boundary modifications would be proposed. For a
complete description of the comprehensive five-year review of all new EFH information see
Chapter 10 and Appendix B.
3.3.1.1

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

To further the conservation and enhancement of EFH, the EFH guidelines encourage
FMPs to identify Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs). HAPCs are areas within EFH
that meet one or more of the following criteria: they are ecologically important, particularly
vulnerable to degradation, undergoing stress from development, or are a rare habitat type.
HAPCs can be used to focus conservation efforts on specific habitat types that are particularly
important to managed species. Currently, only one area, for sandbar sharks off of North Carolina,
Chesapeake Bay, MD, and Great Bay, NJ, has been identified as a HAPC for HMS (1999 FMP).
Although no new HAPCs have been identified since the 1999 FMP, and no new HAPCs are
proposed in this draft FMP, the information being compiled during this review may be used to
identify HAPC areas in a future rulemaking.
3.3.2

Habitat Types and Distributions

HMS may be found in large expanses of the world’s oceans, straddling jurisdictional
boundaries. Although many of the species frequent other oceans of the world, the MagnusonCONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-129

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

Stevens Act only authorizes the description and identification of EFH in Federal, state or
territorial waters, including areas of the U.S. Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic
coast of the United States to the seaward limit of the U.S. EEZ. These areas are connected by
currents and water patterns that influence the occurrence of HMS at particular times of the year.
On the largest scale, the North and South Equatorial currents occur in the U.S. Caribbean islands.
The North Equatorial Current continues through the Caribbean Basin to enter the Gulf of Mexico
through the Yucatan Straits. The current continues through the Florida Straits to join the other
water masses (including the Antilles Current) to form the Gulf Stream along the eastern coast of
the United States. Variations in flow capacities of the Florida Straits and the Yucatan Straits
produce the Loop Current, the major hydrographic feature of the Gulf of Mexico. These water
movements in large part influence the distributions of the pelagic life stages of HMS.
Tuna, swordfish, and billfish distributions are most frequently associated with
hydrographic features such as density fronts between different water masses. The scales of these
features may vary. For example, the river plume of the Mississippi River extends for miles into
the Gulf of Mexico and is a fairly predictable feature, depending on the season. Fronts that set
up over the De Soto Canyon in the Gulf of Mexico, or over the Charleston Bump or the
Baltimore Canyon in the Mid-Atlantic, may be of a much smaller scale. The locations of many
fronts or frontal features are statistically consistent within broad geographic boundaries. These
locations are influenced by riverine inputs, movement of water masses, and the presence of
topographic structures underlying the water column, thereby influencing the habitat of HMS.
Those areas that are known spawning grounds, or areas of aggregation for feeding or other
reasons, are considered to be EFH for those species.
Sharks are found in a wide variety of coastal and ocean habitats including estuaries,
nearshore areas, the continental shelf, continental slope, and open ocean. Many species are
migratory and, like other marine species, are affected by the condition of the habitat. Atlantic
sharks are broadly distributed as adults but have been found to utilize specific estuaries as
pupping and nursery areas during pupping season and throughout their neonate (newborn) life
stages which may vary from a few to many months. Since coastal and coastal pelagic species
frequently appear near shore and have pupping and nursery areas near shore, much more is
known about their habitat requirements, particularly for early life history stages. Much less is
known about the habitat requirements, pupping areas, and other details of pelagic and deep
dwelling species.
The following sections are intended to provide a general overview of the various habitats
with which HMS are most frequently associated. A more detailed description is contained in the
1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP.
3.3.2.1

Atlantic Ocean

(Material in this section is largely a summary of information in MMS, 1992; 1996.
Original sources of information are referenced in those documents)
The region of the Atlantic Ocean within which EFH for Federally managed HMS is
identified spans the area between the Canadian border in the north and the Dry Tortugas in the
south. It includes a diverse spectrum of aquatic species of commercial, recreational, and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-130

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

ecological importance. The distribution of marine species along the Atlantic seaboard is strongly
affected by the cold Labrador Current in the northern part, the warm Gulf Stream in the middle
and southern portions of the region, and generally by the combination of high summer and low
winter temperatures. For many species Cape Hatteras forms a strong zoogeographic boundary
between the Mid- and South Atlantic areas, while the Cape Cod/Nantucket Island area is a
somewhat weaker zoogeographic boundary in the north.
Coastal and Estuarine Habitat
Although HMS move primarily through open ocean waters, they do periodically utilize
coastal or inshore habitats. This is especially true for several species of sharks that move inshore,
often into shallow coastal waters and estuaries, to give birth; these areas then become nursery
areas as the young develop. Examples include Great Bay, New Jersey, Chesapeake Bay,
Maryland and Delaware Bay, Delaware which provide important nursery habitat for sandbar
sharks, and Bull’s Bay, South Carolina, and Terrebone Bay, Louisiana which are important
blacktip shark nursery areas. Typically, the pups (neonates) remain in these same areas
throughout their early life stages, which may vary from a few to many months. Recent tagging
studies have shown that some sharks return to summer nursery areas in subsequent years.
Although billfish move primarily throughout open-ocean waters, two species, the white marlin
and the sailfish can be found inshore. Sailfish are also known to move inshore to spawn off the
east coast of Florida and in the Florida Keys.
Coastal habitats that may be encountered by HMS are described in this section. Those
areas that are known nursery or spawning grounds, or areas of HMS aggregation for feeding or
other reasons, are considered to be EFH for those species. It should be noted that characteristics
of coastal and offshore habitats may be affected by activities and conditions occurring outside of
those areas (farther up-current) due to water flow or current patterns that may transport materials
that could cause negative impacts.
Estuaries are highly productive, yet fragile, environments that support a great diversity of
fish and wildlife species, including sharks. Many commercially valuable fish and shellfish
stocks are dependent on these areas during some stage of their development. In the vicinity of
North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, approximately 90 percent of the commercially valuable
fish species are dependent on estuaries for at least part of their life cycle.
Along the Atlantic seaboard coastal wetlands are located predominantly south of New
York because these coastal areas have not been glaciated. Nearly 75 percent of the Atlantic
coast salt marshes are found in the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. These
three states contain approximately nine million acres of salt marsh. Wetland vegetation plays an
important role in nutrient cycling, and provides stability to coastal habitats by preventing the
erosion of sediments and by absorbing the energy of storms.
There are 13,900 square miles (sq mi) (36,000 square kilometers (sq km)) of estuarine
habitat along the Atlantic coast, of which approximately 68 percent (9,400 sq mi) occurs north
of the Virginia/ North Carolina border, with Chesapeake Bay contributing significantly to the
total. South of the Gulf of Maine, where there is a wider coastal plain and greater agricultural
activity, estuaries carry higher sediment and nutrient loads. The increased fertility and generally
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-131

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

higher water temperatures resulting from these nutrient loads allow these estuaries to support
greater numbers of fish and other aquatic organisms.
South of the Virginia/North Carolina border, there are approximately 4,500 sq mi (11,655
sq km) of estuarine habitat. The Currituck, Albemarle, and Pamlico Sounds, which together
constitute the largest estuarine system along the entire Atlantic coast, make up a large portion of
these southern estuaries. A unique feature of these sounds is that they are partially enclosed and
protected by a chain of fringing islands, the Outer Banks, located 32 to 48 km (20 to 30 mi) from
the mainland.
Because of their low tidal flushing rates, estuaries are generally more susceptible to
pollution than other coastal water bodies. The severity of the problem varies depending on the
extent of tidal flushing. In Maryland and Virginia, the primary problems reported are excessive
nutrients (nitrates and phosphates), particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and adjoining estuarine
areas. Other problems included elevated bacterial and suspended sediment levels. Non-point
sources of pollution are considered one of the main causes of pollution. Elevated bacterial levels
were also listed as a local coastal pollution problem in Maryland.
In North Carolina, the primary problems occurring in estuarine areas are enrichment in
organics and nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, and low dissolved oxygen. Insufficient sewage
treatment, wide-spread use of septic systems in coastal areas, and agricultural runoff are
considered to be major causes of these pollution problems. Oil spills from vessel collisions and
groundings, as well as illegal dumping of waste oil, are a common cause of local, short-term
water quality problems, especially in estuaries along the North and Mid-Atlantic coasts. These
sources of pollution and habitat degradation may have a negative impact on coastal shark
populations, particularly during vulnerable early life stages.
Many of the coastal bays and estuaries along the Atlantic East Coast and Gulf of Mexico
are described in greater detail in the 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP, including the
distribution, size, depth, freshwater inflow, habitat types, tidal range and salinity for each of the
major estuaries and bays on the East coast and Gulf coast, and are not repeated here.
Continental Shelf and Slope Areas
Moving seaward away from the coast, the next major geologic features encountered are
the continental shelf and slope areas. The continental shelf is characterized by depths ranging
from a few meters to approximately 60 m (198 ft), with a variety of bottom habitat types. Far
less research has been done in this area than on the coasts and estuaries, and consequently much
less is known about the specific habitat requirements of HMS within these regions.
The shelf area of the Mid-Atlantic Bight averages about 100 km (60 mi) in width,
reaching a maximum of 150 km (90 mi) near Georges Bank, off New England, and a minimum
of 50 km (30 mi) offshore Cape Hatteras, NC. Current speeds are strongest at the narrowest part
of the shelf where wind-driven current variability is highest. The distribution of marine species,
including HMS, along the Atlantic seaboard may be strongly influenced by currents, the warm
Gulf Stream in the middle and south portions of the region, and generally by the combination of
high summer and low winter temperatures.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-132

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

The continental shelf in the South Atlantic Bight varies in width from 50 km (32 mi) off
Cape Canaveral, FL to a maximum of 120 km (75 mi) off Savannah, GA, and a minimum of 30
km (19 mi) off Cape Hatteras. The shelf is divided into three cross-shelf zones. Waters on the
inner shelf (0 to 20 m (0 to 66 ft)) interact extensively with rivers, coastal sounds, and estuaries.
This interaction tends to form a band of low-salinity, stratified water near the coast that responds
quickly to local wind-forcing and seasonal atmospheric changes. Mid-shelf (20 – 40 m (66 –
132 ft)) current flow is strongly influenced by local wind events with frequencies of two days to
two weeks. In this region, vertically well mixed conditions in fall and winter contrast with
vertically stratified conditions in the spring and summer. Gulf Stream frontal disturbances (e.g.,
meanders and cyclonic cold core rings) that occur on time scales of two days to two weeks
dominate currents on the outer shelf (40 to 60 m (132 to 197 ft)).
The Mid-Atlantic area from Cape Cod, MA to Cape Hatteras, NC represents a transition
zone between northern cold-temperate waters of the north and the warm-temperate waters to the
south. Water temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic vary greatly by season. Consequently, many of
the fish species of importance in the Mid-Atlantic area migrate seasonally, whereas the major
species in the other three areas are typically resident throughout the year (MMS, 1992; 1996).
The shelf-edge habitat may range in water depth between 40 and 100 m (131 and 328 ft). The
bottom topography varies from smooth sand to mud to areas of high relief with associated corals
and sponges. The fish species found in this area include parrotfish (Scaridae) and the deep-water
species of the snapper-grouper assemblage.
The continental slope generally has smooth mud bottoms in water depths of 100 to 200 m
(328 to 656 ft). Many of the species in this zone are representatives of cold-water northern
species exhibiting tropical submergence (i.e., being located in deeper, cooler water as latitude
decreases).
A topographic irregularity southeast of Charleston, SC, known as the Charleston Bump,
is an area of productive sea floor, which rises abruptly from 700 – 300 m (2,300 – 980 ft) within
a distance of about 20 km (12 mi), and at an angle which is approximately transverse to both the
general isobath pattern and the Gulf Stream currents. The Charleston Gyre is a persistent
oceanographic feature that forms in the lee of the Charleston Bump. It is a location in which
larval swordfish have been commonly found and may serve as nursery habitat.
Pelagic Environment
Many HMS spend their entire lives in the pelagic, or open ocean environment. These
species are highly mobile and physiologically adapted to traveling great distances with minimal
effort. Much of what is known about the association between HMS and their migrations across
vast open ocean habitat comes from tagging studies.
While the open ocean may appear featureless, there are major oceanographic features
such as currents, temperature gradients, eddies, and fronts that occur on a large scale and may
influence the distribution patterns of many oceanic species, including HMS. For instance, the
Gulf Stream produces meanders, filaments, and warm and cold core rings that significantly affect
the physical oceanography of the continental shelf and slope. These features tend to aggregate
both predators and prey, and are frequently targeted by commercial fishing vessels. This western
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-133

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

boundary current has its origins in the tropical Atlantic Ocean (i.e., the Caribbean Sea). The
Gulf Stream system is made up of the Yucatan Current that enters the Gulf of Mexico through
the Yucatan Straits; the Loop Current which is the Yucatan Current after it separates from
Campeche Bank and penetrates the Gulf of Mexico in a clockwise flowing loop; the Florida
Current, as it travels through the Straits of Florida and along the continental slope into the South
Atlantic Bight; and the Antilles Current as it follows the continental slope (Bahamian Bank)
northeast to Cape Hatteras. From Cape Hatteras it leaves the slope environment and flows into
the deeper waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
The flow of the Gulf Stream as it leaves the Straits of Florida reaches maximum speeds
of about 200 cm/s. During strong events, maximum current speeds greater than 250 cm/s have
been recorded offshore of Cape Hatteras. The width of the Gulf Stream at the ocean surface
ranges from 80 – 100 km (50 – 63 mi) and extends to depths of between 800 and 1,200 m (2,624
– 3,937 ft).
As a meander passes, the Gulf Stream boundary oscillates sequentially onshore (crest)
and offshore (trough). A meander can cause the Gulf Stream to shift slightly shoreward or well
offshore into deeper waters. The Gulf Stream behaves in two distinct meander modes (small and
large), with the size of the meanders decreasing as they move northward along the coast. During
the large meander mode the Gulf Stream front is seaward of the shelf break, with its meanders
having large amplitudes. Additionally, frontal eddies and accompanying warm-water filaments
are larger and closer to shore. During the small meander mode the Gulf Stream front is at the
shelf break. Frontal eddies and warm-water filaments associated with small amplitude meanders
are smaller and farther from shore. Since HMS tend to follow the edge of the Gulf Stream, their
distance from shore can be greatly influenced by the patterns of meanders and eddies.
Meanders have definite circulation patterns and conditions superimposed on the statistical
mean (average) condition. As a meander trough migrates in the direction of the Gulf Stream’s
flow, it upwells cool nutrient-rich water, which at times may move onto the shelf and may evolve
into an eddy. These boundary features move south-southwest. As warm-water filaments, they
transfer momentum, mass, heat, and nutrients to the waters of the shelf break.
Gulf Stream filaments are mesoscale events, which occur regularly offshore the southeast
United States. The filament is a tongue of water extending from the Gulf Stream pointing to the
south. These form when meanders cause the extrusion of a warm surface filament of Gulf
Stream water onto the outer shelf. The cul-de-sac formed by this extrusion contains a cold core
that consists of a mix of outer-shelf water and nutrient-rich water. This water mix is a result of
upwelling as the filament/meander passes along the slope. The period from genesis to decay
typically is about two to three weeks.
The Charleston Gyre is a permanent oceanographic feature of the South Atlantic Bight,
caused by the interaction of the Gulf Stream waters with the topographically irregular Charleston
Bump. The gyre produces an upwelling of nutrients, which contributes significantly to primary
and secondary productivity of the Bight. The degree of upwelling varies with the seasonal
position and velocity of the Gulf Stream currents.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-134

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

In the warm waters between the west edge of the Florida Current/Gulf Stream and 20E N
and 40E N, pelagic brown algae, Sargassum natans and S. fluitans, form a dynamic structural
habitat. The greatest concentrations are found within the North Atlantic Central Gyre in the
Sargasso Sea. Large quantities of Sargassum frequently occur on the continental shelf off the
southeastern United States. Depending on prevailing surface currents, this material may remain
on the shelf for extended periods, be entrained into the Gulf Stream, or be cast ashore. During
calm conditions Sargassum may form irregular mats or simply be scattered in small clumps.
Oceanographic features such as internal waves and convergence zones along fronts aggregate the
algae along with other flotsam into long linear or meandering rows collectively termed
“windrows.”
Pelagic Sargassum supports a diverse assemblage of marine organisms including fungi,
micro- and macro-epiphytes, sea turtles, numerous marine birds, at least 145 species of
invertebrates, and over 100 species of fishes. The fishes associated with pelagic Sargassum
include juveniles as well as adults, including large pelagic adult fishes. Swordfish and billfish
are among the fishes that can be found associated with Sargassum. The Sargassum community,
consisting of the floating Sargassum (associated with other algae, sessile and free-moving
invertebrates, and finfish) is important to some epipelagic predators such as wahoo and dolphin.
The Sargassum community provides food and shelter from predation for juvenile and adult fish,
including HMS, and may have other functions such as habitat for fish eggs and larvae.
Offshore water quality in the Atlantic is controlled by oceanic circulation, which, in the
Mid-Atlantic is dominated by the Gulf Stream and by oceanic gyres. A shoreward, tidal and
wind-driven circulation dominates as the primary means of pollutant transport between estuaries
and the nearshore. Water quality in nearshore water masses adjacent to estuarine plumes and in
water masses within estuaries is also influenced by density-driven circulation. Suspended
sediment concentration can also be used as an indication of water quality. For the Atlantic
coastal areas, suspended sediment concentration varies with respect to depth and distance from
shore, the variability being greatest in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic. Re-suspended
bottom sediment is the principal source of suspended sediments in offshore waters.
3.3.2.2

Gulf of Mexico

(Material in this section is largely a summary of information in MMS, 1996; Field et al.,
1991; and NOAA 1997. Original sources of information are referenced in those documents.)
The Gulf of Mexico supports a great diversity of fish resources that are related to a
variety of ecological factors, such as salinity, primary productivity, and bottom type. These
factors differ widely across the Gulf of Mexico and between inshore and offshore waters.
Characteristic fish resources are not randomly distributed; high densities of fish resources are
associated with particular habitat types (e.g., east Mississippi Delta area, Florida Big Bend sea
grass beds, Florida Middle Grounds, mid-outer shelf, and the De Soto Canyon area). The highest
values of surface primary production are found in the upwelling area north of the Yucatan
Channel and in the De Soto Canyon region. In terms of general biological productivity, the
western Gulf is considered to be more productive in the oceanic region than is the eastern Gulf.
Productivity of areas where HMS are known to occur varies between the eastern and western
Gulf, depending on the influence of the Loop Current.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-135

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

Coastal and Estuarine Habitats
There are 5.62 million hectares (ha) (13.88 million acres) of estuarine habitat among the
five states bordering the Gulf. This includes 3.2 million ha (8 million acres) of open water, 2.43
million ha (6 million acres) of emergent tidal vegetation (including about 162,000 ha (400,318
acres) of mangroves), and 324,000 ha (800, 636 acres) of submerged vegetation. Estuaries are
found from east Texas through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and northwest Florida and
encompass more than 62,000 sq km (23,938 sq mi) of water surface area. Estuaries of the Gulf
of Mexico export considerable quantities of organic material, thereby enriching the adjacent
continental shelf areas, and many of these estuaries provide important habitat as pupping and
nursery grounds for juvenile stages of many important invertebrate and fish species including
many species of Atlantic sharks.
Coastal wetland habitat types that occur along the Gulf Coast include mangroves, nonforested wetlands (fresh, brackish, and saline marshes), and forested wetlands. Marshes and
mangroves form an interface between marine and terrestrial habitats, while forested wetlands
occur inland from marsh areas. Wetland habitats may occupy narrow bands or vast expanses,
and can consist of sharply delineated zones of different species, monospecific stands of a single
species, or mixed plant species communities.
Continental Shelf and Slope Areas
The Gulf of Mexico is a semi-enclosed, subtropical sea with a surface area of
approximately 1.6 million sq km (0.6 million sq mi). The main physiographic regions of the
Gulf basin are the continental shelf, continental slope and associated canyons, the Yucatan and
Florida Straits, and the abyssal plains. The U.S. continental shelf is narrowest, only 16 km (9.9
mi) wide, off the Mississippi River. The continental shelf width varies significantly from about
350 km (217 mi) offshore western Florida, 156 km (97 mi) off Galveston, TX, and decreasing to
88 km (55 mi) off Port Isabel near the Mexican border. The depth of the central abyss ranges to
4,000 m (13,000 ft). The Gulf is unique because it has two entrances: the Yucatan Strait and the
Straits of Florida. The Loop Current dominates the Gulf’s general circulation and its associated
eddies. The Loop current is caused by differences between the sill depths of the two straits.
Coastal and shelf circulation, on the other hand, is driven by several forcing mechanisms: wind
stress, freshwater input, buoyancy and mass fluxes, and transfer of momentum and energy
through the seaward boundary.
In the Gulf, the continental shelf extends seaward from the shoreline to about the 200-m
water depth (660 ft), and is characterized by a gentle slope of less than one degree. The
continental slope extends from the shelf edge to the continental rise, usually at about the 2,000-m
(6,500 ft) water depth. The topography of the slope in the Gulf is uneven and is broken by
canyons, troughs, and escarpments. The gradient on the slope is characteristically one to six
degrees, but may exceed 20 degrees in some places, particularly along escarpments. The
continental rise is the apron of sediment accumulated at the base of the slope. The incline is
gentle with slopes of less than one degree. The abyssal plain is the basin floor at the base of the
continental rise.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-136

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

Physical Oceanography
The Gulf receives large amounts of freshwater runoff from the Mississippi River as well
as from a host of other drainage systems. In recent years, large amount of nutrient laden runoff
from the Mississippi River have resulted in large hypoxic or low oxygen areas in the Gulf. This
“dead zone” may affect up to 16,500 sq km (6,371 sq mi) during the summer, resulting in
unfavorable habitat conditions for a wide variety of species.
Sea-surface temperatures in the Gulf range from nearly constant throughout (isothermal)
(29° to 30°C (84° to 86°F)) in August to a sharp horizontal gradient in January, (25°C (77°F) in
the Loop Current core to 14° to 15°C (57° to 59°F) along the northern shelf). The vertical
distribution of temperature reveals that in January, the thermocline depth is about 30 to 61 m (98
to 200 ft) in the northeast Gulf and 91 to 107 m (298 to 350 ft) in the northwest Gulf. In May,
the thermocline depth is about 46 m (150 ft) throughout the entire Gulf.
Sea surface salinities along the north Gulf vary seasonally. During months of low
freshwater input, salinities near the coastline range between 29 to 32 ppt. High freshwater input
conditions during the spring and summer months result in strong horizontal gradients and inner
shelf salinities less than 20 ppt. The mixed layer in the open Gulf, from the surface to a depth of
approximately 100 to 150 m (330 to 495 ft), is characterized by salinities between 36.0 and 36.5
ppt.
Sharp discontinuities of temperature and/or salinity at the sea surface, such as the Loop
Current front or fronts associated with eddies or river plumes, are dynamic features that may act
to concentrate buoyant material such as detritus, plankton, or eggs and larvae. These materials
are transported, not by the front’s movements or motion across the front, but mainly by lateral
movement along the front. In addition to open ocean fronts, a coastal front, which separates
turbid, lower salinity water from the open-shelf regime, is probably a permanent feature of the
north Gulf shelf. This front lies about 30 – 50 km (19 – 31 mi) offshore. In the Gulf, these
fronts are the most commonly utilized habitat of the pelagic HMS species.
The Loop Current is a highly variable current entering the Gulf through the Yucatan
Straits and exiting through the Straits of Florida (as a component of the Gulf Stream) after
tracing an arc that may intrude as far north as the Mississippi-Alabama shelf. This current has
been detected down to about 1,000 m (3,300 ft) below the surface. Below that level there is
evidence of a countercurrent. When the Loop Current extends into or near shelf areas,
instabilities, such as eddies, may develop that can push warm water onto the shelf or entrain cold
water from the shelf. These eddies consist of warm water rotating in a clockwise fashion. Major
Loop Current eddies have diameters on the order of 300 – 400 km (186 – 249 miles), and may
extend to a depth of about 1,000 m. Once these eddies are free from the Loop Current, they
travel into the western Gulf along various paths to a region between 25E N to 28E N and 93E W
to 96E W. As eddies travel westward a decrease in size occurs due to mixing with resident
waters and friction with the slope and shelf bottoms. The life of an individual eddy, until its
eventual assimilation by regional circulation in the western Gulf, is about one year. Along the
Louisiana/Texas slope, eddies are frequently observed to affect local current patterns,
hydrographic properties, and possibly the biota of fixed oil and gas platforms or hard bottoms.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-137

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

Once an eddy is shed, the Loop Current undergoes major dimensional adjustments and
reorganization.
3.3.2.3

U.S. Caribbean

(Material in this section is largely a summary of information in Appeldoorn and Meyers,
1993. Original sources of information are referenced in that document.)
The waters of the Caribbean region include the coastal waters surrounding the U.S.
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. All of these Caribbean islands, with the exception of St. Croix,
are part of a volcanic chain of islands formed by the subduction of one tectonic plate beneath
another. Tremendously diverse habitats (rocky shores, sandy beaches, mangroves, seagrasses,
algal plains, and coral reefs) and the consistent light and temperature regimes characteristic of
the tropics are conducive to high species diversity.
The waters of the Florida Keys and southeast Florida are intrinsically linked with the
waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the waters of the Caribbean to the west, south, and east, and to
the waters of the South Atlantic Bight to the north. These waters represent a transition from
insular to continental regimes and from tropical to temperate regimes. This zone, therefore,
contains one of the richest floral and faunal complexes.
Coastal and Estuarine Habitats
Although the U.S. waters of the Caribbean are relatively nutrient poor, and therefore have
low rates of primary and secondary productivity, they display some of the greatest diversity of
any part of the South Atlantic region. High and diverse concentrations of biota are found where
habitat is abundant. Coral reefs, sea grass beds, and mangrove ecosystems are the most
productive of the habitat types found in the Caribbean, but other areas such as soft-bottom
lagoons, algal hard grounds, mud flats, salt ponds, sandy beaches, and rocky shores are also
important in overall productivity. These diverse habitats allow for a variety of floral and faunal
populations.
Offshore, between the sea grass beds and the coral reefs and in deeper waters, sandy
bottoms and algal plains dominate. These areas may be sparsely or densely vegetated with a
canopy of up to one meter of red and brown algae. Algal plains are not areas of active sand
transport. These are algae-dominated sandy bottoms, often covered with carbonate nodules.
They occur primarily in deep water (> 15 m, or 50 ft), and account for roughly 70 percent of the
area of the insular shelf of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Algal plains support a variety of organisms
including algae, sponges, gorgonians, solitary corals, mollusks, fish, and worms, and may serve
as critical juvenile habitat for commercially important (and diminishing) species such as queen
triggerfish and spiny lobsters.
Coral reefs and other coral communities are some of the most important ecological (and
economic) coastal resources in the Caribbean. They act as barriers to storm waves and provide
habitat for a wide variety of marine organisms, including most of the economically important
species of fish and shellfish. They are the primary source for carbonate sand, and serve as the
basis for much of the tourism. Coral communities are made by the build up of calcium carbonate
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-138

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

produced by living animals, coral polyps, in symbiosis with a dinoflagellate, known as
zooxanthellae. During summer and early fall, most of the coral building organisms are at or near
the upper temperature limit for survival and so are living under natural conditions of stress.
Further increase in local or global temperature could prove devastating.
Sea grass beds are highly productive ecosystems that are quite extensive in the Caribbean;
some of the largest sea grass beds in the world lie beyond the shore on both sides of the Keys.
Sea grass beds often occur in close association with shallow-water coral reefs. Seagrasses are
flowering plants that spread through the growth of roots and rhizomes. These act to trap and
stabilize sediments, reduce shoreline erosion, and buffer coral reefs; they provide food for fish,
sea turtles (heavy grazers), conch, and urchins; they provide shelter and habitat for many adult
species and numerous juvenile species that rely on the sea grass beds as nursery areas; and they
provide attachment surfaces for calcareous algae.
Mangrove habitats are very productive coastal systems that support a wide variety of
organisms. The mangrove food web is based largely on the release of nutrients from the
decomposition of mangrove leaves, and in part on the trapping of terrestrial material. Red
mangroves (Rhizophora mangle), with their distinctive aerial prop roots; grow along the
shoreline, often in mono-specific stands. The roots of the red mangroves help to trap sediments
and pollutants associated with terrestrial runoff and help to buffer the shore from storm waves.
Red mangrove forests support a diverse community of sponges, tunicates, algae, larvae, and
corals, as well as juvenile and adult fish and shellfish. Black mangroves (Aveicennia germinans)
and white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa) grow landward of the red mangroves. They also
act as important sediment traps. Exposed and sheltered mangrove shorelines are common
throughout the U.S. Caribbean.
Throughout the U.S. Caribbean, both rocky shores and sandy beaches are common.
While many of these beaches are high-energy and extremely dynamic, buffering by reefs and
seagrasses allows some salt-tolerant plants to colonize the beach periphery. Birds, sea turtles,
crabs, clams, worms, and urchins use the intertidal areas.
Salt ponds, common in the U.S. Virgin Islands, are formed when mangroves or fringing
coral reefs grow or storm debris is deposited, effectively isolating a portion of a bay. The
resulting “pond” undergoes significant fluctuations of salinity with changes in relative
evaporation and runoff. The biota associated with salt ponds are, therefore, very specialized, and
usually somewhat limited. Salt ponds are extremely important in trapping terrestrial sediments
before they reach the coastal waters.
Insular Shelf and Slope Areas
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands contain a wide variety of coastal marine habitats,
including coral and rock reefs, sea grass beds, mangrove lagoons, sand and algal plains, soft
bottom areas, and sandy beaches. These habitats are, however, very patchily distributed.
Nearshore waters range from zero to 20 m (66 ft) in depth, and outer shelf waters range from 20
to 30 m (66 to 99 ft) in depth, the depth of the shelf break. Along the north coast the insular
shelf is very narrow (two to three km wide), seas are generally rough, and few good harbors are
present. The coast is a mixture of coral and rock reefs, and sandy beaches. The east coast has an
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-139

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HABITAT

extensive shelf that extends to the British Virgin Islands. Depth ranges from 18 to 30 m (59 to
99 ft). Much of the bottom is sandy, commonly with algal and sponge communities. The
southeast coast has a narrow shelf (eight km wide). About 25 km (15.5 mi) to the southeast is
Grappler Bank, a small seamount with its summit at a depth of 70 m (231 ft). The central south
coast broadens slightly to 15 km (99 mi) and an extensive sea grass bed extends nine kilometers
offshore to Caja de Muertos Island. Further westward, the shelf narrows again to just two km
(1.2 mi) before widening at the southwest corner to over 10 km (6 mi). The entirety of the
southern shelf is characterized by hard or sand-algal bottoms with emergent coral reefs, grass
beds, and shelf edge. Along the southern portion of the west coast the expanse of shelf continues
to widen, reaching 25 km (15.5 mi) at its maximum. A broad expanse of the shelf is found
between 14 and 27 m (46 and 99 ft), where habitats are similar to those of the south coast. To
the north, along the west coast, the shelf rapidly narrows to two to three kilometers.
Physical Oceanography
U.S. Caribbean waters are primarily influenced by the westward flowing North
Equatorial Current, the predominant hydrological driving force in the Caribbean region. It flows
from east to west along the northern boundary of the Caribbean plateau and splits at the Lesser
Antilles, flowing westward along the north coasts of the islands.
The north branch of the Caribbean Current flows west into the Caribbean Basin at
roughly 0.5 m (1.7 ft) per second. It is located about 100 km (62 mi) south of the islands, but its
position varies seasonally. During the winter it is found further to the south than in summer.
Flow along the south coast of Puerto Rico is generally westerly, but this is offset by gyres
formed between the Caribbean Current and the island. The Antilles Current flows to the west
along the northern edge of the Bahamas Bank and links the waters of the Caribbean to those of
southeast Florida.
Coastal surface water temperatures remain fairly constant throughout the year and
average between 26° and 30°C (79° and 86°F). Salinity of coastal waters is purely oceanic and
therefore is usually around 36 ppt. However, in the enclosed or semi-enclosed embayments
salinity may vary widely depending on fluvial and evaporational influences.
It is believed that no upwelling occurs in the waters of the U.S. Caribbean (except
perhaps during storm events) and, since the waters are relatively stratified, they are severely
nutrient-limited. In tropical waters nitrogen is the principal limiting nutrient.
3.4

Fishery Data Update

In this section, HMS fishery data, with the exception of some data on Atlantic sharks, are
analyzed by gear type; Section 3.4.6 provides a summary of landings by species. While HMS
fishermen generally target particular species, the non-selective nature of most fishing gears
promotes effective analysis and management on a gear-by-gear basis. In addition, issues such as
bycatch, and safety are generally better addressed by gear type. A summary of catch statistics
can be found in Section 3.4.6 of this document.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-140

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

The revised list of authorized fisheries (LOF) and fishing gear used in those fisheries
became effective December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67511). The rule applies to all U.S. marine fisheries,
including Atlantic HMS. As stated in the rule, “no person or vessel may employ fishing gear or
participate in a fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) not included in this LOF without
giving 90 days’ advance notice to the appropriate Fishery Management Council (Council) or,
with respect to Atlantic HMS, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).” Acceptable HMS
fisheries and authorized gear types for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks include: swordfish
handgear fishery – rod and reel, harpoon, handline, bandit gear; pelagic longline fishery –
longline; shark drift gillnet fishery – gillnet; shark bottom longline fishery – longline; shark
recreational fishery – rod and reel, handline; tuna purse seine fishery – purse seine; tuna
recreational fishery– rod and reel, handline; and tuna handgear fishery – rod and reel, harpoon,
handline, bandit gear. For Atlantic billfish, the only acceptable fishery and authorized gear type
is recreational fishery – rod and reel. Species whose life history characteristics may lead to their
eventual categorization as highly migratory, but which are not currently under the Secretary or
Regional Council management authority, are covered in two broad categories: Recreational
Fisheries (Non-FMP) and Commercial Fisheries (Non-FMP). Species that fit this description
may be harvested with the gears listed for these catchall categories.
Due to the nature of SCRS data collection,
Table 3.21 depicts a summary of U.S. and international HMS catches by species rather
than gear type. International catch levels and U.S. reported catches for HMS, other than sharks,
are taken from the 2005 Standing Report of the SCRS (SCRS, 2005). The U.S. percentage of
regional and total catches for HMS species is presented (
Table 3.21) to provide a basis for comparison of the U.S.’ catches relative to other
nations/entities. Catch of billfish includes both recreational landings and dead discards from
commercial fisheries; catch for bluefin tuna includes commercial landings and discards and
recreational landings; and swordfish include commercial landings and discards. International
catch and landings tables are included for the pelagic longline and purse seine fisheries in
Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of this document. At this point, data necessary to assess the U.S.
regional and total percentage of international catch levels for Atlantic shark species are
unavailable.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-141

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.21

Species

Atlantic
Swordfish

Calendar Year 2004 U.S. vs International Catch of HMS (mt ww) other than sharks. Source:
SCRS, 2005.

Total
International
Reported
Catch
25,173*
(includes N. &
S. Atlantic)

Region of
U.S.
Involvement

Total
Regional
Catch

U.S.
Percentage
of Regional
Catch

U.S. Catch

North
Atlantic

12,283*

South
Atlantic

12,779*

16

0.13%

2,600

U.S.
Percentage
of Total
Atlantic
Catch

21.17%
10.39%

Atlantic
Bluefin Tuna

28,889**

West Atlantic

1,928

971

50.36%

3.36%

Atlantic
Bigeye Tuna

72,349

Total Atlantic

72,349

414

0.57%

0.57%

116,275

West Atlantic

29,829

6,500

21.79%

5.59%

North
Atlantic

25,460

646

2.54%

South
Atlantic

22,468

1

0.004%

West Atlantic

26,910

102

0.38%

0.06%

Atlantic
Yellowfin
Tuna
Atlantic
Albacore
Tuna
Atlantic
Skipjack
Tuna

52,775
(includes N. &
S. Atlantic and
Mediterranean)
161,089

1.23%

Atlantic Blue
Marlin

2,076

North
Atlantic

596

59***

9.90%

2.84%

Atlantic
White Marlin

532

North
Atlantic

190

28***

14.74%

5.26%

1,017

40

3.93%

1.85%

Atlantic
Sailfish

2,167

West Atlantic

* Actual catches are likely higher given significant non-compliance with ICCAT reporting requirements.

** Significant non-compliance with ICCAT reporting requirements affects SCRS from estimating aggregate 2004

eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna catches accurately.

***The U.S. catch of marlins reported in the DEIS was lower as discards were inadvertently omitted.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-142

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

3.4.1

Pelagic Longline Fishery

3.4.1.1 Domestic History and Current Management
The U.S. pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic HMS primarily targets swordfish, yellowfin
tuna, and bigeye tuna in various areas and seasons. Secondary target species include dolphin,
albacore tuna, pelagic sharks (including mako, thresher, and porbeagle sharks), as well as several
species of large coastal sharks. Although this gear can be modified (e.g., depth of set, hook type,
etc.) to target swordfish, tunas, or sharks, it is generally a multi-species fishery. These vessel
operators are opportunistic, switching gear style and making subtle changes to target the best
available economic opportunity of each individual trip. Pelagic longline gear sometimes attracts
and hooks non-target finfish with little or no commercial value, as well as species that cannot be
retained by commercial fishermen due to regulations, such as billfish. Pelagic longlines may
also interact with protected species such as marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds. Thus,
this gear has been classified as a Category I fishery with respect to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. Any species (or undersized catch of permitted species) that cannot be landed due
to fishery regulations is required to be released, whether dead or alive. Pelagic longline gear is
composed of several parts (see Figure 3.25 2) (NMFS, 1999).

Figure 3.25

Typical U.S. Pelagic Longline Gear. Source: Arocha, 1996

The primary fishing line, or mainline of the longline system, can vary from five to 40
miles in length, with approximately 20 to 30 hooks per mile. The depth of the mainline is
determined by ocean currents and the length of the floatline, which connects the mainline to
several buoys, and periodic markers which can have radar reflectors or radio beacons attached.
Each individual hook is connected by a leader, or gangion, to the mainline. Lightsticks, which
contain chemicals that emit a glowing light, are often used, particularly when targeting swordfish.
When attached to the hook and suspended at a certain depth, lightsticks attract baitfish, which
may, in turn, attract pelagic predators (NMFS, 1999).

2
As of April 1, 2001, (66 FR 17370) a vessel is considered to have pelagic longline gear on board when a power-operated longline
hauler, a mainline, floats capable of supporting the mainline, and leaders (gangions) with hooks are on board.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-143

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

When targeting swordfish, pelagic longline gear is generally deployed at sunset and
hauled at sunrise to take advantage of swordfish nocturnal near-surface feeding habits (NMFS,
1999). In general, longlines targeting tunas are set in the morning, deeper in the water column,
and hauled in the evening. Except for vessels of the distant water fleet, which undertake
extended trips, fishing vessels preferentially target swordfish during periods when the moon is
full to take advantage of increased densities of pelagic species near the surface. The number of
hooks per set varies with line configuration and target species (Table 3.22) (NMFS, 1999). The
pelagic longline gear components may also be deployed as a trolling gear to target surface
feeding tunas. Under this configuration, the mainline and gangions are elevated and actively
trolled so that the baits fish on or above the water’s surface. This style of fishing is often
referred to as “green-stick fishing,” and reports indicate that it can be extremely efficient
compared to conventional fishing techniques. For more information on green-stick fishing gear
and the configurations allowed under current regulations, please refer to the discussions of
alternative H4 in Chapters 2 and 4 of this document.
Table 3.22

Average Number of Hooks per Pelagic Longline Set, 1999-2004. Source: Data reported in pelagic
longline logbook.
Target Species

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Swordfish

521

550

625

695

712

701

Bigeye Tuna

768

454

671

755

967

400

Yellowfin Tuna

741

772

731

715

723

696

Mix of tuna species

NA

638

719

767

764

779

Shark

613

621

571

640

970

1,046

Dolphin

NA

943

447

542

692

1,033

Other species

781

504

318

300

865

270

Mix of species

738

694

754

756

750

777

Figure 3.26 illustrates basic differences between swordfish (shallow) sets and tuna (deep)
longline sets. Swordfish sets are buoyed to the surface, have few hooks between floats, and are
relatively shallow. This same type of gear arrangement is used for mixed target sets. Tuna sets
use a different type of float placed much further apart. Compared with swordfish sets, tuna sets
have more hooks between the floats and the hooks are set much deeper in the water column. It is
believed that because of the difference in fishing depth, tuna sets hook fewer turtles than the
swordfish sets. In addition, tuna sets use bait only, while swordfish fishing uses a combination
of bait and lightsticks. Compared with vessels targeting swordfish or mixed species, vessels
specifically targeting tuna are typically smaller and fish different grounds.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-144

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Figure 3.26 Different Pelagic Longline Gear Deployment Techniques. Source: Hawaii Longline Association
and Honolulu Advertiser.
NOTE: This figure is only included to show basic differences in pelagic longline gear configuration and to illustrate
that this gear may be altered to target different species.

Regional U.S. Pelagic Longline Fisheries Description
The U.S. pelagic longline fishery sector has historically been comprised of five relatively
distinct segments with different fishing practices and strategies, including the Gulf of Mexico
yellowfin tuna fishery, the South Atlantic-Florida east coast to Cape Hatteras swordfish fishery,
the Mid-Atlantic and New England swordfish and bigeye tuna fishery, the U.S. distant water
swordfish fishery, and the Caribbean Islands tuna and swordfish fishery. Each vessel type has
different range capabilities due to fuel capacity, hold capacity, size, and construction. In addition
to geographical area, these segments have historically differed by percentage of various target
and non-target species, gear characteristics, and deployment techniques. Some vessels fish in
more than one fishery segment during the course of the year (NMFS, 1999). Due to the many
changes in the regulations since 1999 (e.g., time/area closures and gear restrictions), the fishing
practices and strategies of these different segments may have changed.
The Gulf of Mexico Yellowfin Tuna Fishery
Gulf of Mexico vessels primarily target yellowfin tuna year-round; however, each port
has one to three vessels that directly target swordfish, either seasonally or year-round. Longline
fishing vessels that target yellowfin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico also catch and sell dolphin,
swordfish, other tunas, and sharks. During yellowfin tuna fishing, few swordfish are captured
incidentally. Many of these vessels participate in other Gulf of Mexico fisheries (targeting
shrimp, shark, and snapper/grouper) during allowed seasons. Home ports for this fishery include
Madiera Beach, Florida; Panama City, Florida; Dulac, Louisiana; and Venice, Louisiana (NMFS,
1999).
For catching tuna, the longline gear is configured similar to swordfish longline gear but is
deployed differently. The gear is typically set out at dawn (between two a.m. and noon) and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-145

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

retrieved at sunset (4 p.m. to midnight). The water temperature varies based on the location of
fishing. However, yellowfin tuna are targeted in the western Gulf of Mexico during the summer
when water temperatures are high. In the past, fishermen have used live bait, however, NMFS
prohibited the use of live bait in an effort to decrease bycatch and bycatch mortality of billfish
(65 FR 47214, August 1, 2000). This rule also closed the Desoto Canyon area (year-round
closure) to pelagic longline gear. In the Gulf of Mexico, and all other areas, except the NED,
specific circle hooks (16/0 or larger non-offset and 18/0 or larger with an offset not to exceed 10
degrees) are currently required, as are whole finfish and squid baits.
The South Atlantic – Florida East Coast to Cape Hatteras Swordfish Fishery
Historically, South Atlantic pelagic longline vessels targeted swordfish year-round,
although yellowfin tuna and dolphin fish were other important marketable components of the
catch. In 2001 (65 FR 47214, August 1, 2000), the Florida East Coast closed area (year-round
closure) and the Charleston Bump closed area (February through April closure) became effective.
NMFS analyzed logbook data to determine the effectiveness of these closed areas (Sections 2.1.2
and 4.1.2).
Prior to these closures, smaller vessels used to fish short trips from the Florida Straits
north to the bend in the Gulf Stream off Charleston, South Carolina (Charleston Bump). Midsized and larger vessels migrate seasonally on longer trips from the Yucatan Peninsula
throughout the West Indies and Caribbean Sea, and some trips range as far north as the MidAtlantic coast of the United States to target bigeye tuna and swordfish during the late summer
and fall. Fishing trips in this fishery average nine sets over 12 days. Home ports (including
seasonal ports) for this fishery include Georgetown, South Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina;
Fort Pierce, Florida; Pompano Beach, Florida; and Key West, Florida. This sector of the fishery
consists of small to mid-size vessels, which typically sell fresh swordfish to local high-quality
markets (NMFS, 1999).
The Mid-Atlantic and New England Swordfish and Bigeye Tuna Fishery
Fishing in this area has evolved during recent years to focus almost year-round on
directed tuna trips, with substantial numbers of swordfish trips as well. Some vessels participate
in directed bigeye/yellowfin tuna fishing during the summer and fall months and then switch to
bottom longline and/or shark fishing during the winter when the large coastal shark season is
open. In 1999, NMFS closed the Northeastern U.S. area in June to pelagic longline gear to
reduce bluefin tuna discards (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999). Fishing trips in this fishery sector
average 12 sets over 18 days. During the season, vessels primarily offload in the ports of New
Bedford, Massachusetts; Barnegat Light, New Jersey; Ocean City, Maryland; and Wanchese,
North Carolina (NMFS, 1999).
The U.S. Atlantic Distant Water Swordfish Fishery
This fishing ground covers virtually the entire span of the western north Atlantic to as far
east as the Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Approximately 12 large fishing vessels that fish
in the distant water operate out of Mid-Atlantic and New England ports during the summer and
fall months targeting swordfish and tunas, and then move to Caribbean ports during the winter
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-146

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

and spring months. Many of the current distant water operations were among the early
participants in the U.S. directed Atlantic commercial swordfish fishery. These larger vessels,
with greater ranges and capacities than the coastal fishing vessels, enabled the United States to
become a significant participant in the north Atlantic fishery. They also fish for swordfish in the
south Atlantic. The distant water vessels traditionally have been larger than their southeast
counterparts because of the distances required traveling to the fishing grounds. Fishing trips in
this fishery tend to be longer than in other fisheries, averaging 30 days and 16 sets. Ports for this
fishery range from San Juan, Puerto Rico through Portland, Maine, and include New Bedford,
Massachusetts, and Barnegat Light, New Jersey (NMFS, 1999). This segment of the fleet was
directly affected by the L-shaped closure in 2000 and the NED closure implemented in 2001. A
number of vessels have recently returned to this fishery with the issuance of the July 6, 2004,
rule (69 FR 40734) to reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality. Unlike in other areas,
vessels fishing in the NED are required to use 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to
exceed 10 degrees and whole mackerel or squid baits.
The Caribbean Tuna and Swordfish Fishery
This fleet is similar to the southeast coastal fishing fleet in that both are comprised
primarily of smaller vessels that make short trips relatively near-shore, producing high quality
fresh product. Both fleets also encounter relatively high numbers of undersized swordfish at
certain times of the year. Longline vessels targeting HMS in the Caribbean use fewer hooks per
set, on average, fishing deeper in the water column than the distant water fleet off New England,
the northeast coastal fleet, and the Gulf of Mexico yellowfin tuna fleet. This fishery is typical of
most pelagic fisheries, being truly a multi-species fishery, with swordfish as a substantial portion
of the total catch. Yellowfin tuna, dolphin and, to a lesser extent, bigeye tuna, are other
important components of the landed catch. Ports for this fishery include St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands; and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Many of these high quality fresh fish are sold to local
markets to support the tourist trade in the Caribbean (NMFS, 1999).
Management of the U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery
The U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is restricted by a limited swordfish quota,
divided between the North and South Atlantic (separated at 5°N. Lat.). Other regulations include
minimum sizes for swordfish, yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna, limited access permitting,
bluefin tuna catch requirements, shark quotas, protected species incidental take limits, reporting
requirements (including logbooks), and gear and bait requirements. Current billfish regulations
prohibit the retention of billfish by pelagic longline vessels, or the sale of billfish from the
Atlantic Ocean. As a result, all billfish hooked on pelagic longlines must be discarded, and are
considered bycatch. This is a heavily managed gear type and, as such, is strictly monitored.
Because it is difficult for pelagic longline fishermen to avoid undersized fish in some areas,
NMFS has closed areas in the Gulf of Mexico and along the east coast. The intent of these
closures is to decrease bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery by closing those areas with the
highest rates of bycatch. There are also time/area closures for pelagic longline fishermen
designed to reduce the incidental catch of bluefin tuna and sea turtles. In order to enforce
time/area closures and to monitor the fishery, NMFS requires all pelagic longline vessels to
report positions on an approved vessel monitoring system (VMS).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-147

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

In June 2004, NMFS conditionally re-opened the NED to pelagic longline fishing.
NMFS limited vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard in that area, at all times, to possessing
onboard and/or using only 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed ten degrees.
Only whole mackerel and squid baits may be possessed and or utilized with allowable hooks. In
August of 2004, NMFS limited 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 non-offset circle hooks and/or 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to
exceed ten degrees. Only whole finfish and squid baits may be possessed and/or utilized with
allowable hooks. All pelagic longline vessels must possess and use sea turtle handling and
release gear in compliance with NMFS careful release protocols.
Permits
The 1999 FMP established six different limited access permit types: (1) directed
swordfish, (2) incidental swordfish, (3) swordfish handgear, (4) directed shark, (5) incidental
shark, and (6) tuna longline. To reduce bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery, these permits
were designed so that the swordfish directed and incidental permits are valid only if the permit
holder also holds both a tuna longline and a shark permit. Similarly, the tuna longline permit is
valid only if the permit holder also holds both a swordfish (directed or incidental, not handgear)
and a shark permit. This allows limited retention of species that might otherwise have been
discarded.
As of February 1, 2006, approximately 214 tuna longline limited access permits had been
issued. In addition, approximately 191 directed swordfish limited access permits, 86 incidental
swordfish limited access permits, 240 directed shark limited access permits, and 312 incidental
shark limited access permits had been issued. Vessels with limited access swordfish and shark
permits do not necessarily use pelagic longline gear, but these are the only permits that allow for
the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries.
Monitoring and Reporting
Pelagic longline fishermen and the dealers who purchase HMS from them are subject to
reporting requirements. NMFS has extended dealer reporting requirements to all swordfish
importers as well as dealers who buy domestic swordfish from the Atlantic. These data are used
to evaluate the impacts of harvesting on the stock and the impacts of regulations on affected
entities.
Commercial HMS fisheries are monitored through a combination of vessel logbooks,
dealer reports, port sampling, cooperative agreements with states, and scientific observer
coverage. Logbooks contain information on fishing vessel activity, including dates of trips,
number of sets, area fished, number of fish, and other marine species caught, released, and
retained. In some cases, social and economic data such as volume and cost of fishing inputs are
also required.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-148

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Pelagic Longline Observer Program
During 2005, NMFS observers recorded 796 pelagic longline sets for an overall fishery
coverage of 10.1 percent. In non-experimental fishing, the overall observer coverage was 7.2
percent. A total of 247 experimental pelagic longline sets were observed in the NEC, GOM,
FEC, MAB, and SAB areas, primarily during the second and third quarters. These experimental
sets (EXP) had 100 percent observer coverage and are separated from the normal commercial
fishery in Table 3.23 (Walsh and Garrison, 2006). In 2004, NMFS observers recorded 702
pelagic longline sets for an overall coverage of 7.3 percent. During the first and second quarters
of 2004, 60 experimental sets employing circle hooks were made in the Gulf of Mexico (EXP).
These sets had 100 percent observer coverage (Garrison, 2005). One thousand eighty-eight
pelagic longline sets were observed and recorded by NMFS observers in 2003 (11.5 percent
overall coverage – 100 percent coverage in the NED; and 6.2 percent coverage in remaining
areas) (Garrison and Richards, 2004). Table 3.23 details the amount of observer coverage in past
years for this fleet. Generally, due to logistical problems, it has not always been possible to
place observers on all selected trips. NMFS is working towards improving compliance with
observer requirements and facilitating communication between vessel operators and observer
program coordinators. In addition, fishermen are reminded of the safety requirements for the
placement of observers specified at 50 CFR 600.746, and the need to have all safety equipment
on board required by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Table 3.23

Observer Coverage of the Pelagic Longline Fishery. Source: Yeung, 2001; Garrison, 2003;
Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison, 2005; Walsh and Garrison, 2006.

Year

Number of Sets Observed

Percentage of Total Number of Sets

1999

420

3.8

2000

464

4.2

Total

Non-NED

NED

Total

Non-NED

NED

2001*

584

398

186

5.4

3.7

100.0

2002*

856

353

503

8.9

3.9

100.0

2003*

1088

552

536

11.5

6.2

100.0

Total

Non-EXP

EXP

Total

Non-EXP

EXP

2004**

702

642

60

7.3

6.7

100.0

2005**

796

549

247

10.1

7.2

100.0

*In 2001, 2002, and 2003, 100 percent observer coverage was required in the NED research experiment.
** In 2004 and 2005 there was 100 percent observer coverage in experimental fishing (EXP).

3.4.1.2

Recent Catch and Landings

U.S. pelagic longline catch (including bycatch, incidental catch, and target catch) is
largely related to these vessel and gear characteristics, but is summarized for the whole fishery in
Table 3.24. U.S. pelagic longline landings of Atlantic tunas and swordfish for 1999 – 2004 are
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-149

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

summarized in Table 3.25. Additional information related to landings can be seen in Section
3.4.6
From May 1992 through December 2000, the Pelagic Observer Program (POP) recorded
a total of 4,612 elasmobranchs (15 percent of the total catch) caught off the southeastern U.S.
coast in fisheries targeting tunas and swordfish (Beerkircher et al., 2004). Of the 22
elasmobranch species observed, silky sharks were numerically dominant (31.4 percent of the
elasmobranch catch), with silky, dusky, night, blue, tiger, scalloped hammerhead, and
unidentified sharks making up the majority (84.6 percent) (Beerkircher et al., 2004).
Table 3.24

Reported Catch of Species Caught by U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longlines, in Number of Fish, for
1999-2004. Source: Pelagic Longline Logbook Data.

Species

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Swordfish Kept

67,120

62,978

47,560

49,320

51,835

46,440

Swordfish Discarded

20,558

17,074

13,993

13,035

11,829

10,675

Blue Marlin Discarded

1,253

1,443

635

1,175

595

712

White Marlin Discarded

1,969

1,261

848

1,438

809

1,053

Sailfish Discarded

1,407

1,091

356

379

277

424

Spearfish Discarded

151

78

137

148

108

172

Bluefin Tuna Kept

263

235

177

178

273

475

Bluefin Tuna Discarded

604

737

348

585

881

1,031

Bigeye, Albacore, Yellowfin,
Skipjack Tunas Kept

114,438

79,917

63,321

76,962

Pelagic Sharks Kept

2,894

3,065

3,460

2,987

3,037

3,440

Pelagic Sharks Discarded

28,967

28,046

23,813

22,828

21,705

25,355

Large Coastal Sharks Kept

6,382

7,896

6,478

4,077

5,326

2,292

Large Coastal Sharks Discarded

5,442

6,973

4,836

3,815

4,813

5,230

Dolphin Kept

31,536

29,125

27,586

30,384

29,372

38,769

Wahoo Kept

5,136

4,193

3,068

4,188

3,919

4,633

Turtles Discarded

631

271

424

465

399

369

Number of Hooks (X 1,000)

7,902

7,976

7,564

7,150

7,008

7,276

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

94,136

3-150

80,466

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.25

Reported Landings in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (in mt ww) for 1999-2004. Source:
NMFS, 2004a; NMFS, 2005.

Species

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Yellowfin Tuna

3,374

2,901

2,201

2,573

2,154

2,489

Skipjack Tuna

2.0

1.8

4.3

2.5

4.2

0.7

Bigeye Tuna

929.1

531.9

682.4

535.8

284.9

308.7

Bluefin Tuna

73.5

66.1

37.5

49.9

81.4

96.1

Albacore Tuna

194.5

147.3

193.8

155

110.9

117.4

Swordfish N.*

3,362.4

3,315.8

2,483

2,598.8

2,772.1

2,551

Swordfish S.*

185.2

143.8

43.2

199.9

20.9

15.7

* Includes landings and estimated discards from scientific observer and logbook sampling programs.

Marine Mammals
Of the marine mammals that are hooked by U.S. pelagic longline fishermen, many are
released alive, although some animals suffer serious injuries and may die after being released.
The observed and estimated marine mammal interactions for 1992 – 2005 are summarized in
Table 3.26 and Table 3.27. Marine mammals are caught primarily during the third and fourth
quarters in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) and Northeast Coastal (NEC) areas (Figure 3.27). In
2005, the majority of observed interactions were with pilot whales in the MAB area (Walsh and
Garrison, 2006).
In 2000, there were 14 observed takes of marine mammals by pelagic longlines. This
number has been extrapolated based on reported fishing effort to an estimated 403 mammals
fleet-wide (32 common dolphin, 93 Risso’s dolphin, 231 pilot whales, 19 whales, 29 pygmy
sperm whales) (Yeung, 2001). In 2001 and 2002, there were 16 and 24 observed takes of marine
mammals, respectively. The majority of these interactions were observed in the MAB, followed
by the NED research experiment. In 2001, there were an estimated total of 84 Risso’s dolphin
and 93 pilot whale interactions in the pelagic longline fishery. In 2002, there were an estimated
87 Risso’s dolphin and 114 pilot whale interactions in the pelagic longline fishery. In the NED
research experiment, an additional four Risso’s dolphin and one northern bottlenose whale were
recorded with serious injuries during 2001, as well as three Risso’s dolphin, one unidentified
dolphin, and one unidentified marine mammal in 2002. One striped dolphin was recorded as
released alive during the NED experiment in 2001, as well as one Risso’s dolphin, one common
dolphin, one pilot whale, and one unidentified dolphin in 2002 (Garrison, 2003).
In 2003, there were 28 observed takes of marine mammals in the pelagic longline fishery.
The majority of these interactions were observed in the MAB, followed by the NED
experimental fishery, and the NEC area. This number has been extrapolated based on reported
fishing effort to an estimated 300 mammals fleet wide (49 beaked whales, 16 dolphin, 30
Atlantic spotted dolphin, 46 common dolphin, 105 Risso’s dolphin, 32 pilot whales, 22 minke
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-151

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

whales). In addition, five Risso’s dolphin, one striped dolphin, and one baleen whale were
observed captured in the 2003 NED research experiment, with one Risso’s dolphin recorded as
dead (Garrison and Richards, 2004).
There were a total of 12 observed interactions with marine mammals in the pelagic
longline fishery in 2004. The majority of these interactions was with pilot whales and was
observed in the MAB area. During 2004, the pelagic longline fishery was estimated to have
interacted with 108 pilot whales, 49 Risso’s dolphins, and seven common dolphins (Garrison,
2005). In 2005, there were a total of 24 observed interactions with marine mammals in the
pelagic longline fishery. The majority of these interactions was with pilot whales and was
observed in the MAB area. During 2005, the pelagic longline fishery was estimated to have
interacted with 294 pilot whales, 42 Risso’s dolphin, six common dolphin, five bottlenose
dolphin, four Atlantic spotted dolphin, one beaked whale, 13 unidentified marine mammals,
three unidentified whales, and three unidentified dolphin (Walsh and Garrison, 2006). NMFS
monitors observed interactions with sea turtles and marine mammals on a quarterly basis and
reviews data for appropriate action, if any, as necessary. In June 2005, NMFS convened the
Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team (PLTRT) to assess and reduce marine mammal takes,
specifically pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins, by the pelagic longline fishery. At the time of
writing, the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP) was expected to be finalized soon.
Table 3.26
Year
1992

1993

1994

1995

1996
1997
1998

Summary of Marine Mammal Interactions in the Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992-1998. Source:
Yeung, 1999a; Yeung, 1999b.
Species
Risso’s Dolphin
Common Dolphin
Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Risso’s Dolphin
Bottlenose Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin
Killer Whale
Pilot Whale
Risso’s Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Unidentified Marine Mammal
Pilot Whale
Shortfin Pilot Whale
Risso’s Dolphin
Unidentified Marine Mammal
Pilot Whale
Short-Beaked Spinner Dolphin
Beaked Whale
Bottlenose Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Pilot Whale

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Total
Obs
3
1
1
12
3
2
16
1
1
1
1
14
7
5
1
13
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
1

3-152

Est
121
24
17
420
62
29
193
11
17
20
16
161
87
101
22
252
58
99
43
29
16
88
46
47
24

Mortality
Obs
Est
2
74
3
1

105
36

1

15

1

17

1
12
7
4

16
137
87
85

11
2
2

200
58
52

1
1

31
23

Alive
Obs
1
1
1
9
2
2
15
1

Est
47
24
17
319
26
29
178
11

1

20

2

26

1
1
2

16
22
53

2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

47
43
29
16
88
15
24
24

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.27

Year

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Summary of Marine Mammal Interactions in the Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1999-2005. Sources:
Yeung, 2001; Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison, 2005; Walsh and Garrison,
2006.
Species

Risso’s Dolphin
Unidentified Marine Mammal
Pilot Whale
Common Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Whale
Pygmy Sperm Whale
Risso’s Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Striped Dolphin
Northern Bottlenose Whale
Risso’s Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Common Dolphin
Unidentified Dolphin
Unidentified Marine Mammal
Beaked Whale
Dolphin
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Bottlenose Dolphin
Common Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Striped Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Baleen Whale
Minke Whale
Pilot Whale
Common Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Pilot Whale
Risso’s Dolphin
Common Dolphin
Bottlenose Dolphin
Beaked Whale
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Unidentified Marine Mammal
Unidentified Whale
Unidentified Dolphin

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Total
Obs
1
1
5
1
3
8
1
1
8
6
1
1
10
10
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
14
1
4
1
1
8
1
3
18
2
1
1
1
1

3-153

Est
23
14
385
32
93
231
19
28
83.6
92.9
1
1
87.2
113.5
1
2
1
48.8
16.2
29.8
2
45.6
109.5
1
32.1
1
22.3
107.5
6.8
49.4
294.4
42.1
5.7
5.2
1
4.3
13.2
3.4
2.6

Mortality
Obs

1

Est

94

1
1

41
24

1
1

24.4
19.8

1

1

Serious
Injury
Obs
Est
1
23
4

Alive
Obs

Est

1

14

1
1
3

32
29
98

1
1
1

14.3
22.7
1

6
6
1
1

59.6
67.8
1
1

1

43.5

1
2
10
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
2
1

2
45.6
68.4
1
11.3
1
22.3
33.8
6.8
21.9
79.5
39.2
5.7
5.2

1

4.3

1

2.6

291

1
4
1
1
6
4

23
109
19
28
48.9
50.2

1
4
4

1
11
49.9

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
5.3
16.2
29.8

3

40.1

2

21.4

6

74.1

2
9

27.5
211.5
2.9

1
1

13.2
3.4

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Sea Turtles
Currently, many sea turtles are taken in the GOM and NEC areas (Figure 3.27) and most
are released alive. In the past, the bycatch rate was highest in the third and fourth quarters.
Loggerhead and leatherback turtles dominate the catch of sea turtles. In general, sea turtle
captures are rare, but takes appear to be clustered (Hoey and Moore, 1999).

Figure 3.27 Geographic Areas Used in Summaries of Pelagic Logbook Data. Source: Cramer and Adams,
2000

The estimated take levels for 2000 were 1,256 loggerhead and 769 leatherback sea turtles
(Yeung, 2001). The estimated sea turtle takes for regular fishing and experimental fishing effort
for 2001 - 2005 are summarized in Table 3.28. The majority of leatherback interactions have
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. Loggerhead interactions are more widely distributed, however,
the NEC, FEC, and Gulf of Mexico appear to be areas with high interaction levels each year.
In 2005, the pelagic longline fishery interacted with an estimated 351 leatherback sea turtles
and 275 loggerhead sea turtles outside of experimental fishing operations. During 2005, the
interactions with leatherback sea turtles were highest in the Gulf of Mexico (179 animals). The
majority of loggerhead sea turtle interactions occurred in the NEC, MAB, CAR, SAR, and SAB
areas (Walsh and Garrison, 2006). NMFS monitors observed interactions with sea turtles and
marine mammals on a quarterly basis and reviews data for appropriate action, if any, as
necessary.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-154

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.28

Estimated number of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle interactions in the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery, 2001-2005 by statistical area. Sources: Walsh and Garrison, 2006;
Garrison, 2005; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison 2003.

Area
CAR
GOM
FEC
SAB
MAB
NEC
NED
SAR
NCA
TUN
TUS

2001
61
393
313
241
139
30
32
0
1
0
0

2002
0
695
100
93
70
5
0
0
0
0
0

Leatherback
2003
0
838
27
75
94
76
0
0
2
0
0

2004
17
780
64
164
184
33
98
18
0
0
0

2005
2
179
62
7
11
6
63
20
0
0
0

2001
27
0
0
39
43
117
72
0
13
0
0

2002
43
170
99
22
94
147
0
0
0
0
0

Loggerhead
2003
2004
36
61
135
45
137
99
52
194
18
92
241
150
0
52
70
41
39
0
0
0
0
0

Total
NED exp’tal
fishery (2001­
03)
Exp’tal fishery
(2004-05)
Total

1208

962

1113

1359

351

312

575

728

734

275

77

158

79

--

--

142

100

92

--

--

-1285

-1120

-1192

3
1362

17
368

-454

-675

-820

0
734

8
283

2005
40
19
0
34
54
67
20
38
3
0
0

As a result of the increased sea turtle interactions in 2001 and 2002, NMFS reinitiated
consultation for the pelagic longline fishery and completed a new BiOp on June 1, 2004. The
June 2004 BiOp concluded that long-term continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline
fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green, hawksbill,
Kemp’s ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles, but is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
leatherback sea turtles. The BiOp included a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) and an
incidental take statement (ITS) for the combined years 2004 – 2006, and for each subsequent
three-year period (NMFS, 2004b).
A final rule published in July 2004 (69 FR 40734) prohibited the possession of “J”-style
hooks in the pelagic longline fishery and required the possession and use of specific sea turtle
release and disentanglement gears, handling and release protocols, as well as requiring the use of
specific circle hooks and baits.
NED Research Experiment
Consistent with the conservation recommendation of an earlier, 2001 BiOp, NMFS
initiated a research experiment in the NED area in consultation and cooperation with the
domestic pelagic longline fleet. The goal was to develop and evaluate the efficacy of new
technologies and changes in fishing practices to reduce sea turtle interactions. In 2001, the
experiment attempted to evaluate the effect of gangions placed two gangion lengths from
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-155

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

floatlines, the effect of blue-dyed bait on target catch and sea turtle interactions, and the
effectiveness of dipnets, line clippers, and dehooking devices. Eight vessels participated, making
186 sets, between August and November. During the course of the research experiment, 142
loggerhead and 77 leatherback sea turtles were incidentally captured and no turtles were released
dead.
The data gathered during the 2001 experiment were analyzed to determine if the tested
measures reduced the incidental capture of sea turtles by a statistically significant amount. The
blue-dyed bait parameter decreased the catch of loggerheads by 9.5 percent and increased the
catch of leatherbacks by 45 percent. Neither value is statistically significant. In examining the
gangion placement provision, the treatment sections of the gear (with gangions placed 20
fathoms from floatlines) did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the number of
loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle interactions than the control sections of the gear (with a
gangion located under a floatline). The treatment section of the gear recorded an insignificant
increase in the number of leatherback interactions. Following an examination of the data, NMFS
discovered that the measures had no significant effect upon the catch of sea turtles (Watson et al.,
2003).
Dipnets and line clippers were examined for general effectiveness. The dipnets were
found to be adequate in boating loggerhead sea turtles. Several line clippers were tested, with
the La Force line clipper having the best performance. Several types of dehooking devices were
tested, with the work on these devices continuing in the 2002 and 2003 NED research
experiment.
In the summer and fall of 2002, NMFS conducted the second year of the research
experiment. The use of circle and “J”-hooks, whole mackerel bait, squid bait, and shortened
daylight soak time were tested to examine their effectiveness in reducing the capture of sea
turtles. The data indicate there were 501 sets made by 13 vessels with 100 percent observer
coverage. During the course of the experiment, 100 loggerhead and 158 leatherback sea turtles
were captured and 11 were tagged with satellite tags. In addition to the sea turtles, the vessels
interacted with one unidentified marine mammal, one unidentified dolphin, one common dolphin,
one longfin pilot whale, and four Risso's dolphins; all were released alive (Watson et al., 2003).
In 2003, the research experiment tested a number of treatments to verify the results of the
2002 experiment in addition to testing additional treatments. Data indicate that there were 539
sets made by 11 vessels with 100 percent observer coverage. During the course of the
experiment, one olive ridley, 92 loggerhead, and 79 leatherback sea turtles were captured; all
were released alive (Foster et al., 2004; Watson et al., 2004). In addition to the sea turtles, the
vessels interacted with one striped dolphin, one baleen whale, and five Risso’s dolphin resulting
in one mortality (Garrison and Richards, 2004).
From 2001 through 2003, NMFS worked with the commercial fishing industry to develop
new pelagic longline fishing technology to reduce interaction rates and bycatch mortality of
threatened and endangered sea turtles. The cooperative gear technology research investigated
line configurations, setting and retrieving procedures, hook types, hook sizes, bait types, and
release and disentanglement gears. Ultimately, specific hook designs and bait types were found
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-156

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

to be the most effective measures for reducing sea turtle interactions. Large circle hooks and
mackerel baits were found to substantially reduce sea turtle interactions over the use of the
industry standard “J”-hooks and squid baits. The gears developed to remove hooks and line from
hooked and entangled sea turtles are anticipated to reduce post-hooking mortality associated with
those interactions not avoided. Since the conclusion of the NED research experiment, NMFS has
continued to investigate pelagic longline bycatch mitigation techniques in the Gulf of Mexico,
Atlantic Ocean, and the Caribbean Sea. Additionally, NMFS held a series of voluntary
workshops for U.S. pelagic longline fishermen providing outreach and training in sea turtle
handling and release techniques.
NMFS believes that the transfer of this information to other fishing countries will result
in significant reductions in interaction rates and post-release mortalities of threatened and
endangered sea turtles throughout their ranges.
Seabirds
Gannets, gulls, greater shearwaters, and storm petrels are occasionally hooked by Atlantic
pelagic longlines. These species and all other seabirds are protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. Seabird populations are often slow to recover from excess mortality as a
consequence of their low reproductive potential (one egg per year and late sexual maturation).
The majority of longline interactions with seabirds occur as the gear is being set. The birds eat
the bait and become hooked on the line. The line then sinks and the birds are subsequently
drowned.
The United States has developed a National Plan of Action in response to the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) International Plan of Action to reduce the
incidental takes of seabirds (www.nmfs.gov.gov/NPOA-S.html ). Although Atlantic pelagic
longline interactions will be considered in the plan, NMFS has not identified a need to
implement gear modifications to reduce seabird takes by Atlantic pelagic longlines. Takes of
seabirds have been minimal in the fishery, most likely due to the setting of longlines at night
and/or fishing in areas where birds are largely absent.
Observer data from 1992 through 2005 indicate that seabird bycatch is relatively low in
the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery (Table 3.29). Since 1992, a total of 129 seabird
interactions have been observed, with 95 observed killed (73.6 percent). In 2005, a total of four
seabirds were observed taken.
Observed bycatch has ranged from one to 18 seabirds observed dead per year and zero to
15 seabirds observed released alive per year from 1992 through 2003. Half of the seabirds
observed were not identified to species (n = 59). Of the seabirds identified, gulls represent the
largest group (n = 35), followed by greater shearwaters (n = 23), and northern gannets (n = 8)
(Table 3.30). Greater shearwaters experienced the highest mortality (96.2 percent), followed by
gulls (80 percent), and unidentified seabirds (67.8 percent). Northern gannets had the lowest
mortality rate (12.5 percent).
Preliminary estimates of expanded seabird bycatch and bycatch rates from 1995 – 2004,
varied by year and species with no apparent pattern (Table 3.31). The estimated number of all
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-157

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

seabirds caught and discarded dead ranged from zero to 468 per year, while live discards ranged
from zero to 292 per year. The annual bycatch rate of birds discarded dead ranged from zero to
0.0486 birds per 1,000 hooks, while live discards ranged from zero to 0.0303 birds per 1,000
hooks.
Table 3.29

Year

Seabird Bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992-2005. Source: NMFS,
2004a; NMFS PLL fishery observer program (POP) data.
Month 1

Area

Type of Bird

Number observed

Status

1992

10

MAB

GULL

4

dead

1992

10

MAB

SHEARWATER GREATER

2

dead

1993

2

SAB

GANNET NORTHERN

2

alive

1993

2

MAB

GANNET NORTHERN

2

alive

1993

2

MAB

GULL BLACK BACKED

1

alive

1993

2

MAB

GULL BLACK BACKED

3

dead

1993

11

MAB

GULL

1

alive

1994

6

MAB

SHEARWATER GREATER

3

dead

1994

8

MAB

SHEARWATER GREATER

1

dead

1994

11

MAB

GULL

4

dead

1994

12

MAB

GULL HERRING

7

dead

1995

7

MAB

SEA BIRD

5

dead

1995

8

GOM

SEA BIRD

1

dead

1995

10

MAB

STORM PETREL

1

dead

1995

11

NEC

GANNET NORTHERN

2

alive

1995

11

NEC

GULL

1

alive

1997

6

SAB

SEA BIRD

11

dead

1997

7

MAB

SEA BIRD

1

dead

1997

7

NEC

SEA BIRD

15

alive

1997

7

NEC

SEA BIRD

6

dead

1998

2

MAB

SEA BIRD

7

dead

1998

7

NEC

SEA BIRD

1

dead

1999

6

SAB

SEA BIRD

1

dead

2000

6

SAB

GULL LAUGHING

1

alive

2000

11

NEC

GANNET NORTHERN

1

dead

2001

6

NEC

SHEARWATER GREATER

7

dead

2001

7

NEC

SHEARWATER GREATER

1

dead

2002

7

NEC

SEABIRD

1

dead

2002

8

NED

SHEARWATER GREATER

1

dead

2002

8

NED

SEABIRD

1

dead

2002

9

NED

SHEARWATER GREATER

3

dead

2002

9

NED

SEABIRD

3

alive

2002

9

NED

SHEARWATER SPP

1

dead

2002

10

NED

GANNET NORTHERN

1

alive

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-158

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Year

Month 1

Area

Type of Bird

2002

10

NED

SHEARWATER SPP

1

dead

2002

10

NED

SEABIRD

2

dead

2002

10

MAB

GULL

3

alive

2002

10

MAB

GULL

1

dead

2002

11

MAB

GULL

3

dead

2003

1

GOM

SEABIRD

1

alive

2003

8

NED

SEABIRD

1

dead

Number observed

Status

2003

9

MAB

SEABIRD

1

dead

2004

1

MAB

GULL

5

dead

2004

3

MAB

GREATER SHEARWATER

1

alive

2004

3

MAB

GREATER SHEARWATER

4

dead

2004

4

NED

SEABIRD

1

dead

2005

1

SAB

HERRING GULL

1

dead

2005

1

SAB

SHEARWATER

1

dead

NEC

GREATER SHEARWATER

1

alive

NEC
GREATER SHEARWATER
2005
3
1
Beginning in 2004, reports based on Quarters not month.

2
Experimental fishery takes.

1

dead

2005

3

2
2

Table 3.30

Status of Seabird Bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1992-2005. Source:
NMFS PLL fishery observer program (POP) data.
Species

Release Status

Total

Percent Dead

Dead

Alive

GULLS (incl. Blackback, Herring,
Laughing, and unid. gulls)

28

7

34

80%

UNIDENTIFIED SEABIRD

40

19

59

67.8%

GREATER SHEARWATER

22

1

23

95.6%

SHEARWATER SPP

3

0

3

100%

NORTHERN GANNET

1

7

8

12.5%

STORM PETREL

1

0

1

100%

TOTAL ALL SEABIRDS

95

34

129

73.6%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-159

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.31

Preliminary Expanded Estimates of Seabird Bycatch (D = discarded dead and A = discarded alive) and bycatch rates (all seabirds per
1,000 hooks) in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2004a; NMFS PLL fishery observer program (POP) data.
1997

Species
Unid. seabirds

D

1998
A

D

1999
A

D

2000
A

2001

D

A

D

2002
A

D

2003
A

D

2004
A

D

A

468

292

155

0

14

0

0

0

0

0

3

3

8

13

4

0

Gulls

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

0

0

14

83

0

0

48

0

Shearwaters

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

210

0

6

0

0

0

59

15

Northern gannet

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Storm petrel

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

All seabirds

468

292

155

0

14

0

11

18

210

0

23

87

8

13

111

15

Total hooks set

9,637,807

Bycatch rate

0.0486

0.0303

8,019,183

0.0194

DEIS FOR THE CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
AUGUST 2005

7,901,789

0

0.0017

7,975,529

0

0.0014

0.0023

3-160

7,563,951

0.0278

7,150,231

0

0.0032

0.0121

7,008,500

0.0011

0.0019

7,186,000

0.015

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

0.002

Finfish
In the U.S. pelagic longline fishery, fish are discarded for a variety reasons. Swordfish,
yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna may be discarded because they are undersized or unmarketable
(e.g., shark bitten). Blue sharks, as well as other species, are discarded because of a limited
markets (resulting in low prices) and perishability of the product. Large coastal sharks are
discarded during times when the shark season is closed. Bluefin tuna may be discarded because
target catch requirements for other species have not been met. Also, all billfish are required to
be released. In the past, swordfish have been discarded when the swordfish season was closed.
Reported catch from 1999 – 2004 for the U.S. pelagic longline fishery (including reported
bycatch, incidental catch, and target catch) is summarized in Table 3.24. Additional U.S.
landings and discard data are available in the 2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT (NMFS,
2005).
At this time, direct use of observer data with pooling for estimating dead discards in this
fishery represents the best scientific information available for use in stock assessments. Direct
use of observer data has been employed for a number of years to estimate dead discards in
Atlantic and Pacific longline fisheries, including billfish, sharks, and undersized swordfish.
Furthermore, the data have been used for scientific analyses by both ICCAT and the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) for a number of years.
Bycatch mortality of marlins, swordfish, and bluefin tuna from all fishing nations may
significantly reduce the ability of these populations to rebuild, and it remains an important
management issue. In order to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in the domestic pelagic
longline fishery, NMFS implemented regulations to close areas to this gear type (Figure 3.28)
and has banned the use of live bait by pelagic longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico.
As part of the bluefin tuna rebuilding program, ICCAT recommends an allowance for
dead discards. The U.S. annual dead discard allowance is approximately 68 mt ww. The
estimate for the 2004 calendar year was used as a proxy to calculate the amount to be added to,
or subtracted from, the U.S. bluefin tuna landings quota for 2005. The 2004 calendar year
preliminary estimate of U.S. dead discards, as reported per the longline discards calculated from
logbook tallies, adjusted as warranted when observer counts in quarterly/geographic stratum
exceeded logbook reports, totaled 72 mt ww. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types
and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are unavailable at this time,
and thus, are not included in this calculation. As U.S. fishing activity is estimated to have
exceeded the approximate 68 mt ww dead discard allowance by approximately 4.0 mt, the
ICCAT recommendation and U.S. regulations state that the United States must account for this
excess. Therefore, NMFS shall subtract the amount in excess (approximately 4.0 mt) from the
amount of bluefin tuna that can be landed in the subsequent fishing year by those categories
accounting for the dead discards.
The 2005 calendar year preliminary dead discard estimate is not yet available. The 2004
calendar year preliminary dead discard estimate, as reported in pelagic longline vessel logbooks
and published in 2005 Final Initial Quota Specifications (70 FR 33033, June 7, 2005), totaled
71.8 mt ww. This preliminary estimate has been revised using the longline discards calculated
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-161

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

from logbook tallies, adjusted as warranted when observer counts in stratum exceeded logbook
reports. The revised 2004 calendar year dead discard estimate is 72.0 mt ww.

* Closed except to vessels complying with specific conditions (see 50 CFR 635 for details).
Figure 3.28

Areas Closed to Pelagic Longline Fishing by U.S. Flagged Vessels

3.4.1.3

Safety Issues

Like all offshore fisheries, pelagic longlining can be dangerous. Trips are often long, the
work is arduous, and the nature of setting and hauling longline gear may result in injury or death.
Like all other HMS fisheries, longline fishermen are exposed to unpredictable weather. NMFS
does not wish to exacerbate unsafe conditions through the implementation of regulations.
Therefore, NMFS considers safety factors when implementing management measures in the
pelagic longline fishery. For example, all time/area closures are expected to be closed to fishing,
not transiting, in order to allow fishermen to make a direct route to and from fishing grounds.
NMFS seeks comments from fishermen on any safety concerns they may have. Fishermen have
pointed out that, due to decreasing profit margins, they may fish with less crew or less
experienced crew or may not have the time or money to complete necessary maintenance tasks.
NMFS encourages fishermen to be responsible in fishing and maintenance activities.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-162

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

3.4.1.4

International Issues and Catch

Pelagic longline fisheries for Atlantic HMS primarily target swordfish and tunas.
Directed pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic have been operated by Spain, the United States,
and Canada since the late 1950s or early 1960s. The Japanese pelagic longline tuna fishery
started in 1956 and has operated throughout the Atlantic since then (NMFS, 1999). Most of the
35 other ICCAT nations now also operate pelagic longline vessels.
ICCAT generally establishes management recommendations on a species (e.g., swordfish)
or issue basis (e.g., data collection) rather than by gear type. For example, ICCAT typically
establishes quotas or landing limits by species, not gear type. In terms of data collection, ICCAT
may require use of specific collection protocols or specific observer coverage levels in certain
fisheries or on vessels of a certain size, but these are usually applicable to all gears, and not
specific to any one gear type. However, there are a handful of management recommendations
that are specifically applicable to the international pelagic longline fishery. These include, a
prohibition on longlining in the Mediterranean Sea in June and July by vessels over 24 meters in
length, a prohibition on pelagic longline fishing for bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico, and
mandated reductions in Atlantic white and blue marlin landings for pelagic longline and purse
seine vessels from specified levels, among others.
Because most ICCAT management recommendations pertain to individual species or
issues, as discussed above, it is often difficult to obtain information specific to the international
pelagic longline fishery. For example, a discussion of authorized total allowable catches (TAC)
for specific species in this section of the document would be of limited utility because it is not
possible to identify what percentage of quotas are allocated to pelagic longline. Division of
quota, by gear type, is typically done by individual countries.
Nevertheless, ICCAT does report landings by gear type. Available data indicate that
longline effort produces the second highest volume of catch and effort, and is the most broadly
distributed (longitudinally and latitudinally) of the gears used to target ICCAT managed species
(Figure 3.29) (SCRS, 2004). Purse seines produce the highest volume of catch of ICCAT
managed species from the Atlantic (SCRS, 2004). From 1999 through 2002 (inclusive) there
was a declining trend in estimated international landings of HMS for fisheries in which the
United States participated. In 2004, international landings of HMS for fisheries in which the U.S.
participated totaled 106,774 mt, which represented a modest decrease from 2003 (SCRS, 2005).
Detailed information on international Atlantic pelagic longline catches can be found in

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-163

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.33.

Figure 3.29

Distribution of Atlantic Longline Catches for all Countries 1990-1999. Source: SCRS, 2004

Scientific observer data are being collected on a range of pelagic longline fleets in the
Atlantic and will be increasingly useful in better quantifying total catch, catch composition, and
disposition of catch as these observer programs mature. Previous ICCAT observer coverage
requirements of five percent for non-purse seine vessels that participated in the bigeye and
yellowfin tuna fishery, including pelagic longline (per ICCAT Recommendation 96-01), are no
longer in force. There is currently no ICCAT required minimum level of observer coverage
specific to pelagic longline fishing. Nevertheless, the United States has implemented a
mandatory observer program in the U.S. pelagic longline fishery. Japan is required to have eight
percent observer coverage of its vessels fishing for swordfish in the North Atlantic, which are
primarily pelagic longline vessels, however, the recommendation is not specific to vessel or gear
type. ICCAT recommendation 04-01, a conservation and management recommendation for the
bigeye tuna fishery, entered into force in mid-2005 and requires at least five percent observer
coverage of pelagic longline vessels over 24 meters fishing for bigeye.
ICCAT has also developed a running tabulation of the diversity of species caught by the
various gears used to target tunas and tuna like species in the Atlantic and Mediterranean (Table
3.32). For all fish species, longline gear shows the highest documented diversity of catch,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-164

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

followed by gillnets and purse seine. For seabirds, longline gear again shows the highest
diversity of catch, while for sea turtles and marine mammals, purse seine and gillnet have a
higher documented diversity of species for Atlantic tuna fleets (SCRS, 2004).
Table 3.32

ICCAT Bycatch Table (LL, longline; GILL, gillnets; PS, purse-seine; BB, baitboat; HARP,
harpoon; Trap, traps). Source: SCRS, 2004.

U.S. Pelagic Longline Catch in Relation to International Catch
Highly Migratory Species
The U.S. pelagic longline fleet represents a small fraction of the international pelagic
longline fleet that competes on the high seas for catches of tunas and swordfish. In recent years,
the proportion of U.S. pelagic longline landings of HMS, for the fisheries in which the United
States participates, has remained relatively stable in proportion to international landings (Table
3.33). The U.S. fleet accounts for less than 0.5 percent of the landings of swordfish and tuna
from the Atlantic Ocean south of 5°N. latitude, and does not operate at all in the Mediterranean
Sea. Tuna and swordfish landings by foreign fleets operating in the tropical Atlantic and
Mediterranean are greater than the catches from the north Atlantic area where the U.S. fleet
operates. Even within the area where the U.S. fleet operates, the U.S. portion of fishing effort (in
numbers of hooks fished) is less than 10 percent of the entire international fleet’s effort, and
likely less than that due to differences in reporting effort between ICCAT countries (NMFS,
2001).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-165

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.33

Estimated International Longline Landings of HMS, Other than Sharks, for All Countries in
the Atlantic: 1999-2004 (mt ww)1. Source: SCRS, 2005.
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Swordfish (N. Atl + S. Atl)

25,268

25,091

22,702

22,278

21,746

23,872

Yellowfin Tuna (W. Atl)2

11,596

11,638

12,740

11,605

9,996

15,008

Bigeye Tuna

76,527

71,194

55,265

46,584

51,065

43,620

Bluefin Tuna (W. Atl.)2

914

859

610

727

228

542

Albacore Tuna (N. Atl + S. Atl)

27,209

28,896

29,722

27,798

27,893

20,940

Skipjack Tuna (W. Atl)2

58

23

60

143

95

231

Blue Marlin (N. Atl. + S. Atl.)3

2,359

2,209

1,638

1,331

1,690

1,376

White Marlin (N. Atl. + S. Atl.)3

981

893

592

725

582

528

Sailfish (W. Atl.)4

524

815

812

1,271

860

657

Total

145,436

141,618

124,141

112,462

114,155

106,774

U.S. Longline Landings (from
2003, 2004, and 2005 U.S. Natl.
Reports)5

8,331.1

7,253.5

5,694.9

6,193.7

5,442.3

5649.1

2004

U.S. Longline Landings as a
Percent of Total Longline
Landings

5.7
5.1
4.6
5.5
4.8
5.3
Landings include those classified by the SCRS as longline landings for all areas

2
Note that the United States has not reported participation in the E. Atl yellowfin tuna fishery since 1983 and has not

participated in the E. Atl bluefin or the E. Atl skipjack tuna fishery since 1982.

3
Includes U.S. dead discards and Brazilian live discards.

4
Includes U.S. dead discards.

5
Includes swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish longline discards.

1

Atlantic Sharks
There is currently no comprehensive international reporting system for Atlantic shark
catches and landings. While there are some international data, not all countries report shark
catches and landings and those that do use varying reporting methods. The most recent landings
reports for blue and shortfin mako sharks are presented in Table 3.34 and Table 3.35,
respectively. In 2001, ICCAT passed a resolution on Atlantic sharks to determine needed
improvements in data collection for Atlantic shortfin mako and blue sharks, and to conduct an
interim meeting in 2003 to discuss the issue. In addition, the resolution called upon contracting
parties and non-contracting parties to: (1) submit catch and effort data on Atlantic shortfin mako,
porbeagle, and blue sharks; (2) encourage the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally;
(3) minimize waste and discards from shark catches; and (4) voluntarily agree not to increase
fishing effort targeting Atlantic porbeagle, shortfin mako and blue sharks until sustainable levels
of harvest can be determined through stock assessments.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-166

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

At its annual meeting in New Orleans in 2004, ICCAT adopted a recommendation to,
among other things, ban shark finning, require vessels to fully utilize their entire catches of
sharks, encourage the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally and are not used for food,
and review the assessment of shortfin mako sharks in 2005, and reassess blue sharks and shortfin
mako no later than 2007. The ICCAT recommendation also encouraged countries to engage in
research to identify shark nursery areas, and collect data on shark catches.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-167

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.34

LANDINGS
DISCARDS

LANDINGS

DISCARDS

Nominal Catches of Blue Shark Reported to ICCAT (landings and discards in t) by Major Gear and Flag between 1990 and 2002. Source:
SCRS, 2004; SCRS, 2005.
Atlantic Total
longline
others
longline
others
BENIN
BRASIL
CANADA
CAP-VERT
CHINA.PR
EC-CYPRUS
EC-DENMARK
EC-ESPANA
EC-FRANCE
EC-IRELAND
EC-PORTUGAL
EC-U.K
JAPAN
MEXICO
NAMIBIA
PANAMA
SENEGAL
SOUTHAFRICA
TRINIDAD&TOBAG
U.S.A
UK-BERMUDA
URUGUAY
CANADA
U.S.A
UK-BERMUDA

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1990
2,348
1,387
220
741
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
130
0
1,387
1
0
0

1991
3,533
2,265
496
772
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
187
0
2,257
0
0
0

1992
2,343
1,667
491
184
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
276
0
1,583
0
0
0

1993
7,879
5,749
994
1136
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
322
0
5,726
0
0
0

1994
8,310
7,366
372
572
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
350
0
4,669
0
2,596
0

1995
8,422
7,501
300
618
3
0
0
276
0
0
0
2
0
266
0
5,569
12
1,589
0

1996
9,036
7,767
558
609
102
0
743
12
0
0
0
3
0
278
0
5,710
0
1,044
0

1997
36,895
36,279
431
185
0
6
1103
11
0
0
0
1
29,917
213
0
3,966
0
996
0

1998
33,211
32,578
422
189
22
4
0
5
0
0
0
1
28,137
163
0
3,318
1
850
0

1999
34,208
33,790
309
105
4
27
179
54
0
0
0
0
29,005
0
66
3,337
0
893
0

0
0
0
0
0
87
0
0
0
741
0

0
0
0
0
0
308
0
8
0
772
0

0
0
0
0
0
215
0
84
0
184
0

0
0
0
0
0
680
0
15
0
1,136
0

0
0
0
0
0
29
0
93
0
572
0

0
0
0
0
0
23
0
64
0
618
3

0
0
0
0
0
283
0
252
0
710
1

0
0
0
0
0
211
1
286
0
185
0

0
0
0
23
0
255
2
242
16
195
0

0
177
0
21
0
217
0
126
0
101
8

3-168

2000
33,462
32,616
709
137
0
0
1689
18
0
0
9
2
26,046
395
9
4,220
12
492
0
0
22
0
0
0
291
0
119
0
137
0

2001
34,301
33,415
780
105
0
0
2173
0
0
750
0
1
25,110
207
66
4,713
9
518
6
0
0
456
83
0
42
0
59
0
106
0

2002
31,357
31,146
143
68
0
0
1971
5
0
420
0
13
21,037
109
11
4,602
6
675
0
2213
0
0
63
6
0
0
159
0
68
0

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

F ISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.35

Nominal Catches of Shortfin Mako Shark Reported to ICCAT (landings and discards in t) by Major Gear and Flag between 1990 and
2002. Source: SCRS, 2004; SCRS, 2005.
1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

486

538

511

1,824

1,352

2,646

1,680

5,300

4,105

3,731

4,366

4,522

4,792

longline

218

328

235

1,137

1,017

1,177

1,421

5,125

3,941

3,630

4,044

4,278

4,527

others

268

210

250

667

317

1440

259

175

165

100

322

244

266

Atlantic Total
LANDINGS

DISCARDS

longline

0

0

26

20

18

29

0

0

0

2

0

0

LANDINGS

BRASIL

0

0

0

0

0

0

83

190

0

27

219

409

226

CANADA

0

0

0

0

0

111

67

110

69

70

78

69

78

CHINA.PR

0

0

0

34

45

23

27

19

74

126

306

22

208

COTE D'IVOIRE

0

0

0

0

0

0

15

0

0

10

9

15

0

EC-ESPANA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3,777

3,347

2,895

2,679

2,921

2,859

193

314

220

796

649

749

785

519

425

446

706

523

471

EC-U.K

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

2

1

JAPAN

0

0

0

0

0

0

213

248

0

0

0

0

0

MEXICO

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

10

16

0

NAMIBIA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

459

PANAMA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

25

1

0

0

SOUTH AFRICA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

13

0

79

19

ST.VINCENT

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

TRINIDAD&TOBAGO

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

268

210

250

945

628

1703

465

408

148

69

292

395

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

25

14

15

29

12

21

24

28

21

43

63

70

58

MEXICO

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

U.S.A

0

0

26

20

18

28

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

UK-BERMUDA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

EC-PORTUGAL

U.S.A
UK-BERMUDA
URUGUAY
DISCARDS

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-169

0

413

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

F ISHERY DATA UPDATE

Sea Turtles
From 1999 to 2003, the U.S. pelagic longline fleet targeting HMS captured an average of
772 loggerhead and 1,013 leatherback sea turtles per year, based on observed takes and total
reported effort. In 2004, the U.S. pelagic longline fleet was estimated to have captured 734
loggerhead and 1,359 leatherback sea turtles (Garrison, 2005). In 2005, the U.S. pelagic longline
fishery was estimated to have interacted with 274 loggerhead and 351 leatherback sea turtles
outside of experimental fishing operations (Walsh and Garrison, 2006). Since other ICCAT
nations do not monitor incidental catches of sea turtles, an exact assessment of their impact is not
possible. However, high absolute numbers of sea turtle catches in the foreign fleets have been
reported from other sources (NMFS, 2001). Throughout the Atlantic basin, including the
Mediterranean Sea, a total of 210,000 – 280,000 loggerhead and 30,250 – 70,000 leatherback sea
turtles are estimated to be captured by pelagic longline fisheries each year (Lewiston et al., 2004).
Mortality in the domestic and foreign pelagic longline fisheries is just one of numerous
factors affecting sea turtle populations in the Atlantic (National Research Council, 1990). Many
sources of anthropogenic mortality are outside of U.S. jurisdiction and control. If the U.S.
swordfish quota was relinquished to other fishing nations, the effort now expended by the U.S.
fleet would likely be replaced by foreign effort. This could significantly alter the U.S. position at
ICCAT and make the implementation of international conservation efforts more difficult. This
would also eliminate the option of gear or other experimentation with the U.S. longline fleet,
thus making it difficult to find take reduction solutions which could be transferred to other
longlining nations to effect a greater global reduction in sea turtle takes in pelagic longline
fisheries. The United States has, and will continue to make efforts at ICCAT, Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and other international forums, to encourage adoption of
sea turtle conservation measures by international fishing fleets.
The first international agreement devoted solely to the protection of sea turtles – the
Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles – was concluded
on September 5, 1996, in Salvador, Brazil, and entered into force in May 2001. The InterAmerican Convention called for the Parties to establish national sea turtle conservation programs.
In addition to domestic rulemaking in various fisheries, NMFS has been active at the
international level in promoting sea turtle conservation efforts. A summery of some of these
efforts is provided below.
In February 2003, the United States supported a workshop consisting of technical experts
on sea turtle biology and longline fishery operations from interested nations in order to share
information and discuss possible solutions to reduce incidental capture of marine turtles in these
fisheries. The United States introduced the NED sea turtle bycatch mitigation research at the
November 2003, ICCAT meeting in Dublin, Ireland, and co-sponsored ICCAT Resolution 03-11
which encouraged other nations to improve data collection and reporting on sea turtle bycatch
and promote the safe handling and release of incidentally captured sea turtles. A poster and
video describing the NED research experiment and preliminary results were displayed, as well as
many of the experimentally tested release gears.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-170

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

In January 2004, the Northeast Distant Waters Longline Research ad hoc advisory group
met in Miami, Florida. The purpose of this meeting was to present a summary of the 2001 and
2002 NED pelagic longline sea turtle bycatch mitigation research and the preliminary results for
the 2003 research, and to discuss future research needs. Also in January 2004, the IATTC CIAT Bycatch Working Group met in Kobe, Japan. The purpose of U.S. attendance at this
meeting was to present results of sea turtle mitigation research by the U.S, to hear research
results on bycatch mitigation from other countries, to encourage IATTC countries to evaluate or
adopt sea turtle mitigation technology in their fisheries, and to address other bycatch issues in
longline fisheries. A Workshop was held in conjunction with the Sea Turtle Symposium in San
Jose, Costa Rica in February 2004. The focus of this workshop was on providing information on
the safe release of sea turtles to participants from nations with longline fleets. In June 2004,
NMFS SEFSC staff conducted longline mitigation training and workshops in Peru, in
cooperation with the IATTC. In August 2004, a workshop was held in Panama on conducting
circle hook experiments similar to those undertaken in Ecuador (see description below) and on
the use of dehooking devices and safe handling and release techniques. Also in August 2004, a
workshop was held in Guatemala on conducting circle hook experiments similar to Ecuador and
on the use of dehooking devices, safe handling and release techniques. In October 2004,
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) staff followed up on a training workshop held in
2003 in cooperation with the Instituo del Mar del Peru (IMARPE) for fisheries observers, by
working with Peruvian researchers to initiate circle hook implementation and experiments in the
artisanal dolphin and shark fisheries.
At the Annual ICCAT meeting in New Orleans in November 2004, NMFS staff
conducted a workshop discussing experimental results and the use of circle hooks, the use of
dehooking devices, and safe handling and release techniques. Also in November, a workshop
was conducted at the meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute in Saint Petersburg,
Florida.
In collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), IATTC, and the Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC), NMFS provided hooks, dehooking devices,
and technical assistance to Ecuador for the testing of non-offset 14/0 and 15/0 circle hooks in the
dolphin fishery and 10 degree offset 16/0 and 18/0 circle hooks in the tuna/shark fisheries. Work
began in March 2004 and initial results indicate that the majority of the bycatch is entangled, not
hooked. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) staff has been consulting with
WPRFMC, Blue Ocean Institute, and Japan on a cooperative research design to test the
efficiency of circle hooks in the Japanese tuna fishery. A draft research plan was reviewed in
May 2004, and a meeting to refine the draft was held in Honolulu in Sept 2004. In June 2004,
NMFS staff gave a presentation promoting cooperative research and the use of circle hooks at a
Symposium on Bycatch Reduction hosted by the National Fisheries Research and Development
Institute (NFRDI) in Korea.
The first Technical Assistance Workshop on Sea Turtle Bycatch Reduction Experiments
in Longline Fisheries was held in April 2005, in Honolulu. This workshop was held to provide
technical assistance for participants from the FAO Technical Consultation to design programs for
the development and testing of turtle bycatch reducing technology appropriate to the longline
fisheries of participating nations. The Third International Fishers Forum was held in Yokahama,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-171

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Japan in July 2005, and United States’ and regional research results on sea turtle bycatch
avoidance methods were presented. In 2005, the United States assisted in designing experiments
to evaluate sea turtle mitigation techniques and provided technical assistance for the following
countries: Australia; Brazil; Costa Rica; Ecuador; Iceland; Italy; Japan; Korea; Taiwan; Mexico;
Peru; Philippines; Spain; Uraquay; and, Vietnam.
3.4.2 Purse Seine
3.4.2.1 Domestic History and Current Management
Purse seine gear consists of a floated and weighted encircling net that is closed by means
of a drawstring; know as a purseline, threaded through rings attached to the bottom of the net.
The efficiency of this gear can be enhanced by the assistance of spotter planes used to locate
schools of tuna. Once a school is spotted, the vessel, with the aid of a smaller skiff, intercepts
and uses the large net to encircle it. Once encircled, the purseline is pulled, closing the bottom of
the net and preventing escape. The net is hauled back onboard using a powerblock, and the tunas
are removed and placed onboard the larger vessel. Economic and social aspects of the fisheries
are described in Sections 3.5 and Chapter 9.0 of this document, respectively.
Vessels using purse seine nets have participated in the U.S. Atlantic tuna fishery
continuously since the 1950s; although a number of purse seine vessels did target and land BFT
off the coast of Gloucester, MA as early as the 1930s. In 1958, continued commercial purse
seining effort for Atlantic tunas began with a single vessel in Cape Cod Bay and expanded
rapidly into the region between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod during the early 1960s. The purse
seine fishery between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod was directed mainly at small and medium
BFT, YFT, and at skipjack tuna, primarily for the canning industry. North of Cape Cod, purse
seining was directed at giant BFT. High catches of juvenile BFT were sustained throughout the
1960s and into the early 1970s. These high catch rates by U.S. purse seine vessels are believed
to have played a role in the decline in abundance during subsequent years. Currently these purse
seine vessels focus their effort on giant BFT, versus other tunas, due to the international market
that developed for giant BFT in the late 1970s. These fresh caught BFT are primarily flown
directly to Japan for processing into sushi or sashimi. By the late 1980s, high ex-vessel prices
and the increased importance of the Japanese market had increased effort on all size classes of
BFT. In 1992, NMFS responded by banning the sale of school, large school, and small medium
BFT (27 inches to less than 73 inches curved fork length).
A limited entry system with non-transferable individual vessel quotas (IVQs) for purse
seining was established in 1982, effectively excluding any new entrants into this category. Equal
baseline quotas of BFT are assigned to individual vessels by regulation; the IVQ system is
possible given the small pool of ownership in this sector of the fishery. Currently, only five
vessels comprise the Atlantic tuna purse seine fleet and in 1996 the quotas were made
transferable among the five vessels.
Vessels that are participating in the Atlantic tunas purse seine fishery are required to
target the larger size class BFT, more specifically the giant sized class (81 inches or larger) and
are granted a tolerance limit of 15 percent by weight, of the total amount of giant BFT landed
during a season. These vessels may commence fishing starting on July 15 of each year and may
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-172

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

continue through December 31, provided the vessel has not fully attained its IVQ. Over the last
few years, the Purse seine category has not fully harvested its allocated quota. This can be
attributed to a number of different reasons outside of the industry’s or NMFS' control, such as
lack of availability or schools being comprised of mixed size classes. NMFS has issued several
EFPs to this sector of the fishery and will continue to assess current regulations and their impact
on providing reasonable opportunities to harvest available quota.
3.4.2.2

Recent Catch and Landings

Table 3.36 shows purse seine landings of Atlantic tunas from 1999 through 2004. Purse
seine landings typically make up approximately 20 percent of the total annual U.S. landings of
BFT (about 25 percent of total commercial landings), but account for only a small percentage, if
any, of the landings of other HMS. In the 1980s and early 1990s, purse seine landings of YFT
were often over several hundred metric tons. Over 4,000 mt ww of YFT were recorded landed in
1985. In recent years, via informal agreements with other sectors of the tuna industry, the purse
seine fleet has opted not to direct any effort on HMS other than BFT.
Table 3.36

Domestic Atlantic Tuna Landings for the Purse Seine Fishery: 1999-2004 (mt ww). Northwest
Atlantic Fishing Area. Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT: 2005.

Species
Bluefin Tuna

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

247.9

275.2

195.9

207.7

265.4

31.8

Yellowfin Tuna

0

0

0

0

0

0

Skipjack Tuna

0

0

0

0

0

0

3.4.2.3

Safety Issues

Accidents that can occur on purse seine vessels include general injuries caused by
handling fish (e.g., poisoning from being stuck by fin spines), as well as accidents related to the
vessels fishing operations themselves, such as, deploying the skiff or using cables and winches to
move giant BFT from the net to the hold.
3.4.2.4

International Issues and Catch

The U.S. purse seine fleet has historically accounted for a small percentage of the total
International Atlantic tuna landings. Over the past six years, the U.S. purse seine fishery has
contributed to less than 0.15 percent of the total purse seine landings reported to ICCAT.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-173

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.37

Estimated International Purse Seine Atlantic Tuna Landings in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean: 1999-2004 (mt ww). Source: SCRS, 2005

Species

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Bluefin Tuna

15,884

17,616

17,520

18,548

15,525

122,309

Yellowfin Tuna

83,445

80,253

102,641

95,613

80,111

61,849

Skipjack Tuna

95,367

80,762

77,995

70,714

92,770

89,317

Bigeye Tuna

20,923

17,909

22,060

16,192

22,237

13,388

238

244

288

158

998

674

215,857

196,784

220,504

201,225

211,641

177,537

248

275

196

208

265

32

0.12%

0.14%

0.09%

0.10%

0.13%

0.02%

Albacore
Total
U.S. Total
U.S. Percentage

Since the 1999 ICCAT meeting, ICCAT has continued to implement a Fish Aggregation
Device (FAD) closed area in the Gulf of Guinea. The closure (which became mandatory in mid­
1999) was in response to concern over catches of juvenile and undersize tunas by non-U.S.
internationally flagged purse seiners relying on FADs. The full evaluation of this program is
somewhat hindered by the multi-species nature of surface fisheries and the existence of other
types of fisheries. The updated analysis indicated that this regulation appeared effective at
reducing mortality for juvenile bigeye. Full compliance with this regulation by all surface
fisheries will greatly increase the effectiveness of this regulation.
3.4.3

Commercial Handgear

3.4.3.1 Domestic History and Current Management
Commercial handgears, including handline, harpoon, rod and reel, and bandit gear are
often used to fish for Atlantic HMS by fishermen on private vessels, charter vessels, and
headboat vessels. Rod and reel gear may be deployed from a vessel that is at anchor, drifting, or
underway (i.e., trolling). In general, trolling consists of dragging baits or lures through, on top of,
or even above the water’s surface. While trolling, vessels often use outriggers, kites, or greensticks to assist in spreading out or elevating baits or lures and to prevent fishing lines from
tangling. For more information on green-stick fishing gear, and the configurations allowed
under current regulations, please refer to the discussions of alternative H4 in Chapters 2 and 4 of
this document. Operations, frequency and duration of trips, and distance ventured offshore vary
widely. Most of the vessels are greater than seven meters in length and are privately owned by
individual fishermen.
The handgear fisheries are typically most active during the summer and fall, although in
the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fishing occurs during the winter months. Fishing usually
takes place between eight and 200 km from shore and for those vessels using bait, the baitfish
typically includes herring, mackerel, whiting, mullet, menhaden, ballyhoo, butterfish, and squid.
The commercial handgear fishery for BFT occurs mainly in New England, and more recently off
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-174

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

the coast of southern Atlantic states, such as Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, with
vessels targeting large medium and giant BFT. The majority of U.S. commercial handgear
fishing activities for bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas take place in the northwest
Atlantic. Beyond these general patterns, the availability of Atlantic tunas at a specific location
and time is highly dependent on environmental variables that fluctuate from year to year.
Currently the U.S. Atlantic tuna commercial handgear fisheries are managed through an
open access vessel permit program. Vessels that wish to sell their Atlantic tunas must obtain a
commercial handgear permit in one of the following categories: General (rod and reel, harpoon,
handline, bandit gear), Harpoon (harpoon only), or Charter/Headboat (rod and reel and handline).
These vessels may also need permits from the states they operate out of in order to land and sell
their catch. All commercial permit holders are encouraged to check with their local state
fish/natural resource management office regarding these requirements. Permitted vessels are
also required to sell their Atlantic tunas to federally permitted Atlantic tuna dealers. As the
Atlantic tunas dealer permits are issued by the Northeast Region Permit Office, vessel
owner/operators are encouraged to contact the permitting office directly, either by phone at (978)
281-9438 or via the web at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/doc/vesdata1.htm, to obtain a list of
permitted dealers in their area.
Vessels that are permitted in the General and Charter/Headboat categories commercially
fish under the General category rules and regulations. For instance, regarding BFT, vessels that
possess either of the two permits mentioned above have the ability to retain a daily bag limit of
zero to three BFT, measuring 73 inches or greater curved fork length per vessel per day while the
General category BFT fishery is open. The General category BFT fishery opens on June 1 of
each year and remains open until January 31 of the subsequent year, or until the quota is filled.
Vessel owner/operators should check with the agency via websites (www.hmspermits.gov) or
telephone information lines (1-888-872-8862) to verify the BFT retention limit on any given day.
The General category BFT quota is approximately 47 percent of the U.S. quota and equates to a
base line allocation of approximately 690 mt.
Vessels that are permitted in the Harpoon category fish under the Harpoon category rules
and regulations. For instance, regarding BFT, vessels have the ability to keep two bluefin
measuring 73 inches to less than 81 inches curved fork length per vessel trip per day while the
fishery is open. There is no limit on the number of BFT that measure longer than 81 inches
curved fork length, as long as the Harpoon category season is open. The Harpoon category
season also opens on June 1 of each year and remains open until November 15, or until the quota
is filled. The Harpoon category BFT quota is approximately 3.9 percent of the U.S. quota and
equates to a base line allocation of approximately 57 mt.
U.S. commercial swordfish fishing in the Atlantic Ocean is reported to have begun in the
early 1800s as a harpoon fishery off the coast of New England. This fishery traditionally
consisted of harpoon vessels operating out of Rhode Island and Massachusetts where they took
extended trips for swordfish north and east of the Hudson Canyon and particularly off Georges
Bank, and could land as many as 20 to 25 large swordfish over a ten-day period. These fish
primarily consisted of large fish that finned on the surface and were available to the harpoon gear,
some weighing as much as 600 lbs dw, but averaging about 225 to 300 lbs dw at the turn of the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-175

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

century. Because of the limited effort directed towards large fish, the stock was sufficient to
support a sustainable seasonal swordfish fishery for more than 150 years. Most swordfish caught
in the United States in the early 1900s were harvested with harpoons; harpoon landings declined
from the 1940s through the 1960s. Due to a decreased availability of the large swordfish in the
northeast this fishery has essentially ceased to exist. However, a recently emerging swordfish
handgear fishery, both commercial and recreational, has appeared to develop off the east coast of
Florida. This fishery is essentially prosecuted at night with rod and reel or handline gear. Some
vessels participating in this fishery are currently utilizing individual handlines attached to freefloating buoys. This fishery has been operating under the current regulations, which require that
handlines be restricted to no more than two hooks and be released and retrieved by hand. The
current regulations do not limit the number of individual handlines/buoys that may be possessed
or deployed.
Currently the U.S. commercial swordfish fishery is managed through limited access
vessel permits. Vessels that possess a limited access handgear permit must abide by the
minimum size limits for swordfish (i.e., 29 inches form cleithrum to caudal keel; 47 inches lower
jaw fork length; or 33 lbs dressed weight) and seasonal retention limits. When the directed
swordfish fishery is open, permitted handgear vessel do not have a possession limit. However,
during a directed fishery closure, permitted handgear vessels may land two swordfish per trip,
provided these two fish were not taken with harpoon gear. Fishermen with a commercial
handgear swordfish permit are required to report fishing activities in an approved logbook within
48 hours of each day’s fishing activities for multi-day trips, or before offloading for one-day trips,
and submit the logbook within seven days of offloading.
The shark commercial handgear fishery plays a very minor role in contributing to the
overall shark landing statistics. For further information regarding the shark fishery refer to
Section 3.4.5. Economic and social aspects of all the domestic handgear fisheries are described
later in this document (Section 3.5 and Chapter 9.0 respectively).
3.4.3.2

Recent Catch and Landings

The proportion of domestic HMS landings harvested with handgear varies by species,
with Atlantic tunas comprising the majority of commercial landings. Commercial handgear
landings of all Atlantic HMS (other than sharks) in the United States are shown in Table 3.38.
In 2004, BFT commercial handgear landings accounted for approximately 42 percent of
the total U.S. BFT landings, and almost 75 percent of commercial BFT landings.
Also in 2004, four percent of the total yellowfin catch, or nine percent of the commercial
yellowfin catch, was attributable to commercial handgear. Commercial handgear landings of
skipjack tuna accounted for approximately ten percent of total skipjack landings, or about 30
percent of commercial skipjack landings. For albacore, commercial handgear landings
accounted for approximately one percent of total albacore landings, or about six percent of
commercial albacore landings. Commercial handgear landings of bigeye tuna accounted for
approximately one percent of total bigeye landings and one percent of total commercial bigeye
landings.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-176

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Updated tables of landings for the commercial handgear fisheries by gear and by area for
1999 – 2004 are presented in the following tables.
Table 3.38

Species
Bluefin
Tuna

Bigeye
Tuna

Albacore
Tuna

Yellowfin
Tuna

Skipjack
Tuna

Swordfish

Domestic Landings for the Commercial Handgear Fishery, by Species and Gear, for 1999-2004
(mt ww). Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT: 2005
Gear
Rod and Reel

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

2003

643.6

590.9

889.7

878.5

529.2

331.4

Handline

15.5

3.2

9.0

4.5

2.6

1.3

Harpoon

115.8

184.2

102.1

55.6

75.5

41.2

TOTAL

774.9

778.3

1,000.8

938.6

607.3

373.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

12.3

5.7

33.7

14.4

6.3

3.1

TOTAL

12.3

5.7

33.7

14.4

6.3

3.1

Troll

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

4.4

7.9

3.9

6.6

3.4

5.6

TOTAL

4.4

7.9

3.9

6.6

3.4

5.6

Troll

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

220.0

284.0

300.0

244.0

216.0

234.0

TOTAL

220.0

284.0

300.0

244.0

216.0

234.0

Troll

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

6.4

9.7

10.5

12.7

9.4

10.4

TOTAL

6.4

9.7

10.5

12.7

9.4

10.4

Handline

5.0

8.9

8.9

11.7

20.6

20.0

Harpoon

0.0

0.6

7.4

2.8

0.0

0.5

TOTAL

5.0

9.5

16.3

14.5

20.6

20.5

Troll

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-177

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.39

Domestic Landings for the Commercial Handgear Fishery by Species and Region for 19992004 (mt ww). Source: U.S. National Report to ICCAT: 2005

Species

Region

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Bluefin Tuna

NW Atl

774.4

778.3

1,000.8

938.3

607.3

373.9

Bigeye Tuna

NW Atl

11.9

4.1

33.2

13.8

6.0

3.0

GOM

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.6

0.3

0.1

Caribbean

0.2

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

NW Atl

0.6

2.9

1.7

3.9

1.4

5.4

< .05

0.0

0.0

0.0

< .05

0.0

3.8

5.0

2.2

2.7

2.0

2.1

192.0

235.7

242.5

137.0

148.0

208.0

GOM

12.7

28.6

43.4

100.0

59.0

19.0

Caribbean

14.5

19.4

14.3

7.0

9.0

7.0

NW Atl

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.6

GOM

0.4

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

Caribbean

5.8

8.8

10.3

12.5

9.2

9.6

NW Atl

5.0

8.3

16.0

11.6

10.8

18.9

< .05

1.2

0.3

2.9

9.8

1.6

Albacore Tuna

GOM
Caribbean
Yellowfin Tuna

Skipjack Tuna

Swordfish

NW Atl

GOM

Handgear Trip Estimates
Table 3.40 displays the estimated number of rod and reel and handline trips targeting
large pelagic species in 2001 through 2004. The trips include commercial and recreational trips,
and are not specific to any particular species. It should be noted that these estimates are still
preliminary and subject to change.
Table 3.40

Estimated number of vessel trips targeting large pelagic species, 2001-2004. Source: Large
Pelagics Survey database
AREA

Year
NH/ME

MA

CT/RI

NY

Total
NJ
(north)

NJ (south) +
MD/DE

VA

Private
Vessels
2001
2002
2003
2004

1,944
5,090
4,501
2,025

3,641
15,180
13,411
10,033

497
2,558
2,869
3,491

2,039
7,692
12,466
11,525

3,040
2,762
3,214
3,632

2,675
22,757
21,619
22,433

910
6,524
5,067
4,406

14,746
62,563
63,147
57,545

Charter
Vessels
2001
2002
2003
2004

133
1,132
221
312

567
3,357
2,561
2,021

203
937
1,246
1,564

280
1,686
2,035
2,285

660
1,331
1,331
1,094

655
6,300
5,201
5,080

307
1,510
546
1,579

2,805
16,253
13,141
13,935

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-178

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

3.4.3.3

Safety Issues Associated with the Fishery

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) conducts routine vessel safety inspections at sea on a
variety of vessels throughout the year. During the busy General category BFT season the USCG
has been known to concentrate patrol activities on General category BFT boats. Boarding
officers indicate that the majority of the commercial handgear vessels have the necessary safety
equipment; however, many part-time fishermen operating smaller vessels do not meet the
necessary safety standards. There have been several cases of vessels participating in the
commercial handgear fishery that have capsized due to weight while attempting to boat
commercial-sized BFT (measuring 73 inches or greater and weighing several hundred pounds).
Over the last few years, the USCG focused boardings on small vessels, especially those
owned by “part-time” commercial handgear fishermen, and terminated several dozen trips due to
the lack of safety equipment on board. If a vessel is boarded at sea and found to be lacking
major survival equipment, the USCG will terminate the trip and escort the vessels back to port.
Currently, NMFS does not require proof of proper safety equipment as a condition to
obtain a commercial handgear permit. Instead, NMFS informs permit applicants that
commercial vessels are subject to the Fishing Vessel Safety Act of 1988 and advises them to
contact their local USCG office for further information. The USCG District Boston office
reports receiving 50 to 75 calls a week during the peak fishing season; officers speak with all
callers to answer vessel questions. Since NMFS regulations do not require USCG inspection or
safety equipment in order to obtain a commercial handgear permit, NMFS cannot be certain that
all participants in the commercial handgear fisheries are adequately prepared for the conditions
they may encounter. NMFS is concerned about the safety of all vessels participating in the
commercial handgear fisheries and continues to work with the USCG to improve communication
of vessel safety requirements to commercial handgear vessel operators.
It is unlawful for Atlantic tuna vessels to engage in fishing unless the vessel travels to and
from the area where it will be fishing under its own power and the person operating that vessel
brings any BFT under control (secured to the catching vessel or on board) with no assistance
from another vessel, except when shown by the operator that the safety of the vessel or its crew
was jeopardized or other circumstances existed that were beyond the control of the operator.
NMFS Enforcement and USCG boarding officers have recently encountered vessels participating
in the BFT fishery that are unable to transit to and from the fishing grounds due to their limited
fuel capacity. Occasionally these smaller vessels will work in cooperation with a larger
documented vessel to catch a BFT; others have been observed leaving lifesaving equipment at
the dock to make room for extra fuel, bait, and staples. NMFS is concerned that use of such
inadequately equipped vessels jeopardizes crew in that the vessel may not be able to safely return
to shore without assistance of the larger vessel due to insufficient fuel or to adverse weather
conditions.
Over the last couple of years, NMFS has received a number of vessel permit applications
from kayak owner/operators. In addition to the requirement mentioned above, NMFS only
issues permits to vessels that possess a USCG Documentation number, a state registration
number, or a foreign registration number (recreational permit only). As kayaks typically do not
require such documentation NMFS has denied all applications for a kayak to date.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-179

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

NMFS also has concerns regarding individuals embarking on HMS trips by themselves.
Recently there have been a few incidents of fishermen either severely injuring themselves or
dying while pursing HMS by themselves. Certain hazardous situations could be mitigated by
having an additional person onboard the vessel while conducting a trip targeting large pelagics.
NMFS encourages vessel owner/operators to practice safe fishing techniques.
NMFS will consider all safety comments and information, including those from the
USCG and NMFS Enforcement, when planning future General category effort control schedules
and will discuss these issues in future meetings with the AP.
3.4.3.4

U.S. vs. International Issues and Catch

SCRS data do not lend themselves to organize international landings into a commercial
handgear category. While some countries report rod and reel landings, these numbers may
include both commercial and recreational landings. International catches of all Atlantic HMS for
2004 are summarized in Table 3.21.
3.4.4

Recreational Handgear

The following section describes the recreational portion of the handgear fishery, and is
primarily focused upon rod and reel fishing. The HMS Handgear (rod and reel, handline, and
harpoon) fishery includes both commercial and recreational fisheries and is described fully in
Section 2.5.8 of the 1999 FMP. Handgear components may also be deployed as a specialized
trolling gear to target surface-feeding tunas. Under this configuration, the line and leaders are
elevated and actively trolled so that the baits fish on or above the water’s surface. This style of
fishing is often referred to as "green-stick fishing," and reports indicate that it can be extremely
efficient compared to conventional fishing techniques. For more information on green-stick
fishing gear and the configurations allowed under current regulations, please refer to the
discussions of alternative H4 in Chapters 2 and 4 of this document. The recreational billfish
fishery is described fully in Section 2.1.3 of the 1999 Billfish Amendment. The commercial sale,
barter or trade of Atlantic billfish by U.S. commercial interests is prohibited, only recreational
landings are authorized.
3.4.4.1

Overview of History and Current Management

Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks are managed under the 1999 FMP and Amendment
1 to the 1999 FMP, while Atlantic billfish are managed separately under the Billfish FMP, as
amended. Summaries of the domestic aspects of the Atlantic tuna fishery, the Atlantic swordfish
fishery, and the Atlantic shark fishery are found in Sections 2.2.3, 2.3.3, and 2.4.3, respectively,
of the 1999 FMP. A history of Atlantic billfish management is provided in Section 1.1.1 of the
Billfish Amendment and Section 3.1.2 of this document.
Atlantic tunas, sharks, swordfish, and billfish are all targeted by domestic recreational
fishermen using rod and reel gear. The recreational swordfish fishery had declined dramatically
over the past twenty years, but recent information indicates that the recreational swordfish
fishery is rebuilding in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and off the east coast of Florida. Effective March
1, 2003, an HMS Angling category permit has been required to fish recreationally for any HMS­
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-180

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

managed species (Atlantic tunas, sharks, swordfish, and billfish) (67 FR 77434, December 18,
2002). Prior to March 1, 2003, the regulations only required vessels fishing recreationally for
Atlantic tunas to possess an Atlantic Tunas Angling category permit.
Recreational fishing for Atlantic HMS is managed primarily through the use of minimum
size limits and bag limits. Recreational tuna fishing regulations are the most complex and
include a combination of minimum sizes, bag limits, limited season-based quota allotment for
bluefin tuna, and reporting requirements (depending upon the particular species and vessel type).
The recreational swordfish fishery has been managed through the use of a minimum size
requirement and landings requirement (swordfish may be headed and gutted but may not be cut
into smaller pieces). However, regulations effective March 2003 (68 FR 711) established a
recreational retention limit of one swordfish per person up to three per vessel per day.
Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than the daily limit of North Atlantic swordfish can be
possessed onboard a vessel.
The recreational shark fishery is managed using bag limits, minimum size requirements,
and landing requirements (sharks must be landed with head and fins attached). Additionally, the
possession of 19 species of sharks is prohibited.
Atlantic blue and white marlin have a combined landings limit (i.e., a maximum of 250
fish that can be landed per year); however, the primary management strategy for the recreational
billfish fishery is through the use of minimum size limits. There are no recreational retention
limits for Atlantic sailfish, blue marlin, and white marlin. Recreational anglers may not land
longbill spearfish.
ICCAT has made several recommendations to recover billfish resources throughout the
Atlantic Ocean that are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.2.
3.4.4.2

Most Recent Catch and Landings Data

The recreational landings database for HMS consists of information obtained through
surveys including the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS), Large Pelagic
Survey (LPS), Southeast Headboat Survey (HBS), Texas Headboat Survey, and Recreational
Billfish Survey Tournament Data (RBS). Descriptions of these surveys, the geographic areas
they include, and their limitations, are discussed in Section 2.6.2 of the 1999 FMP and Section
2.3.2 of the 1999 Billfish Amendment.
Reported domestic landings of Atlantic bluefin tuna (1983 through 1998) and BAYS tuna
(1995 through 1997) were presented in Section 2.2.3 of the 1999 FMP. As landings figures for
1997 and 1998 were preliminary in the 1999 FMP, updated landings for recreational rod and reel
fisheries are presented in Table 3.41 through 2004. Recreational landings of swordfish are
monitored by the LPS and the MRFSS. However, because swordfish landings are considered
rare events, it is difficult to extrapolate the total recreational landings from dockside intercepts.
An ad hoc committee of NMFS scientists reviewed the methodology and data used to
estimate recreational landings of Atlantic HMS during 2004. The Committee was charged with
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-181

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

reviewing the 2002 estimates of U.S. recreational landings of bluefin tuna, white marlin and blue
marlin reported by NMFS to ICCAT. The committee was also charged with recommending
methods to be used for the estimation of 2003 recreational fishery landings of bluefin tuna and
marlin. Although the Committee discovered and corrected a few problems with the raw data
from the LPS and the estimation program used to produce the estimates, the Committee
concluded that the estimation methods for producing the 2002 estimates were consistent with
methods used in previous years. The report of the Committee is available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Tuna/2002-2003_Bluefin-Marlin_Report-120304.pdf.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-182

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.41

Updated Domestic Landings for the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Billfish Recreational Rod and Reel Fishery, 1997-2004 (mt ww)*.
Sources: NMFS, 2004; NMFS, 2005. (Recreational shark landings are provided in Table 3.44 through Table 3.47).
Species

Region
NW Atlantic

Bluefin tuna**

Albacore

Blue marlin***

2001

2002

2003

2004

49.5

242.9

519.4

314.6

387.8

GOM

0

0

0.4

0.9

1.7

1.5

0

0

Total

299

184

103.4

50.4

244.6

520.9

314.6

387.8

333.5

228.0

316.1

34.4

366.2

49.6

188.5

94.6

0

0

1.8

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

4.0

0

GOM
Caribbean
Total

333.5

228.0

317.9

34.4

366.2

49.6

192.5

100.6

NW Atlantic

269.5

601.1

90.1

250.75

122.3

323.0

333.8

500.5

GOM

65.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

334.7

601.1

90.1

250.75

122.3

323.0

333.8

500.5

3,560.9

2,845.7

3,818.2

3,809.5

3,690.5

2,624

4,672

3,434

7.7

80.9

149.4

52.3

494.2

200

640

247

0

0

0.1

7.2

16

0

GOM
Caribbean

3,569

2,927

3,967.6

3,861.8

4184.7

2,831.2

5,328

3,681

NW Atlantic

42.0

49.5

63.6

13.1

32.9

23.3

34.0

27.3

GOM

21.7

37.0

34.8

16.7

16.1

13.2

11.0

6.3

0

0

0

13.2

15.7

40.4

49.7

60.7

74.0

5.6

19

24

Caribbean
Total

63.7

86.5

98.4

29.8

49.0

NW Atlantic

25.0

34.1

24.8

13.8

9.0

GOM

11.5

4.5

7.5

4.7

5.1

8.6

10.6

4.6

5.7

2.3

45.1

49.2

36.9

24.2

16.4

Caribbean
Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2000

103.0

Total

Skipjack tuna

1999

184

NW Atlantic
Yellowfin tuna

1998

299

NW Atlantic
Bigeye tuna

1997

3-183

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Species

White
marlin ***

Region

Swordfish

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

NW Atlantic

0.9

2.4

1.5

0.23

2.8

GOM

0.9

0.2

0.1

0

0.3

Caribbean

0.0

0.02

0

0

0

Total

1.8

2.6

1.6

0.23

3.1

0

0.1

0.07

1.75

61.2

GOM

0.4

1.0

0.6

0.24

0.6

Caribbean

0.2

0.05

0

0.06

0

Total

0.6

1.5

0.67

2.05

Total

10.9

4.7

21.3

15.6

NW Atlantic
Sailfish***

1997

2003

2004

5.6

0.6

0.8

61.8

103

53

33

1.5

21.5

5.9

24.3

* Rod and reel catches and landings for Atlantic tunas represent estimates of landings and dead discards based on statistical surveys of the U.S. recreational

harvesting sector.

** Rod and reel catch and landings estimates of bluefin tuna less than 73" curved fork length (CFL) based on statistical surveys of the U.S. recreational

harvesting sector. Rod and reel catch of bluefin > 73" CFL are commercial and may also include a few metric tons of "trophy" bluefin (recreational bluefin 73").

*** Blue and white marlin (1997-2003), and sailfish (1997-2002) landings are based on prior U.S. National Reports to ICCAT and consist primarily of reported

tournament landings. Reporting method was changed to a total count (blue and white marlin) in 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-184

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Atlantic Billfish Recreational Fishery
Due to the rare nature of billfish encounters and the difficulty of monitoring landings
outside of tournament events, reports of recreational billfish landings are sparse. However, the
RBS provides a preliminary source for analyzing recreational billfish landings. Table 3.42
documents the number of billfish landed in 1999 – 2004, as reported by the RBS.
Table 3.42

Preliminary RBS Recreational Billfish Landings in numbers of fish (calendar year). Source:
NMFS Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS).

Species

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Blue Marlin

172

117

75

84

96

110

White Marlin

36

8

22

33

20

25

Sailfish

30

18

11

14

24

9

Swordfish

-

-

0

16

48

168

In support of the sailfish assessment conducted at the 2001 SCRS billfish species group
meeting, document SCRS/01/106 developed indices of abundance of sailfish from the U.S.
recreational billfish tournament fishery for the period 1973 – 2000. The index of weight per 100
hours fishing was estimated from numbers of sailfish caught and reported in the logbooks
submitted by tournament coordinators and NMFS observers under the RBS, as well as available
size information. Document SCRS/01/138 estimated U.S. sailfish catch estimates from various
recreational fishery surveys.
All recreational, non-tournament landings of billfish, including swordfish, must be
reported within 24 hours of landing to NMFS by the permitted owner of the vessel landing the
fish. This requirement is applicable to all permit holders, both private and charter/headboat
vessels, not fishing in a tournament. In Maryland and North Carolina, vessel owners should
report their billfish landings at state-operated landings stations. A landed fish means a fish that
is kept and brought to shore. Due to large-scale non-compliance with the call-in requirement, the
landings in Table 3.43 are considered a minimum estimate of the non-tournament landings of
billfish.
Table 3.43

Number of billfish reported to NMFS via call-in system by fishing year, 2002-2005. Source: G.
Fairclough, pers. comm.

Species

2002*

2003

Blue Marlin
0
7
White Marlin
0
1
3
16
Sailfish
Swordfish
28
188
Based on a fishing year of June 1 – May 31.
* Reporting requirement did not go into effect until March 1, 2003
** 2005 landings as of May 16, 2006

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-185

2004

2005**

2
0
57
314

5
2
58
381

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Swordfish Recreational Fishery
The recreational swordfish fishery in the North Atlantic Ocean has been steadily
expanding in recent years, probably due to increased availability of small swordfish and an
increased interest in the sport. Fishermen typically fish off the east coast of Florida and off the
coasts of New Jersey and New York. Fish have also occasionally been encountered on trips off
Maryland and Virginia. In the past, the New York swordfish fishery occurred incidental to
overnight yellowfin tuna trips. During the day, fishermen targeted tunas, while at night they
fished deeper for swordfish. This appears to have evolved into a year-round directed fishery off
Florida and a summer fishery off of New Jersey. The Florida fishery occurs at night with
fishermen targeting swordfish using live or dead bait and additional attractants such as lightsticks,
LED lights, and light bars suspended under the boat.
Historically, fishery survey strategies have not captured all landings of recreational
handgear-caught swordfish. Although some handgear swordfish fishermen have commercial
permits 1, many others land swordfish strictly for personal consumption. Therefore, NMFS
published regulations to improve recreational swordfish monitoring and conservation. A trip
limit of one swordfish per person, up to three per vessel, and mandatory reporting of all
recreationally-landed swordfish and billfish via a toll-free call-in system became effective on
March 2, 2003 (68 FR 711). Accordingly, all reported recreational swordfish landings are
counted against the incidental swordfish quota.
Recreational fishing tournaments allow for the collection of a large volume of fisherydependent data in a relatively short time period. Tournaments also provide a “snapshot” of the
recreational fishery at a particular time and location. Analysis of tournament data collected over
a period of years could provide valuable information regarding trends in the recreational
swordfish fishery. A recent study documented recreational handgear-caught swordfish in three
south Florida tournaments (J. Levesque, pers. comm.). The tournaments occurred from July
though September 2002, two in Lighthouse Point and the other in Ft. Lauderdale. Data was
obtained through direct at-sea observation, dockside interviews with anglers landing swordfish,
and a telephone interview with a tournament organizer. A total of 156 vessels and between 468
– 624 individuals participated in the three tournaments.

3
Access to the commercial swordfish fishery is limited; hand gear fishermen however may purchase permits from other permitted
fishermen because the permits are transferable.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-186

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Figure 3.30 Total Number of Swordfish Caught, Kept and Released in Three Sampled Recreational
Swordfish Tournaments off Southeast Florida during 2002. Source: J. Levesque, pers. comm.

Figure 3.30 indicates that 112 swordfish were caught during the three monitored
tournaments. Of these, 26 swordfish were retained and 86 swordfish were released alive.
Additional data from the September 28, 2002, tournament indicated that, in that tournament, 48
swordfish were hooked, 30 were released, and four were kept. The definition of hooked, for
these purposes, was a swordfish that was on the line for any given amount of time. All hooked
fish were assumed to be swordfish. The three fishing tournaments implemented a 55-inch, or
140 cm LJFL minimum size requirement for landed swordfish, although current federal
regulations are 119 cm (46.9 in) LJFL.
Sizes for landed swordfish ranged from 130 – 230 cm (51.2 – 90.6 in) fork length. The
mean size for landed swordfish was 160 cm (63 in) fork length. Weights for landed swordfish
ranged from 36 – 144 kg (79.3 – 317.2 lb). The mean weight for the landed swordfish was 62.6
kg (137.9 lb). Estimated weights for the released swordfish ranged from 13 – 32 kg (28.6 – 70.5
lb). The mean estimated weight for released swordfish was 19.5 kg (43 lb).
The overall number of swordfish hooked per-unit-effort was .0615-swordfish/hr. or 6.15
swordfish per 100-hrs. drifting. The catch per-unit-effort was .0143-swordfish landed/hr. or 1.43
fish per 100-hrs. drifting.
Tournament caught swordfish reported to the RBS have increased in recent years. There
were none reported in 2001, 16 in 2002, 48 in 2003, and 168 in 2004. While total tournament
landings of swordfish are still low in terms of numbers of fish, it appears that as swordfish have
recovered in the past few years, tournament landings of swordfish have increased.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-187

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Shark Recreational Fishery
Recreational landings of sharks are an important component of HMS fisheries.
Recreational shark fishing with rod and reel is a popular sport at all social and economic levels,
largely because the resource is accessible. Sharks can be caught virtually anywhere in salt water,
depending upon the species. Recreational shark fisheries are oftentimes exploited in nearshore
waters by private vessels and charter/headboats. However, there is also some shore-based
fishing and some offshore fishing. The following tables provide a summary of landings for each
of the three species groups. Amendment 1 to the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark
FMP limited the recreational fishery to rod and reel and handline gear only.
Table 3.44

Estimates of Total Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Sharks: 1998-2004 (numbers of fish in
thousands). Source: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Estimates
for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited species.

Species Group

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

LCS

169.6

92.3

131.5

127.9

76.3

86.1

66.3

Pelagic

11.8

11.1

13.3

3.8

4.7

4.3

5.1

SCS

175.1

125.7

197.8

211.6

154.6

134.7

128.5

8.0

6.9

11.0

22.2

5.3

18.1

27.3

Unclassified

Table 3.45

Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks (LCS) by Species, in number of fish:
1998-2004. Sources: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Total
estimates for 2001-2004 do not include prohibited species.

LCS Species

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Basking**
Bignose*
Bigeye sand tiger**
Blacktip
Bull
Caribbean Reef*
Dusky*
Galapagos*
Hammerhead, Great
Hammerhead, Scalloped
Hammerhead, Smooth
Hammerhead, Unclassified
Lemon
Night*
Nurse
Sandbar
Sand tiger**

0
0
0
83,045
1,663
74
4,499
0
476
2,052
375
390
2,161
133
2,455
35,766
0

0
0
0
35,585
3,150
3
5,570
0
388
1,367
1
75
173
50
1,503
20,602
0

0
0
0
69,668
6,116
122
2,501
0
925
3,433
2
3,675
2,785
24
2,233
10,878
0

0
0
0
48,757
4,151
0
5,583
0
3,382
1,087
703
0
5,488
0
3,672
36,094
604

0
0
0
38,237
1,893
741
1,047
0
4
1,061
2
5,293
3,454
0
2,680
8,324
0

0
0
0
40,442
3,344
0
2,731
0
68
2,816
1
0
4,879
0
647
5,185
0

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-188

2004
0
71
0
31,197
4,885
692
0
0
9
714
0
0
5,710
0
3,594
3,843
0

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

LCS Species

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Silky
5,376
3,863
5,120
3,808
1,780
Spinner
10,805
6,361
5,402
3,651
3,835
Tiger
1,380
153
1,480
758
170
Whale**
0
0
0
0
0
White**
0
0
0
0
0
Large Coastal Unclassified
18,979
13,444
17,102
16,211
9,535
169,62
Total:
92,288 131,466 134,045
76,294
*indicates species that were prohibited in the recreational fishery as of July 1, 1999.
** indicates species that were prohibited as of April 1997.

Table 3.46

1,998
4,460
110
0
0
22,086
86,036

2004
502
3,380
1
0
0
12,466
66,301

Recreational Harvest of Atlantic Pelagic Sharks by Species, in number of fish: 1998-2004.
Sources: 1998-2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Total estimates for
2001-2004 do not include prohibited species.

Pelagic Shark Species

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Bigeye thresher*
0
0
0
0
65
Bigeye sixgill*
0
0
0
0
0
Blue Shark
6,085
5,218
7,010
950
0
Mako, Longfin*
0
0
0
0
0
Mako, Shortfin
5,633
1,383
5,813
2,871
3,206
Mako, Unclassified
8
9
0
0
0
Oceanic whitetip
0
0
0
0
0
Porbeagle
0
0
0
0
0
Sevengill*
0
0
0
0
0
Sixgill*
0
0
0
0
0
Thresher
36
4,512
528
0
1,467
Total:
11,762
11,122
13,351
3,821
4,673
* indicates species that were prohibited in the recreational fishery as of July 1, 1999.
Table 3.47

2003

2003
0
0
376
0
3,957
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,333

2004
0
0
0
0
5,144
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,144

Recreational Harvest of Atlantic SCS by Species, in number of fish: 1998-2004. Source: 1998­
2000 (Cortés, pers. comm.); 2001-2004 (Cortés, 2005a; 2005b). Total estimates for 2001-2004 do
not include prohibited species.

SCS Species

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Atlantic Angel*
110
0
0
0
0
Blacknose
10,523
6,049
9,795
15,179
11,416
Bonnethead
29,147
38,835
56,142
58,511
50,903
Finetooth
139
78
1,438
6,701
2,942
Sharpnose, Atlantic
135,137
80,694 130,371 131,165
89,365
Sharpnose, Caribbean*
0
0
0
0
0
Smalltail*
0
4
26
26
0
Total:
175,056 125,660 197,772 211,582 154,626
*indicates species that were prohibited in the recreational fishery as of July 1, 1999.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-189

2003

2004

0
6,705
39,863
1,774
86,340
0
0
134,682

0
15,126
42,354
581
70,469
0
11
128,530

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

3.4.4.3 Bycatch Issues and Data Associated with the Fishery
Bycatch in the recreational rod and reel fishery is difficult to quantify because many
fishermen value the experience of fishing and may not be targeting a particular pelagic species.
Recreational “marlin” or “tuna” trips may yield dolphin, tunas, wahoo, and other species, both
undersized and legal sized. Bluefin tuna trips may yield undersized bluefin, or a seasonal closure
may prevent landing of a bluefin tuna above a minimum or maximum size. In some cases,
therefore, rod and reel catch may be discarded. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 USC 1802 (2))
stipulates that bycatch does not include fish under recreational catch-and-release.
The 1999 Billfish Amendment established a catch-and-release fishery management
program for the recreational Atlantic billfish fishery. As a result of this program, all Atlantic
billfish that are released alive, regardless of size, are not considered bycatch. NMFS believes
that establishing a catch-and-release fishery in this situation will further solidify the existing
catch-and-release ethic of recreational billfish fishermen, and thereby increase release rates of
billfish caught in this fishery. Current billfish release rates range from 89 to 99 percent. The
recreational white shark fishery is by regulation a catch-and-release fishery only and white
sharks are not considered bycatch.
Bycatch can result in death or injury to discarded fish. Therefore, bycatch mortality
should be incorporated into fish stock assessments, and into the evaluation of management
measures. Rod and reel discard estimates from Virginia to Maine during June – October could
be monitored through the expansion of survey data derived from the LPS (dockside and
telephone surveys). However, the actual numbers of fish discarded for many species are so low
that presenting the data by area could be misleading, particularly if the estimates are expanded
for unreported effort in the future. The number of kept and released fish reported or observed
through the LPS dockside intercepts for 1997 – 2004 is presented in Table 3.48.
Outreach programs to address bycatch were included in the 1999 FMP and the Billfish
Amendment. These programs have not yet been implemented, but the preparation of program
designs is currently in progress. One of the key elements in the outreach program will be to
provide information that leads to an improvement in post-release survival from both commercial
and recreational gear. Additionally, an outreach program to encourage the use of circle hooks to
increase post-release survival within HMS fisheries was introduced in a proposed rule published
in 2001 (66 FR 66386, December 26, 2001). The final rule to promote the voluntary use of
circle hooks published in 2003 (68 FR 711, January 7, 2003). Initial implementation of the
outreach program began in 2004 with workshops conducted on the proper handling and release
of sea turtles.
A study by Graves et al. (2002), investigated short-term (five days) post-release mortality
of Atlantic blue marlin using pop-up satellite tag technology. A total of nine recreationally
caught blue marlin were tagged and released during July and August of 1999. All hooks
employed in the study were “J” hooks. The attached tags were programmed to detach from the
fish after five days and to record direct temperature and inclination of the buoyant tag to
determine if the fish were actively swimming after being released. After detachment, the tags
floated to the surface and began transmitting recorded position, temperature and inclination data
to satellites of the ArgosTM system. Three different lines of evidence provided by the tags
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-190

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

(movement, water temperature, and tag inclination) suggested that at least eight of the nine blue
marlin survived for five days after being tagged and released. One of the tags did not transmit
any data, which precluded the derivation of a conclusion regarding the tagged marlin’s survival.
This study was continued in 2003 for white marlin to evaluate post release survival and
habitat use (NMFS, 2004). Pop-up satellite archival tags (PSATs) were used to estimate survival
of white marlin released from four locations in the western North Atlantic recreational fishery.
Forty-one tags were attached to white marlin caught using dead baits rigged on straight-shank
(“J”) hooks (n=21) or circle hooks (n=20) offshore of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic, the Dominican
Republic, Mexico, and Venezuela. Survival was significantly higher (p<0.01) for white marlin
caught on circle hooks (100 percent) relative to those caught on straight-shank (“J”) hooks (65
percent). These results, along with previous studies on circle hook performance, suggest that a
simple change in hook type can significantly increase the survival of white marlin released from
recreational fishing gear. Data from these short term deployments also suggest that white marlin
strongly associated with warm, near surface waters. However, based on the frequency,
persistence, and patterns of vertical movements, white marlin appear to direct a considerable
proportion of foraging effort well below surface waters, a behavior that may account for
relatively high catch rates of white marlin on some pelagic longline sets.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-191

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Observed or reported number of HMS kept 1 and released in the rod and reel fishery, Maine through Virginia, 1997-2004. Source: Large
Pelagic Survey (LPS) Preliminary Data.

Table 3.48

Number of Fish Kept 1
Species
White Marlin

1997
2

Blue Marlin2
Sailfish

2

Swordfish

1998

1999

2000

2001

Number of Fish Released Alive
2002

2003

2004

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

7

11

6

2

5

8

12

6

203

465

156

59

118

215

160

378

3

3

3

0

1

0

4

5

30

27

28

17

14

30

39

80

0

1

0

6

0

0

0

0

2

2

3

0

2

6

6

2

5

1

3

14

1

5

9

9

6

5

1

5

10

6

21

22

Giant Bluefin
Tuna 3

51

69

56

34

20

176

58

50

6

11

6

0

0

8

0

3

Large Medium
Bluefin Tuna3

6

26

13

3

7

11

11

13

3

8

5

3

6

2

0

36

Small Medium
Bluefin Tuna

28

19

8

30

87

62

83

30

34

26

44

37

5

8

13

21

Large School
Bluefin Tuna

60

134

106

95

457

391

287

291

158

67

42

22

128

47

40

107

School Bluefin

1,000

392

212

151

338

556

509

927

840

412

136

159

58

200

174

1,297

Young School
Bluefin

5

13

1

4

0

7

4

16

139

581

94

23

40

182

10

1,885

Bigeye Tuna

26

17

27

16

9

32

21

46

6

9

0

0

8

1

3

2

2,472

2,646

2,501

2,366

2,423

2,595

3,216

3,858

222

645

682

97

74

328

200

1,093

Skipjack Tuna

296

261

146

32

100

117

681

197

468

267

88

69

130

250

526

362

Albacore

146

558

133

513

302

534

546

1,458

43

92

52

17

52

95

31

66

Yellowfin Tuna

Thresher Shark

7

7

3

2

5

20

24

58

2

2

2

1

0

5

8

27

74

78

49

49

27

72

141

216

94

92

49

114

65

120

208

350

Sandbar Shark

5

2

2

1

2

0

9

7

30

56

6

4

10

17

26

68

Dusky Shark

6

6

1

0

0

1

0

0

50

54

7

32

8

9

0

60

Tiger Shark

0

2

0

0

1

1

0

0

5

5

0

3

2

3

12

0

Porbeagle

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

5

6

0

0

0

14

3

1

Blacktip Shark

2

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

2

5

0

0

6

0

1

Atlantic

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mako Shark

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-192

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Number of Fish Kept 1
Species

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Number of Fish Released Alive
2002

2003

2004

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Sharpnose Shark
Blue Shark

27

26

11

12

2

36

65

74

1,897

780

572

374

141

505

2,061

2,242

2

1

1

1

2

0

0

1

4

4

5

0

1

6

38

2

10

71

45

41

34

49

68

110

1

2

0

0

13

6

3

5

1,022

7,263

2,139

955

1,294

2,509

4,209

3,050

61

194

73

48

108

111

677

192

King Mackerel

171

198

141

289

19

36

66

11

1

10

8

24

10

5

5

1

Atlantic Bonito

384

328

254

194

77

704

315

410

203

300

166

27

49

176

282

389

Little Tunny

428

1,231

97

139

48

240

121

231

1,015

1,507

133

118

118

585

443

1,130

Amberjack

3

6

9

6

19

7

44

0

18

40

24

20

14

57

111

1

Spanish Mackerel

0

2

1

13

3

5

35

9

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

Hammerhead
Shark
Wahoo
Dolphin

NMFS typically expands these “raw” data to report discards of bluefin tuna by the rod and reel fishery to ICCAT. If sample sizes are large enough to make

reasonable estimates for other species, NMFS may produce estimates for other species in future SAFE reports.

2
Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP established billfish released in the recreational fishery as a “catch-and-release” program, thereby exempting these

fish from bycatch considerations.

3
Includes some commercial handgear landings.

1

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-193

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FISHERY DATA UPDATE

3.4.4.4

Safety Issues Associated with the Fishery

The USCG does not maintain statistics on boating accidents, rescue, or casualty data
specifically pertaining to recreational fishing as it does for the commercial industry. As a result,
the 1999 FMP and the Billfish Amendment contain only minimal safety information regarding
recreational HMS fisheries. Safety issues associated with handline fisheries for tunas are
discussed in Section 3.4.4.4. The USCG compiles statistics on the total number of recreational
boating accidents and casualties, independent of the activity or fishery in which they are engaged
(Table 3.49). Two common situations often place recreational boaters in potential danger.
Individuals in small vessels often venture out farther than their vessels are designed to travel
without proper navigational equipment, and may encounter rougher water than their boats are
designed to withstand. Since fishermen targeting HMS species, particularly marlin, often travel
75 to 100 miles offshore, having a properly equipped vessel of adequate size is very important
for the safety of recreational HMS constituents. Additionally, as the recreational swordfish
fishery off the southeastern coast of Florida occurs at night and usually in small boats ranging
from 23 to 40 feet in length, it presents other unique risks. Shipping traffic regularly runs
through the recreational swordfish fleet, which could lead to incidents if someone is not on watch
at all times. Another frequent safety concern of the Coast Guard is when someone is up in the
flying bridge. Both of these situations can lead to people falling overboard. In 2004,
approximately 72 percent of all boating casualties were due to drowning and in 89 percent of the
drowning deaths, the victim was not wearing a personal floatation device (PFD) (Table 3.50).
Table 3.49

Total 2004 Reported Boating Accident Types. Source: USCG Boating Statistics, 2004.

Accident Type

# Accidents

# of Injuries

# of Fatalities

Total Property
Damage

Capsizing

393

229

184

$2,267,043

Carbon Monoxide

12

28

3

$0

Collision with
Fixed Object

525

382

46

$4,271,785

Collision with
Floating Object

95

62

6

$499,692

Vessel Collision

1,479

999

68

$8,037,552

Departed Vessel

19

10

9

$0

Ejected from Vessel

45

32

16

$244,500

Falls within Boat

176

189

3

$106,496

Falls on PWC

50

49

2

$27,433

Fall Overboard

488

339

199

$288,205

Fire/Explosion
(fuel)

162

89

4

$8,297,780

Fire/Explosion
(other than fuel)

56

14

1

$2,462,181

Flooding or
Swamping

257

81

52

$1,853,848

Grounding

215

159

5

$2,488,744

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-194

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Accident Type

# Accidents

# of Injuries

# of Fatalities

Total Property
Damage

Other Casualty

69

56

3

$93,200

Sinking

131

30

10

$2,507,989

Skier Mishap

380

388

7

$25,050

Struck by Boat

108

96

6

$158,719

Struck by Motor

64

61

5

$500

Struck Submerged
Object

102

32

8

$974,112

Total

4,904

3,363

676

$35,038,306

Table 3.50

Overall 2004 Reported Boating Accident Cause-of-Death Statistics. Source: USCG Boating
Statistics, 2004.

Cause of Death

# Fatalities

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

PFD Worn
Yes

No

2

0

2

Drowning

484

53

431

Hypothermia

10

3

7

Other

32

11

21

Trauma

114

50

64

Unknown

34

6

28

Total

676

123

553

3.4.4.5

U.S. vs. International Catch

Important directed recreational fisheries for HMS occur in the United States, Venezuela,
the Bahamas, and Brazil. Many other countries and entities in the Caribbean and the west coast
of Africa are also responsible for significant HMS recreational landings. Directed recreational
fisheries for sailfish occur in the Western Atlantic and include the United States, Venezuela, the
Bahamas, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and other Caribbean nations. However, of these
countries, the United States is the only country that currently reports recreational landings to
ICCAT. Therefore, a comparison of the percentage of U.S. landings relative to recreational
fisheries in other countries is not possible. Further, total landings data are incomplete because
many countries that reported landings in 1996 failed to report their 1998 and 1999 landings,
which hampered the 2000 Atlantic marlin stock assessments, as well.
As part of a 1997 SCRS survey, 12 ICCAT member countries as well as Chinese Taipei
and Senegal provided information on the existence of, and level of data collection for,
recreational and artisinal fisheries. The survey results indicated that Brazil, Canada, France,
Italy, Morocco, UK, Bermuda, and the United States have recreational fisheries in the ICCAT
area of concern. Levels of data collection varied widely from country to country, making any
comparison of catch levels difficult and potentially inaccurate. The wide range of recreational
catches across nations and species warrants further exploration of potential data sources and the
feasibility of increased recreational monitoring.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-195

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

At the 1999 ICCAT meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the Commission adopted a
resolution to improve the quantity and quality of recreational data collection. Recreational
fisheries were to be discussed and assessed in each country’s National Report beginning in the
year 2000. In addition, the SCRS was called upon to examine the impact of recreational fishing
on tuna and tuna-like species. At this time additional information is not available regarding
international HMS recreational catches.
At the 2004 ICCAT meeting in New Orleans, U.S., the Commission adopted a
recommendation concerning prohibited gear in the sport and recreational fisheries in the
Mediterranean Sea (04-12). Prohibited gear includes towed and encircling nets, seine sliding,
dredgers, gill nets, trammel net and longline to fish for tuna and tuna-like species. The
recommendation also prohibits the sale of sport and recreational tuna and tuna-like species and
stipulates that data on these fisheries be collected and transmitted to the SCRS.
3.4.5

Bottom Longline

3.4.5.1 Domestic History and Current Management
In 1993, NMFS implemented the FMP for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean, which
established three management units: large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), and
pelagic sharks. At that time, NMFS identified LCS as overfished, and implemented commercial
quotas for LCS and established recreational harvest limits for all sharks. In 2003, NMFS
amended the measures enacted in the 1999 FMP based on the 2002 LCS and SCS stock
assessments, litigation, and public comments. Implementing regulations for Amendment 1 to the
1999 FMP were published on December 24, 2003 (68 FR 74746). Management measures
enacted in the amendment included: re-aggregating the large coastal shark complex, using
maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as a basis for setting commercial quotas, eliminating the
commercial minimum size restrictions, establishing three regional commercial quotas (Gulf of
Mexico, South Atlantic, and North Atlantic) for LCS and SCS management units, implementing
trimester commercial fishing seasons effective January 1, 2005, imposing gear restrictions to
reduce bycatch, and a time/area closure off the coast of North Carolina effective January 1, 2005.
As a result of using MSY to establish quotas, and implementing a new rebuilding plan, the
overall annual landings quota for LCS in 2004 was established at 1,017 metric tons (mt) dressed
weight (dw). The overall annual landings quota for SCS was established at 454 mt dw and the
pelagic, blue, and porbeagle shark quotas were established at 488 mt dw, 273 mt dw, and 92 mt
dw, respectively.
The regional quotas which were established in Amendment 1 to the 1999 HMS FMP for
LCS and SCS were intended to improve overall management of the stocks by tailoring quotas to
specific regions based on landings information. These quotas were based upon average historical
landings (1999 – 2001) from the canvass and quota monitoring databases. The canvass database
provides a near-census of the landings at major dealers in the southeast United States (including
state landings) and the quota monitoring database collects information from dealers in the South
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
On November 30, 2004, NMFS issued a final rule (69 FR 69537), which established,
among other things, new regional quotas based on updated landings information from 1999 –
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-196

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

2003. This final rule did not change the overall quotas for LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks
established in Amendment 1 to the 1999 HMS FMP, but did revise the percentages allocated to
each of the regions. The updated information was based on several different databases, including
the canvass and quota monitoring databases, the Northeast Commercial Fisheries Database
(CFDBS), and the snapper grouper logbook. The new regional quotas and trimester seasons for
the commercial Atlantic shark fishery became effective January 1, 2005.
Commercial shark fishing effort is generally concentrated in the southeastern United
States and Gulf of Mexico (Cortes and Neer, 2002). During 1997 – 2003, 92 – 98 percent of
LCS, 38 – 49 percent of pelagic sharks, and nearly all SCS (80 – 100 percent) came from the
southeast region (Cortes, pers. comm.). McHugh and Murray (1997) found in a survey of shark
fishery participants that the largest concentration of bottom longline fishing vessels is found
along the central Gulf coast of Florida, with the John’s Pass - Madeira Beach area considered the
center of directed shark fishing activities. Consistent with other HMS fisheries, some shark
fishery participants move from their homeports to other fishing areas as the seasons change and
fish stocks move.
The Atlantic bottom longline fishery targets both LCS and SCS. Bottom longline is the
primary commercial gear employed in the LCS and SCS fisheries in all regions. Gear
characteristics vary by region, but in general, an approximately ten-mile long bottom longline,
containing about 600 hooks, is fished overnight. Skates, sharks, or various finfishes are used as
bait. The gear typically consists of a heavy monofilament mainline with lighter weight
monofilament gangions. Some fishermen may occasionally use a flexible 1/16 inch wire rope as
gangion material or as a short leader above the hook.
3.4.5.2

Recent Catch and Landings Data

The following section provides information on shark landings as reported in the shark
bottom longline observer program. For recent catch and landings data for the shark fishery as a
whole, which includes landings from BLL and other gears combined, please refer to Section
3.4.7. In January 2002, the observer coverage requirements in the shark bottom longline fishery
changed from voluntary to mandatory participation if selected. NMFS selects approximately 40
- 50 vessels for observer coverage during each season. Vessels are randomly selected if they
have a directed shark limited access permit, have reported landings from sharks during the
previous year, and have not been selected for observer coverage during each of the three
previous seasons.
The U.S. Atlantic commercial shark bottom longline fishery has been monitored by the
University of Florida and Florida Museum of Natural History, Commercial Shark Fishery
Observer Program (CSFOP) since 1994. In June 2005, responsibility for the observer program
was transferred to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center’s Panama City Laboratory. The
observer program trains and places the observers aboard vessels in the directed shark bottom
longline fishery in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico to collect data on the commercial shark
fishery and thus improve overall management strategies for the fishery. Observers provide
baseline characterization information, by region, on catch rates, species composition, catch
disposition, relative abundance, and size composition within species for the large coastal and
small coastal shark bottom longline fisheries.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-197

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

During 2003, six observers logged 263 sea days on shark fishing trips aboard 20 vessels
in the Atlantic from North Carolina to Florida and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida. The
number of trips taken on each vessel ranged from one to five and the number of sea days each
observer logged ranged from nine to 35. Observers documented the catches and fishing effort on
approximately 150 longline sets that fished 103,351 hooks. During 2004, five observers logged
196 sea days on 56 shark fishing trips aboard 11 vessels. Observers documented the catches and
fishing effort during 120 longline sets that fished 90,980 hooks.
Data from the shark observer program between 2000 and 2002 show that LCS comprised
66.2 percent of the total catch (Burgess and Morgan, 2002). During 2003, LCS comprised 68.4
percent of the total catch, and in 2004 LCS comprised 66.7 percent of the total catch. Sandbar
sharks dominated the observed catches with 30.6 percent of total LCS catch in 2003 and 26.6
percent in 2004 (Table 3.52). The overall catch and disposition of species for 2004 is listed in
Table 3.53. Regional differences in sandbar shark abundance were evident. For example, in the
Carolina region, sandbar sharks comprised 67.4 percent of the total catch and 77.2 percent of the
large coastal shark catch. In the Florida Gulf region, sandbar sharks comprised 62.0 percent of
the total catch and 66.5 percent of the large coastal catch, whereas in the Florida East Coast
region, sandbar sharks comprised only 17.2 percent of the total observed catch, and 37.1 percent
of the large coastal shark catch (Burgess and Morgan, 2003). Blacktip sharks comprised 13.9
percent of total observed catch and 20.3 percent of the large coastal catch (Burgess and Morgan,
2002). Tiger sharks comprised 7.5 percent of the total observed catch and 11.0 percent of the
large coastal shark catch. A majority of tiger sharks (71.7 percent) and nurse sharks (98.8
percent) were tagged and released.
During 2003, shark observer program data indicate that SCS comprised 28.0 percent of
the total observed catch (Burgess and Morgan, 2003; Burgess and Morgan 2004). Atlantic
sharpnose shark dominated the SCS catch (80.3 percent). The remainder of the small coastal
catch consisted of blacknose sharks (5.5 percent), bonnethead (0.03 percent), and finetooth (0.02
percent)(Table 3.52). In previous seasons, the Atlantic sharpnose shark was the most frequently
caught shark in the Florida East Coast region and accounted for 51.6 percent of the total
observed catch, and 96.0 percent of the small coastal catch in that region (Burgess and Morgan,
2002).
Bottom longlining for sharks has relatively low observed bycatch rates. Historically,
finfish bycatch has averaged approximately five percent in the bottom longline fishery. Finfish
bycatch for the bottom longline fishery includes, but is not limited to, skates, rays, cobia, redfish,
bluefish, and great barracuda. During the second semi-annual season of 2003, observer data
indicate that approximately 4,320 sharks were caught compared to 432 other fish, four
invertebrates, and three sea turtles (Burgess and Johns, 1999). In terms of bycatch rates,
observed shark catches constitute 91 percent of the 4,759 total animals caught, with other fish
comprising 10 percent, invertebrates less than .01 percent, and sea turtles less than .01 percent.
For more information on bycatch see Section 3.8.
3.4.5.3

Bottom Longline Bycatch

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) the Atlantic
shark gillnet fishery is classified as Category II (occasional serious injuries and mortalities), and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-198

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

the shark bottom longline as Category III (remote likelihood or no known serious injuries or
mortalities) (July 20, 2004, 69 FR 43338). On October 29, 2003, NMFS issued a biological
opinion (BiOp) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding Atlantic shark fisheries.
This BiOp concluded that the level of anticipated take in the Atlantic shark fishery resulting from
measures implemented in Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (68 FR 74746), were not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered green, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles, the endangered smalltooth sawfish, or the threatened loggerhead sea turtle. Furthermore,
it concluded that the actions in the rule were not likely to adversely affect marine mammals. As
a result of this conclusion, NMFS (NMFS, 2003) anticipates that the continued operation of the
shark bottom longline fishery will result in a five year total incidental take of the following
numbers of sea turtles: Leatherback – 172; loggerhead – 1,370; a total of 30 in any combination
of hawksbill, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. NMFS also anticipates a five year take of 261
smalltooth sawfish, of which no lethal takes are expected. If the actual calculated incidental
captures or mortalities exceed the incidental take statement, a formal consultation for that gear
type must be re-initiated immediately. More information is available in Amendment 1 to the
1999 FMP and the October 2003 BiOp and is not repeated here.
Loggerhead Sea Turtles
In the bottom longline fishery, a total of 65 sea turtles were observed caught from 1994
through 2006 (Table 3.54 Table 3.55 and Figure 3.31). Seasonal variation indicates that most of
the sea turtles were caught early in the year. Of the 65 observed sea turtles, 50 were loggerhead
sea turtles, of which 26 were released alive. Another nine loggerheads were released in an
unknown condition and eight were released dead. Based on extrapolation of observer data in
Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP, it was estimated that a total of 2,003 loggerhead sea turtles were
taken in the shark bottom longline fishery from 1994 through 2002 (NMFS, 2003a). An
additional 503 unidentified sea turtles were estimated to have been taken. On average, 222
loggerhead sea turtles and 56 unidentified sea turtles were estimated to have been taken annually
during this time period in the shark bottom longline fishery.
Leatherback Sea Turtles
Of the 65 observed sea turtle interactions in the bottom longline fishery from 1994 –
2006, six were leatherback sea turtles of which one was dead and three were released with their
condition unknown (Table 3.54 Table 3.55 and Figure 3.31). Based on extrapolation of observer
data done for Amendment 1 to the FMP, it was estimated that 269 leatherback sea turtles were
taken in the shark bottom longline fishery from 1994 through 2002 (NMFS, 2003a). On average,
30 leatherback sea turtle interactions occurred each year in the shark bottom longline fishery
during this period. This analysis only estimates takes without discriminating between live and
dead releases. Of the observed leatherback takes, approximately 25 percent were lethal.
Applying the observed mortality rate of 25 percent to the total leatherback takes and an
additional 42 percent post-release mortality estimate due to hook ingestion to the remaining,
results in an estimated total number of leatherbacks killed as a result of the interaction with
bottom longline gear at 17 per year. The leatherback mortality is very conservative because it is
known that leatherbacks rarely ingest or bite hooks, but are usually foul hooked on their flippers
or carapaces, reducing the likelihood of post-hooking release mortality. However, leatherback­
specific data for this fishery is not available and therefore the most conservative estimate is used.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-199

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Smalltooth Sawfish
As of April 1, 2003, NMFS listed smalltooth sawfish as an endangered species (68 FR
15674) under the ESA. After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information, the
status review team determined that the continued existence of the U.S. Distinct Population
Segment of smalltooth sawfish was in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range from a combination of the following four listing factors: the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. NMFS is working on
designating critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish.
Sawfish have been observed caught (12 known interactions, 11 released alive, one
released in unknown condition) in shark bottom longline fisheries from 1994 through 2006
(Morgan pers. comm., Burgess and Morgan, 2004; Carlson ) (Figure 3.32). Based on these
observations, expanded sawfish take estimates for 1994 – 2002 were developed for the shark
bottom longline fishery (NMFS, 2003a). A total of 466 sawfish were estimated to have been
taken in this fishery from 1994 – 2002, resulting in an average of 52 per year. All but one of the
observed sawfish was released alive.
Marine Mammals
Four delphinids have been observed caught and released alive between 1994 and 2004 (G.
Burgess, pers. comm.). Bycatch estimates for the shark bottom longline fishery have not been
extrapolated for marine mammals.
Seabirds
Bycatch of seabirds in the shark bottom longline fishery has been virtually non-existent.
A single pelican has been observed killed from 1994 through 2005. The pelican was caught in
January 1995 off the Florida Gulf Coast (between 25° 18.68 N, 81° 35.47 W and 25° 19.11 N,
81° 23.83 W) (G. Burgess, University of Florida, pers. comm., 2001). No expanded estimates of
seabird bycatch or catch rates are available for the bottom longline fishery.
Table 3.51

Species composition of observed bottom longline catch during 2003. Source: Burgess and
Morgan, 2004.
Species

Total Number
Caught

% Total Catch

% Management
Category

Large Coastal Sharks
Sandbar shark

2719

30.63

44.78

Blacktip shark

1232

13.88

20.29

Tiger shark

665

7.49

10.95

Spinner shark

309

3.48

5.09

Scalloped hammerhead

259

2.92

4.27

Bull shark

257

2.90

4.23

Nurse shark

175

1.97

2.88

Sand tiger

108

1.22

1.78

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-200

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Species

1.22

% Management
Category
1.78

105

1.18

1.73

Lemon shark

60

0.68

0.99

Great hammerhead

55

0.62

0.91

Bignose shark

8

0.09

0.13

Night shark

8

0.09

0.13

White shark

3

0.03

0.05

Caribbean shark

1

0.01

0.02

6072

68.41

100

1996

22.49

80.32

484

5.45

19.48

3

0.03

0.12

Dusky shark
Silky shark

Total

Total Number
Caught
108

% Total Catch

Small Coastal Sharks
Atlantic sharpnose shark
Blacknose shark
Bonnethead
Finetooth

2

0.02

0.08

2485

28.00

100.00

Pelagic Sharks
Sevengill

5

0.06

45.45

Shortfin mako

2

0.02

18.18

Bigeye sixgill

2

0.02

18.18

Bigeye thresher shark

1

0.01

9.09

Sixgill shark

1

0.01

9.09

11

0.12

100.00

298

3.36

10

0.113

Total

Total
Dogfish/Other Sharks
Smooth dogfish
Unidentified sharks
Table 3.52

Species composition of observed bottom longline catch during 2004. Source: Burgess and
Morgan, 2005.
Species
Large Coastal Sharks
Sandbar shark
Blacktip shark
Tiger shark
Nurse shark
Silky shark
Scalloped hammerhead
Bull shark
Great hammerhead

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Total Number
Caught
2157
1107
972
440
254
155
108
92
3-201

% Total Catch

26.6
13.6
12.0
5.4
3.1
1.9
1.3
1.1

% Management
Category
39.8
20.4
18.0
8.1
4.7
2.9
2.0
1.7

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Species

0.7
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
66.7

% Management
Category
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.1
100

2231
353
10
5
2599

27.5
4.3
0.1
0.1
32.0

85.8
13.6
0.4
0.2
100

Pelagic Sharks
Sevengill shark
Sixgill shark
Shortfin mako shark

2
1
3

Bigeye thresher shark
Total

2
8

0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.1

25.0
12.5
37.5
25.0
100

85
2
87

1.0
0.02
1.1

97.7
2.3
100

5
2
7

0.1
0.02
0.1

71.4
28.6
100

Dusky shark
Night shark
Lemon shark
Sandtiger shark
Bignose shark
Total
Small Coastal Sharks
Atlantic sharpnose shark
Blacknose shark
Bonnetheat shark
Finetooth shark
Total

Total Number
Caught
54
42
17
12
5
5415

% Total Catch

Dogfish Sharks
Smooth dogfish
Spiny dogfish
Total
Other Sharks
Unidentified
Carcharhinus sp.
Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-202

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.53

Directed bottom longline shark observed catch and disposition, 2003. Source: Burgess and Morgan, 2004.

Small Coastal
Large Coastal
Pelagic

Percent total
mortality
2,485
94.85
6,072
86.68
11
90.91

Large coastal sharks:
Sandbar
Blacktip
Tiger
Spinner
Scalloped hammerhead
Bull
Nurse
Dusky
Sand tiger
Silky
Lemon
Great hammerhead
Bignose
Night
White
Caribbean

2,719
1,232
665
309
259
257
175
108
108
105
60
55
8
8
3
1

97.35
99.51
40.60
100.00
98.84
96.89
0.57
76.85
0.00
97.14
86.67
96.36
75.00
100.00
33.33
0.00

2,597
1,207
41
302
86
248
0
38
0
78
52
25
3
0
0
0

95.51
97.97
6.17
97.73
33.20
96.50
0.00
35.19
0.00
74.29
86.67
45.45
37.50
0.00
0.00
0.00

50
19
229
7
170
1
1
45
0
24
0
28
3
8
1
0

1.84
1.54
34.44
2.27
65.64
0.39
0.57
41.67
0.00
22.86
0.00
50.91
37.50
100.00
33.33
0.00

72
6
395

2
1

2.65
0.49
59.40
0.00
1.16
3.11
99.43
23.15
100.00
2.86
13.33
3.64
25.00
0.00
66.67
100.00

Small coastal sharks:
Sharpnose
Blacknose
Bonnethead
Finetooth

1,996
484
3
2

96.24
89.05
100.00
100.00

14
276
3
2

0.70
57.02
100.00
100.00

1,907
155
0
0

95.54
32.02
0.00
0.00

74
53
0
0

3.71
10.95
0.00
0.00

5
2
2
1
1

100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0
2
0
0

0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00

5
2
0
0
1

100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00

0
0
0
1
0

0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00

Number caught

Pelagic sharks:
Bigeye thresher
Sevengill
Shortfin mako
Sixgill
Bigeye sixgill

Number
Carcassed*
295
4,677
2

Percent
Carcassed
11.87
77.03
18.18

Other
Percent other
Number Tagged
mortality**
mortality
released
2,062
82.98
127
586
9.65
809
8
72.73
1

3
8
174
25
108
3
8
2
2

Percent
Released
5.11
13.32
9.09

* Carcassed means sharks that are retained
** Other mortality refers to sharks brought to the vessel dead, but not retained

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-203

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.54

Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Species by Month for Years 1994-2006
in the Shark Bottom Longline Fishery. Source: Shark Bottom Longline Observer Program.
Leatherback
Sea Turtle

Month

Loggerhead Sea
Turtle

Other Sea
Turtles

Total

Jan

1

12

1

14

Feb

3

10

6

19

Mar

7

7

Apr

4

4

May

1

1

Jun
July

11

11

Aug

3

3

Sept

1

Oct

2

1

4

1

1

2

50

9

65

Nov
Dec
6

Total

Table 3.55

Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Year for Years 1994-2006 in the Shark
Bottom Longline Fishery. Source: Shark Bottom Longline Observer Program. Letters in
parentheses indicate whether the sea turtle was released alive (A), dead (D), or in an unknown (U)
condition.
Leatherback
Sea Turtle

Year
1994

Loggerhead Sea
Turtle

1 (1U)

1995

5 (5U)

Other Sea
Turtle

Total

6 (6U)

12

4 (3A, 1D)

4

1996

1 (1U)

6 (3A, 2D, 1U)

7

1997

1 (1U)

5 (3A, 2U)

6

1998

2 (1A, 1D)

1999

2 (2A)

2

2 (2A)

3

2002

5 (3A, 1D, 1U)

5

2003

7 (6A, 1D)

2004

5 (3A, 2D)

2001

2005

1 (1D)

2 (1A, 1D)

2006
Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4 (1A, 3D)

1 (1A)

1 (1U)

50

3-204

8
5

1 (1U)

2 (1D, 1U)
6

3

7
3

9

65

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Figure 3.31

Observed sea turtle interactions and observed sets (smaller grey circles) in the shark bottom longline fishery from 1994-2004. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-205

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Figure 3.32

Observed sawfish interactions and observed sets (smaller grey circles) in the shark bottom longline fishery from 1994-2006. Source:
Burgess and Morgan, 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-206

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

3.4.6

Gillnet Fishery

3.4.6.1 Domestic History and Current Management
The southeast shark gillnet fishery is comprised of several vessels based primarily out of
ports in northern Florida (South Atlantic Region) that use nets typically 456 to 2,280 meters long
and 6.1 to 15.2 meters deep, with stretched mesh from 12.7 to 22.9 cm. This fishery is currently
prohibited in the state waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, thereby forcing some of
these vessels to operate in deeper waters under Federal jurisdiction, where gillnets are less
effective. The entire process (set to haulback) takes approximately 9 hours (Carlson and
Baremore, 2002a).
The 2005 Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery Observer Program report described the gear and
soak time deployed by drift gillnet, strike gillnet, and sink gillnet fishermen. Set duration was
generally 0.3 hours and haulback averaged 2.9 hours. The average time from setting the net
through completion of haulback was 10.2 hours. The most frequently used mesh size for drift
gillnets was 12.7 cm. Strikenetters use the largest mesh size (22.9 cm) and the set times were 2.7
hours. Sink gillnets used to target sharks generally use 17.8 cm mesh size and were soaked for
approximately 0.8 hours. This gear was also observed being deployed to target non-HMS
(kingfish or Spanish mackerel); using a stretched mesh size of 7.6 cm, to comply with mesh size
regulations for the Spanish mackerel fishery, and soaked for approximately 5.9 hours (Carlson
and Bethea, 2006).
In the southeast shark gillnet fishery, NMFS modified the requirement to have 100
percent observer coverage at all times on March 30, 2001 (66 FR 17370), by reducing the level
required to a statistically significant level outside of right whale calving season (100 percent
observer coverage is still required during the right whale calving season from November 15
through March 31). This modification of observer coverage reduced administrative costs while
maintaining statistically significant and adequate levels of coverage to provide reasonable
estimates of sea turtle and marine mammal takes outside the right whale calving season. The
level of observer coverage necessary to maintain statistical significance will be reevaluated
annually and adjusted accordingly. Additionally, in 2001, NMFS established a requirement to
conduct net checks every two hours to look for and remove any protected species.
3.4.6.2

Recent Catch and Landings

The following section provides information on shark landings as reported in the shark
gillnet observer program. For recent catch and landings data for the shark fishery as a whole,
which includes landings from gillnet, BLL, and other gears combined, please refer to Section
3.4.7. A total of 24 driftnet sets were observed on five vessels from February through September,
2004. Driftnet vessels carried nets ranging in length from 547.2 – 2736 m; depths from 7.6 –
13.7 m and stretched mesh sizes from 12.7 – 22.9 cm. The most frequently used mesh size was
12.7 cm. For all observed driftnet sets, set duration averaged 0.4 hrs. Sets were made in
seawater averaging 15.4 m deep. Haulback and processing of the catch averaged 3.4 hrs.
Average soak time for the driftnet (time net was first set minus time haulback began) was 10.8
hrs.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-207

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

The observed driftnet catch consisted of nine species of sharks. Three species of sharks
made up 92.9 percent (by number) of the observed shark catch (Table 3.57). These species were
the Atlantic sharpnose shark, blacknose shark, and finetooth shark. By weight, the shark catch
was made up of Atlantic sharpnose shark, (55.3 percent), blacknose shark (17.1 percent),
blacktip shark (10.7 percent), and finetooth shark (10.3 percent). Total observed catch
composition (percent of numbers caught) was 79.0 percent sharks, 20.7 percent teleosts, 0.3
percent rays, and 0.03 percent protected species (i.e., marine mammals, sea turtles, sawfish).
Gillnet Bycatch
On September 23, 2002, NMFS implemented a restricted area to reduce bycatch of right
whales from November 15 through March 31 (67 FR 59471). In this area, only gillnets used in a
strikenet fashion can operate during times when right whales are present. Operation in this area
at that time requires 100 percent observer coverage. Vessels fishing in a strikenet fashion used
nets 364.8 meters long, 30.4 meters deep, and with mesh size 22.9 cm. Observed catch in the
strikenet fishery consisted of 6 species of sharks (96.7 percent of total number caught) and seven
species of teleosts and rays (3.3 percent of total number caught). No marine mammals or sea
turtles were observed caught. The blacktip shark made up 97.5 percent of the number of sharks
caught, and 86 percent of the overall catch. Bycatch included crevalle jack, red drum, and great
barracuda (Table 3.56).
There were 23 species of teleosts, two species of rays, and one species of marine
mammal observed caught during the driftnet season (Table 3.58). Four species of teleosts and
rays made up 90.8 percent by number of the overall non-shark species in observed strikenet
catches. These species were little tunny (45.6 percent); king mackerel (23.3 percent); great
barracuda (11.8 percent); and red drum (10.2 percent). For incidental driftnet catch species, the
highest proportion discarded dead (with observed catch greater than 10 specimens) was Atlantic
sailfish, (100.0 percent), king mackerel (78.3 percent), and cobia (28.7 percent). Red drum had
the highest discard proportion alive (98.1 percent) (Carlson and Baremore, 2003). Observed
driftnet sets caught 23 species of teleosts and rays and no sea turtles or marine mammals. Only
the great barracuda were retained, with all remaining bycatch discarded alive (Carlson, 2002).
Outside of right whale calving season, observed drift gillnet catch consisted of 26 species
of teleosts and rays and one species of marine mammal, which was discarded dead. Five species
of teleosts and one species of ray made up 90.6 percent by number of the overall non-shark catch.
Little tunny (44.1 percent), king mackerel (20.8 percent), great barracuda (12.5 percent), Atlantic
moonfish (9.4 percent), and cobia (3.8 percent) dominated the bycatch (Carlson and Baremore,
2002). During drift gillnet fishing, the highest proportion of species discarded dead (for species
with greater than 10 individuals) was for tarpon, crevalle jack, king mackerel, and red drum.
Cownose rays and red drum had the highest proportion of discarded alive with 78.1 percent and
50.0 percent, respectively (Carlson and Baremore, 2002).
On January 22, 2006, a dead right whale was spotted offshore of Jacksonville Beach,
Florida. The survey team identified the whale as a right whale calf, and photos indicated the calf
as having one large wound along the midline and smaller lesions around the base of its tail. The
right whale calf was located at 30°14.4’ N. Lat., 81° 4.2’′ W. Long., which was approximately 1
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-208

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

nautical mile outside of the designated right whale critical habitat, but within the Southeast U.S.
Restricted Area. NMFS determined that both the entanglement and death of the whale occurred
within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area, and all available evidence suggested the entanglement
and injury of the whale by gillnet gear ultimately led to the death of the animal.
On February 16, 2006, NMFS published a temporary rule (71 FR 8223) to prohibit,
through March 31, 2006, any vessel from fishing with any gillnet gear in the Atlantic Ocean
waters between 32°00’ N. Lat. (near Savannah, GA) and 27°51’ N. Lat. (near Sebastian Inlet, FL)
and extending from the shore eastward out to 80°00’ W. long under the authority of the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) (50 CFR 229.32 (g)) and the Endangered Species
Act. NMFS took this action based on its determination that a right whale mortality was the result
of an entanglement by gillnet gear within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area.
The regulations at 50 CFR 229.32(g)(1) also require NMFS to close the Southeast U.S.
Restricted Area for the rest of the time period, and for the time period November 15 through
March 31 in each subsequent year, unless NMFS revises the restricted period or unless other
measures are implemented. NMFS plans to seek assistance and recommendations from the
ALWTRT at their next meeting in order to evaluate whether permanent closures within the
Southeast U.S. Restricted Area are necessary.
Loggerhead Sea Turtles
Loggerhead sea turtles are rarely caught in the shark gillnet fishery. During the 1999
right whale calving season, no loggerhead sea turtles were observed caught in this fishery
(Carlson and Lee, 1999), and no loggerheads were observed caught with strikenets during the
2000 – 2002 right whale calving seasons (Carlson 2000; Carlson and Baremore, 2001; Carlson
and Baremore, 2002a). However, three loggerhead sea turtles were observed caught with drift
gillnets during right whale calving season, one each year from 2000 to 2002 (Carlson, 2000;
Carlson and Baremore, 2001; Carlson and Baremore, 2002a; Garrison, 2003). In 2004 there
were no observed sea turtle interactions in either the strikenet or drift gillnet fisheries.
No loggerhead sea turtles were caught outside of the right whale calving season in 2002
(Carlson and Baremore, 2002b), and no loggerhead turtles were observed caught during or after
the right whale calving season in 2003 or 2004 in the directed shark gillnet fishery (Carlson and
Baremore 2003; Carlson, pers. comm). In 2005 five loggerheads were observed caught, and in
2006 three loggerheads were observed caught (Table 3.59). All but two were released alive.
One loggerhead sea turtle mortality was reported in abandoned fishing gear in January 2004, and
was not considered part of normal fishing operations.
Leatherback Sea Turtles
In the shark gillnet fishery, leatherback sea turtles are sporadically caught. During the
1999 right whale calving season, two leatherback sea turtles were caught in this fishery, and both
were released alive (Carlson and Lee, 1999). No leatherback sea turtles were observed caught
with strikenets during the 2000 – 2002 right whale calving seasons (Carlson, 2000; Carlson and
Baremore, 2001; Carlson and Baremore, 2002a). Leatherback sea turtles have been observed
caught in shark drift gillnets including 14 in 2001 and two in 2002 (Carlson, 2000; Carlson and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-209

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Baremore, 2001; Carlson and Baremore, 2002a; Garrison, 2003). NMFS temporarily closed the
shark gillnet fishery (strikenetting was allowed) from March 9 to April 9, 2001, due to the
increased number of leatherback interactions that year (66 FR 15045, March 15, 2001).
From 2003 – 2004, no leatherback sea turtles were observed caught in gillnets fished in
strikenet or driftnet methods (Carlson and Baremore 2003; Carlson, pers. comm.).
Smalltooth Sawfish
To date there has been only one observed catch of a smalltooth sawfish in shark gillnet
fisheries (Table 3.60). The sawfish was taken on June 25, 2003, in a gillnet off southeast Florida
and was released alive (Carlson and Baremore, 2003). The set was characteristic of a typical
drift gillnet set, with gear extending 30 to 40 feet deep in 50 to 60 feet of water. Prior to this
event it was speculated that the depth at which drift gillnets are set above the sea floor may
preclude smalltooth sawfish from being caught. Although sometimes described as a lethargic
demersal species, smalltooth sawfish feed mostly on schooling fish, thus they would occur
higher in the water column during feeding activity. In fact, smalltooth sawfish and Atlantic
sharks may be attracted to the same schools of fish, potentially making smalltooth sawfish quite
vulnerable if present in the area fished. The previous absence of smalltooth sawfish incidental
capture records is more likely attributed to the relatively low effort in this fishery and the rarity
of smalltooth sawfish, especially in Federal waters. These factors may result in little overlap of
the species with the gear. The sawfish was cut from the net and released alive with no visible
injuries. This indicates that smalltooth sawfish can be removed safely if entangled gear is
sacrificed.
Given the high rate of observer coverage in the shark gillnet fishery, NMFS believes that
smalltooth sawfish takes in this fishery are very rare. The fact that there were no smalltooth
sawfish caught during 2001 when 100 percent of the fishing effort was observed indicates that
smalltooth sawfish takes (observed or total) most likely do not occur on an annual basis. Based
on this information, the 2003 BiOp estimated that one incidental capture of a sawfish (released
alive) over the next five years, will occur as a result of the use of gillnets in this fishery (NMFS,
2003a).
Marine Mammals
Observed takes of marine mammals in the Southeast Atlantic shark gillnet fishery during
1999 – 2004, totaled 12 bottlenose dolphins and four spotted dolphins. Extrapolated
observations from these data suggest serious injury and mortality of 25 bottlenose dolphin and
one Atlantic spotted dolphin in the shark gillnet fishery from 1999 through 2002 (Garrison,
2003).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-210

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Table 3.56

Total Strikenet Shark Catch and Bycatch by Species in order of Decreasing Abundance for all
Observed Trips, 2003. Source: Carlson and Baremore, 2003.

Species

Total Number
Caught

Blacktip shark

Kept
(%)

Discarded Alive
(%)

Discarded Dead
(%)

6,401

97.5

.6

1.9

Blacknose shark

343

100.0

0

0

Crevalle jack

215

96.2

3.3

.5

Red Drum

18

0

100

0

Great barracuda

13

92.3

0

7.7

Manta ray

10

0

100

0

Bull shark

8

75

12.5

12.5

Permit

8

50

37.5

12.5

Nurse shark

1

0

100

0

Spinner shark

1

100

0

0

Finetooth shark

1

100

0

0

Cobia

1

100

0

0

Atlantic bonito

1

0

0

100

Total

7,021

Table 3.57

Total Shark Catch by Species and Species Disposition in Order of Decreasing Abundance for
all Observed Driftnet Sets, 2003. Source: Carlson and Baremore, 2003.

Species

Total Number
Caught

Atlantic sharpnose

Kept (%)

Discarded Alive (%)

Discarded Dead (%)

6,917

99.8

0

.2

Blacknose

799

100

0

0

Finetooth

620

100

0

0

Blacktip

375

45

24

31

Bonnethead

168

100

0

0

Scalloped
Hammerhead

62

3.2

0

96.8

Spinner

20

5

0

95

Great Hammerhead

6

100

0

0

Lemon

1

0

100

0

Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8,968

3-211

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Table 3.58

Total bycatch in NMFS observed drift gillnet sets in order of decreasing abundance and
species disposition for all observed trips, 2003. Source: Carlson, 2003.
Total Number
Caught
1169
596
300
262
80
36
30
22
11
9
8
8
5
5
5
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

Species
Little tunny
King mackerel
Barracuda
Red drum
Cobia
Blackfin tuna
Atlantic sailfish
Cownose ray
Spanish mackerel
Remora
Crevalle jack
Blue runner
Tarpon
Manta ray
Dolphin
Tripletail
Spotted eagle ray
Blue marlin
Balloonfish
Wahoo
Pompano
Rainbow runner
Black drum
Bluefish

Table 3.59

Kept (%)

Discard Alive (%)

Discard Dead (%)

0
.2
0
98.1
1.3
0
0
59.1
0
33.4
0
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
0

7.4
78.3
0
1.9
28.7
0
100
40.9
0
66.6
100
12.5
100
0
0
0
0
100
100
0
0
0
0
100

92.6
21.5
100
0
70
100
0
0
100
0
0
87.5
0
0
100
100
0
0
0
100
100
100
0
0

Total number of Observed Sea Turtle Interactions by Year from 2000-2006 in the Shark
Gillnet Fishery. Source: Directed Shark Gillnet Observer Program. Letters in parentheses indicate
whether the sea turtle was released alive (A), dead (D), or unknown (U).
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Leatherback
Sea Turtle

Loggerhead Sea
Turtle
1 (U)
1 (U)
1 (U)

1(A)

5 (4A, 1D)
3 (2A, 1D)
11

1

3-212

Total
1
1
1
0
0
6
3
12

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES

DATA UPDATE

Table 3.60

Protected Species Interactions in Drift Gillnet Sets During the Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery
for All Observed Trips, 2003. Source: Carlson, 2003.
Total Number
Caught

Released Alive

Discarded Dead

Released Condition
Unknown or
Comatose

Bottlenose dolphin

2

0

1

1

Smalltooth sawfish

1

1

0

0

Species

3.4.7

Fishery Data: Landings by Species

The following tables of finfish landings are taken from the 2005 National Report of the
United States to ICCAT (NAT-038) (NMFS, 2005). The purpose of this section is to provide a
summary of recent landings of HMS on a species by species basis for comparison to Sections 4.1
through 4.5 of the 2004 HMS SAFE report. Landings for sharks were compiled from the most
recent stock assessment documents.
Table 3.61
Area
NW Atlantic

U.S. Landings (mt) of Bluefin Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2005
Gear

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Longline

26.0

30.5

25.1

22.8

17.7

7.8

16.3

28.8

Handline

17.4

29.2

15.5

3.2

9.0

4.5

2.5

1.5

249.7

248.6

247.9

275.2

195.9

207.7

265.4

31.8

97.5

133.1

115.8

184.2

101.9

55.5

87.9

41.2

*Rod and reel
(>145 cm LJFL)

752.6

610.4

657.5

632.8

993.4

1,008.4

684.8

329.0

*Rod and reel
(<145 cm LJFL)

178.9

166.3

103.0

49.5

249.3

519.3

314.6

387.8

2.2

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.2

23.8

18.3

48.4

43.3

19.8

32.8

53.8

67.3

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.9

1.7

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

9.3

11.3

1,214.1

1,212.1

1,582.8

1,840.2

1,428.2

Purse Seine
Harpoon

Unclassified
Gulf of
Mexico

1997

Longline
*Rod and reel

NC Area 94a

Longline

All Areas

All Gears

1,348.1

1,237

887.6

* Rod and Reel catches and landings represent estimates of landings and dead discards when available based on
statistical surveys of the U.S. recreational harvesting sector.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-213

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Table 3.62

U.S. Landings (mt) of Yellowfin Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2005.

Area

Gear

NW Atlantic

Longline

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

2003

838.9

464.9

581.3

734.5

631.8

400

272

654

3,560.9

2,845.7

3,818.2

3,809.5

3,690.5

2,624

4,672

3,434

Troll

218

177.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Purse seine

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Gillnet

1.3

1.7

0.2

0.2

7.6

5

1

3

Trawl

1.9

0.7

4.1

1.8

2.7

0

2

1

Harpoon

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

34.3

0.0

192

235.7

242.5

137

148

208

Trap

**

0.1

0.8

0.5

0.1

0.0

0.0

0

Unclassified

0.0

0.0

2.1

1.3

6.8

**

0.0

13

2,571.3

1,864.5

2,736.6

2,133

1,505.5

2,109

1,828

1,813

7.7

80.9

149.4

52.3

494.2

200

640

247

55.6

60.8

12.7

28.6

43.4

100

59

19

Gillnet

0.0

0.0

**

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Unclassified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

135.4

58.6

24.4

11.8

23.1

12

7

5

19.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

0.7

3.9

14.5

19.4

14.3

7

9

7

Gillnet

**

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.0

**

0.0

Trap

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

NC Area 94a

Longline

6.1

4.6

0.2

2.1

3.5

0.0

5

0.0

SW Atlantic

Longline

221.9

55.3

32.4

19.8

36.2

52

42

17

All Areas

All Gears

7,673.7

5,619.2

7,569

7,050.9

6,702.8

5,646

7,685

6,421

Rod and reel*

Gulf of
Mexico

Longline
Rod and reel*
Handline

Caribbean

Longline
Troll

* Rod and Reel catches and landings represent estimates of landings and dead discards based on statistical surveys
of the U.S. recreational harvesting sector.
** <= 0.05 mt

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-214

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Table 3.63

U.S. Landings (mt) of Skipjack Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2005.

Area

Gear

NW Atlantic

Longline

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1.0

0.7

0.3

0.0

0.1

**

0.9

0.1

42.0

49.5

63.6

13.1

32.9

23.3

34.0

27.3

Troll

0.6

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Purse seine

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Gillnet

8.9

16.9

26.5

1.9

3.6

**

0.9

15.8

Trawl

0.0

0.2

1.0

0.0

0.2

**

0.5

0.2

Handline

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.6

Trap

0.0

0.0

17.5

0.0

0.0

**

1.5

**

Pound

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Unclassified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Longline

1.3

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

**

**

0.3

21.7

37.0

34.8

16.7

16.1

13.2

11.0

6.3

Handline

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.7

0.0

0.0

**

0.2

Trap

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Unclassified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Longline

1.2

0.0

1.3

1.6

4.0

2.5

3.3

0.3

Gillnet

0.2

0.0

0.4

0.6

1.6

0.6

0.4

0.3

Rod and Reel*

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

15.7

40.4

Harpoon

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

0.0

0.0

5.8

8.8

10.3

12.5

9.2

9.6

Trap

**

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.7

0.2

**

Troll

7.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

SW Atlantic

Unclassified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

All Areas

Longline

**

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rod and reel*

Gulf of
Mexico

Caribbean

Rod and reel*

All Gears
84.3
105.3
152.3
44.1
69.6
53.0
77.8
* Rod and Reel catches and landings represent estimates of landings and dead discards based on statistical surveys
of the U.S. recreational harvesting sector.
** <= 0.05 mt

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-215

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

101.4

Table 3.64

U.S. Landings (mt) of Bigeye Tuna by Area and Gear, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2005.

Area

Gear

NW Atlantic

Longline

476.3

544.3

737.8

333.2

506.1

328.6

168.7

264.9

Rod and reel*

333.5

228.0

316.1

34.4

366.2

49.6

188.5

94.6

Troll

3.9

4.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Gillnet

**

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

2.7

0.0

11.9

4.1

33.2

13.8

6.0

3.0

Trawl

1.0

0.5

1.2

1.7

0.4

0.5

**

0.3

Unclassified

0.5

0.0

0.9

0.0

1.8

0.0

0.0

1.4

33.9

25.6

54.6

44.5

15.3

41.0

27.5

20.2

Rod and reel*

0.0

0.0

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.0

Handline

**

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.6

0.3

0.1

Longline

50.0

48.5

23.2

13.7

31.9

29.7

7.2

3.5

Handline

0.0

0.0

0.2

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

NC Area 94a

Longline

91.8

48.4

35.3

63.1

61.0

45.2

36.9

5.0

SW Atlantic

Longline

142.8

28.5

78.2

77.4

68.2

91.3

44.6

14.4

All Areas

All Gears

1,136.4

928.3

1,261.4

573.6

1,084.7

600.3

479.8

413.3

Gulf of
Mexico

Caribbean

Longline

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

* Rod and Reel catches and landings represent estimates of landings and dead discards based on statistical surveys
of the U.S. recreational harvesting sector.
** <= 0.05

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-216

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Table 3.65

U.S. Landings (mt) of Albacore Tuna by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS, 2005.

Area
NW Atlantic

Gear
Longline

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

140.0

155.4

179.5

130.5

171.7

124.0

95.6

106.9

42.8

40.1

27.0

0.8

3.3

2.6

0.1

4.7

Handline

4.8

0.0

0.6

2.9

1.7

3.9

1.4

5.4

Trawl

2.6

2.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.3

**

2.6

Troll

1.6

5.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

220.2

601.1

90.1

250.8

122.3

323.0

333.8

500.5

Pound

1.3

0.9

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Unclassified

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

Longline

16.9

3.9

3.8

4.1

4.9

9.5

7.7

9.8

Rod and reel*

49.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

0.0

0.0

**

0.0

0.0

0.0

**

0.0

Longline

16.1

17.8

8.3

9.2

8.7

8.4

4.0

3.2

Troll

3.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Gillnet

**

0.0

0.2

0.1

0.5

**

**

**

Trap

**

0.0

**

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.0

Handline

0.0

0.0

3.8

5.0

2.2

2.7

2.0

2.1

NC Area 94a

Longline

11.4

1.6

1.5

2.6

6.1

4.8

1.6

0.2

SW Atlantic

Longline

4.7

1.4

1.4

0.9

2.4

8.3

2.0

0.5

All Areas

All Gears

515.5

830.4

317

407.2

324.2

488.1

448.4

635.9

Gillnet

Rod and reel*

Gulf of
Mexico

Caribbean

* Rod and Reel catches and landings represent estimates of landings and dead discards based on statistical surveys
of the U.S. recreational harvesting sector.
** <= 0.05 mt

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-217

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Table 3.66

U.S. Catches and Landings (mt) of Swordfish by Gear and Area, 1997-2004. Source: NMFS,
2005.

Area
NW Atlantic

Gear

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1,262.2

1,624.1

1,872.3

1,547.6

1,220.8

1,132.8

1,341.3

1,157.8

Gillnet

0.4

36.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

**

Pair Trawl

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Handline

1.3

0.0

5.0

7.7

8.6

8.8

10.8

18.4

Trawl

8.0

5.9

7.5

10.9

2.5

3.9

6.0

7.6

Troll

0.4

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

11.9

9.1

3.8

1.4

1.8

0.1

1.6

9.8

Harpoon

0.7

1.5

0.0

0.6

7.4

2.8

0.0

0.5

***Rod and
Reel

10.9

4.7

21.3

15.6

1.5

21.5

5.9

24.3

0.0

0.1

**

0.0

0.0

**

0.1

0.0

*Longline

*Unclassified

Trap
Gulf of
Mexico

*Longline

759.9

633.1

579.6

631.7

494.6

549.1

507.6

500.0

Handline

0.0

0.0

**

1.2

0.3

2.9

9.8

1.6

Caribbean

*Longline

688.9

516.0

260.5

331.9

347.0

329.0

274.5

295.8

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.1

**

**

Trap
NC Atlantic

*Longline

688.2

658.6

650.0

804.6

420.6

587.9

632.8

597.4

SW Atlantic

*Longline

417.9

170.1

185.2

143.8

43.2

199.9

20.9

15.7

All Areas

All Gears

3,850.7

3,660.2

3,585.2

3,497.3

2,548.3

2,838.9

2,811.3

2,628.9

* Includes landings and estimated dead discards from scientific observer and logbook sampling programs.

** < = 0.5 mt

*** Rod and Reel catches and landings represent estimates of landings and dead discards based on statistical surveys

of the U.S. recreational harvesting sector.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-218

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERIES DATA UPDATE

Table 3.67

U.S. Landings (mt) and dead discards of Blue Marlin, White Marlin and Sailfish by Gear and Area, 1998-2002. Source: NMFS, 2003.
Blue Marlin

White Marlin

Sailfish

Area

Gear

1998 1999

2000

2001

2002 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

NW Atlantic

Longline*

23.3 22.0

28.8

10.9

17.3

15.3

18.6

10.3

5.1

11.5

6.4

13.7

11.2

2.2

0.4

Unclassified*

0.6

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.7

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rod and
reel**

34.1 24.8

13.8

9.0

9.8

2.4

-

-

-

-

0.1

-

-

-

-

Gulf of
Mexico

Longline*

18.5 55.2

29.6

9.4

17.8

11.8

31.5

29.9

10.1

15.6

17.0

57.4

33.9

8.2

6.3

Rod and
reel**

4.5

7.5

4.7

5.1

4.4

0.2

-

-

-

-

1.0

-

-

-

-

Caribbean

Longline*

2.3

1.6

0.5

1.2

0.8

1.3

5.0

0.5

0.7

1.5

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.0

0.2

Rod and
reel**

10.6

4.6

5.7

2.3

2.9

<.05

-

-

-

-

0.05

-

-

-

-

Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Unknown &
NC Area 94a

Longline*

6.1

1.6

0.7

0.9

0.5

2.8

1.1

0.1

0.6

0.7

0.8

<.05

0.1

0.3

<.05

SW Atlantic

Longline*

1.6

1.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.7

<.05

0.1

0.0

0.0

NW Atlantic
& Caribbean
& Gulf of
Mexico

Rod and
reel***

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.2

1.3

3.4

5.6

-

163.0

75.7

57.8

103.0

All Areas

All Gears

83.9

38.8

54.7

35.4

62.0

42.1

19.9

35.3

28.3

234.6 121.1

68.5

109.9

101. 119.
6
0

* Includes landings and estimated discards from scientific observer and logbook sampling programs.

** Recreational billfish landings estimates are based on tournament reports and the Large Pelagic Survey (see Section 2.3 of the Billfish Amendment).

*** Estimation method no longer provides area-specific information.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-219

CHAPTER 3
FISHERIES DATA: LANDINGS BY SPECIES

Table 3.68

Commercial landings of large coastal sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Sources: Data from 1999-2001, Cortés pers. Comm.; data from 2002-2003,
Cortés 2003; Cortés and Neer, 2005.
Large Coastal Sharks
Basking**

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

0

0

0

0

0

0

9,050

672

1,442

0

318

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,259,016

1,633,919

1,135,199

1,099,194

1,487,604

1,092,600

28,603

24,980

27,037

40,463

93,816

49,556

0

0

1

0

0

0

110,942

205,746

1,973

8,779

23,288

1,025

Galapagos*

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hammerhead, Great

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hammerhead, Scalloped

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hammerhead, Smooth

0

0

0

0

0

92

Hammerhead, Unclassified

53,393

35,060

69,356

108,160

153,548

116,546

Large Coastal, Unclassified

67,197

16,575

172,494

147,359

51,433

0

Lemon

25,298

45,269

24,453

56,921

80,688

67,460

0

0

0

0

0

0

Night*

4,287

0

0

0

20

0

Nurse

1,176

429

387

69

70

317

1,320,239

1,491,908

1,407,550

1,863,420

1,436,838

1,223,082

Sand Tiger**

6,401

6,554

1,248

409

975

1,832

Silky

9,961

31,959

14,197

30,731

51,588

11,808

629

14,473

6,970

8,447

12,133

14,806

Bignose*
Bigeye sand tiger**
Blacktip
Bull
Caribbean Reef*
Dusky*

Narrowtooth*

Sandbar

Spinner

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-221

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Large Coastal Sharks
Tiger

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

30,779

24,443

26,973

16,115

18,536

30,976

Whale**

0

0

0

0

0

0

White**

82

1,201

26

0

1,454

58

Unclassified, assigned to
large coastal

821,648

92,117

525,661

771,450

853,564

599,134

Unclassified, fins

116,570

87,820

23,988

142,565

181,431

128,409

3,865,271

3,713,125

3,438,955

4,294,082

4,447,304

3,206,377

(1,753 mt
dw)

(1,684 mt
dw)

(1,560 mt
dw)

(1,948 mt
dw)

(2,017 mt
dw)

(1,454 mt
dw)

Total

* indicates species that were prohibited in the commercial fishery as of June 21, 2000.

** indicates species that were prohibited as of April 1997.

*** Preliminary data, species not yet available.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-222

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.69

Commercial landings of small coastal sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Source: Cortés and Neer, 2002; Cortés, 2003. Cortés and Neer, 2005.
Small coastal sharks

1999

2000

Atlantic Angel*

2001

2002

2004

2003

0

97

0

495

0

818

137,619

178,083

160,990

144,615

131,511

68,108

58,150

69,411

63,461

36,553

38,614

29,402

Finetooth

285,230

202,572

303,184

185,120

163,407

121,036

Sharpnose, Atlantic

244,356

142,511

196,650

213,301

190,960

230,880

Sharpnose, Atlantic,
fins

0

0

209

10

0

0

2,039

353

205

0

0

0

336

0

51

35,831

25,307

1,407

727,730

593,027

724,541

615,915

549,799

450,833

(330 mt dw)
(269 mt dw)
(329 mt dw)
* indicates species that were prohibited in the commercial fishery as of June 21, 2000.

(279 mt dw)

(249 mt dw)

(204 mt dw)

Blacknose
Bonnethead

Sharpnose,
Caribbean*
Unclassified Small
Coastal
Total:

Table 3.70

Commercial landings of pelagic sharks in lb dw: 1999-2004. Sources: Data from 2000-2001, Cortés pers. comm.; Cortés, 2003; Cortés and
Neer, 2005.
Pelagic Sharks
Bigeye thresher*

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

2003

18,683

4,376

330

0

0

719

0

0

0

0

0

0

886

3,508

65

137

6,324

423

Mako, longfin*

3,394

6,560

9,453

3,008

1,831

1,827

Mako, shortfin

150,073

129,088

171,888

159,840

150,076

217,171

56,625

74,690

73,556

58,392

33,203

51,413

1,480

657

922

1,590

2,559

1,082

Bigeye sixgill*
Blue shark

Mako, Unclassified
Oceanic whitetip

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-223

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Pelagic Sharks

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Porbeagle

5,650

5,272

1,152

2,690

1,738

5,779

Sevengill*

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sixgill*

0

0

0

0

0

0

96,266

81,624

56,893

53,077

46,502

44,915

0

233

0

5,965

79,439

0

Unclassified, assigned to
pelagic

41,006

40,951

31,636

182,983

297,126

356,522

Unclassified, pelagic, fins

2,408

3,746

12,239

0

0

0

376,471

350,705

358,134

467,682

618,798

677,305

(171 mt dw)
(159 mt dw)
(162 mt dw)
* indicates species that were prohibited in the commercial fishery as of June 21, 2000.

(212 mt dw)

(281 mt dw)

(307 mt dw)

Thresher
Unclassified, pelagic

Total:

Table 3.71

Estimates of total landings and dead discards for large coastal sharks from 1981 through 2004 (numbers of fish in thousands). Modified
from the 1998 and 2002 Report of the Shark Evaluation Workshop (NMFS 1998, 2002), Cortés and Neer (2002), and Cortés (2003, 2005).
Commercial
Landings

1981

16.2

0.9

265.0

282.1

1982

16.2

0.9

413.9

431.0

1983

17.5

0.9

746.6

765.0

1984

23.9

1.3

254.6

279.8

1985

22.2

1.2

365.6

389.0

1986

54.0

2.9

426.1

24.9

507.9

1987

104.7

9.7

314.4

70.3

499.0

1988

274.6

11.4

300.6

113.3

699.9

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Longline
Discards

Recreational
Catches

Unreported

3-224

Coastal
Discards

Menhaden
Fishery
Bycatch

Year

Total

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Commercial
Landings

1989

351.0

10.5

221.1

96.3

678.8

1990

267.5

8.0

213.2

52.1

540.8

1991

200.2

7.5

293.4

11.3

512.4

1992

215.2

20.9

304.9

1993

169.4

7.3

249.0

11.3

1994

228.0

8.8

160.9

16.3

26.2

440.2

1995

222.4

5.2

180.8

13.9

24.0

446.3

1996

160.6

5.7

191.5

7.6

25.1

390.5

1997

130.6

5.6

168.1

8.3

25.1

337.7

1998

174.9

4.3

170.7

9.9

25.1

384.9

1999

111.5

9.0

91.7

3.8

25.1

241.1

2000

111.2

9.4

131.9

4.8

25.1

282.4

2001

95.7

5.6

128.6

6.1

25.1

261.1

2002

123.4

2.4

76.3

4.9

25.1

232.1

2003

122.1

3.5

86.0

6.7

25.1

243.4

2004

98.9

5.2

66.3

3.6

25.1

199.1

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Longline
Discards

Recreational
Catches

Unreported

Coastal
Discards

Menhaden
Fishery
Bycatch

Year

Total

541.1

3-225

437.0

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.72

Commercial landings of LCS (including unclassified sharks) in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by region and year in mt dw for QMS
and Logbook data and mt ww for Canvass and CFDBS data from 1999-2003.

Year

South Atlantic

Gulf of Mexico

North Atlantic

Total

Canvass

QMS

Logbook

Canvass

QMS

Logbook

CFDBS*

Logbook

Canvass

QMS

Logbook

1999

1246.9

474.5

789.2

1342.7

739.8

803.9

135.5

75.6

258.9

1415

1668.7

2000

1107

503.8

662.1

1255.3

912.1

760

168.7

167.6

2362.3

1591.3

1589.7

2001

1078.4

488.1

632.6

1270.4

639.4

898.8

254.4

98.9

2348.8

1390.1

1630.3

2002

1542

678.8

680.4

1406.5

614.7

1034.6

191.2

104

2948.5

1492.3

1819

2003

1226.7

674.9

635.7

1829.7

934.3

1168.4

178.3

64.6

3056.4

1804.9

1868.7

Total

6201

2820.1

3400

7104.6

3840.3

4665.7

928.1

510.7

13305.6

7693.6

8576.4

1240.2

564.0

680

1420.9

768.1

933.1

185.6

102.1

2661.1

1538.7

1715.3

Average
Total
Combined

12526.2

15610.6

1438.8

29575.6

Average
Combined

835.1

1040.7

143.9

2019.7

Percent
41% (416.9 mt dw)
52% (528.8 mt dw)
7% (71.2 mt dw)
*Northeast Commercial Fisheries Database System (CFDBS). There is no canvass data available for the North Atlantic.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-226

100%

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

Table 3.73

Commercial landings of SCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by region and year year in mt dw for QMS and Logbook data and mt
ww for Canvass and CFDBS data from 1999-2003.

Year

South Atlantic

Gulf of Mexico

Canvass

QMS

Logbook Canvass

1999

391.3

317.3

198.4

2000

357.5

229.9

2001

446.3

2002

North Atlantic

Total

QMS

Logbook

CFDBS*

Logbook

Canvass

QMS

Logbook

11.8

14.5

26.5

3.7

2.07

403.1

335.7

226.97

74.5

11.6

24.1

13

12.6

9.3

369.1

266.6

96.8

309

143.9

8.8

18.9

34.5

0.1

7.8

455.1

328

186.2

311.1

248.9

156.7

36.9

11.4

42.4

15.4

5.4

348

275.7

204.5

2003

168.3

197.4

147.1

47.9

46.1

73.6

0

7.4

216.2

243.5

228.1

Total

1674.5

1302.5

720.6

117.0

115.0

190.0

31.8

31.97

1791.5

1449.5

942.57

Average

334.9

260.5

144.12

23.4

23.0

38.0

6.4

6.394

358.3

289.9

188.514

Total Combined

3697.6

422

63.8

4183.4

Average
Combined

246.5

28.1

6.4

281.0

Percent
88% (398.2 mt dw)
10% (45.4 mt dw)
2% (10.3 mt dw)
*Northeast Commercial Fisheries Database System (CFDBS). There is no canvass data available for the North Atlantic.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-227

100%

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FISHERY DATA UPDATE

3.5

Economic Status of HMS Fisheries

The review of each rule, and of HMS fisheries as a whole, is facilitated when there is a
baseline against which the rule or fishery may be evaluated. In this analysis, as in past SAFE
reports, NMFS used 1996 as a baseline. NMFS believes that this baseline is appropriate because
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and Magnuson-Stevens Act were both amended in 1996,
NMFS began to collect economic information voluntarily for vessels using the pelagic logbook
in 1996, and regarding HMS specifically, no rules were implemented in 1996 that were classified
as significant under RFA. Additionally, while the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP
and the Billfish Amendment 1 were finalized in 1999, scoping for these two major documents
and its final rule began in 1997. It is possible that anticipation of these documents and any
potential changes in their implementing regulations could have begun to impact the decisions
made by HMS fishermen and any associated businesses.
In addition to using the 1996 baseline, this FEIS also provides six years of data, when
possible, in order to facilitate the analysis of trends. It also should be noted that all dollar figures
are reported in nominal dollars (i.e., current dollars). If analysis of real dollar (i.e., constant
dollar) trends controlled for inflation is desired, price indexes for 1996 to 2004 are provided in.
To determine the real price in base year dollars, divide the base year price index by the current
year price index, and then multiply this result by the price that is being adjusted for inflation.
From 1996 to 2004, the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) indicates that prices have risen by 20.4
percent, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Implicit Price Deflator indicates that prices have
risen 16.3 percent, and the Producer Price Index (PPI) for unprocessed finfish indicates a 20.8
percent rise in prices. From 2002 to 2003, the CPI, GDP Deflator, and the PPI for unprocessed
finfish indicate prices rose by 2.3 percent, 2.0 percent, and declined by 2.8 percent respectively.
From 2003 to 2004, the CPI, GDP Deflator, and the PPI for unprocessed finfish indicate prices
rose by 2.7 percent, 2.6 percent, and 14.5 percent respectively.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-228

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Table 3.74

Inflation Price Indexes. The CPI-U is the standard Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
(1982-1984=100) produced by U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. The source of
the Producer Price Index (PPI) for unprocessed finfish (1982=100) is also the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator (200=100) is produced by the U.S.
Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis and obtained from the Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis (http://www.stlouisfed.org/).
Year

3.5.1

CPI-U

GDP Deflator

PPI Unprocessed Finfish

1996

156.9

93.8

185.5

1997

160.5

95.4

165.7

1998

163

96.5

170.7

1999

166.6

97.9

191.7

2000

172.2

100.0

182.4

2001

177.1

102.4

176.1

2002

179.9

104.2

201.5

2003

184

106.3

195.8

2004

188.9

109.1

224.1

Commercial Fisheries 4

In 2003, the total commercial landings at ports in the 50 states by U.S. fishermen were
9.5 billion pounds valued at $3.3 billion. In 2004, the total commercial landings at ports in the
50 states by U.S. fishermen were 9.6 billion pounds and were valued at $3.7 billion. The overall
value of landings between 2003 and 2004 had increased by nine percent. The total value of
commercial HMS landings in 2004 was $43.9 million (Table 3.77). The 2004 ex-vessel price
index indicated that 12 of the 17 finfish species tracked had increasing ex-vessel prices and five
species had decreasing ex-vessel prices since 2003. The total edible finfish ex-vessel price index
for 2004 was up eight percent from 2003.
The estimated value of the 2004 domestic production of all fishery products was $6.6
billion. This is $909 million less than the estimated value in 2003. The total import value of
fishery products was $22.9 billion in 2004. This is an increase of $1.7 billion from 2003. The
total import value in 1996 was $13.1 billion. The total export value of fishery products was
$13.6 billion in 2004. This is an increase of $1.6 billion from 2003. The total export value in
1996 was $8.7 billion.
Consumers spent an estimated $61.9 billion for fishery products in 2004 including $42.8
billion at food service establishments, $18.9 billion in retail sales for home consumption, and
$213.3 million for industrial fish products. The commercial marine fishing industry contributed
$31.6 billion to the U.S. Gross National Product in 2004. In 1996, consumers spent an estimated
$41.2 billion including $27.8 billion at food service establishments, $13.2 billion for home
consumption, and $283.9 billion for industrial fish products. The commercial marine fishing
industry contributed $21.0 billion to the U.S. Gross National Product in 1996.
4

All the information and data presented in this section were obtained from NMFS 1997a and NMFS 2005b.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-229

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E
CONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

3.5.1.1

Ex-Vessel Prices

The average ex-vessel prices per pound dressed weight (dw) for 1996 and 1999 to 2004
by area, Atlantic HMS, and major gear types are summarized in Table 3.75. The average exvessel prices per lb dw for 1996 and 1999 to 2004 by species and area are summarized in Table
3.76. For both of these tables, prices are reported in nominal dollars. The ex-vessel price
depends on a number of factors including the quality of the fish (e.g., freshness, fat content,
method of storage), the weight of the fish, the supply of fish, and consumer demand.
Table 3.75

Average ex-vessel prices per lb dw for Atlantic HMS by gear and area. Source: Dealer weighout
slips from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and
bluefin tuna dealer reports from the Northeast Regional Office. HND=Handline, harpoon, spears,
trot lines, and trolls, PLL=Pelagic longline, BLL=Bottom longline, Net=Gillnets and pound nets,
TWL=Trawls, SEN=Seines, TRP=Pots and traps, DRG=Dredge, and UNK=Unknown. Gulf of
Mexico includes: TX, LA, MS, AL, and the west coast of FL. S. Atlantic includes: east coast of FL.
GA, SC, and NC dealers reporting to Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Mid-Atlantic includes: NC
dealers reporting to Northeast Fisheries Science Center, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, and CT. N. Atlantic
includes: RI, MA, NH, and ME. For bluefin tuna, all NC landings are included in the Mid-Atlantic.
Gulf of Mexico

Species
Bigeye tuna

Bluefin tuna

Yellowfin
tuna
Other tunas

Swordfish

Large coastal
sharks

Pelagic
sharks

Gear

1996

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

HND
PLL
BLL
HND
PLL
BLL
HND
PLL
BLL
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
SEN
TRP
HND
PLL
BLL
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
HND
PLL
BLL

$0.68
$5.83
$0.28
$0.38
$0.23
$0.60
$0.38
$0.15
-

$2.13
$4.04
$4.41
$6.32
$2.38
$3.18
$3.06
$0.90
$0.78
$0.67
$0.33
$0.70
$0.52
$3.21
$3.39
$3.29
$0.64
$0.79
$0.55
$0.41
$0.49
$1.35
$1.27
$1.43

$1.83
$2.82
$2.31
$1.86
$2.48
$3.40
$3.68
$0.76
$0.72
$0.85
$0.58
$0.61
$3.91
$3.33
$3.10
$0.59
$0.48
$0.43
$0.48
$0.15
$1.38
$1.27
$1.31

$1.82
$2.64
$0.50
$1.25
$2.55
$3.25
$3.31
$0.79
$0.70
$0.74
$0.33
$0.78
$0.61
$2.84
$3.41
$3.25
$0.51
$0.45
$0.44
$0.50
$0.25
$1.48
$1.32
$1.42

$1.44
$5.09
$4.24
$2.69
$6.40
$4.50
$2.83
$3.68
$3.23
$0.91
$0.79
$0.75
$0.83
$0.40
$0.19
$0.30
$3.19
$2.94
$2.88
$0.44
$0.36
$0.36
$0.39
$0.25
$0.93
$1.06
$1.19

$1.25
$3.41
$3.53
$6.32
$2.34
$3.64
$3.73
$0.87
$0.66
$0.55
$0.29
$0.30
$0.30
$3.68
$2.91
$2.67
$0.45
$0.38
$0.38
$0.43
$0.25
$1.04
$1.11
$1.15

$3.45
$4.58
$5.67
$4.64
$2.56
$4.01
$4.01
$1.04
$0.58
$0.65
$0.41
$0.21
$3.38
$3.32
$2.89
$0.45
$0.53
$0.34
$0.39
$0.25
$1.21
$1.08
$1.03

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-230

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E
CONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Small coastal
sharks

Shark fins

Species
Bigeye tuna

Bluefin tuna

Yellowfin
tuna

Other tunas

Swordfish

Large coastal
sharks

Pelagic
sharks

HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TRP
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL

-

$0.59
$0.50
$0.52
$0.67
$8.51
$14.02
$14.34
$7.78
-

$0.93
$0.47
$0.41
$21.57
$15.65
$15.89
$15.50
$9.17

$0.37
$0.74
$0.61
$0.45
$0.74
$15.90
$21.08
$21.50
$11.02
-

$0.38
$0.32
$0.53
$0.46
$21.28
$22.72
-

$0.32
$0.33
$0.50
$0.36
$13.97
$15.21
$20.17
$6.05
-

$0.59
$0.37
$0.45
$0.50
$12.49
$17.81
$21.95
$5.86
-

South Atlantic
2000
$1.02
$2.27
$1.87
$7.99
$5.36

2001
$2.14
$2.78
$2.63
$3.52
$4.82

2002
$2.29
$2.33
$2.74
$3.35
$4.95

2003
$1.89
$2.26
$2.66
$4.11

2004
$2.97
$2.85
$5.94
$4.91

Gear
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
HND
PLL
BLL

1996
$1.30
$1.33
$1.30
$1.30
$4.62

1999
$2.02
$2.87
$3.00
$4.71

-

-

-

$3.61

$5.15

-

-

HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
SEN
TRP
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL

$1.55
$1.63
$1.41
$1.07
$0.75
$0.79
$0.87
$0.35
$0.31
$2.48
$2.88
$2.46
$0.72
$1.54
$0.73
$1.30
$0.86
$0.82
$0.68
$0.59
$0.33
-

$1.41
$2.17
$2.45
$0.87
$0.67
$1.47
$1.41
$0.19
$0.56
$0.11
$3.04
$3.27
$3.39
$0.66
$1.32
$1.13
$1.70
$0.67
$0.95
$1.04
$0.89
$0.28
$0.21

$1.56
$2.23
$2.29
$0.59
$1.31
$1.49
$0.20
$0.25
$3.92
$3.12
$3.42
$0.59
$1.21
$0.78
$0.91
$0.49
$0.78
$0.95
$0.90
$0.35
$0.20

$1.41
$2.14
$2.45
$1.21
$0.61
$1.33
$1.86
$0.23
$0.47
$0.18
$4.24
$3.27
$3.14
$0.96
$1.69
$0.89
$1.49
$0.51
$0.71
$0.95
$0.78
$0.36
$0.26

$1.54
$1.89
$2.29
$1.12
$0.44
$0.47
$1.09
$1.67
$0.21
$0.26
$3.93
$2.84
$2.76
$2.50
$1.01
$2.63
$1.10
$1.59
$0.81
$0.23
$0.68
$0.93
$0.75
$0.34
$0.26

$1.54
$2.09
$2.60
$0.58
$1.26
$1.13
$0.21
$3.91
$2.98
$3.19
$0.49
$0.35
$0.39
$0.30
$0.41
$0.84
$0.93
$0.87
$0.34
-

$1.24
$2.00
$0.90
$0.52
$1.28
$0.48
$0.20
$0.20
$4.44
$3.18
$0.43
$0.54
$0.44
$0.35
$0.71
$0.97
$0.84
$0.81
$0.29
-

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-231

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Small coastal
sharks

Shark fins

HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL

$0.25
$0.25
$14.00
$14.00
$9.11

$0.39
$0.57
$0.57
$0.52
$0.52
$5.65
$11.18
$15.76
$5.19
$6.61

$0.40
$0.57
$0.56
$0.48
$0.23
$11.92
$10.34
$17.57
$6.95
-

$0.46
$0.63
$0.53
$0.54
$0.23
$19.75
$11.44
$22.21
$10.60
$12.17

$0.53
$0.41
$0.54
$0.54
$15.53
$6.81
$22.26
$10.41
$14.00

$0.49
$0.24
$3.19
$0.53
$17.17
$12.72
$17.83
$12.85
$10.77

$0.44
$0.61
$0.65
$20.31
$9.91
$19.48
$8.76
$5.90

Mid-Atlantic
Species
Bigeye tuna

Bluefin tuna

Yellowfin
tuna

Other tunas

Swordfish

Large coastal
sharks

Gear

1996

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
DRG
UNK
HND
PLL
NET
BLL
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
DRG
UNK
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
DRG
UNK
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
HND
PLL

$5.74
$3.51
$2.61
$3.87
$4.68
$14.70
$6.12
$15.71
$2.49
$2.51
$3.28
$1.07
$2.40
$1.34
$1.84
$0.45
$0.45
$3.61
$4.31
$4.88
$4.63
$4.56
$0.74
$0.58

$3.62
$3.19
$4.33
$4.63
$3.16
$3.51
$7.34
$1.60
$2.15
$1.51
$1.07
$1.59
$0.89
$1.59
$0.83
$0.54
$0.66
$3.13
$3.53
$3.77
$3.81
$3.29
$0.96
$0.79

$4.45
$4.30
$3.45
$5.55
$5.68
$6.60
$5.73
$2.14
$2.32
$1.86
$1.77
$1.56
$0.94
$1.03
$1.17
$0.44
$0.70
$3.25
$3.59
$2.91
$3.94
$0.50
$0.45

$4.32
$3.81
$4.37
$4.50
$4.93
$6.83
$2.23
$7.00
$2.11
$2.30
$2.11
$1.49
$1.53
$0.89
$0.88
$0.78
$0.49
$0.47
$3.70
$3.47
$3.45
$4.19
$2.86
$0.88
$2.62

$3.97
$4.12
$2.84
$1.50
$5.00
$4.06
$5.72
$7.00
$2.00
$2.14
$1.81
$1.81
$1.97
$1.94
$2.75
$0.69
$0.86
$0.83
$0.75
$0.42
$0.57
$1.00
$1.03
$3.18
$4.00
$3.51
$3.34
$2.09
$2.78

$3.79
$3.92
$3.91
$7.54
$6.25
$1.93
$2.00
$1.89
$1.50
$1.48
$1.57
$0.66
$0.93
$1.08
$0.48
$0.62
$0.47
$1.69
$2.97
$3.21
$2.19
$2.32

$4.93
$4.48
$4.34
$5.36
$10.25
$6.03
$1.76
$1.91
$2.20
$2.08
$1.59
$2.62
$0.65
$1.09
$0.97
$0.35
$0.52
$0.58
$0.65
$2.86
$3.43
$3.55
$1.06
$3.37

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-232

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

sharks

Pelagic sharks

Small coastal
sharks

Shark fins

BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
SEN
UNK
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
DRG
UNK
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL

$0.54
$0.45
$0.47
$1.47
$1.25
$1.47
$0.99
$1.00
$0.25
-

$0.56
$0.46
$0.49
$1.71
$1.39
$1.04
$0.99
$1.10
$0.46
$0.45

$0.41
$0.53
$0.72
$1.41
$1.45
$1.24
$1.02
$0.90
$0.38
$0.20
$0.40

$0.55
$0.89
$0.55
$1.26
$1.56
$0.97
$1.02
$0.69
$0.40
$0.49
$0.51
$0.44
$0.95
-

$1.11
$1.02
$0.52
$2.50
$1.26
$0.50
$1.41
$1.31
$1.12
$0.97
$1.03
$2.00
$0.45
$0.50
$0.42

$2.08
$1.02
$0.50
$1.57
$1.32
$1.17
$1.08
$0.88
$1.43
$0.57
$0.36
$0.39
$0.39

$2.32
$1.52
$0.80
$0.68
$1.26
$1.22
$1.41
$1.32
$0.55
$1.78
$0.50
$0.44

-

$0.53

-

-

$1.26

-

-

HND
PLL
BLL
NET

$2.74
$7.79
$8.00

$3.60
$3.35
-

$6.17
$8.57
-

-

-

-

-

$4.77

$3.96

$3.38

-

-

-

-

North Atlantic
Species
Bigeye tuna

Bluefin tuna

Yellowfin
tuna

Other tunas

Gear

1996

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
HND
PLL
NET
SEN
TWL
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
HND
PLL

$3.69
$3.36
$2.15
$3.31
$8.00
$10.73
$5.56
$11.05
$2.50
$2.14
$2.03
$2.43
$2.67
$1.90
$0.98

$3.41
$3.26
$3.29
$8.44
$7.06
$7.83
$1.16
$2.44
$0.51
$0.50
$2.21
$1.41
$0.60

$4.22
$4.39
$0.42
$3.87
$10.02
$5.65
$7.80
$2.66
$2.77
$2.32
$2.31
$1.59
$1.13

$6.00
$3.42
$3.54
$8.21
$5.24
$4.26
$7.43
$3.80
$2.87
$3.01
$3.77
$2.10
$2.39
$0.70

$4.08
$3.76
$7.94
$5.96
$6.61
$3.25
$2.76
$4.75
$2.19
$4.50
$2.03
$1.15

$3.50
$6.33
$4.21
$4.92
$1.90
$2.57
$1.65
$3.10
$1.56
$1.00

$4.89
$3.79
$4.30
$7.79
$5.38
$5.92
$2.90
$2.89
$2.51
$3.25
$1.78
$1.17

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-233

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Swordfish

Large coastal
sharks

Pelagic sharks

Small coastal
sharks
Shark fins

BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
DRG
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP

$1.50
$0.73
$1.08
$5.20
$4.01
$3.07
$5.62
$3.08
$1.03
$0.99
$0.83
$0.80

$0.20
$0.37
$3.30
$3.77
$0.74
$1.03
$0.64
$1.00

$0.50
$0.50
$0.22
$8.00
$3.67
$2.00
$4.05
$1.00
$0.65
$1.06
$1.08

$3.00
$0.36
$0.80
$5.69
$3.58
$4.75
$0.50
$1.21
$1.43
$0.99
$0.93

$0.70
$0.69
$0.34
$3.00
$5.32
$3.30
$4.25
$3.05
$3.74
$0.45
$0.29
$1.00
$0.89
$0.86

$1.14
$0.37
$0.44
$3.36
$3.18
$0.74
$0.28
$0.89
$0.66

$0.66
$0.44
$0.89
$4.79
$3.85
$3.75
$4.89
$1.03
$0.68
$0.56

-

-

-

-

$0.28

$0.22

-

HND
PLL
BLL
NET
TWL
TRP
HND
NET
TWL

$1.60
$1.26
$1.85
$1.12
$0.96
-

$3.30
$0.89
$0.70
$0.77
-

$1.38
$1.50
$0.82
$0.97
-

$1.38
$1.37
$0.98
$1.19
$1.51

$1.71
$1.31
$0.65
$0.60
$0.81
$0.69
-

$1.30
$1.30
$0.63
$0.68
-

$1.34
$1.07
$1.99
$0.78
-

-

-

-

-

$0.58

-

-

PLL
BLL
NET
TWL

$4.25
$3.00
$1.96
$2.32

$0.33
$2.79
$0.49

$5.54
$25.19
$2.41
$3.00

-

-

-

-

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-234

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Table 3.76

Average ex-vessel prices per lb for Atlantic HMS by area.

Species

Area

1996

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Bigeye tuna

Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
S. Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
N. Atlantic

$0.68

$3.38

$2.26

$1.94

$4.33

$3.29

$4.54

$1.32
$3.99
$3.59
$5.83

$2.77
$3.52
$3.30
$6.32

$1.98
$4.39
$4.12
$1.86

$2.57
$4.26
$4.32
$1.25

$2.45
$3.82
$4.03
$5.56

$2.24
$3.77
$3.45
$6.32

$2.86
$4.56
$4.42
$4.64

$4.62
$9.48
$10.78
-

$4.70
$5.90
$8.26
$2.94

$6.83
$5.98
$8.94
$3.22

$4.00
$5.25
$5.79
$2.98

$3.77
$4.70
$7.31
$3.23

$4.11
$7.38
$5.71
$3.31

$4.91
$9.62
$7.42
$3.75

$1.56
$2.43
$2.35
$0.29

$1.77
$1.61
$1.52
$0.86

$1.88
$2.12
$2.65
$0.74

$1.70
$1.91
$2.93
$0.76

$1.73
$2.02
$2.90
$0.84

$1.76
$1.91
$2.38
$0.75

$1.53
$1.98
$2.65
$0.89

$0.62
$1.10
$1.31

$0.61
$0.80
$0.51

$0.58
$0.76
$0.93

$0.58
$0.70
$1.46

$0.49
$0.73
$1.17

$0.59
$0.70
$0.95

$0.49
$0.63
$0.94

-

$3.35

$3.25

$3.31

$2.91

$2.95

$3.31

$2.79
$4.43
$4.09

$3.27
$3.47
$3.45

$3.24
$3.67
$3.87

$3.43
$3.53
$4.67

$3.14
$3.25
$3.47

$3.26
$2.97
$3.33

$3.52
$3.37
$4.06

$0.21

$0.56

$0.43

$0.44

$0.36

$0.38

$0.37

$1.02
$0.55
$0.88
-

$1.10
$0.59
$0.77
$1.36

$0.78
$0.53
$1.01
$1.31

$1.12
$1.09
$1.02
$1.42

$1.27
$1.56
$0.77
$1.11

$0.39
$1.62
$0.72
$1.13

$0.44
$1.93
$0.70
$1.08

$0.62
$1.21
$1.31
-

$0.83
$1.23
$0.81
$0.55

$0.76
$1.20
$1.10
$0.52

$0.68
$1.09
$1.23
$0.58

$0.67
$1.17
$1.00
$0.48

$0.71
$1.21
$1.12
$0.40

$0.65
$1.29
$1.46
$0.45

$0.25
$0.25
-

$0.50
$0.47
$14.01

$0.48
$0.38
$15.99

$0.52
$0.55
$1.51
$20.90

$0.53
$0.48
$0.58
$22.64

$0.51
$0.38
$18.12

$0.61
$0.44
$17.93

$10.74
$4.60
$2.69

$11.10
$3.41
$1.19

$14.16
$4.90
$6.83

$18.43
-

$17.10
-

$15.85
-

$14.57
-

Bluefin tuna

Yellowfin
tuna

Other tunas

Swordfish

Large coastal
sharks

Pelagic
sharks

Small coastal
sharks

Shark fins

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-235

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Table 3.75 and Table 3.76 indicate that the average ex-vessel prices for bigeye tuna have
generally increased since 1996. Prices from 2003 to 2004 have increased in all four regions.
The gears used also influenced the average price of bigeye tuna.

400

14.00

Yen/$
Avg $/lb.

350

12.00

300
250
Yen/$

8.00

200
6.00

150

Average $/lb (dw) .

10.00

4.00

100
2.00

50
0
1971

0.00

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

Year

Figure 3.33

Average Annual Yen/$ Exchange Rate and Average U.S. BFT Ex-vessel $/lb (dw) for all gears:
1971-2003. Source: Federal Reserve Bank (www.stls.frb.org) and Northeast Regional Office.

Average ex-vessel prices for bluefin tuna have generally declined since 1996. Since 2002,
however, prices increased in all regions except the North Atlantic (Table 3.76). The gear used
also made a difference in the ex-vessel price (Table 3.75). In the North Atlantic and MidAtlantic, bluefin tuna caught with handgear had higher average prices than those caught with
longline. This trend has been fairly consistent over the years between 1996 and 2004. The exvessel prices for bluefin tuna can be influenced by many factors, including market supply and the
Japanese Yen/U.S. Dollar (¥/$) exchange rate. Figure 3.33 shows the average ¥/$ exchange rate,
plotted with average ex-vessel bluefin tuna prices, from 1971 to 2003.
The average ex-vessel prices for yellowfin tuna have increased in 2004 in the Gulf of
Mexico, Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic while increasing slightly in the South Atlantic (Table
3.76). Yellowfin tuna caught with longline gear had higher average ex-vessel prices than fish
caught with other gear types in 2004 (Table 3.75). The average ex-vessel price for other tunas
decreased in all regions except the Gulf of Mexico in 2004 (Table 3.76). The average price of
other tunas is lowest in the South Atlantic compared to other regions. The type of gear used did
not appear to consistently influence the average ex-vessel prices of other tuna. Average exvessel prices for swordfish increased in 2004 in all regions (Table 3.76). Swordfish caught using
handline gear had higher average ex-vessel prices than other gear types, except in the MidAtlantic where it was trawls (Table 3.75).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-236

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E
CONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

The average ex-vessel price for LCS slightly decreased in the Gulf of Mexico in 2004
and North Atlantic. However, prices for LCS increased in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic
(Table 3.76). The average ex-vessel prices for pelagic sharks increased in the Mid-Atlantic and
North Atlantic regions in 2004 (Table 3.76), while prices decreased in Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic. The 2004 prices for pelagic sharks are not significantly different than 1996 prices and
are actually lower than 1996 when adjusting for inflation. The average ex-vessel prices for small
coastal sharks (SCS) rebounded in all regions in 2004 (Table 3.76). Gear type did not
consistently affect ex-vessel price of small coastal sharks in 2004 (Table 3.75).
3.5.1.2

Revenues

Table 3.77 summarizes the average annual revenues of the Atlantic HMS fishery based
on average ex-vessel prices and the weight reported landed as per the U.S. National Report
(NMFS 2005), the Shark Evaluation Reports, information given to ICCAT (Cortes, 2005), as
well as price and weight reported to the NMFS Northeast Regional Office by Atlantic bluefin
tuna dealers. These values indicate that the estimated total annual revenue of Atlantic HMS
fisheries has decreased 34 percent from approximately $66.4 million in 1996 to approximately
$43.9 million in 2004. From 2003 to 2004, the tuna fishery’s total revenue decreased
significantly. A majority of that decrease can be attributed to reduced commercial landings of
bluefin tuna and yellowfin tuna. From 2003 to 2004, the annual revenues from shark decreased
by over 21 percent. In contrast, the annual revenues from swordfish from 2003 to 2004
increased by five percent after having been in decline for several years.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-237

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Table 3.77

Estimates of the total ex-vessel annual revenues of Atlantic HMS fisheries. Sources: NMFS, 1997; NMFS 2004a; Cortes, 2003; and bluefin
tuna dealer reports from the Northeast Regional Office.

Species

1996

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Bigeye tuna

Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$2.40
$3.24
$3.18
$3.27
$3.66
$3.19
$4.10
Weight lb dw
1,212,706
1,664,385
1,012,352
2,391,350
1,267,645
846,191
551,503
Fishery Revenue
$2,910,494
$5,395,971
$3,222,636
$7,827,218
$4,637,372
$2,697,233
$2,258,404
Bluefin tuna
Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$10.58
$8.14
$9.66
$8.23
$5.33
$5.91
$7.86
Weight lb dw
1,652,989
1,926,442
2,137,580
2,176,016
4,133,625
2,519,345
885,720
Fishery Revenue
$17,488,624 $15,677,959 $20,648,413 $17,904,240 $22,042,839 $14,889,328
$6,961,760
Yellowfin tuna
Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$2.11
$1.96
$2.46
$2.38
$2.48
$2.34
$2.48
Weight lb dw
6,679,938
6,351,717
12,435,708
14,777,800
12,885,887
13,556,340
4,832,483
Fishery Revenue
$14,094,669 $12,433,149 $30,577,372 $35,193,181 $31,919,170 $31,721,836 $11,972,477
Other tunas*
Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$0.83
$0.69
$0.75
$0.87
$0.81
$0.75
$0.74
Weight lb dw
368,433
495,241
795,243
867,960
1,298,509
900,522
287,127
Fishery Revenue
$305,799
$343,771
$593,595
$754,322
$1,057,273
$673,140
$211,756
Total tuna
Fishery Revenue
$34,799,586 $33,850,849 $55,042,015 $61,678,960 $59,656,653 $49,981,537 $21,404,397
Swordfish**
Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$3.77
$3.38
$3.51
$3.74
$3.20
$3.13
$3.57
Weight lb dw
7,170,619
5,942,839
4,832,384
5,662,350
5,985,489
4,668,466
4,317,369
Fishery Revenue
$27,033,234 $20,104,498 $16,974,346 $21,153,927 $19,150,819 $14,600,627 $15,391,422
Large coastal sharks Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$0.67
$0.76
$0.68
$0.91
$0.99
$0.78
$0.86
Weight lb dw
5,262,314
3,919,570
3,762,000
3,562,546
4,097,363
4,421,249
3,206,377
Fishery Revenue
$3,525,750
$2,950,102
$2,560,307
$3,256,955
$4,040,977
$3,437,521
$2,757,484
Pelagic sharks
Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$1.05
$1.06
$1.09
$1.11
$0.99
$1.04
$1.12
Weight lb dw
695,531
400,821
215,005
362,925
303,666
616,967
450,833
Fishery Revenue
$730,308
$424,273
$233,650
$401,430
$299,487
$643,188
$504,933
Small coastal sharks Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$0.25
$0.51
$0.46
$0.79
$0.52
$0.43
$0.50
Weight lb dw
460,667
672,245
672245*
719,484
579,441
549,799
677,305
Fishery Revenue
$115,167
$340,890
$309,926
$568,441
$299,023
$236,414
$338,653
Shark fins (weight = Ex-vessel $/lb dw
$6.01
$7.43
$10.47
$19.67
$19.87
$17.09
$16.25
5% of all sharks Weight lb dw
320,926
249,632
232,462
232,248
249,024
279,401
216,726
landed)
Fishery Revenue
$218,561
$1,854,313
$2,434,344
$4,568,937
$4,949,056
$4,774,959
$3,521,793
Total sharks
Fishery Revenue
$4,589,786
$5,569,578
$5,538,227
$8,795,763
$9,588,545
$9,092,082
$7,112,863
Total HMS
Fishery Revenue
$66,422,606 $59,524,926 $77,554,588 $91,628,650 $88,396,016 $73,674,245 $43,918,682
Note: Average ex-vessel prices may have some weighting errors, except for bluefin tuna which is based on a fleet-wide average. Other tunas includes skipjack
and albacore. ** Swordfish estimates do not include dead discards.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-238

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

3.5.1.3

Wholesale Market

Currently, NMFS does not collect wholesale price information from dealers. However,
the wholesale price of some fish species is available off the web
(http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/market_news/index.html). The wholesale prices presented in Table
3.78 are from the annual reports of the Fulton Fish Market. As with ex-vessel prices, wholesale
prices depend on a number of factors including the quality of the fish, the weight of the fish, the
supply of fish, and consumer demand.
As reported by the Fulton Fish Market, Table 3.78 indicates that the average wholesale
price of HMS sold in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states generally decreased from 1996 to 2003,
except for blacktip shark. Prices have appeared to have rebounded in 2004, breaking from the
declining trend. During that same period, the wholesale price of swordfish weighing over 100
pounds decreased 19 percent, swordfish weighing between 50 and 99 pounds decreased 25
percent, and swordfish cuts decreased 15 percent. The wholesale price of blacktip shark
increased 27 percent from 1996 to 2003, with most of the increase occurring in 2003. The
wholesale price of mako shark decreased 14 percent from 1996 to 2003, however 2003
wholesale prices were up from 2002. The wholesale price of thresher shark has decreased 22
percent from 1996 to 2003. Wholesale yellowfin tuna prices have remained relatively stable
from 1996 to 2003. The yellowfin tuna wholesale price of #2 quality fish had decreased eight
percent while the price of #2 cuts has increased seven percent from 1996 to 2003. Bigeye tuna
wholesale prices from 1999 to 2003 have increased significantly for both high grade cuts and
fish.
Table 3.78

Species

The overall average wholesale price per lb of fresh HMS sold in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
states as reported by the Fulton Fish Market. Source: NMFS, 2004.
Description

1996
Price/lb

1999
Price/lb

2000
Price/lb

Blacktip
Mako
Thresher
Swordfish

2001
Price/lb

$1.05
$1.04
$1.04
$1.05
$2.77
$2.74
$3.18
$3.00
$1.00
$0.91
$0.82
$1.25
100# and up
$6.28
$5.26
$5.26
$5.42
50-99#
$6.02
$4.54
$4.72
$4.81
26-49#
$5.50
$3.36
$3.58
$4.05
Cuts
$7.74
$6.55
$6.54
$6.73
Yellowfin tuna #1: BTF
$7.00
$5.97
$5.69
$5.50
#1: Cuts
$9.38
$8.23
$8.00
$8.23
#2: BTF
$5.00
$4.24
$4.36
$3.97
#2: Cuts
$6.52
$6.22
$6.20
$6.00
#3: BTF
$3.00
#3: Cuts
$4.50
Bigeye tuna
#1: BTF
$4.00
#1: Cuts
$5.50
#2: BTF
$4.26
#2: Cuts
$6.00
Note: #’s indicate quality (1 is highest, 3 is lowest); BTF is by the fish.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-239

2002
Price/lb

2003
Price/lb

2004
Price/lb

$1.00
$2.00
$1.25
$5.19
$4.59
$3.50
$6.84
$7.42
$10.67
$4.92
$7.29
-

$1.33
$2.37
$0.78
$5.08
$4.50
$6.55
$4.60
$6.98
$2.50
$6.50
$8.50
-

$1.08
$2.24
$1.24
$5.66
$5.15
$3.25
$7.13
$6.00
$8.50
$4.62
$7.32
$3.00
$7.75
$11.00
-

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E
CONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

3.5.2

Recreational Fisheries

Although NMFS believes that recreational fisheries have a large influence on the
economies of coastal communities, NMFS has only recently been able to gather additional
information on the costs and expenditures of anglers or the businesses that rely on them.
An economic survey done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2 in 2001 found that for
the entire United States 9.1 million saltwater anglers (including anglers in state waters) went on
approximately 72 million fishing trips and spent approximately $8.4 billion (USFWS, 2001).
Expenditures included lodging, transportation to and from the coastal community, vessel fees,
equipment rental, bait, auxiliary purchases (e.g., binoculars, cameras, film, foul weather clothing,
etc.), and fishing licenses (USFWS, 2001). Saltwater anglers spent $4.5 billion on trip-related
costs and $3.9 billion on equipment (USFWS, 2001). Approximately 76 percent of the saltwater
anglers surveyed fished in their home state (USFWS, 2001). The next USFWS survey is
expected in 2006.
Specific information regarding angler expenditures for trips targeting HMS species was
extracted from the recreational fishing expenditure survey add-on (1998 in the Northeast, 1999 –
2000 in the Southeast) to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Marine Recreational Fisheries
Statistics Survey (MRFSS). These angler expenditure data were analyzed on a per person per
trip-day level and reported in 2003 dollars. The expenditure data include the costs of tackle,
food, lodging, bait, ice, boat fuel, processing, transportation, party/charter fees, access/boat
launching, and equipment rental. The overall average expenditure on HMS related trips is
estimated to be $122 per person per day. Specifically, expenditures are estimated to be $686 per
person per day on billfish directed trips (based on a low sample size), $85 on pelagic shark
directed trips, $95 on large coastal shark directed trips, $81 on small coastal sharks, and $106 on
tuna trips.
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) also has a report listing the 2001
economic impact of sportfishing on specific states. This report states that all sportfishing (in
both Federal and state waters) has an overall economic importance of $116 billion dollars (ASA,
2001). Florida, Texas, North Carolina, New York, and Alabama are among the top ten states in
terms of overall economic impact for both saltwater and freshwater fishing (ASA, 2001). Florida
is also one of the top states in terms of economic impact of saltwater fishing with $2.9 billion in
angler expenditures, $5.4 billion in overall economic impact, $1.5 billion in salaries and wages
related to fishing, and 59,418 fishing related jobs (ASA, 2001). California followed Florida with
$0.8 billion in angler expenditures, $1.7 billion in overall economic impact, $0.4 billion in
salaries and wages, and 15,652 jobs (ASA, 2001). Texas and New Jersey were the next highest
states in terms of economic impact (ASA, 2001).
At the end of 2004, NMFS began collecting market information regarding advertised
charterboat rates. This preliminary analysis of the data collected includes 99 observations of
advertised rates on the internet for full day charters. Full day charters vary from six to 14 hours
long with a typical trip being 10 hours. Most vessels can accommodate six passengers, but this
2
This survey interviewed over 77,000 households during phase 1 and approximately 25,070 sports persons during phase 2. The response
rate during phase two of the survey was 75 percent.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-240

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

also varies from two to 12 passengers. Table 3.79 summarizes the average charterboat rate for
full day trips on vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat permits. The average price for a full day
boat charter was $1,053 in 2004. Sutton et al., (1999) surveyed charterboats throughout
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas in 1998 and found the average charterboat base fee
to be $762 for a full day trip. Holland et al. (1999) conducted a similar study on charterboats in
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina and found the average fee for full day trips
to be $554, $562, $661, and $701, respectively. Comparing these two studies conducted in the
late 1990s to the average advertised daily HMS charterboat rate in 2004, it is apparent that there
has been a significant gain in charterboat rates.
Table 3.79

Average Atlantic HMS charterboat rates for day trips. Source: NMFS searches for advertised
daily charter rates of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders. (Observations=99)
State

2004 Average Daily
Charter Rate

AL

$1,783

CT

$1,500

DE

$1,060

FL

$894

LA

$1,050

MA

$777

MD

$1,167

ME

$900

NC

$1,130

NJ

$1,298

NY

$1,113

RI

$917

SC

$1,300

TX

$767

VA

$825

Overall Average

$1,053

In 2003, Ditton and Stoll published a paper that surveyed the literature regarding what is
currently known about the social and economic aspects of recreational billfish fisheries. It was
estimated that 230,000 anglers in the United States spent 2,136,899 days fishing for billfish in
1991. This is approximately 3.6 percent of all saltwater anglers over age 16. The states with the
highest number of billfish anglers are Florida, California, North Carolina, Hawaii, and Texas in
descending order. Billfish anglers studied in the U.S. Atlantic, Puerto Rico, and Costa Rica
fished between 39 and 43 days per year.
Billfish recreational anglers tend to spend a great deal of money on trips. Ditton and
Stoll (2003) report that a 1990 study of U.S. total trip costs for a typical billfish angler estimated
a mean expenditure of $2,105 per trip for the Atlantic and $1,052 per trip for Puerto Rico. The
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-241

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E
CONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

aggregate economic impact of billfish fishing trips in the U.S. Atlantic is conservatively
estimated to be $22.7 million annually.
In addition to the economic impact of recreational billfish angling, Ditton and Stoll (2003)
report that using a contingent valuation method they estimated consumer’s surplus or net
economic benefit to maintain current billfish populations in the U.S. Atlantic to be $497 per
billfish angler per year in the U.S. Atlantic and $480 in Puerto Rico. They also estimate that the
number of annual billfish anglers in the U.S. Atlantic to be 7,915 and 1,627 in Puerto Rico. The
aggregate willingness-to-pay for maintaining current billfish populations is $3.93 million in the
U.S. Atlantic and 0.78 million in Puerto Rico. The aggregate direct impact of billfish
expenditures is estimated to be $15.13 million for the U.S. Atlantic and $32.40 million for Puerto
Rico. Thus, the total aggregate economic value of billfish angler fishing is $19.06 million per
year for the U.S. Atlantic and $33.18 million per year for Puerto Rico.
Generally, HMS tournaments last from three to seven days, but lengths can range from
one day to an entire fishing season. Similarly, average entry fees can range from approximately
$0 to $5,000 per boat (average approximately $500/boat – $1,000/boat), depending largely upon
the magnitude of the prize money that is being awarded. The entry fee would pay for a
maximum of two to six anglers per team during the course of the tournament. Additional anglers
can, in some tournaments, join the team at a reduced rate of between $50 and $450. The team
entry fee did not appear to be directly proportional to the number of anglers per team, but rather
with the amount of money available for prizes and, possibly, the species being targeted. Prizes
may include citations, T-shirts, trophies, fishing tackle, automobiles, boats, or other similar items,
but most often consists of cash awards. In general, it appears that billfish and tuna tournaments
charge higher entry fees and award more prize money than shark and swordfish tournaments,
although all species have a wide range.
Cash awards distributed in HMS tournaments can be quite substantial. Several of the
largest tournaments, some of which are described below, are part of the World Billfish Series
Tournament Trail whereby regional winners are invited to compete in the World Billfish Series
Grand Championship for a new automobile and a bronze sculpture. Other tournament series
include the International Game Fish Association (IGFA) Rolex Tournament of Champions, and
the South Carolina Governor’s Cup. White marlin is a top billfish species from Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina to the eastern tip of Georges Bank from June through October each year. The
White Marlin Open in Ocean City, Maryland, which is billed as the “world’s richest fishing
tournament,” established a new world record payout for catching a fish when it awarded $1.32
million in 2004 to the vessel catching the largest white marlin. The 21st Annual Pirates Cove
Billfish Tournament in North Carolina awarded over $1 million in prizes in 2004, with the top
boat garnering over $400,000 for winning in six categories. Total prize money awarded in the
Big Rock Tournament in North Carolina has exceeded $1 million since 1998.
Blue marlin, sailfish, and tunas are also often targeted in fishing tournaments, including
those discussed above. In 2004, blue marlin was the HMS most frequently identified as a prize
category in registered HMS tournaments. Forty-five teams participated in the 2004 Emerald
Coast Blue Marlin Classic at Sandestin, Florida, with over $482,000 in cash prizes and the top
boat receiving over $58,000. The 34th Annual Pensacola (Florida) International Billfish
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-242

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

Tournament indicated that it would award over $325,000 in cash and prizes in 2004. The World
Sailfish Championship in Key West, Florida has a $100,000 guaranteed first prize for 2005. In
South Carolina, the Megadock Billfishing Tournament offers a $1,000,000 prize for any boat
exceeding the current blue marlin state record. The 2004 Florida Billfish Masters Tournament in
Miami, Florida awarded over $123,000 in prize money, with the top boat receiving over $74,000.
Sixty-two boats competed in the 2003 Babylon Tuna Club Invitational in Babylon, New York for
over $75,000 in cash prizes, and the Mid-Atlantic Tuna Tournament sponsored by the South
Jersey Marina in Cape May, New Jersey anticipates awarding over $25,000 in prizes in 2005.
Several tournaments target sharks. Many shark tournaments occur in New England, New
York, and New Jersey, although other regions hold shark tournaments as well. In 2004, the 24th
Annual South Jersey Shark Tournament hosted over 200 boats and awarded over $220,000 in
prize money, with an entry fee of $450 per boat. The “Mako Fever” tournament, sponsored by
the Jersey Coast Shark Anglers, in 2004 awarded over $55,000 in prizes, with the first place
vessel receiving $25,000. In 2004, the 18th Annual Monster Shark Tournament in Martha’s
Vineyard, Massachusetts was broadcast on ESPN, and featured a new fishing boat valued at over
$130,000 awarded to the winner.
Swordfish tournaments have gained increased popularity in recent years, especially on
the east coast of Florida, as the swordfish population has recovered. Events include the
Islamorada Swordfish Tournament that began in 2004, and the Miami Swordfish Tournament
that began in 2003. Both of these tournaments anticipated awarding over $30,000 in total cash
and prizes, assuming that 50 boats would participate.
In addition to official prize money, many fishing tournaments may also conduct a
“calcutta” whereby anglers pay from $200 to $5,000 to win more money than the advertised
tournament prizes for a particular fish. Tournament participants do not have to enter calcuttas.
Tournaments with calcuttas generally offer different levels depending upon the amount of money
an angler is willing to put down. Calcutta prize money is distributed based on the percentage of
the total amount entered into that Calcutta. Therefore, first place winner of a low level Calcutta
(entry fee ~$200) could win less than a last place winner in a high level calcutta (entry fee
~$1000). On the tournament websites, it was not always clear if the total amount of prizes
distributed by the tournament included prize money from the calcuttas or the estimated price of
any equipment. As such, the range of prizes discussed above could be a combination of fish
prize money, Calcutta prize money, and equipment/trophies.
Fishing tournaments can sometimes generate a substantial amount of money for
surrounding communities and local businesses. Besides the entry fee to the tournament and
possibly the calcutta, anglers may also pay for marina space and gas (if they have their own
vessel), vessel rental (if they do not have their own vessel), meals and awards dinners (if not
covered by the entry fee), hotel, fishing equipment, travel costs to and from the tournament,
camera equipment, and other miscellaneous expenses. Fisher and Ditton (1992) found that the
average angler who attended a billfish tournament spent $2,147 per trip (2.59 days), and that
billfish tournament anglers spent an estimated $180 million (tournament and non-tournament
trips) in 1989. Ditton and Clark (1994) estimated annual expenditures for Puerto Rican billfish
fishing trips (tournaments and non-tournaments) at $21.5 million. More recently, Ditton, et al.,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-243

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

(2000) estimated that the total expenditure (direct economic impact) associated with the 1999
Pirates Cove Billfish Tournament, not including registration fees, was approximately $2,072,518.
The total expenditure (direct economic impact) associated with the 2000 Virginia Beach Red,
White, and Blue Tournament was estimated at approximately $450,359 (Thailing, et al., 2001).
These estimated direct expenditures do not include economic effects that may ripple through the
local economy leading to a total impact exceeding that of the original purchases by anglers (i.e.,
the multiplier effect). Less direct, but equally important, fishing tournaments may serve to
generally promote the local tourist industry in coastal communities. In a survey of participants in
the 1999 Pirates Cove Billfish Tournament, Ditton, et al., (2000) found that almost 80 percent of
tournament anglers were from outside of the tournament’s county. For this reason, tourism
bureaus, chambers of commerce, resorts, and state and local governments often sponsor fishing
tournaments.
3.6

Community and Social Update

According to National Standard 8 (NS 8), conservation and management measures should,
consistent with conservation requirements, attempt to both provide for the continued
participation of a community and, to the extent practicable, minimize the economic effects on the
community. The information presented here addresses new data concerning the social and
economic well-being of participants in the fishery and considers the impact of significant
regulatory measures enacted in the past year.
3.6.1

Overview of Current Information and Rationale

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires, among other things, that all FMPs include a fishery
impact statement intended to assess, specify, and describe the likely effects of the measures on
fishermen and fishing communities (§303(a)).
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also requires federal agencies to
consider the interactions of natural and human environments by using a “systematic,
interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences...in planning and decision-making” (§102(2)(A)). Moreover, agencies need to address
the aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects which may be direct, indirect,
or cumulative. Consideration of social impacts is a growing concern as fisheries experience
increased participation and/or declines in stocks. The consequences of management actions need
to be examined to better ascertain and, if necessary, mitigate impacts of regulations on affected
constituents.
Social impacts are generally the consequences to human populations that follow from
some type of public or private action. Those consequences may include alterations to the ways
in which people live, work or play, relate to one another, and organize to meet their needs. In
addition, cultural impacts which may involve changes in values and beliefs that affect people’s
way of identifying themselves within their occupation, communities, and society in general are
included under this interpretation. Social impact analyses help determine the consequences of
policy action in advance by comparing the status quo with the projected impacts. Although
public hearings and scoping meetings provide input from those concerned with a particular
action, they do not constitute a full overview of the fishery.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-244

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HMS FISHERIES

While geographic location is an important component of a fishing community, the
transient nature of HMS may necessitate permitted fishermen to shift location in an attempt to
follow the fish. Because of this characteristic, management measures for HMS often have the
most identifiable impacts on fishing fleets that use specific gear types. The geographic
concentrations of HMS fisheries may also vary from year to year as the behavior of these
migratory fish is unpredictable. The relationship between these fleets, gear types, and
geographic fishing communities is not always a direct one; however, they are important variables
for understanding social and cultural impacts. As a result, the inclusion of typical community
profiles in HMS management decisions is somewhat difficult as geographic factors and the use
of a specific gear type have to be considered.
NMFS (2001) guidelines for social impact assessments specify that the following
elements are utilized in the development of FMPs and FMP amendments:
1.

The size and demographic characteristics of the fishery-related work force
residing in the area; these determine demographic, income, and employment
effects in relation to the work force as a whole, by community and region.

2.

The cultural issues of attitudes, beliefs, and values of fishermen, fishery-related
workers, other stakeholders, and their communities.

3.

The effects of proposed actions on social structure and organization; that is, on the
ability to provide necessary social support and services to families and
communities.

4.

The non-economic social aspects of the proposed action or policy; these include
life-style issues, health and safety issues, and the non-consumptive and
recreational use of living marine resources and their habitats.

5.

The historical dependence on and participation in the fishery by fishermen and
communities, reflected in the structure of fishing practices, income distribution
and rights.

The information used in the 1999 FMP and the 1999 Billfish Amendment was obtained
through a contract with Dr. Doug Wilson, from the Ecopolicy Center for Agriculture,
Environmental and Resource Issues at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Dr. Wilson
and his colleagues completed their field work in July 1998. Their study considered HMS that
have important commercial and recreational fisheries extending along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coast from Maine to Texas and in the Caribbean. The study investigated the social and cultural
characteristics of fishing communities in five states and one U.S. territory: Massachusetts, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico. These areas were selected because
they each have important fishing communities that could be affected by measures included in the
1999 FMP and the 1999 Billfish Amendment, and because they are fairly evenly spread along
the Atlantic and Gulf Coast and the Caribbean. For each state or territory, a profile of basic
sociologic information was compiled, with at least two coastal communities visited for further
analysis. Towns were selected based on HMS landings data, the relationship between the
geographic communities and the fishing fleets, the existence of other community studies, and

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-245

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL UPDATE

inputs from the Advisory Panels for HMS and Billfish. Complete descriptions of the study
results can be found in Chapter 9 of the 1999 FMP and Chapter 7 of the Billfish Amendment.
In 2002, NMFS contracted the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) at the
College of William and Mary to re-evaluate several of the baseline communities and, specifically,
to determine if the 1999 HMS FMP had a negative social impact on the communities dependent
upon HMS. The 2005 report provided a brief overview and examination of changes in social and
economic structures of communities which land HMS. The analysis of change since the 1999
HMS FMP regulations were implemented was based on demographics, landings information,
and informal interviews with individuals from three different communities. Some of the report’s
findings are incorporated into the community profiles in Chapter 9 of this document.
3.6.2

Social Impacts of Selected 2005 Regulatory Actions

Final Rule Implementing Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications for 2004 (70 CFR 43,
March 7, 2005)
This action set BFT quotas for each of the established domestic fishing categories and
sets General category effort controls for the 2004 fishing year (June 1, 2004 – May 31, 2005) and
established a catch-and-release provision, in addition to the tag-and release provision, for
recreational and commercial BFT handgear vessels during a respective quota category closure.
The action was not expected to have any significant, positive or negative, social or
economic impacts. The final action was expected to have modest positive social and economic
impacts, by implementing the ICCAT-recommended adjusted BFT TAC for the United States in
the western Atlantic management area of 1,489.6 mt. The action was not expected to have
highly controversial effects on the human environment. There were no highly uncertain effects
associated with this action due to the fact that the BFT fishery has been in operation for years.
Thus, implementing the 2002 ICCAT BFT quota recommendation is consistent with the past,
would not set a new precedence, and would provide positive economic impacts due to the
application of the additional BFT quota. Although controversial issues associated with the BFT
fishery remain, they are beyond the scope of this particular rulemaking and will be addressed in
future regulatory and FMP amendments. The action is not expected to have substantial adverse
impacts on public health and safety. Fishing activity or behavior would not change, although
fishing effort may increase slightly as a result of this action.
Final Rule Implementing Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications and General Category
Effort Controls for 2005 (70 FR 108, June 7, 2005)
This action set BFT quotas for each of the established domestic fishing categories and set
General category effort controls for the 2005 fishing year (June 1, 2005 – May 31, 2006). NMFS
also established the restricted fishing days to extend the General category BFT fishery into the
late season for the southern Atlantic region. This action implemented the recommendations of
the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, and were implemented to achieve domestic management
objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-246

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL UPDATE

NMFS prepared an EA for the final rule, concluding that the action is not expected to
have any significant, positive or negative, social or economic impacts. The selected action was
expected to have modest positive social and economic impacts, by implementing the ICCATrecommended adjusted BFT TAC for the United States in the western Atlantic management area
of 1,489.6 mt and is consistent with the ICCAT recommendation regarding the eight-percent
tolerance of school BFT harvest. The action is not expected to be highly controversial on the
human environment. There are no highly uncertain effects associated with this action due to the
fact that the BFT fishery has been in operation for years. The action is not expected to have
substantial adverse impacts on public health and safety. Fishing activity or behavior would not
change, although fishing effort may increase slightly. For further background information, please
see the Environmental Assessment and associated Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this
rule, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Tuna/05_Specs_Final_EA.RIR.FRFA.0523.pdf.
3.6.3

Summary of New Social and Economic Data Available

3.6.3.1 2005 Social Science Publications
The following two reports were delivered in 2005. An additional two reports, completing
the community profiles for the Gulf of Mexico, are currently in peer review. Both reports are
summarized in the abstract below.
Impact Assessment. 2005. Identifying communities associated with the fishing industry in
Alabama and Mississippi. La Jolla, California. (NOAA-NMFS-Contract WC133F-02-SE-0297).
p.661.
Impact Assessment. 2005. Identifying communities associated with the fishing industry in
Louisiana. La Jolla, California. (NOAA-NMFS-Contract WC133F-02-SE-0297). p. 661.
Abstract. The research has been conducted for NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional
Office (SERO), in fulfillment of its goal to effectively manage the various fisheries upon which
residents of certain towns and cities in the Gulf of Mexico have depended and/or continue to
depend, to greater and lesser degrees, for economic and social purposes. A systematic
methodology was developed to investigate and describe Gulf communities likely to exhibit some
or all of the attributes of “fishing communities” as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act as Amended (the Magnuson Act; MSFCMA), and by
National Standard 8 (NS-8). The project methodology emphasized: (a) collection and geospatial
analysis of various fishing license, landings, economic, and demographic attribute data, and (b)
collection and analysis of a variety of descriptive economic and social data considered viable
indicators of fishing community status. The scope of this study is quite large, encompassing 30
communities in three counties in Alabama, 14 communities in three counties in Mississippi, and
106 communities in Louisiana. The overarching goal of the project was to provide the
information needed to make preliminary determinations about whether, or to what degree, each
community fits the federal definition of “fishing community.” This report provides: (a) fisheriesrelevant narrative description of historic and contemporary life in the study parishes, cities, and
towns, (b) tabular and spatial description of fisheries infrastructure and services, and fleet
characteristics specific to those study areas; and (c) preliminary assessment of the manner in, and
degree to which, each study town or city does or does not approximate the National Standard 8
definition of fishing community. As the final version of these reports is being submitted
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-247

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL UPDATE

immediately following the passage of Hurricane Katrina in late August of 2005, the reports and
associated data may also serve as a timely and accurate baseline for assessing the effects of the
event on the study counties, cities, and towns, and their residents.

Jacob, S., M. Jepson, and F.L. Farmer. 2005. What you see is not always what you get:
Aspect dominance as a confounding factor in the determination of fishing dependent
communities. Human Organization 64(4):374-385.
Abstract. Many residents of coastal towns believe that they live in communities that are
economically dependent upon commercial fishing. However, employment data indicate that
fishing is a relatively minor economic component of many of these communities. We apply the
concept of aspect dominance from the field of ecology to help explain this discrepancy. In
addition we explore other forms of ecological dominance in regard to perceptions of fishing
dependence. A key idea is that residents and sometimes researchers confuse forms of ecological
dominance with economic dependence. Our study relied upon secondary and key informant data
for six Florida coastal communities. In addition, we conducted a random telephone sample with
1,200 residents of these villages to establish their perceptions of the importance of commercial
fishing to their communities.

Sutton, S.G., and R.B. Ditton. 2005. The substitutability of one type of fishing for another.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:536-546.
Abstract. We investigated the willingness of saltwater anglers in Florida and Texas to
substitute other types of fishing for the type of fishing they most preferred. Anglers were asked if
there was a suitable substitute for their most preferred species and, if so, what species would
provide them with the same satisfaction and enjoyment as their most preferred species at the same
cost. Most anglers (86 percent) reported that other species would provide acceptable substitutes
for their preferred species and were able to identify acceptable substitutes from a list of common
saltwater species in Texas and Florida. Logistic regression was used to determine the effects of
demographic and fishing participation variables on willingness to substitute. Willingness to
substitute was positively related to years of education and negatively related to age and the
importance placed on trophy-seeking experiences. Also, females were more willing to substitute
than males. Results suggest that for some species substitution behavior in response to biologically
or managerially imposed constraints on fishing activity could result in increased effort for other
species in the saltwater fisheries of Texas and Florida.

3.6.3.2 Summary of Social Data and Information for FEIS
This document consolidates all of the community profiles from previous HMS
management plans or amendments and updates the community information, where possible. To
ensure continuity with the 1999 HMS FMP and previous amendments, if a community was
selected and described as being involved with an HMS fishery, the same community was
included in this assessment. The communities profiled were originally selected due to the
proportion of HMS landings, the relationship between the geographic communities and the
fishing fleets, the existence of other community studies, and input from the HMS and Billfish
Advisory Panels. The communities selected for detailed study are Gloucester and New Bedford,
Massachusetts; Barnegat Light and Brielle, New Jersey; Wanchese, and Hatteras Township,
North Carolina; Pompano Beach, Fort Pierce, Madeira Beach, Panama City Beach, and
Islamorada, Florida; Boothville/Venice and Dulac, Louisiana; and Arecibo, Puerto Rico. These
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-248

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL UPDATE

communities are not intended to be an exhaustive list of every HMS-related community in the
United States; rather the objective is to give a broad perspective of representative areas.
The demographic profiles in this document have been modified to include the same
baseline information for each community profiled; as a result, most of the tables include more
information than portrayed in the 1999 HMS FMP and its amendments. The demographic tables
still use both 1990 and 2000 Bureau of the Census data for comparative purposes. The
descriptive community profiles include the same information provided by the Wilson, et al.,
(1998) and Kirkley (2005) analyses with some new information provided by Impact Assessment,
Inc (2004) on the Gulf of Mexico communities. Unlike the Wilson, et al., (1998) study used in
the 1999 HMS FMP, it was not possible to undertake field research for this assessment.
This assessment also reviewed the HMS permit databases to incorporate information
about residence. This information was also used to identify additional HMS-related fishing
communities that should be profiled in the future. Six GIS maps were generated to identify the
communities where angler, charter/headboat, HMS dealers (tunas, shark, and swordfish
combined), commercial tuna (all gear categories combined), directed and incidental shark, and
swordfish (directed, incidental, and handgear combined) permit holders reside (Figure 9.1 to
Figure 9.6). In past community profile and social impact analyses, it was difficult to identify
where recreational HMS fishermen were located because no data were available for the number
of recreational fishermen, as well as recreational landings by community. Previous social impact
assessments report on charter fishing operations, fishing tournaments, and related activities to
identify the scope of recreational fishing for each of the communities described. The
information provided by the HMS permit databases should facilitate the identification of
recreational HMS communities that should be profiled in the future.
3.6.3.3 HMS Community Profile Needs
For future social impact analyses, the HMS permit databases, landings information, and
HMS APs should be consulted to determine the most appropriate community profiles for HMSrelated fisheries. The 2005 HMS permit data indicate that several new community profiles
should be developed and some of the previously profiled communities may no longer be as
significantly involved in the fishery as they were in the past (Figure 9.1 to Figure 9.6).
Wakefield, Rhode Island should be considered due to the number of commercial tuna and
swordfish permit holders in the area. Montauk, New York has a large concentration of
charter/headboat, commercial tuna, and HMS dealer permit holders in the community. A large
number of Cape May, New Jersey residents hold an HMS angling, charter/headboat, shark and/or
swordfish permits. Morehead City, North Carolina is home to a number of HMS angling,
charter/headboat, and commercial tuna permit holders. Each of these towns is actively involved
with more than one sector of the HMS fisheries and therefore be impacted be any changes to
HMS regulations.
While the permit holders in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not as numerous as the
permit holders on the U.S. mainland, HMS fisheries are active in these two areas and several of
the communities benefit from those activities. Due to the number of HMS permit holders in
these areas, future HMS actions should consider developing community profiles for
Christiansted, St. Croix, as well as San Juan, Guaynabo, Aguadilla, Mayaguez, and/or Vega Baja,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-249

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL UPDATE

Puerto Rico. While NMFS may have community profiles describing these areas, an HMSspecific community profile should be developed for these towns to best determine the impact of
changes to HMS-related regulations.
3.7

International Trade and Fish Processing

Several regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) including ICCAT have
taken steps to improve collection of international trade data to further international conservation
policy for management of HMS. While RFMOs cannot re-create information about stock
production based on trade data, this information can be used provisionally to estimate landings
related to these fisheries, and to identify potential compliance problems with certain ICCAT
management measures. United States participation in HMS related international trade programs,
as well as a review of trade activity, is discussed in this section. This section also includes a
review of the available information on the processing industry for Atlantic HMS species.
3.7.1
3.7.1.1

Overview of International Trade for Atlantic HMS
Trade Monitoring

The United States collects general trade monitoring data through the U.S. Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (CBP; imports) and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census
Bureau; exports and imports). These programs collect data on the amount and value of imports
and exports categorized under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Many HMS have distinct
HTS codes, and some species are further subdivided by product (e.g. fresh or frozen, fillets,
steaks, etc.). NMFS provides Census Bureau trade data for marine fish products online for the
public at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/index.html. Some species, such as sharks, are
grouped together, which can limit the value of these data for fisheries management when species
specific information is needed. These data are further limited since the ocean area of origin for
each product is not distinguished. For example, the HTS code for Atlantic, Pacific, and even
Indian Ocean bigeye tuna is the same.
Trade data for Atlantic HMS are of more use as a conservation tool when they indicate
the flag of the harvesting vessel, the ocean of origin, and the species for each transaction. Under
the authority of ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS collects this information while
monitoring international trade of bluefin tuna, swordfish, southern bluefin tuna, and frozen
bigeye tuna. These programs implement ICCAT recommendations and support rebuilding
efforts by collecting data necessary to identify nations and individuals that may be fishing in a
manner that diminishes the effectiveness of ICCAT fishery conservation and management
measures. Copies of all trade monitoring documents associated with these programs may be
found on the NMFS HMS Management Division webpage at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.
These and several other trade monitoring programs established by NMFS for HMS are described
in further detail below.
3.7.1.2

Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document

The trade of bluefin tuna is tracked internationally as a result of the ICCAT
recommendation to implement the Bluefin Statistical Document (BSD) program
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-250

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL UPDATE

(Recommendation 92-01). Japan’s support for the program, as a major importer of bluefin tuna,
is partially responsible for the success of this program. In the United States, each bluefin tuna is
tagged when documented, and for all nations, the BSD travels with each shipment until the final
point of destination. This document is used to track both imports and exports of bluefin tuna by
ICCAT and other participating nations. If bluefin tuna are exported from, or imported to, the
United States, the document is submitted to NMFS as part of the monitoring program. Since
1997, NMFS has also received CBP data (derived from Entry Form 7501) on imports of fresh
and frozen bluefin tuna and swordfish on a monthly basis. Comparison of these data with BSD
data allows NMFS to identify shipments without BSDs in order to obtain missing data and
enforce dealer reporting requirements. In 2003, ICCAT updated the BSD program to include the
collection of farming related information on the BSD. In 2005, NMFS added a re-export
certificate to the program and expanded it to include southern bluefin tuna as well. Data
collected under the BSD program are discussed in Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 addressing U.S.
exports and imports of HMS.
3.7.1.3

Swordfish Certificate of Eligibility and Statistical Document

The U.S. Swordfish Certificate of Eligibility (COE) has tracked U.S. imports of
swordfish since it was implemented in 1999. In 2005, this program was replaced by a swordfish
statistical document (SD) program similar to the BSD program described above. The swordfish
SD program is based on a 2001 ICCAT recommendation (01-22), and incorporates all of the
prior functions of the COE, including the following: ensuring that all imported swordfish are
greater than the minimum size of 14.9 kg (33 lb) dw, identifying the flag of the harvesting vessel,
and indicating ocean area of origin. Similar to the BSD program, CBP data on swordfish imports
is also used to obtain missing data and identify dealers that are not following the required
reporting procedures. With implementation of the swordfish SD program, the swordfish COE is
longer in effect.
3.7.1.4 Bigeye Tuna Statistical Document
Like the two previous trade monitoring programs, the bigeye tuna SD program is used to
track movement of internationally traded bigeye tuna to its final destination. ICCAT
recommended the implementation of a bigeye tuna SD program in 2001 (01-21). The initial
program was implemented in 2005 along with the swordfish SD, and applies only to frozen
bigeye tuna. It may be expanded to cover fresh product in the future. Other RFMOs including
the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission have
also adopted frozen bigeye SD programs.
3.7.1.5 Yellowfin Tuna Form 370
Since the late 1970s, NOAA Form 370 has been used to document imports of yellowfin
tuna and other species of tuna for the purpose of protecting dolphins in the Eastern Tropical
Pacific Ocean. Form 370 is filed with other documents necessary for entry of yellowfin tuna into
the United States. The form is not required for fresh tuna, animal food, or canned petfood made
from tuna.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-251

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.7.1.6 Billfish Certificate of Eligibility
The Billfish Certificate of Eligibility is used to ensure that any billfish being imported or
sold in the United States (outside of the Pacific states) is not of Atlantic origin. In the Pacific
states, billfish involved in trade are presumed to be of Pacific origin. Any statement that
contains the specified information is sufficient to meet the certificate of eligibility documentation
requirements; it is not necessary to use the form available from NMFS or to submit the form to
NMFS upon final disposition of the billfish.
3.7.2

U.S. Exports of HMS

“Exports” may include merchandise of both domestic and foreign origin. The Census
Bureau defines exports of "domestic" merchandise to include commodities which are grown,
produced, or manufactured in the United States (e.g., fish caught by U.S. fishermen). For
statistical purposes, domestic exports also include commodities of foreign origin which have
been altered in the United States from the form in which they were imported, or which have been
enhanced in value by further manufacture in the United States. The value of an export is the f.a.s.
(free alongside ship) value defined as the value at the port of export based on a transaction price
including inland freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in placing the merchandise
alongside the carrier. It excludes the cost of loading the merchandise, freight, insurance, and
other charges or transportation costs beyond the port of exportation.
3.7.2.1

Atlantic and Pacific Bluefin Tuna Exports

As discussed in the previous section, NMFS collects detailed export data on Atlantic and
Pacific bluefin tuna through the BSD program. Table 3.80 gives bluefin tuna export data for
exports from the United States. Recent decreases in Atlantic BFT exports since 1999 could in
part be a result of the growing U.S. market for high-quality fresh bluefin tuna meat. In 2003 –
2004, exports also could have been impacted by a reduction in U.S. landings. BFT re-exports are
discussed separately in Section 3.7.3.1 and shown in Table 3.7.
Table 3.80

Year

United States exports of Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna, 1999-2004. Sources: NMFS BSD
Program, NERO, and Census Bureau.

Atlantic
Atlantic BFT
Commercial
Exports
Landings
(BSD, MT)
(NERO, MT)

Pacific BFT
Exports
(BSD, MT)

Total U.S.
Exports
(BSD, MT)

Total U.S.
Exports
(Census Bureau,
MT)

Value of U.S.
Exports
(Census Bureau,
$ million)

1999

876.0

735.6

95.7

831.3

1,183

9.37

2000
2001
2002
2003

903.9
987.0
964.0
756.9

758.0
812.3
730.4
572.2

76.0
67.0
0.1
2.1

834.0
879.0
730.5
574.3

1,044
1,020
922
998

11.20
10.70
10.74
11.36

2004
495.0
247.2
0.0
247.2
370
4.50
Note: most exports of Pacific BFT were in round (whole) form, although some exports were of dressed and
gilled/gutted fish; Atlantic exports included whole, dressed, and product forms (dw); data are preliminary and
subject to change.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-252

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.7.2.2

Other Tuna Exports

Export data for other tunas is gathered by the Census Bureau, and includes trade
data for albacore, yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack tuna from all ocean areas of origin combined.
Behind bluefin tuna, albacore tuna accounts for the next most valuable tuna export from the
United States (Table 3.81). Comparing the last five years, the amount and value of exported
albacore was greatest for the year 2004. In general, the amount and value of albacore exports
appears to be on the rise. During the time period covered by this table, the annual amount and
value of frozen exports exceeded fresh exports for every year.
Table 3.81

Year

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Amount and value of U.S. exports of albacore tuna from all ocean areas, 1999-2004 (Census
Bureau data) and U.S. landings of North Atlantic albacore tuna (2005 U.S. National Report to
ICCAT).
U.S. Exports (from all ocean areas)
Fresh
Frozen
MT
US$
MT
(million)

Atlantic
Landings (mt
ww)

317
407
324
488
448
636

517
263
1,542
680
894
1,360

1.01
0.78
3.62
1.50
1.86
3.28

US$ (million)

2,743
2,747
4,609
4,483
9,731
10,737

5.52
6.04
9.83
8.28
18.85
24.11

Total for all Exports
MT
US$
(million)
3,260
3,010
6,151
5,163
10,624
12,097

6.54
6.83
13.45
9.78
20.71
27.38

Note: Landings may be calculated on a calendar or fishing year basis; exports may be in whole (ww) or product
weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

Table 3.82 and Table 3.83 show U.S. Atlantic landings and U.S. exports from all ocean
areas combined for yellowfin and skipjack tuna, respectively. Yellowfin exports were greater
and more valuable than exports for skipjack or bigeye tuna (Table 3.84), although yellowfin tuna
exports decreased markedly in 2004. Export of fresh yellowfin product exceeded the value of
frozen yellowfin product for all years except 2001. Fresh product exports were highest in 2002
and 2003. The amount and value of exported fresh and frozen skipjack tuna has varied over the
six year period covered in Table 3.83, without any discernable trends. Exports and landings of
skipjack in 1999 far exceeded values for the following five years.
Table 3.82

Year

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Amount and value of U.S. exports of yellowfin tuna from all ocean areas, 1999-2004 (Census
Bureau data) and U.S. landings of Atlantic yellowfin tuna (2005 U.S. National Report to
ICCAT).
Atlantic
Landings (mt
ww)
7569
7051
6703
5653
7701
6421

U.S. Exports (from all ocean areas)
Fresh
Frozen
MT
US$
MT
(million)
947
2.09
412
1.12
290
.71
1612
2.37
1792
2.93
306
1.54

US$
(million)
390
406
834
420
176
242

.84
.76
1.45
.81
.68
.31

Total for all Exports
US$
MT
(million)
1337
2.93
819
1.89
1124
2.17
2033
3.19
1968
3.62
549
1.86

Note: Landings may be calculated on a calendar or fishing year basis; exports may be in whole (ww) or product
weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-253

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

Table 3.83

Amount and value of U.S. exports of skipjack tuna from all ocean areas, 1999-2004 (Census
Bureau data) and U.S. landings of West Atlantic skipjack tuna (2005 U.S. National Report to
ICCAT).

U.S. Exports (from all ocean areas)
Fresh
Frozen
Total for all Exports
MT
US$
MT
US$
MT
US$
(mt ww)
(million)
(million)
(million)
1999
152
88
.20
1092
.89
1,181
1.10
2000
44
7
.01
83
.05
91
.06
2001
69
82
.15
34
.04
117
.20
2002
66
66
.17
11
.01
77
.18
2003
77
81
.22
0
0
81
.22
2004
61
55
.30
140
.78
196
.48
Note: Landings data may have been ported on either a fishing year or calendar year basis; exports may be in whole
(ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.
Atlantic Landings

Year

Bigeye tuna exports and Atlantic landings are given in Table 3.84. No data were
available for bigeye tuna exports in 2001, and prior to 2001 bigeye exports were included in the
category of unspecified tuna. Annually, bigeye tuna exports include more fresh than frozen
product, and have increased gradually from 2002 to 2004.
Table 3.84

Amount and value of U.S. exports of bigeye tuna from all ocean areas, 1999-2004 (Census
Bureau data) and U.S. landings of Atlantic bigeye tuna (2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT).

U.S. Exports (from all ocean areas)
Fresh
Frozen
Total for all Exports
US$
MT
US$
MT
US$
MT
(million)
(million)
(million)
2002
600
95
.22
8
.01
104
.24
2003
480
255
.47
40
.08
295
.56
2004
418
361
1.40
48
.10
410
1.51
NOTE: Landings data may have been reported on either a fishing year or calendar year basis; exports may be in
whole (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.
Year

Atlantic
Landings
(mt ww)

3.7.2.3

Shark Exports

Export data for sharks is gathered by the Census Bureau, and includes trade data for
sharks from any ocean area of origin. Shark exports are not categorized down to the species
level with the exception of dogfish, and are not identified by specific product code other than
fresh or frozen meat and fins. Due to the popular trade in shark fins and their high relative value
compared to shark meat, a specific HTS code was assigned to shark fins in 1998. It should be
noted that there is no tracking of other shark products besides meat and fins. Therefore, NMFS
cannot track trade in shark leather, oil, or shark cartilage products.
Table 3.85 indicates the magnitude and value of shark exports by the United States from
1999 – 2004. The reduction in shark fin exports from 2001 to 2002 and 2003 is of particular
note, as is the increase in the unit value of shark fins during this time period. Decreases in shark

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-254

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

fin trade are expected to be the result of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, which was enacted in
December of 2000 and implemented by final rule in February 2002.
Amount and value of U.S. shark product exports from 1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau.

Table 3.85

Shark Fins Dried
Yr
MT

US$
(million)

$/K
G

Non-specified Fresh
Shark

Non-specified Frozen
Shark

MT

MT

US$
(million)

$/KG

US$
(million)

Total for all
Exports

$/K
G

MT

US$
(million)

1999

106

.91

8.54

270

.48

1.80

155

.46

2.97

532

1.86

2000

365

3.51

9.62

430

.78

1.82

345

.81

2.35

1140

5.10

2001

335

3.16

9.44

332

.54

1.64

634

2.34

3.69

1301

6.04

2002

123

3.46

28.00

968

1.47

1.52

982

2.34

2.38

2075

7.28

2003

45

4.03

87.79

837

1.31

1.57

592

1.34

2.28

1476

63
3.02 47.53
536
1.18
2.21
472
.98
2.09
1071
2004
Note: Exports may be in whole (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

3.7.2.4

6.70
5.18

Re-exports of Atlantic HMS

For purposes of international trade tracking of HMS, the term “re-export” refers to a
product that has been entered for consumption into the United States and then exported to
another country, with or without further processing in the United States (from 50 CFR Part 300,
Subpart M, International trade documentation and tracking programs for HMS). For most HMS
species, re-export activity is a small fraction of export activity and well below reference points of
1000 mt and/or one million dollars annually. Exceptions to this include fresh yellowfin tuna re­
exports which were valued at $1.5 million in 2003 and fresh and frozen yellowfin valued at $1.1
million in 2002 (Census Bureau data). In 2004, dried shark fin re-exports reached a six year
maximum value of $1.8 million (29 mt, down from 34 mt in 2003).
Bluefin tuna re-exports also reached a five year maximum in 2004 at 2,118 mt valued at
$29.46 million (Census Bureau data), which exceeded the amount of bluefin exports for the year,
for the first time in the history of the BSD program (K. Goldsmith, pers. com.). Further
investigation into BSD program data found that the recent increases in bluefin re-exports reflects
the growth of the Mexican farming/mariculture industry which exports product to the United
States for re-export to Japan.
3.7.2.5

Summary of Atlantic HMS Exports

Nationally, the value of HMS exports (from all ocean areas combined) is dominated by
bluefin tuna, albacore tuna, and shark products. In 2003, fresh and frozen products of these three
species accounted for 14,873 mt dw or 1.3 percent of the 1,120,354 mt dw of fresh and frozen
seafood products exported from the United States, as indicated in Fisheries of the United States,
2004. The value of these HMS products accounted for $40.77 million, out of a national total of
$2.8 billion.
Data reflecting international trade of HMS species harvested from all ocean areas are of
limited value for describing trade of HMS harvested from the Atlantic Ocean. For example,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-255

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

Atlantic landings of albacore tuna (commercial and recreational) for 2003 were reported in the
2004 U.S. National Report to ICCAT as 448 mt (Table 3.81). National trade data show that over
10,000 mt of albacore were exported, which indicates that the majority of albacore exports were
Pacific Ocean product. Trade tracking programs such as the bluefin tuna, swordfish, and bigeye
tuna statistical document programs are much more useful for describing the international
disposition of Atlantic HMS.
3.7.3

U.S. Imports of Atlantic HMS

All import shipments must be reported to the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection. “General” imports are reported when a commodity enters the country, and
"consumption" imports consist of entries into the United States for immediate consumption
combined with withdrawals from CBP bonded warehouses. “Consumption” import data reflect
the actual entry of commodities originating outside the United States into U.S. channels of
consumption. As discussed previously, CBP data for certain products are provided to NMFS for
use in implementing statistical document programs. U.S. Census Bureau import data are used by
NMFS as well.
3.7.3.1

Bluefin Tuna Imports

United States imports and re-exports of bluefin tuna for 1999 through 2004, as reported
through both CBP and BSD program data, are shown in Table 3.86. The difference in import
numbers between the CBP and BSD data may be explained by a lack of knowledge and
compliance with the BSD program by importers, especially those on the Pacific coast.
The rise in popularity of sashimi in the United States has generated increased imports of
bluefin tuna, and dealers are reporting an expanded domestic market for both locally-caught and
imported raw tuna. As discussed previously, the large amount of re-exports in the last several
years resulted from the increase in importation of farmed bluefin from Mexico and reexportation to Japan.
Table 3.86
YEAR

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Imports of Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna into the United States: 1999-2004. Sources: NMFS
BSD program and CBP data.
NMFS BSD Program

U.S. CBP Data

Imports (MT)

Re-exports (MT)

Imports (MT)

VALUE
(US$ million)

411.9
361.9
512.9
529.3
649.9
823.4

16.6
99.3
7.0
94.1
691.0
684.8

558.6
453.4
532.3
605.0
780.3
886.1

3.02
7.67
8.21
9.75
11.67
15.25

Note: Most imports of BFT were in dressed form, and some were round and gilled/gutted fish, fillets or belly meat (dw); data
are preliminary and subject to change. Southern bluefin tuna trade was included in figures for Atlantic and Pacific bluefin
tuna trade prior to 2002.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-256

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.7.3.2

Other Tuna Imports

Since January 2001, CBP has been collecting species specific import information for
bigeye tuna (grouped to include all ocean areas). Previously, bigeye tuna had been included
under general tuna imports. The total amount and value of bigeye tuna imports have been
gradually increasing over the last four years, as shown in Table 3.87.
Table 3.87
Year

Imports of bigeye tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined: 2001-2004.
Source: Census Bureau data.
Fresh

Frozen

MT

US$ (million)

Total for all Imports

MT

US$
(million)

MT

US$ (million)

2001

4684

25.70

135

.32

4,820

26.02

2002

6312

39.84

319

.70

6,632

40.55

2003

7312

51.01

560

1.48

7,872

52.49

2004

6752

49.10

1175

2.62

7928

51.73

Note: Imports may be whole weight (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

Annual yellowfin tuna imports into the United States for all ocean areas combined are
given in Table 3.88. As indicated by the data in this section, yellowfin tuna are imported in the
greatest quantity of all fresh and frozen tuna products. The annual value of yellowfin imports
has increased gradually from 1999 – 2004. The total annual amount of product imported has
remained fairly consistent, with a slight dip in 2000.
Table 3.88
Year

Imports of yellowfin tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined: 1999-2004.
Source: Census Bureau data.
Fresh

Frozen

MT

US$ (million)

Total for all Imports

MT

US$
(million)

MT

US$ (million)

1999

11,756

63.04

9411

24.90

21,168

87.94

2000

13,153

70.27

3290

18.73

16,443

89.00

2001

15,563

85.50

3967

23.45

19,530

108.95

2002

15,966

95.22

4619

29.31

20,585

124.53

2003

15,299

94.03

5579

39.67

20,878

133.71

2004

15,624

99.41

5833

35.35

21,457

134.96

NOTE: Imports may be whole weight (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

The amount of fresh albacore imports from all ocean areas have been fairly consistent
since 2001 while imports of frozen product have decreased dramatically over the last six years,
with the greatest reduction occurring between 2001 and 2002 (Table 3.89). In 1999, albacore
imports were valued at $144 million while in 2004 the value dropped to approximately $15
million. (Products in airtight containers are not included in these data.)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-257

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

Table 3.89

Imports of albacore tuna into the United States from all ocean areas combined: 1999-2004.
Source: Census Bureau data.

Year

Fresh

Total for all Imports

Frozen

MT

US$ (million)

MT

US$
(million)

MT

US$ (million)

1999

1776

5.39

63,284

139.50

65,060

144.89

2000

1843

6.42

51,001

127.33

52,845

133.76

2001

1107

3.85

40,428

105.58

41,536

109.43

2002

1296

4.81

11,903

24.49

13,200

29.31

2003

1062

4.11

12,569

25.90

13,632

30.02

2004

1004

3.12

4943

11.67

5947

14.80

Note: Imports may be whole weight (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

Skipjack tuna imports into the United States are comprised mainly of frozen product
(Table 3.90). Like albacore tuna, the amount and value of skipjack imports have also decreased
dramatically since 1999. The amount of product imported fell from over 8,000 mt dw in 1999 to
112 mt dw in 2004. Likewise, the value of these products during this time period fell from $6.3
million to $0.27 million.
Table 3.90

Imports of skipjack tuna from all ocean areas combined into the United States: 1999-2004.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau data.

Year

Fresh

Frozen

MT

US$ (million)

Total for all Imports

MT

US$
(million)

MT

US$ (million)

1999

0

0

8,238

6.30

8,238

6.30

2000

0

0

904

2.75

904

2.75

2001

<1

<0.01

377

0.61

378

0.62

2002

<1

0.01

824

0.83

825

0.84

2003

0

0

224

0.43

224

0.43

2004

<1

<0.01

110

0.26

112

0.27

Note: Imports may be whole weight (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

3.7.3.3

Swordfish Imports

Table 3.91 summarizes swordfish import data collected by NMFS’ Swordfish Import
Monitoring Program for the 2004 calendar year. According to these data, most swordfish
imports were Pacific Ocean product. For Atlantic product, the most imports came from Brazil
(48 percent), followed by Canada (22 percent) and Uruguay (16 percent). CBP data located at
the bottom of the table reflect a larger amount of imports than reported by the import monitoring
program, and may be used by NMFS staff to follow up with importers, collect statistical
documents that have not been submitted, and enforce dealer reporting requirements.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-258

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

Table 3.91

Swordfish import data for the 2004 calendar year collected under the NMFS Swordfish Import
Monitoring Program.

Flag of
Harvesting
Vessel

Ocean Area of Origin
Pacific
Indian
Not Provided
(mt dw)
(mt dw)
(mt dw)
0.00
9.12
0.00
11.10
0.00
111.94
6.59
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.10
0.00
0.00
12.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
721.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
328.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
442.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
58.91
0.00
0.00
9.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
242.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
133.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.28
0.00
0.00
33.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.54
0.00
0.00
17.49
73.19
0.00
0.00
249.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
147.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
649.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.58
0.00
10.23
0.00
53.19
0.00
59.31
323.81
1,073.33
0.00
0.00
7.81
0.00
0.00

Atlantic
(mt dw)

Not Provided
Australia
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji Islands
Georgia
Grenada
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Panama
Philippines
Singapore
South Africa
Taiwan
Tonga
Trinidad &
Tobago
36.44
0.00
0.00
Uruguay
234.59
0.00
0.00
Venezuela
64.51
0.00
0.00
Vietnam
0.00
270.15
0.00
Total Imports
Reported by
COEs
1500.4
2667.1
1315.3
Total Imports Reported by U.S. Customs & Border Patrol
Total Imports Not Reported by COEs
COE Data as of 8/18/05

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-259

TOTAL
(mt dw)
20.22
118.53
0.08
6.10
12.42
721.11
328.26
442.38
58.91
9.85
242.92
133.65
1.80
33.62
4.28
33.48
16.54
90.68
249.56
147.88
0.25
649.75
4.77
33.58
63.42
1,456.44
7.81

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

36.44
234.59
64.51
270.15

11.1

5494.0
11,265.00
5771.03

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

Table 3.92 indicates the amount and value of swordfish product imports by the United
States from 1999 – 2004, as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau, for all ocean areas combined.
The amount of each product imported per year and annual totals for product and value were
fairly consistent for the time period covered, although the data show a slight decrease in 2004.
Table 3.92

Imported swordfish products by year: 1999-2004. Source: Census Bureau data.

Year

Fresh (MT)
Steaks

Frozen (MT)
Other

Fillets

Total for all Imports

Steaks

Other

MT

US$
(million)

1999

81

8595

4377

401

386

13,842

71.70

2000

161

8626

4833

524

167

14,314

85.57

2001

71

8982

3814

710

119

13,697

81.89

2002

195

9726

4156

956

677

15,711

88.26

2003

147

8079

3929

433

560

13,150

75.62

2004

157

6568

3261

387

351

10,726

70.95

NOTE: Imports may be whole weight (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

3.7.3.4

Shark Imports

Similar to tuna imports other than bluefin tuna and frozen bigeye tuna, NMFS does not
require importers to collect and submit information regarding the ocean area of catch. Shark
imports are also not categorized by species, and lack specific product information on imported
shark meat such as the proportion of fillets, steaks, or loins. The condition of shark fin imports;
e.g., wet, dried, or further processed products such as canned shark fin soup, is also not collected.
There is no longer a separate tariff code for shark leather, so its trade is not tracked by CBP or
Census Bureau data.
The United States may be an important transshipment port for shark fins, which may be
imported wet, processed and then exported dried. It is also probable that U.S.-caught shark fins
are exported to Hong Kong or Singapore for processing, and then imported back into the United
States for consumption by urban-dwelling Asian Americans (Rose, 1996).
Table 3.93 summarizes Census Bureau data on shark imports for 1999 through 2004.
Imports of fresh shark products and shark fins have decreased significantly since 1999. The
2004 ICCAT recommendation addressing the practice of shark finning may result in a further
reduction of imports in the near future. Over the last 5 years, the overall annual amount and
value of shark imports decreased fairly consistently year after year to equal approximately half
the 1999 amount and value in 2003, with a slight increase in each product category in 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-260

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

U.S. imports of shark products from all ocean areas combined: 1999-2004. Source: Census
Bureau data.

Table 3.93
Year

Shark Fins Dried

Non-specified Fresh
Shark

Non-specified
Frozen Shark

Total For All Imports

MT

MT

MT

MT

US$
(million)

US$
(million)

US$
(million)

US$
(million)

1999

59

2.10

1,095

2.03

105

.62

1,260

4.76

2000

66

2.35

1,066

1.85

90

.57

1,222

4.79

2001

50

1.08

913

1.38

123

1.78

1,087

4.25

2002

39

1.02

797

1.24

91

1.09

928

3.35

2003

11

0.01

515

0.72

100

0.99

626

1.82

2004

14

0.34

650

1.00

156

2.35

821

3.70

NOTE: Imports may be whole weight (ww) or product weight (dw); data are preliminary and subject to change.

3.7.3.5

Summary of U.S. Imports of Atlantic HMS

The import data in this section show that many HMS species are part of a valuable import
market. As discussed previously regarding exports, most data documenting imports include
products harvested from many ocean areas, not just the Atlantic Ocean. However, the statistical
document programs for bluefin tuna, swordfish, and frozen bigeye tuna provide information
specifically about product harvested from the Atlantic Ocean and imported into the United States.
In 2004, the U.S. domestic market for swordfish supported a domestic fishery of 2,896 mt
round weight worth $14.64 million (Pritchard 2005) and an active import market of 10,726 mt
dw valued at $70.95 million (Table 3.13). Despite recent increases in the U.S. quota of North
Atlantic swordfish (consistent with ICCAT rebuilding programs), swordfish from the Pacific and
Indian Oceans are expected to continue to supply the lucrative U.S. swordfish market during the
near future.
3.7.4

The Use of Trade Data for Conservation Purposes

Trade data has been used in a number of ways to support international management of
HMS. When appropriate, the SCRS uses trade data on bluefin tuna, swordfish, bigeye tuna, and
yellowfin tuna that are submitted to ICCAT as an indication of landings trends. These data can
then be used to augment estimates of fishing mortality rates (F) of these species, which improves
scientific stock assessments. In addition, these data can be used to assist in assessing compliance
with ICCAT recommendations and identify those countries whose fishing practices diminish the
effectiveness of ICCAT conservation and management measures. On numerous occasions,
ICCAT has adopted recommendations to address the lack of compliance with management
programs for the bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, and North and South Atlantic swordfish fisheries by
ICCAT members. Penalties for non-compliance or fishing in a manner that diminishes the
effectiveness of ICCAT conservation measures may include catch limit reductions and, if
necessary, trade restrictive measures.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-261

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

For example, an analysis of vessel sighting and Japanese BSD data led to the 1996
determination that fishing vessels from the countries of Panama, Honduras, and Belize were
fishing in a manner that diminished the effectiveness of the bluefin tuna rebuilding program, and
resulted in a 1996 ICCAT recommendation for sanctions against the import of bluefin tuna from
these countries (Table 3.94). In 1999, ICCAT recommended this trade restriction on Panama be
lifted as a result of the Government of Panama’s efforts to substantially reduce fishing vessel
activities deemed inconsistent with ICCAT measures. In 2001, Honduras became a member of
ICCAT, and based on this change in status and Honduras’ significant efforts to control its fleet
and address ICCAT concerns, ICCAT recommended lifting trade sanctions for bluefin tuna. The
bluefin sanction for Belize was lifted by ICCAT in 2002.
In another example, import data from 1997–1999 revealed significant Atlantic bluefin
tuna exports from Equatorial Guinea despite the fact that a zero catch limit was in effect for that
country. The government of Equatorial Guinea had not responded to ICCAT inquiries and had
reported no bluefin tuna catch data to ICCAT, and as a result ICCAT recommended trade
restrictions as a penalty for non-compliance. Based on information regarding improved
compliance presented by Equatorial Guinea at the 2004 ICCAT meeting, specifically, that
Equatorial Guinea had canceled licenses and flags of large-scale longline vessels previously
participating in IUU tuna fishing in the Convention area and guaranteed compliance with ICCAT
conservation and management measures, the trade sanction was lifted by ICCAT.
As indicated in Table 3.94, most of the trade sanctions recommended by ICCAT since
1996 have been lifted. In fact, only trade sanctions for Bolivia and Georgia remain in effect.
Thus, the imposition of trade sanctions seems to be an effective measure for ensuring that
countries involved in international trade operate in a manner consistent with ICCAT
recommended conservation programs. As illustrated above, the data obtained by monitoring
international trade in HMS is instrumental in the development of ICCAT trade restrictions.
Current discussions at ICCAT include expanding the statistical document program to a catch
documentation scheme, which may better assist in preventing IUU fishing.
Table 3.94

Summary and current status of ICCAT recommended trade sanctions for bluefin tuna,
swordfish, and bigeye tuna implemented by the United States.

Country

Species

Panama
Honduras

Bluefin
Bluefin
Bigeye
Swordfish
Bluefin
Swordfish
Bigeye
Bluefin
Bigeye
Bigeye
Bigeye
Bigeye
Bluefin
Bigeye
Swordfish
Bigeye

Belize

Equatorial Guinea
Cambodia
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Bolivia
Sierra Leone

Georgia

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

ICCAT
Recommended
Sanction
1996
1996
2000
1999
1996
1999
2000
1999
2000
2000
2000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003

3-262

U.S.
Sanction
Implemented
1997
1997
2002
2000
1997
2000
2002
2000
2002
2002
2002
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004

ICCAT
Sanction
Lifted
1999
2001
2002
2001
2002
2002
2002
2004
2004
2004
2002
In effect
2004
2004
2004
In effect

U.S.
Sanction
Lifted
2000
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2004
In effect
2005
2005
2005
In effect

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.7.5

Overview of the Processing Industry for Atlantic HMS

Understanding the harvesting and processing sectors is essential when analyzing world
trade in highly migratory fish species. The processing related entities that depend on Atlantic
HMS are as diverse as the species and products themselves. Processing techniques range from
the simple dressing and icing of swordfish at sea, to elaborate grading and processing schemes
for bluefin tuna, to processing shark fins. Like all other seafood, HMS are perishable and may
pose health hazards if not handled properly. Products range from those having a long shelf-life,
such as swordfish, to highly perishable species like yellowfin tuna. Improperly handled
yellowfin tuna can produce histamine, swordfish and sharks may contain high levels of mercury,
and shark meat requires careful handling due to the high concentrations of urea in the body of the
shark. Processing companies are aware of these characteristics and their costs of doing business
vary accordingly to protect consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) works closely
with NOAA Office of Law Enforcement to monitor incoming shipments of seafood, including
highly migratory species.
FDA’s Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program implemented
regulations that require processors of fish and fishery products to operate preventive control
systems to ensure human food safety. Among other things, processors must effectively maintain
the safety of their products, systematically monitor the operation of critical control points to
ensure that they are working as they should, and keep records of the results of that monitoring.
Processors must also develop written HACCP plans that describe the details and operation of
their HACCP systems. Each processor may tailor its HACCP system to meet its own
circumstances. The best way for FDA to determine whether a processor is effectively operating
a HACCP system is by inspecting the processor. Federal review of monitoring and other records
generated by the HACCP system is a critical component of an inspection because it allows the
inspector to match records against the practices and conditions being observed in the plant and it
discourages fraud. NMFS works closely with the FDA, in support of the HACCP program.
Just as HACCP plans vary between processors, transportation of the seafood to market
also varies widely from the direct domestic sale of some shark or swordfish meat by a fisherman
to a restaurant (carried by truck) to the quick, and sometimes complicated, export of bluefin tuna
from fisherman to dealer to broker to the Japanese auction (carried by a commercial airline
carrier). Frozen swordfish and tunas are often brought to the United States by overseas shipping
companies and sharks and other products may be exported from the United States, processed
overseas, and imported in a final product form.
It is unknown how many U.S. companies depend on HMS fisheries, other than the
registered dealers who buy fish directly from U.S. fishermen and/or who import bluefin tuna or
swordfish. The proportion of those companies that depend solely on Atlantic HMS versus those
that handle other seafood and/or products is also unknown. This section provides a summary of
the most recent trade data that NMFS has analyzed, as well as a brief description of the
processing and trade industries employed in transitioning Atlantic HMS from the ocean to the
plate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-263

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.7.5.1

Processing and Wholesale Sectors

NMFS has limited quantitative information on the processing sector, including the
amount of HMS products sold in processed forms. In addition, knowledge regarding the
utilization of Atlantic HMS is largely limited to the major or most valuable product forms, such
as export quality bluefin tuna.
Much of the processing of export-quality Atlantic bluefin tuna occurs onboard the vessel
harvesting the fish, which serves to maximize fish quality. Bluefin are gutted and bled, and
protected from the heat and sunlight by immersion in ice or an icy brine. Upon landing, bluefin
are immediately graded and prepared for export to Japan’s fresh fish market. The fish are either
refrigerated or exported immediately in insulated crates or “coffins” filled with ice or icepacks.
Other Atlantic tunas, especially bigeye tuna, are frequently shipped fresh to Japan in
dressed form. Swordfish are sold fresh and frozen in dressed form and as processed products
(e.g., steaks and fillets). The utilization of sharks is also not well known since trade statistics
frequently do not indicate product forms such as skins and leather, jaws, fishmeal and fertilizer,
liver oil, and cartilage (Rose, 1996). Domestically-landed sandbar and blacktip shark meat may
be sold to supermarkets and processors of frozen fish products. NMFS continues to work with
industry to collect information specific to U.S. and foreign processing of Atlantic HMS to better
track markets, conserve stocks, and manage sustainable fisheries.
The U.S. processing and wholesale sectors are dependent upon both U.S. and
international HMS fisheries. Individuals involved in these businesses buy the seafood, cut it into
pieces that transform it into a consumer product, and then sell it to restaurants or retail outlets.
Employment varies widely among processing firms. Often employment is seasonal unless the
firms also process imported seafood or a wide range of domestic seafood. The majority of firms
handles other types of seafood and is not solely dependent on HMS. Other participants in the
commercial trade sector include brokers, freight forwarders, and carriers (primarily commercial
airlines, trucking, and shipping companies). Swordfish, tunas, and sharks are important
commodities on world markets, generating significant amounts in export earnings in recent years.
NMFS has recently observed that many seafood dealers that buy and sell highly
migratory species and other seafood products have expanded their operations into internet­
powered trading platforms specifically designed to meet the needs of other seafood professionals.
Through these platforms, interested parties can conduct very detailed negotiations with many
trading partners simultaneously. Buyers and sellers can bargain over all relevant elements of a
market transaction (not just price) and can specify the product needed to buy or sell in detail,
using seafood-specific terminology. The platforms are purportedly very easy to use because they
mimic the pattern of traditional negotiations in the seafood industry. NMFS expects that the use
of the internet will continue to change the way HMS trade occurs in the future.
3.8

Bycatch, Incidental Catch, and Protected Species

Bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries has become an important issue for the
fishing industry, resource managers, scientists, and the public. Bycatch can result in death or
injury to the discarded fish, and it is essential that this component of total fishing-related
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-264

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

mortality be incorporated into fish stock assessments and evaluation of management measures.
Bycatch precludes other more productive uses of fishery resources and decreases the efficiency
of fishing operations. Although not all discarded fish die, bycatch can become a large source of
mortality, which can slow the rebuilding of overfished stocks. Bycatch imposes direct and
indirect costs on fishing operations by increasing sorting time and decreasing the amount of gear
available to catch target species. Incidental catch concerns also apply to populations of marine
mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other components of ecosystems which may be protected
under other applicable laws and for which there are no commercial or recreational uses but for
which existence values may be high.
In 1998, NMFS developed a national bycatch plan, Managing the Nation’s Bycatch
(NMFS, 1998), which includes programs, activities, and recommendations for Federally
managed fisheries. The national goal of the Agency’s bycatch plan activities is to implement
conservation and management measures for living marine resources that will minimize, to the
extent practicable, bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. Inherent in this
goal is the need to avoid bycatch, rather than create new ways to utilize bycatch. The plan also
established a definition of bycatch as fishery discards, retained incidental catch, and unobserved
mortalities resulting from a direct encounter with fishing gear.
3.8.1

Bycatch Reduction and the Magnuson-Stevens Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish which are harvested in a fishery, but
which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic and regulatory discards. Fish
is defined as finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life
other than marine mammals and birds. Seabirds and marine mammals are therefore not
considered bycatch under the MSA but are examined as incidental catch. Bycatch does not
include fish released alive under a recreational catch-and-release fishery management program.
National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery conservation and
management measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and minimize the
mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. In many fisheries, it is not practicable to eliminate
all bycatch and bycatch mortality. Some relevant examples of fish caught in Atlantic HMS
fisheries that are included as bycatch or incidental catch are marlin, undersized swordfish and
bluefin tuna caught and released by commercial fishing gear; undersized swordfish and tunas in
recreational hook and line fisheries; species for which there is little or no market such as blue
sharks; and species caught and released in excess of a bag limit.
There are benefits associated with the reduction of bycatch, including the reduction of
uncertainty concerning total fishing-related mortality, which improves the ability to assess the
status of stocks, to determine the appropriate relevant controls, and to ensure that overfishing
levels are not exceeded. It is also important to consider the bycatch of HMS in fisheries that
target other species as a source of mortality for HMS and to work with fishery constituents and
resource manager partners on an effective bycatch strategy to maintain sustainable fisheries.
This strategy may include a combination of management measures in the domestic fishery, and if
appropriate, multi-lateral measures recommended by international bodies such as ICCAT or
coordination with Regional Fishery Management Councils or States. The bycatch in each fishery

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-265

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

is summarized annually in the SAFE report for Atlantic HMS fisheries. The effectiveness of the
bycatch reduction measures is evaluated based on this summary.
A number of options are currently employed (*) or available for bycatch reduction in
Atlantic HMS fisheries. These include but are not limited to:
Commercial
1.

*Gear Modifications (including hook and bait types)

2.

* Circle Hooks

3.

* Time/Area Closures

4.

Performance Standards

5.

*Education/Outreach

6.

* Effort Reductions (i.e., Limited Access)

7. Full Retention of Catch
8. *Use of De-hooking Devices (mortality reduction only)
Recreational
1.

Use of Circle Hooks (mortality reduction only)

2.

Use of De-hooking Devices (mortality reduction only)

3. Full Retention of Catch
4.

*Formal Voluntary or Mandatory Catch-and-Release Program for all Fish or
Certain Species

5.

T
ime/Area Closures

There are probably no fisheries in which there is zero bycatch because none of the
currently legal fishing gears are perfectly selective for the target of each fishing operation (with
the possible exception of the swordfish/tuna harpoon fishery and proposed speargun fishery).
Therefore, to totally eliminate bycatch of all non-target species in Atlantic HMS fisheries would
be impractical. The goal then is to minimize the amount of bycatch to the extent practicable and
minimize the mortality of species caught as bycatch.
3.8.2 Standardized Reporting of Bycatch
Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that a fishery management plan
establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch
occurring in the fishery. In 2004, NMFS published a report entitled “Evaluating Bycatch: A
National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs,” which described the current
status of and guidelines for bycatch monitoring programs (NMFS, 2004a). The data collection
and analyses that are used to estimate bycatch in a fishery constitute the “standardized bycatch
reporting methodology” (SBRM) for that fishery (NMFS, 2004a). Appendix 5 of the report
specifies the protocols for SBRMs established by NMFS throughout the country.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-266

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

As part of the Agency’s National Bycatch Strategy, NMFS established a National
Working Group on Bycatch (NWGB) to develop a national approach to standardized bycatch
reporting methodologies and monitoring programs. This work is to be the basis for regional
teams, established in the National Bycatch Strategy, to make fishery-specific recommendations.
The NWGB reviewed regional issues related to fisheries and bycatch and discussed
advantages and disadvantages of various methods for estimating bycatch including: (1) fisheryindependent surveys; (2) self-reporting through logbooks, trip reports, dealer reports, port
sampling, and recreational surveys; (3) at-sea observation, including observers, digital video
cameras, digital observers, and alternative platform and remote monitoring; and (4) stranding
networks. All of the methods may contribute to useful bycatch estimation programs, but at-sea
observation (observers or electronic monitoring) provides the best mechanism to obtain reliable
and accurate bycatch estimates for many fisheries. Often, observer programs also will be the
most cost-effective of these alternatives. However, observers are not always the most costeffective or practicable method for assessing bycatch (NMFS, 2004a).
The effectiveness of any SBRM depends on its ability to generate estimates of the type
and quantity of bycatch that are both precise and accurate enough to meet the conservation and
management needs of a fishery. The National Bycatch Report (NMFS, 2004a) contains an indepth examination of the issues of precision and accuracy in estimating bycatch. Accuracy
refers to the closeness between the estimated value and the (unknown) true value that the statistic
was intended to measure. Precision refers to how closely multiple measurements of the same
statistic cluster to one another when obtained under the same protocol. The more precise an
estimate is the tighter the cluster. The precision of an estimate is often expressed in terms of the
coefficient of variation (CV) defined as the standard error of the estimator divided by the
estimate. The lower the CV, the more precise the estimate is considered to be. A precise
estimate is not necessarily an accurate estimate. The National Bycatch Report (NMFS, 2004a)
contains an extensive discussion of how precision relates to sampling and to assessments.
The other important aspect of obtaining bycatch estimates that are useful for management
purposes is accuracy. Accuracy is the difference in the mean of the sample and the true value of
that property in the sampled universe (NMFS, 2004a). In other words, accuracy refers to how
correct the estimate is. Efficient allocation of sampling effort within a stratified survey design
improves the precision of the estimate of overall discard rates (Rago et al., 2005). Accuracy of
sample estimates can be evaluated by comparing performance measures (e.g., landings, trip
duration) between vessels with and without observers present. While there are differences
between the terms accuracy and bias they have been used interchangeably. A “biased” estimate
is inaccurate while an “accurate” estimate is unbiased (Rago et al., 2005).
The NWGB recommended that at-sea sampling designs should be formulated to achieve
precision goals for the least amount of observation effort, while also striving to increase accuracy
(NMFS, 2004a). This can be accomplished through random sample selection, developing
appropriate sampling strata and sampling allocation procedures, and by implementing
appropriate tests for bias. Sampling programs will be driven by the precision and accuracy
required by managers to address management needs for estimating management quantities such

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-267

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

as allowable catches through a stock assessment, for evaluating bycatch relative to a
management standard such as allowable take, and for developing mitigation mechanisms.
The recommended precision goals for estimates of bycatch are defined in terms of the
coefficient of variation (CV) of each estimate. For marine mammals and other protected species,
including seabirds and sea turtles, the recommended precision goal is a 20 to 30 percent CV for
estimates of interactions for each species/stock taken by a fishery. For fishery resources,
excluding protected species, caught as bycatch in a fishery, the recommended precision goal is a
20 to 30 percent CV for estimates of total discards (aggregated over all species) for the fishery;
or if total catch cannot be divided into discards and retained catch, then the goal is a 20 to 30
percent CV for estimates of total catch (NMFS, 2004a). The report also states that attainment of
these goals may not be possible or practical in all fisheries and should be evaluated on a case-by­
case basis.
The CV of an estimate can be reduced and the precision increased by increasing sample
size. In the case of observer programs, this would entail increasing the number of trips or gear
deployments observed. Increasing the number of trips observed increases both the cost in terms
of funding, but also the logistical complexities and safety concerns. However, the improvements
in precision will decline at a decreasing rate as sample size is increased to a point where it will
not be cost-effective to increase sample size any further. This concept is illustrated in Figure 1
of the National Bycatch Report (NMFS, 2004a). As a result of this statistical relationship,
fishery managers select observer coverage levels that should achieve the desired or required
balance between precision of bycatch estimates and cost.
While the relationship between precision and sample size is relatively well known
(NMFS, 2004), the relationship between sample size and accuracy is not reliable. Observer
programs strive to achieve samples that are representative of both fishing effort and catches.
Representativeness of the sample is critical not only for obtaining accurate (i.e., unbiased)
estimates of bycatch, but also for collecting information about factors that may be important for
mitigating bycatch. Bias may be introduced at several levels: when vessels are selected for
coverage, when hauls are selected for sampling, or when only a portion of the haul can be
sampled (NMFS, 2004a).
Rago et al., (2005) examined potential sources of bias in commercial fisheries of the
Northeast Atlantic by comparing measures of performance for vessels with and without
observers. Bias can arise if the vessels with observers onboard consistently catch more or less
than other vessels, if trip durations change, or if vessels fish in different areas. Average catches
(pounds landed) for observed and total trips compared favorably and the expected differences of
the stratum specific means and standard deviations for both kept weight and trip duration was
near zero (Rago et al., 2005). Although mean trip duration was slightly longer on observed trips,
the difference was not significantly different from zero. The spatial distribution of trips matched
well based on a comparison of VMS data with observed trips (Murawski et al., in press; as cited
by Rago et al., 2005). The authors concluded that the level of precision in discard ratios as a
whole was high and that there was little evidence of bias. The results of this study indicate that
bias may not be as large an issue in self-reported data as has been suggested by Babcock et al.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-268

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

(2003), but additional analyses would need to be conducted to determine the applicability to
HMS fisheries.
A simplistic approach in trying to get more accurate bycatch estimates is to increase
observer coverage. A report by Babcock et al. (2003) suggests that relatively high percentages
of observer coverage are necessary to adequately address potential bias in bycatch estimates
from observer programs. However, the examples cited by Babcock et al. (2003) as successful in
reducing bias through high observer coverage levels are fisheries comprised of relatively few
vessels compared to many other fisheries, including the Atlantic HMS fisheries. Their examples
are not representative of the issues facing most observer programs and fishery managers, who
must work with limited resources to cover large and diverse fisheries. It is also incorrect to
assume that simply increasing observer coverage ensures accuracy of the estimates (Rago et al.,
2005). Bias due to unrepresentative sampling may not be reduced by increasing sample size due
to logistical constraints, such as if certain classes of vessels cannot accommodate observers.
Increasing sample size may only result in a larger, but still biased, sample.
Although the precision goals for estimating bycatch are important factors in determining
observer coverage levels, other factors are also considered when determining actual coverage
levels. These may result in lower or higher levels of coverage than that required to achieve the
precision goals for bycatch estimates. Factors that may justify lower coverage levels include
lack of adequate funding; incremental coverage costs that are disproportionately high compared
to benefits; and logistical consideration such as lack of adequate accommodations on a vessel,
unsafe conditions, and lack of cooperation by fishermen (NMFS, 2004a).
Factors that may justify higher coverage levels include incremental coverage benefits that
are disproportionately high compared to costs and other management focused objectives for
observer programs. The latter include total catch monitoring, in-season management of total
catch or bycatch, monitoring bycatch by species, monitoring compliance with fishing regulations,
monitoring requirements associated with the granting of Experimental Fishery Permits, or
monitoring the effectiveness of gear modifications or fishing strategies to reduce bycatch. In
some cases, management may require one or even two observers to be deployed on every fishing
trip. Increased levels of coverage may also be desirable to minimize bias associated with
monitoring “rare” events with particularly significant consequences (such as takes of protected
species), or to encourage the introduction of new “standard operating procedures” for the
industry that decrease bycatch or increase the ease with which bias can be monitored (NMFS,
2004a).
NMFS utilizes self-reported logbook data (Fisheries Logbook System or FLS, and the
supplemental discard report form in the reef fish/snapper-grouper/king and Spanish
mackerel/shark logbook program), at-sea observer data, and survey data (recreational fishery
dockside intercept and telephone surveys) to produce bycatch estimates in HMS fisheries. These
data are collected with respect to fishing gear type (see Section 3.8.2). The number and location
of discarded fish are recorded, as is the disposition of the fish (i.e., released alive vs. released
dead). Post-release mortality of HMS can be accounted for in stock assessments to the extent
that the data allow.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-269

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

The fishery logbook systems in place are mandatory programs, and it is expected that the
reporting rates are generally high (Garrison, 2005). Due to the management focus on HMS
fisheries, there has been close monitoring of reporting rates, and observed trips can be directly
linked to reported effort. In general, the gear characteristics and amount of observed effort is
consistent with reported effort. However, under-reporting is possible, which can lead to a
negative bias in bycatch estimates. Cramer (2000) compared dead discards of undersized
swordfish, sailfish, white and blue marlin, and pelagic sharks from HMS logbook and POP data
in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Cramer (2000) provided the ratio of catch estimated
from the POP data divided by the reported catch in the HMS logbooks. The ratio indicated the
amount of underreporting for each species in a given area. However, the data analyzed by
Cramer (2000), was based on J-hook data from 1997 – 1999 and that gear is illegal now. In
some instances, logbooks are used to provide effort information against which bycatch rates
obtained from observers is multiplied to estimate bycatch. In other sectors/fisheries, selfreporting provides the primary method of reporting bycatch because of limited funding, priorities,
etc.
The following section provides a review of the bycatch reporting methodologies for all
HMS fisheries currently in place. Future adjustments may be implemented based on evaluation
of the results of studies developed as part of the HMS Bycatch Reduction Implementation Plan,
or as needed due to changing conditions in the fisheries. In addition, NMFS is in the process of
developing a National Bycatch Report which may provide additional insight and guidance on
areas to be addressed for each fishery. Further analyses of bycatch in the various HMS fisheries
may be conducted as time, resources and priorities allow.
3.8.2.1

U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery

NMFS utilizes both self-reported data (mandatory logbooks for all vessels) and observer
data to monitor bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery. The observer program has been in place
since 1992 to document finfish bycatch, characterize fishery behavior, and quantify interactions
with protected species (Beerkircher et al., 2002). The program is mandatory for those vessels
selected and all vessels with directed and indirect swordfish permits are selected. The program
had a target coverage level of five percent of the U.S. fleet within the North Atlantic (waters
o
north of 5 N. latitude), as was agreed to by the United States at ICCAT. Actual coverage levels
achieved from 1992 – 2003 ranged from two to nine percent depending on quarter and year.
Observer coverage was 100 percent for vessels participating in the NED experimental fishery
during 2001 – 2003. Overall observer coverage in 2003 was 11.5 percent of the total sets made,
including the NED experiment. The program began requiring an eight percent coverage rate due
to the requirements of the 2004 Biological Opinion for Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery for
HMS. Observer coverage in 2004 ranged from 6.2 – 9.0 percent per quarter. Since 1992, data
collection priorities have been to collect catch and effort data of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic
longline fleet on highly migratory fish species, although information is also collected on bycatch
of protected species.
Fishery observer effort is allocated among eleven large geographic areas and calendar
quarter based upon the historical fishing range of the fleet (Walsh and Garrison, 2006). The
target annual coverage is eight percent of the total reported sets, and observer coverage is
randomly allocated based upon reported fishing effort during the previous fishing
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-270

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

year/quarter/statistical reporting area (Beerkircher et al., 2002). Bycatch rates of protected
species (catch per 1,000 hooks) are quantified based upon observer data by year, fishing area,
and quarter (Garrison, 2005). The estimated bycatch rate is then multiplied by the fishing effort
(number of hooks) in each area and quarter reported to the FLS program to obtain estimates of
total interactions for each species of marine mammal and sea turtle (Garrison, 2005).
3.8.2.2

Purse Seine Fishery

Vessels operating in the bluefin tuna purse seine fishery submit either Vessel Trip
Reports (NERO) or HMS logbooks (Southeast) based on the type of Federal permits they hold in
addition to their HMS permit. Observers were placed on purse seine vessels operating in this
fishery in 1996 and 2001 in order to monitor groundfish bycatch in closed areas in the Northwest
Atlantic (B. McHale, pers. comm., 2005). The purse seine fishery was observed to have very
little bycatch of groundfish or other species of fish and no protected species interactions. As a
result, observer coverage has not been used recently to document bycatch or validate logbook
reports.
3.8.2.3 Shark Bottom Longline Fishery
Vessels participating in the bottom longline fishery for sharks are required to submit
snapper/grouper/reef fish/shark logbooks to report their catch and effort, including bycatch
species. All vessels having Shark Limited Access Permits are required to report. The
Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP) has monitored the shark bottom longline
fishery since 1994. The program has been mandatory for vessels selected to carry observers
beginning in 2002. Prior to that, it was a voluntary program relying on cooperating
vessels/captains to take observers. From 2002 – 2005, the objective of the vessel selection was
to achieve a representative five percent level of coverage of the total fishing effort in each fishing
area (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico) and during each fishing season of that
year (Smith et al., 2006). Beginning in 2006, target coverage level will be 3.9 percent of the
total fishing effort. This level is estimated to attain a sample size needed to provide estimates of
sea turtle, smalltooth sawfish, or marine mammal interactions with an expected CV of 0.3
(Carlson, unpubl., as cited in Smith et al., 2006)
Effective August 1, 2001, selected Federal permit holders that report on the Gulf of
Mexico reef fish, South Atlantic snapper-grouper, king and Spanish mackerel, and shark
fisheries logbook must report all species and quantities of discarded (alive and dead) sea turtles,
marine mammals, birds, and finfish on a supplemental discard form. A randomly selected
sample of 20 percent of the vessels with active permits in the above fisheries is selected each
year. The selection process is stratified across geographic area (Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic), gear (handline, longline, troll, gillnet, and trap), and number of fishing trips (ten or less
trips and more than 11 trips). Of the 3,359 vessels with Federal permits in these fisheries in 2003,
a total of 452 vessels were selected to report. Of the 3,517 vessels with Federal permits in the
fisheries in 2004, 428 were selected to report. Shark fishermen can use the pelagic longline
logbook or the northeast vessel trip reports depending on the permits held by the vessel. If they
use either the PLL logbook or VTR, they need to report all of the catch and effort, as well as all
the bycatch or incidental catch.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-271

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.8.2.4

Shark Gillnet Fishery

Vessels participating in the gillnet fishery for sharks are required to submit logbooks to
report their catch and effort, including bycatch species. An observer program for the directed
shark gillnet fishery has been in place from 1993 – 1995 and from 1998 to the present. The
objectives of this program are to obtain estimates of catch and bycatch and bycatch mortality
rates of protected species, juvenile sharks, and other fish species. Catch and bycatch estimates
are produced to meet the mandates of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan and the
October 2003 Biological Opinion.
During right whale calving season (15 November to 31 March), 100 percent observer
coverage is required for shark gillnet vessels operating from West Palm Beach, FL, to Sebastian
Inlet, FL. Outside right whale calving season, observer coverage is equal to that which would
obtain a sample size needed to provide estimates of sea turtle or marine mammal interactions
with an expected CV of 0.3 (in 2003, this was 33.8 percent of the total trips) (Carlson and
Baremore, 2002). On June 21, 2005, NMFS proposed modifying the time and areas where 100
percent observer coverage is required during right whale calving season (70 FR 35894). NMFS
has proposed that, from November 15 to April 15, 100 percent observer coverage would be
required for gillnet vessels fishing between the SC/GA border and 29o 00 N. Gillnet vessels
fishing between 29o 00 N and 26o 46.5 N would be required to have 100 percent observer
coverage from December 1 to March 31.
Starting in 2005, a pilot observer program was begun to include all vessels that have an
active directed shark permit and fish with sink gillnet gear (Carlson and Bethea, 2006). These
vessels were not subject to observer coverage because they were either targeting non-highly
migratory species or were not fishing gillnets in a drift or strike fashion. These vessels were
selected for observer coverage in an effort to determine their impact on finetooth shark landings
and their overall impact on shark resources when not targeting sharks. One of the alternatives to
reduce mortality of finetooth sharks in this document would thereby increase observer coverage
to these vessels with directed shark permits that report landing sharks with gillnet.
3.8.2.5

Commercial Handgear Fishery

The commercial handgear fishery includes vessels using handline, harpoon, rod and reel,
or bandit gear to fish for HMS. NMFS has the authority to use observers to collect bycatch
information from commercial vessels fishing for tunas. Many of these vessels are already
required to complete Federal and/or state logbooks (e.g., the NMFS Northeast Region Vessel
Trip Report (VTR) Program), in which they are required to report all fishing information,
including that for HMS and bycatch. NMFS is currently evaluating various alternatives to
increase fishery data collection of vessels fishing for HMS with handgear, such as selecting
additional HMS permitted vessels to report in logbooks or to be selected for observer coverage,
and is investigating alternatives for electronic reporting. Therefore, no estimates of bycatch are
available at this time. Bycatch and bycatch mortality are considered to be low due to the nature
of the gear but this should be validated in the future.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-272

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.8.2.6

Recreational Handgear Fishery

NMFS collects recreational catch-and-release data from dockside surveys (the Large
Pelagics Survey and the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey) for the rod and reel
fishery and uses these data to estimate total landings and discards of bycatch or incidental catch.
Statistical problems associated with small sample size remain an obstacle to estimating bycatch
reliably in the rod and reel fishery. CVs can be high for many HMS (rare event species in the
MRFSS) and the LPS does not cover all times/geographic areas for non-bluefin tuna species.
New survey methodologies are being developed, however, especially for the Charter/Headboat
sector of the rod and reel fishery, which should help to address some of the problems in
estimating bycatch for this fishery. In addition, selecting recreational vessels for voluntary
logbook reporting may be an option for collecting bycatch information for this sector of the
HMS fishery.
NMFS has the authority to use observers to voluntarily collect bycatch information from
vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat or Angling category permits. Many of the charter/headboat
vessels are required to complete Federal and/or state logbooks (e.g., the NMFS Northeast Region
Vessel Trip Report (VTR) Program), in which they are required to report all fishing information,
including that for HMS and bycatch. NMFS is currently evaluating various alternatives to
increase logbook coverage of vessels fishing for HMS, such as selecting additional HMS vessels
to report in logbooks or be selected for observer coverage, and is investigating alternatives for
electronic reporting.
The National Academy of Sciences assembled a committee to review current marine
recreational fishing surveys at the request of NMFS (NAS, 2006). The committee was tasked
with developing recommendations for improvements to current surveys and to recommend the
implementation of possible alternative approaches. The committee’s final report was published
in April 2006, and NMFS is in the process of evaluating the recommendations. At the present
time, no other alternative approach is available.
3.8.3

Bycatch Reduction in HMS Fisheries

The NMFS HMS bycatch reduction program includes an evaluation of current data
collection programs, implementation of bycatch reduction measures such as gear modifications
and time/area closures, and continued support of data collection and research relating to bycatch
(Table 3.107). Additional details on bycatch and bycatch reduction measures can be found in
Section 3.5 of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (NMFS,
1999), in Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2000), in Regulatory Adjustment
2 to the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2002), and in Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2003a). In
addition, an HMS Bycatch Reduction Implementation Plan was developed in late 2003 which
identify priority issues to be addressed in the following areas: 1) monitoring, 2) research, 3)
management, and 4) education/outreach. Individual activities in each of these areas were
identified and new activities may be added or removed as they are addressed or identified.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-273

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BYCATCH, INCIDENTAL CATCH, & PROTECTED SPECIES

3.9

HMS Permits and Tournaments

This section provides updates for the number of permits that were issued in conjunction
with HMS fishing activities as of February 2006. Furthermore, Section 3.9.6, Atlantic HMS
Tournaments, provides a comprehensive synthesis of recreational fishing tournaments and their
role in the context of HMS management.
NMFS’ HMS Management Division continues to monitor capacity in HMS fisheries.
Updated permit numbers for HMS fisheries as of April 2005, are included in Table 3.95 through
Table 3.101. These tables have been updated since the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, which
listed numbers of permits as of April 2005. The overall number of limited access permits for
Atlantic swordfish, tunas, and sharks increased from 1,128 to 1,131 (Table 3.95) between
October 2005 and February 2006, however, these numbers are subject to change based upon on­
going permit renewal or expiration. The overall number of tuna permits increased in all
categories between October 2005 and February 2006 (Table 3.96). The HMS Angling Permit
category went into effect on March 1, 2003 (67 FR 77434, December 18, 2003), and there has
been a significant increase in Angling category permits over the past few years (Table 3.96).
The number of tuna dealer permits increased from 364 (April 20, 2005) to 416 (February 1, 2006)
(Table 3.99).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-274

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Table 3.95

Distribution of Shark, Swordfish, and Tuna longline Limited Access Permits Between 2001
and 2006. Data for 2001-2005 are as of October 1 for each year.

State

# Directed
Swordfish

#
Incidental
Swordfish

#
Swordfish
Handgear

# Directed
Shark

#
Incidental
Shark

# Tuna
Longline

# Permit
Holders/#
Permits

ME

2

-

4

2

3

1

9/12

NH

-

-

-

-

1

-

1/1

MA

13

1

21

4

13

8

37/60

RI

2

4

19

-

10

1

24/36

CT

1

-

1

-

1

1

2/4

NY

12

2

9

7

8

12

24/50

NJ

22

13

9

22

21

30

48/117

DE

4

-

-

3

1

3

4/11

MD

6

-

-

3

6

6

9/24

VA

-

3

-

3

3

3

6/12

NC

9

10

2

21

16

15

37/73

SC

2

1

-

7

14

4

20/28

GA

1

-

-

2

2

-

4/5

FL

66

32

22

144

137

76

299/477

AL

-

1

-

2

1

1

3/5

MS

-

2

-

1

7

1

8/11

LA

37

7

-

7

43

44

49/138

TX

1

5

-

2

10

6

12/24

CA

-

-

-

-

-

1

1/1

PA

2

2

-

2

4

1

6/11

VI

1

-

-

-

1

1

1/3

No Vessel
ID

10

3

1

8

10

-

-

Totals
2006**

191

86

88

240

312

214

604/1131

2005

190

91

92

235

320

200

639/1128

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-275

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

State

# Directed
Swordfish

#
Incidental
Swordfish

#
Swordfish
Handgear

# Directed
Shark

#
Incidental
Shark

# Tuna
Longline

# Permit
Holders/#
Permits

2004

195

99

96

241

348

222

657/1201

2003

206

99

95

251

359

235

696/1245

2002

205

110

94

251

376

226

713/1262

2001

208

112

100

252

390

213

752/1275

* Number of permit holders in each category, and state, is subject to change as permits are renewed or expire.
** Totals for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006

3.9.1

Upgrading and Safety Issues

When the limited access program was implemented, NMFS included upgrading
restrictions that were the same as those implemented by the New England Fishery Management
Council (NEFMC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) in order to help
minimize the number of regulations for fishermen in those areas. These regulations restrict
vessels from any increase over ten percent length overall (LOA), ten percent gross or net tonnage,
and 20 percent horsepower. NMFS continues to receive comments that these vessel upgrading
restrictions are not appropriate for longline fisheries, may inhibit full utilization of the domestic
swordfish quota, are not the preferred vessel characteristics to limit overcapitalization, and have
caused safety at sea concerns. In developing the current upgrading restrictions, hold capacity
was identified by constituents as a vessel characteristic that would not impact safety at sea and
would meet the objective of addressing overcapitalization in HMS commercial fisheries. NMFS
did not implement hold capacity as a measure to limit vessel upgrading in 1999 due to the lack of
standard measurements of vessel hold capacity as well as the lack of consistent collection of this
information for HMS commercial vessels as part of existing vessel registration systems. NMFS
has considered other possible options including: eliminating upgrading restrictions; limiting hold
capacity instead of, or in addition to, the current restrictions; allowing a greater percentage
increase; and creating vessel categories. NMFS heard similar comments as those listed above
from the Advisory Panel (AP) in February of 2004. NMFS is considering these options, and, as
with any potential changes in the permitting system, will allow for adequate public comment
during the rulemaking process before making any changes to the regulations.
3.9.2 Atlantic Tunas Permits
The number of Atlantic Tunas permit holders by category is listed in Table 3.96. The
number of permits in the Longline, General, and Charter/Headboat (CHB) categories increased
between 2004 and April 2005. In previous years, CHB vessels fishing for HMS only needed a
CHB permit if they were fishing for Atlantic tunas.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-276

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Table 3.96

The number of Atlantic tuna permit holders in each category as of October 2001 through 2005.
Permit numbers for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006. The actual number of 2006 permit
holders in each category is subject to change as individuals renew or allow their permits to
expire.

Category

2001

2002

2003**

2004

2005

2006

Longline

213

226

235

222

200

214

Angling *

12,685

13,263

18,804

20,245

24,127

25,238

Harpoon

53

56

47

49

40

40

Trap

1

6

2

2

7

7

General

6,072

6,431

5,526

5,057

4,494

4,824

Purse Seine

5

5

5

5

5

5

CHB**

3,260

3,659

4,167

3,881

3,963

4,173

Total

22,289

23,646

28,789

29,461

32,836

34,501

* HMS Angling permit became effective March 1, 2003 (67 FR 77434, December 18, 2003) and includes all HMS,

not just tunas.

** No longer a tuna-only permit, became a HMS CHB permit on March 1, 2003

In December 2002, NMFS published a final rule (67 FR 77434, December 18, 2002) that
required the owner of each vessel used to fish recreationally for Atlantic HMS or on which
Atlantic HMS are retained or possessed, to obtain an HMS Angling permit. Effective March 1,
2003, this permit replaced the Atlantic Tunas Angling category permit. It is discussed in greater
detail in the HMS Angling Permit section.
3.9.3

HMS CHB Permits

In 2002, NMFS published a final rule (67 FR 77434, Dec. 18, 2002) expanding the HMS
recreational permit from tuna only to include all HMS and define CHB operations. This
established a requirement that owners of charterboats or headboats that are used to fish for, take,
retain, or possess Atlantic tunas, sharks, swordfish, or billfish must obtain a HMS CHB permit.
This permit replaced the Atlantic Tunas CHB permit. A vessel issued a HMS CHB permit for a
fishing year will not be issued an HMS Angling permit or any Atlantic Tunas permit in any
category for that same fishing year, regardless of a change in the vessel’s ownership. The total
number of CHB increased between April 2005 and February 2006.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-277

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Table 3.97

CHB Permits by State as of February 1, 2006.
State

CHB permits

State

CHB Permits

AL

76

NH

47

CT

91

NJ

643

DE

129

NV

--

FL

673

OH

2

GA

31

PA

11

LA

93

PR

27

MA

557

RI

163

MD

198

SC

141

ME

64

TN

--

MI

2

TX

166

MS

32

VA

142

NC

465

VI

18

NY

373

Other

23

Total

3.9.6

4,173

HMS Angling Permit

Effective March 2003 (67 FR 77434, Dec. 18, 2002), the HMS Angling category permit
allows all recreational anglers aboard permitted vessels to fish for HMS and is required to fish
for, retain, or possess, including catch and release fishing, any federally regulated HMS. These
species include: sharks, swordfish, white and blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, and federally
regulated Atlantic tunas (bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack, and albacore). Atlantic HMS
caught, retained, possessed, or landed by persons on board vessels with an HMS Angling permit
may not be sold or transferred to any person for a commercial purpose. By definition,
recreational landings of Atlantic HMS are those that cannot be marketed through commercial
channels, therefore it is not possible to monitor anglers’ catches through ex-vessel transactions as
in the commercial fishery. Instead, NMFS conducts statistical sampling surveys of the
recreational fisheries. These survey programs have been used for over a decade and include the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS).
A vessel issued an HMS Angling permit for a fishing year shall not be issued an HMS Charter/
Headboat permit or an Atlantic Tunas permit in any category for that same fishing year,
regardless of a change in the vessel’s ownership.
3.9.4

Dealer Permits

Dealer permits are required for commercial receipt of Atlantic tuna, swordfish, and
sharks, and are described in further detail in the 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP.
Dealer permits are not limited access. Fishermen caught selling HMS to unpermitted dealers and
persons without a dealer permit buying HMS from fishermen could be subject to enforcement
action. Similarly, persons caught buying HMS from non-commercial fishermen could also be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-278

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

subject to enforcement action. All dealer permit holders are required to submit reports detailing
the nature of their business. For swordfish and shark permit holders (including those who only
import swordfish), dealers must submit bi-weekly dealer reports on all HMS they purchase.
Tuna dealers must submit, within 24 hours of the receipt of a bluefin tuna, a landing report for
each bluefin purchased from U.S. fishermen. Dealers must also submit bi-weekly reports that
include additional information on tunas that they purchase. To facilitate quota monitoring
“negative reports” for shark and swordfish are also required from dealers when no purchases are
made (i.e., NMFS can determine who has not purchased fish versus who has neglected to report).
NMFS continues to automate and improve its permitting and dealer reporting systems and plans
to make additional permit applications and renewals available online in the near future.
Starting July 1, 2005, dealers who import and/or export certain HMS species are required
to obtain the NMFS HMS International Trade Permit (ITP) (69 FR 67268, November 17, 2004)
(Table 3.100). The permit has been established to coordinate U.S. implementation of ICCAT
and IATTC trade tracking recommendations. The HMS ITP is required for trade of bluefin tuna,
southern bluefin tuna, swordfish, and frozen bigeye tuna. Reporting associated with the HMS
ITP will include biweekly reports and submission of swordfish, bluefin tuna, southern bluefin
tuna and bigeye tuna statistical documents. Atlantic tunas and swordfish dealer permits will no
longer be required for international trade of these species, and will be necessary only for
domestic transactions. Additionally, the Pacific Ocean bluefin tuna dealer permit will no longer
be in effect.
Table 3.98

Number of shark and swordfish dealer permits issued in each state or country as of October
2001-2005. Permits for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006. The actual number of permits per may
change as permit holders move or sell their businesses.

State/Country

Atlantic swordfish

Atlantic sharks

# of permits

AL

2

5

7

CA

29

29

58

FL

94

119

213

GA

1

1

2

HI

7

7

14

LA

12

13

25

MA

31

31

62

MD

6

6

12

ME

3

3

6

MO

--

1

1

MS

--

1

1

NC

14

20

34

NJ

14

14

28

NY

18

18

36

OH

--

--

--

PA

2

2

4

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-279

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

State/Country

Atlantic swordfish

Atlantic sharks

# of permits

PR

1

1

2

RI

10

10

20

SC

11

20

31

TX

8

11

19

VA

4

6

10

VI

1

1

2

WA

8

8

16

Canada

8

8

16

Chile

1

1

2

New Zealand

--

--

--

Ecuador

--

--

--

Totals 2006

285

336

621

2005

294

228

522

2004

321

230

559

2003

319

254

573

2002

321

267

588

2001

302

249

551

Table 3.99

Number of Atlantic tuna dealer permits by state issued in the 2005 calendar year. Dealers may
obtain a permit to sell and purchase only bluefin tuna, only BAYS tunas, or both bluefin and
BAYS tunas.

State

Bluefin Only *

BAYS Only

Bluefin and
BAYS

Total Atlantic
Tunas Dealer
Permits

AL

--

--

1

1

CA

8

--

5

13

CT

--

--

2

2

DE

--

--

3

3

FL

1

1

16

18

GA

--

--

2

2

IL

1

--

--

1

HI

--

--

2

2

LA

1

--

11

12

MA

14

5

77

96

MD

--

1

9

10

ME

10

--

13

23

NC

6

7

25

38

NH

--

--

5

5

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-280

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

•

State

Bluefin Only *

BAYS Only

Bluefin and
BAYS

Total Atlantic
Tunas Dealer
Permits

NJ

1

9

32

42

NY

3

14

49

66

PA

--

--

3

3

PR

--

4

2

6

RI

--

5

30

35

SC

--

4

8

12

TX

--

1

2

3

VA

1

6

14

21

VI

--

3

1

4

WA

--

--

1

1

Total
43
60
313
416
Does not include Pacific bluefin tuna dealer permits which were eliminated July 1, 2005.

Table 3.100

Number of International Trade Permits (ITP) by state (province) as of February 1, 2006.
State/Province

Number of ITPs

CA

13

FL

22

GA

1

HI

2

LA

3

MA

23

ME

4

NC

4

NJ

7

NY

13

RI

3

VA

2

WA

1

Nova Scotia, Canada

2

Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

100

3-281

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

3.9.5 Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Display Permits, Chartering Permits, and
Scientific Research Permits (SRPs)
EFPs, display permits, and SRPs are requested and issued under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and/or the ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). EFPs
are issued to individuals interested in being exempted from regulations for the purpose of
conducting research or other fishing activities using private (non-NOAA) vessels, whereas an
SRP would be issued to agency scientists who are using NOAA vessels as their research
platform. Display permits are issued to individuals who are fishing for, catching, and then
transporting HMS to certified aquariums for public display. Regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 and
50 CFR 635.32 govern scientific research activity, exempted fishing, and exempted educational
activity with respect to Atlantic HMS. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks FMP implemented and created a separate display permitting system, which operates apart
from the exempted fishing activities that are focusing on scientific research. However, the
application process for display permits is similar to that required for EFPs and SRPs. The quota
is 60 mt ww for all sharks collected under exempted fishing permits.
Issuance of EFPs, display permits, and SRPs may be necessary because possession of
certain shark and billfish species are prohibited, possession of billfishes on board commercial
fishing vessels is prohibited, the commercial fisheries for bluefin tuna, swordfish and large
coastal sharks may be closed for extended periods during which collection of live animals and/or
biological samples would otherwise be prohibited, or for other reasons. These EFPs, SRPs, and
display permits would authorize collections of tunas, swordfish, billfishes, and sharks from
Federal waters in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico for the purposes of scientific data
collection and public display. In addition, NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 635.32 regarding
implantation or attachment of archival tags in Atlantic HMS require prior authorization and a
report on implantation activities.
In order to implement the chartering recommendations of ICCAT, NMFS recently
published a rule on December 6, 2004 (69 FR 70396), requiring U.S. vessel owners with HMS
permits to apply for and obtain a chartering permit before fishing under a chartering arrangement
outside U.S. waters. These permits are issued in a similar manner as other EFPs. Under this
final rule and consistent with the ICCAT recommendations, vessels issued a chartering permit
are not authorized to use the quota or entitlement of the United States until the chartering permit
expires or is terminated. This is because of the fact that under a chartering arrangement it is
assumed that vessels have attained temporary authorization to harvest another ICCAT
Contracting Parties’ quota. Having a chartering permit does not obviate the need to obtain a
fishing license, permits, or other authorizations issued by the chartering nation in order to fish in
foreign waters, or obtain other authorizations such as a High Seas Fishing Compliance Act
Permit, 50 CFR 300.10 et seq. Additionally, incidental takes of, or interactions with, protected
resources are included against the Incidental Take Statement specified in any relevant Biological
Opinions. A U.S. vessel shall not be authorized to fish under more than one chartering
arrangement at the same time. NMFS will issue chartering permits only if it determines that the
chartering arrangement is in conformance with ICCAT’s conservation and management
programs.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-282

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

The number of EFPs, display permits, and SRPs issued from 2002 – 2006 by category
and species are listed in Table 3.101. Year-end reports for permits issued for 2004 are required,
and are expected to be submitted to NMFS in early 2005.
Table 3.101 Number of Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Display Permits, and Scientific Research
Permits (SRPs) issued between 2002 and 2006.
Permit type
Exempted Fishing
Permit

Scientific Research
Permit

Letters of
Acknowledgement

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006*

Sharks for display

7

8

8

6

3

HMS for display

1

1

1

1

--

Tunas for display

0

0

1

0

--

Shark research on a
non-scientific vessel

5

9

6

5

--

Tuna research on a non­
scientific vessel

4

5

11

7

1

HMS research on a non­
scientific vessel

5

18

5

3

3

Billfish research on a
non-scientific vessel

0

0

1

2

1

Shark Fishing

1

1

0

0

--

HMS Chartering

0

0

1

0

--

Tuna Fishing

6

7

2

0

TOTAL

29

49

36

24

8

Shark research

2

1

3

4

--

Tuna research

1

0

0

0

--

Billfish research

0

0

0

0

--

HMS (multi-species)
research

1

1

1

4

3

TOTAL

4

2

4

8

3

Shark research

3

3

2

4

1

3

2

4

1

TOTAL
3
* Permit numbers for 2006 are as of February 1, 2006.

3.9.6

Atlantic HMS Tournaments

Fishing tournaments are an important component of HMS recreational fisheries. A
tournament is defined in the HMS regulations as any fishing competition involving Atlantic
HMS in which participants must register or otherwise enter or in which a prize or award is
offered for catching or landing such fish. Since 1999, Federal regulations have required that
each HMS tournament operator register their tournament with NMFS at least four weeks prior to
the commencement of tournament fishing activities. Tournament operators may be selected for
reporting and must submit tournament results to NMFS within seven days of the conclusion of
the tournament.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-283

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Tournament registration and reporting is necessary because it provides an important
source of information used to assess HMS fish stocks and to estimate the annual catch of Atlantic
HMS. The information may be used by NMFS to plan for the assignment of tournament
observers to assist in catch/effort data compilation and to obtain biological data and samples
from landed fish (length/weight, stomach contents, injuries, parasites, hard and soft tissue
samples for age determination, genetic and microconstituent analysis, spawning condition,
fecundity, etc.). Additionally, with an accurate tournament database, NMFS may better assess
the practicality of using tournaments for angler educational outreach efforts including
distribution of written informational materials, notification of public hearings, and explanation of
HMS regulations. HMS tournament registration and reporting information further allows NMFS,
in the course of developing fishery management plans, to evaluate the social and economic
impact of tournament angling in relation to other types of angling (e.g., commercial, nontournament recreational) and the relative effect of tournament angling on populations of various
regulated HMS. Finally, the information is essential for the U.S. to meet its reporting obligations
to ICCAT.
When registering an HMS tournament, the following information is required to be
submitted to the HMS Management Division in St. Petersburg, FL: (1) Tournament name; (2)
tournament location; (3) name, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of
tournament operator; (4) fishing dates; and (5) HMS species for which points or prizes are
awarded. If selected for reporting, operators must submit the following information to the
SEFSC: (1) Tournament name; (2) tournament dates; (3) tournament location; (4) number of
boats fishing; (5) hours fished; (6) recorder’s name, phone number, and e-mail address; (7) the
number of each species kept; (8) the number of each species lost; (9) the number of each species
tagged and released; (10) the number of each species released without a tag; (11) the number of
each species released dead; and, (12) the weight and length of all fish boated. This information
is routinely collected during tournament operations to award prizes. Generally, 100 percent of
all billfish tournaments are selected for reporting, as this information is critical to determining
billfish landings. Tournament registration forms are available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/linkpages/reporting_forms.htm.
The reasons for participation in fishing tournaments include, but are not limited to,
competition, camaraderie, and the opportunity to win valuable prizes. A search on the Internet
for fishing tournaments (December, 2004) indicated that many saltwater tournaments target
HMS. It has been estimated that approximately 300 – 400 HMS fishing tournaments occur
annually along the U.S. Atlantic coast, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (NMFS,
1999). These tournaments may range from smaller, club member-only events with as few as ten
participating boats (40 – 60 anglers) to larger, statewide tournaments with 250 or more
participating vessels (1,000 – 1,500 anglers). For the larger tournaments, corporate sponsorship
from tackle manufactures, marinas, boat dealers, beverage distributors, resorts, publications,
chambers of commerce, restaurants, and others are often involved.
Many HMS fishing tournaments, particularly those that target billfish, promote strict
conservation principles in their rules. For example, significant numbers of blue marlin, white
marlin, and sailfish tournaments are “release-only,” utilizing observers, angler affidavits,
polygraph tests, photographs, or video cameras to document the live release of marlins.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-284

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Minimum sizes for fish that are landed are often larger than state and Federal requirements. Also,
some tournaments prohibit treble hooks and may require circle hooks on certain baits. Because
tournament participants are often well-respected anglers (i.e. highliners), these conservation
trends and ethics likely influence the general angling population in a positive manner.
For anglers in HMS tournaments, winning the prize money may not be the only motive
for participation. Many HMS fishing tournaments support charitable organizations; an internet
search revealed that some of the charities who have benefited from fishing tournaments include:
the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Sloan-Kettering Skin Cancer Center,
Boy Scouts of America, Ducks Unlimited, The Boys and Girls Club, The Broadstreet Clinic,
Core Sound Waterfowl Museum, Hope Mission Christian Ministries, Sertoma by the Bay (breast
cancer research), Take A Kid Fishing, Capt. Bob Lewis Scholarship Fund, South Nassau
Communities Hospital, South Texas Children’s, T. H. Rogers School for Impaired Children’s
Home, The Billfish Foundation, and Kids In Distress.
Table 3.102 presents the number of registered HMS tournaments, by state, between 2001
and 2005. This table indicates that, in 2005, HMS fishing tournaments were conducted most
frequently in Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Maryland,
Georgia, New York, Virgin Islands, and South Carolina. By far, the largest number of registered
HMS tournaments has consistently occurred in the state of Florida.
Table 3.102 Number of Registered HMS Tournaments by State between 2001 and 2005. Source: NMFS
Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration Database
STATE

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

ME

2

3

3

5

3

NH

0

0

0

0

0

MA

7

1

7

10

4

RI

2

2

3

3

2

CT

1

0

0

0

1

NY

5

4

14

14

10

NJ

11

5

18

17

16

DE

2

0

0

1

0

MD

4

2

14

14

14

VA

5

1

5

4

5

NC

11

5

15

16

18

SC

6

3

13

9

9

GA

6

1

12

3

13

FL

46

26

66

57

74

AL

7

7

9

8

7

MS

3

2

7

2

2

LA

19

0

20

22

26

TX

14

1

17

10

17

MI

1

0

0

0

0

PR

16

4

13

17

22

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-285

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

STATE

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

USVI

9

0

6

1

10

1

3

2

1

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Bahamas

Bermuda
Mexico

1
1

Turks/Caicos
1

TOTAL
181
68
244
215
256
Some foreign tournaments voluntarily registered because the participants were mostly U.S. citizens.

Table 3.103 shows the number and percentage of HMS tournaments awarding points or
awards for a particular HMS, based upon 2005 tournament registrations. Blue marlin, white
marlin, sailfish, and yellowfin tuna are the predominant target species in HMS fishing
tournaments.
Table 3.103

Number and Percent of All 2005 HMS Tournaments Awarding Points or Prizes for an HMS.
Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration Database
Species

Number of Tournaments

Percent of tournaments

Blue Marlin

174

67.9%

White Marlin

164

64.1%

Sailfish

162

63.3%

Yellowfin Tuna

161

62.9%

Bluefin Tuna

83

32.4%

Swordfish

71

27.7%

Bigeye Tuna

53

20.1%

Pelagic Sharks

48

18.8%

Albacore Tuna

13

5.1%

Skipjack Tuna

9

3.5%

Small Coastal Sharks

5

2.0%

Ridgeback Sharks

5

2.0%

Non-Ridgeback Sharks

5

2.0%

Table 3.106 indicate the percentage and number of 2005 HMS registered tournaments, by
state (or country), for blue marlin, white marlin and sailfish, respectively. These tables indicate
that Florida is the leading state in terms of numbers of registered billfish tournaments, especially
for sailfish.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-286

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Table 3.104

Registered Blue Marlin Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament
Registration Database.
State

Number of 2005 Tournaments
Awarding Points or Prizes for Blue
Marlin

Percent of Total 2005
Tournaments Awarding Points or
Prizes for Blue Marlin

Florida

36

20.7%

Louisiana

25

14.4%

Puerto Rico

17

9.8%

Texas

17

9.8%

North Carolina

15

8.6%

Georgia

11

6.3%

Maryland

11

6.3%

New Jersey

9

5.2%

U.S. Virgin Islands

9

5.2%

South Carolina

8

4.6%

Alabama

5

2.9%

Virginia

3

1.7%

Massachusetts

2

1.1%

2

1.1%

Mississippi

1

0.6%

New York

1

0.6%

Rhode Island

1

0.6%

Bermuda

1

0.6%

TOTAL

174

100%

Bahamas

1

1

Table 3.105

Registered White Marlin Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament
Registration Database.
State

Number of 2005 Tournaments
Awarding Points or Prizes for White
Marlin

% of Total 2005 Tournaments
Awarding Points or Prizes for
White Marlin

Florida

36

22.0%

Louisiana

25

15.2%

North Carolina

15

9.1%

Texas

15

9.1%

Georgia

11

6.7%

Maryland

11

6.7%

New Jersey

9

5.5%

Puerto Rico

9

5.5%

South Carolina

8

4.9%

U.S. Virgin Islands

8

4.9%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-287

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

State

Number of 2005 Tournaments
Awarding Points or Prizes for White
Marlin

% of Total 2005 Tournaments
Awarding Points or Prizes for
White Marlin

Alabama

6

3.6%

Virginia

3

1.8%

Massachusetts

2

1.2%

2

1.2%

Rhode Island

1

0.6%

Mississippi

1

0.6%

New York

1

0.6%

1

Bermuda

1

0.6%

TOTAL

164

100%

Bahamas

Table 3.106

1

Registered Sailfish Tournaments, 2005. Source: NMFS Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration
Database.
Number of 2005 Tournaments
Awarding Points or Prizes for
Sailfish

% of Total 2005 Tournaments
Awarding Points or Prizes for
Sailfish

Florida

58

35.8%

Louisiana

25

15.4%

Texas

16

9.9%

North Carolina

15

9.2%

Georgia

11

6.8%

Puerto Rico

10

6.2%

South Carolina

7

4.3%

Alabama

6

3.7%

Maryland

3

1.8%

U.S. Virgin Islands

3

1.8%

Virginia

3

1.8%

2

1.2%

Massachusetts

1

0.6%

Mississippi

1

0.6%

Bermuda

1

0.6%

TOTAL

162

100%

State

Bahamas

1

1

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-288

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Table 3.107 Summary of bycatch species in HMS fisheries, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) category, endangered Species Act (ESA)
requirements, data collection, and management measures by fishery/gear type. (Excerpted from HMS Bycatch Priorities and Implementation
Plan and updated through May 2006)
Fishery/Gear
Type

Bycatch Species

MMPA
Category

ESA Requirements

Bycatch Data Collection

Management Measures

Pelagic
Longline

Bluefin tuna
Billfish
Undersize target
species
Marine mammals
Sea turtles
Seabirds
Non-target finfish
Prohibited shark
species
Large Coastal
Shark species after
closure

Category I

Jeopardy findings in
2000 & 2004,
Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative
implemented 2001­
04

Permit requirement
(1985); logbook
requirement (SWO- 1985;
SHK - 1993); observer
requirement (1992), EFPs
(2001-03)

BFT target catch requirements (1981); quotas
(SWO - 1985; SHK - 1993); prohibit
possession of billfish (1988); minimum size
(1995); gear marking (1999); line clippers,
dipnets (2000); MAB closure (1999); limited
access (1999); limit the length of mainline
(1996-1997 only); move 1 nm after an
interaction (1999); voluntary vessel operator
workshops (1999); GOM closure (2000); FL,
Charleston Bump, NED closures (2001);
gangion length, corrodible hooks, de-hooking
devices, handling & release guidelines (2001);
NED experiment (2001); VMS (2003); circle
hooks and bait requirements (2004)

Shark Bottom
Longline

Prohibited shark
species
Target species
after closure
Sea turtles
Smalltooth sawfish
Non-target finfish

Category
III

ITS, Terms &
Conditions, RPMs

Permit requirement
(1993); logbook
requirement (1993);
observer coverage (1994)

Quotas (1993); trip limit (1994); gear marking
(1999); handling & release guidelines (2001);
line clippers, dipnets, corrodible hooks, de­
hooking devices, move 1 nm after an
interaction (2004); South Atlantic closure,
VMS (2005)

Shark Gillnet

Prohibited shark
species
Sea turtles
Marine mammals
Non-target finfish
Smalltooth sawfish

Category
II

ITS, Terms &
Conditions, RPMs

Permit requirement
(1993); logbook
requirement (1993);
observer coverage (1994)

Quotas (1993); trip limit (1994); gear marking
(1999); deployment restrictions (1999); 30-day
closure for leatherbacks (2001); handling &
release guidelines (2001); net checks (2002);
whale sighting (2002); VMS (2004); closure
for right whale mortality (2006)

BFT Purse
Seine

Undersize target
species
Non-target finfish

Category
III

ITS, Terms &
Conditions

Permit requirement
(1982); observer
requirement (1996, 2001
only); EFPs (2002-05)

Quotas (1975); limited access, individual
vessel quotas (1982); minimum size (1982)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-289

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Fishery/Gear
Type

Bycatch Species

MMPA
Category

ESA Requirements

Bycatch Data Collection

Management Measures

BFT & SWO
Harpoon

Undersize target
species

Category
III

ITS, Terms &
Conditions

Permit requirement (BFT
- 1982; SWO - 1987);
SWO logbook
requirement (1987)

Quotas (BFT - 1982; SW0 - 1985); minimum
size (BFT - 1982; SWO - 1985)

Handgear ­
Commercial

Undersize target
species
Non-target finfish

Category
III

ITS, Terms &
Conditions

Permit requirement (BFT
- 1982; SWO 1987; SHK
- 1993); logbook
requirement (SWO ­
1985; SHK - 1993)

Regulations vary by species, including quotas,
minimum sizes, retention limits, landing form

Handgear ­
Recreational

Undersize target
species
Non-target finfish

Category
III

ITS, Terms &
Conditions

Large Pelagic Survey
(1992); MRFSS (1981)

Regulations vary by species, including
minimum sizes, retention limits, landing form;
BFT quotas

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-290

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

3.9.7

Evaluation and Monitoring of Bycatch

The identification of bycatch in Atlantic HMS fisheries is the first step in reducing
bycatch and bycatch mortality. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the amount and type of
bycatch to be summarized in the annual SAFE reports. Bycatch reporting is addressed in Section
3.8.3. Additional species and fishery specific data have already been presented in Section 3.2.
Pelagic longline dead discards of swordfish, billfish, large coastal sharks and pelagic
sharks are estimated using data from NMFS observer reports and pelagic logbook reports. Shark
bottom longline and shark gillnet discards can be estimated using logbook data and observer
reports as well. Shark gillnet discards have also been estimated using logbook data when
observer coverage is equal to 100 percent.
NMFS has not estimated bycatch in the swordfish harpoon fishery. NMFS has limited
historical observer data on harpooned swordfish from driftnet trips in which harpoons were
sometimes used. Swordfish harpoon fishermen are required to submit pelagic logbooks and
NMFS can examine those for their utility in estimating bycatch. NMFS has not estimated
bycatch in the bluefin tuna harpoon fishery because these fishermen have not been selected to
submit logbooks. NMFS has not estimated bycatch in the General category commercial rod and
reel tuna fishery although anecdotal evidence indicates that some undersized bluefin tuna may be
captured. Studies of post-release mortality are ongoing.
There is concern about the accuracy of discard estimates in the recreational rod and reel
fishery for HMS due to the low number of observations by the LPS and the MRFSS.
Recreational bycatch estimates (numbers of fish released alive and dead) are not currently
available, except for bluefin tuna. For some species, encounters are considered rare events,
which might result in bycatch estimates with considerable uncertainty. Due to improvements in
survey methodology, increased numbers of intercepts (interviews with fishermen) have been
collected since 2002. NMFS intends to develop bycatch estimates (live and dead discards) and
estimates of uncertainty from the recreational fishery from the LPS. These data will be included
in future SAFE reports. Bycatch estimates may also be examined by using tournament data for
the recreational fishery.
3.9.8
3.9.8.1

Bycatch Mortality
Introduction

The reduction of bycatch mortality is an important component of National Standard 9.
Physical injuries may not be apparent to the fisherman who is quickly releasing a fish because
there may be injuries associated with the stress of being hooked or caught in a net. Little is
known about the mortality rates of many of the species managed under this FMP but there are
some data for certain species. Information on bycatch mortality of these fish should continue to
be collected, and in the future, could be used to estimate bycatch mortality in stock assessments.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-291

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

NMFS submits annual data (Task I) to ICCAT on mortality estimates (dead discards).
These data are included in the SAFE reports and National Reports to ICCAT to evaluate bycatch
trends in HMS fisheries.
3.9.8.2

Mortality by Fishery

Pelagic Longline Fishery
NMFS collects data on the disposition (released alive or dead) of bycatch species from
logbooks submitted by fishermen in the pelagic longline fishery. Observer reports also include
disposition of the catch as well as information on hook location, trailing gear and injury status of
protected species interactions. These data are used to estimate post-release mortality of sea
turtles and marine mammals based on guidelines for each (Angliss and DeMaster 1998, Ryder et
al. 2006). See Section 3.4.1 for estimates of sea turtle and marine mammal bycatch estimates.
Purse Seine Fishery
NMFS has limited observer data on the bluefin tuna purse seine fishery. There are no
recorded instances of non-tuna finfish, other than minimal numbers of blue sharks, caught in tuna
purse seines. Anecdotal evidence indicates that if fish are discarded, they are easily released out
of the net with minimal bycatch mortality.
Bottom Longline Fishery
The shark bottom longline fishery has relatively low observed bycatch rates. Historically,
finfish bycatch has averaged approximately five percent in the bottom longline fishery.
Observed protected species bycatch (sea turtles) has typically been much lower, less than 0.01
percent of the total observed catch. See Section 3.4.5.1 for more information. Disposition of
discards is recorded by observers and can be used to estimate discard mortality.
Shark Gillnet Fishery
The shark gillnet fishery has relatively low observed bycatch rates. Finfish bycatch
during the 2003 fishery ranged from 3.3 to 20.7 percent of the total catch. Observed protected
species bycatch (sea turtles and marine mammals) was very low, less than 0.1 percent. See
Section 3.4.5 for more information. Disposition of discards is recorded by observers and can be
used to estimate discard mortality.
Commercial Handgear Fishery
Vessels targeting bluefin tuna with harpoon gear have not been selected for observer
coverage since the deliberate fishing nature of the gear is such that bycatch is expected to be low.
Therefore, there are no recorded instances of non-target finfish caught with harpoons and NMFS
cannot quantify the bycatch of undersized bluefin tuna in this fishery. Bycatch in the swordfish
harpoon fishery is virtually if not totally, non-existent. Since bycatch approaches zero in this
fishery, it follows that bycatch mortality is near zero. Disposition of bycatch reported in
logbooks is used to estimate mortality of bycatch in the hook and line handgear fisheries.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-292

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Recreational Handgear Fishery
The LPS collects data on disposition of bycatch (released alive or dead) in recreational
HMS fisheries. Rod and reel discard estimates from Virginia to Maine during June through
October can be monitored through the expansion of survey data derived from the LPS (dockside
and telephone surveys). However, the actual numbers of fish discarded for many species are low.
See Section 3.4.4 for more information.
Post-release mortality studies have been conducted on few HMS at this time. Immediate
mortality in recreational hook and line-caught juvenile bluefin tuna can be high (29.2 percent)
due to injuries or predation (Belle, 1997). This is thought to be a conservative estimate because
scientific personnel in the study were professionally trained and had extensive experience in fish
handling techniques designed to reduce mortality. Mortality often occurs ten minutes or longer
after the fish is released under normal circumstances. Injuries may not be readily apparent to the
angler and seemingly minor capture injuries may be related to substantial internal injuries. Forty
percent of sampled tuna that died during that study did not have injuries that would be apparent
to the angler in the boat. Skomal and Chase (1996) provided evidence that the stress of rod and
reel angling did not cause immediate post-release mortality in larger bluefin tuna (50 to 150 kg).
However, they did document metabolic and pH disturbances in bluefin tuna sampled off Cape
Hatteras, NC. The physiological consequences of angling stress are poorly understood for
several species of large pelagic fishes (Skomal and Chase, 1996).
A study by Graves et al. (2002), investigated short-term (five days) post-release mortality
of Atlantic blue marlin using pop-up satellite tag technology. A total of nine recreationally­
caught blue marlin were tagged and released during July and August of 1999. All hooks
employed in the study were “J” hooks. The attached tags were programmed to detach from the
fish after five days and to record direct temperature and inclination of the buoyant tag to
determine if the fish were actively swimming after being released. After detachment, the tags
floated to the surface and began transmitting recorded position, temperature and inclination data
to satellites of the ArgosTM system. Three different lines of evidence provided by the tags
(movement, water temperature, and tag inclination) suggested that at least eight of the nine blue
marlin survived for five days after being tagged and released. One of the tags did not transmit
any data which precluded the derivation of a conclusion regarding the tagged marlin’s survival.
The study was continued in 2003 to evaluate post release survival and habitat use of
white marlin using pop-up satellite archival tags (PSATs) caught and released from four
locations in the western North Atlantic recreational fishery (Horodysky and Graves, 2005).
Forty-one tags were attached to white marlin caught using dead baits rigged on straight shank
(“J”) hooks (n = 21) or circle hooks (n = 20) offshore of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic, the Dominican
Republic, Mexico, and Venezuela. Survival was significantly higher (p<0.01) for white marlin
caught on circle hooks (100 percent) relative to those caught on straight-shank (“J”) hooks (65
percent). These results, along with previous studies on circle hook performance, suggest that a
change in hook type can significantly increase the survival of white marlin released from
recreational fishing gear. Data from these short term deployments also suggest that white marlin
strongly associate with warm, near surface waters. However, based on the frequency,
persistence, and patterns of vertical movements, white marlin appear to direct a considerable
proportion of foraging effort well below surface waters, a behavior that may account for
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-293

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

relatively high catch rates of white marlin on some pelagic longline sets. NMFS continues to
support studies on recreational post-release mortality and intends to account for this source of
mortality when additional information becomes available.
3.9.8.3

Code of Angling Ethics

NMFS developed a Code of Angling Ethics as part of implementing Executive Order
12962 – Recreational Fisheries. NMFS implemented a national plan to support, develop, and
implement programs that were designed to enhance public awareness and understanding of
marine conservation issues relevant to the wellbeing of fishery resources in the context of marine
recreational fishing. This code is consistent with National Standard 9, minimizing bycatch and
bycatch mortality, and is therefore reproduced below. These guidelines are discretionary, not
mandatory, and are intended to inform the angling public of NMFS views regarding what
constitutes ethical angling behavior. Part of the code covers catch-and-release fishing and is
directed towards minimizing bycatch mortality.
Code of Angling Ethics
•

Promotes, through education and practice, ethical behavior in the use of aquatic
resources.

•

Values and respects the aquatic environment and all living things in it.

•

Avoids spilling, and never dumps any pollutants, such as gasoline and oil, into the
aquatic environment.

•

Disposes of all trash, including worn-out lines, leaders, and hooks, in appropriate
containers, and helps to keep fishing sites litter-free.

•

Takes all precautionary measures necessary to prevent the spread of exotic plants
and animals, including live baitfish, into non-native habitats.

•

Learns and obeys angling and boating regulations, and treats other anglers, boaters,
and property owners with courtesy and respect.

•

Respects property rights, and never trespasses on private lands or waters.

•

Keeps no more fish than needed for consumption, and never wastefully discards
fish that are retained.

•

Practices conservation by carefully handling and releasing alive all fish that are
unwanted or prohibited by regulation, as well as other animals that may become
hooked or entangled accidentally.

•

Uses tackle and techniques, which minimize harm to fish when engaging in “catch­
and-release” angling.

3.9.9

Interactions of HMS Fishing Gears with Protected Species

This section examines the interaction between protected species and Atlantic HMS
fisheries under consideration in this FMP. As a point of clarification, interactions are different
than bycatch. Interactions take place between fishing gears and marine mammals, sea turtles,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-294

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

and seabirds while bycatch consists of discards of fish. Following a brief review of the three acts
(Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act)
affecting protected species, the interactions between HMS gears and each species is examined.
Additionally, the interaction of seabirds and longline fisheries are considered under the auspices
of the United States “National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in
Longline Fisheries” (NPOA – Seabirds).
3.9.9.1 Interactions and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as amended (MMPA) is one of the principal
Federal statutes that guide marine mammal species protection and conservation policy. In the
1994 amendments, section 118 established the goal that the incidental mortality or serious injury
of marine mammals occurring during the course of commercial fishing operations be reduced to
insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality rate goal (ZMRG) and serious injury rate within
seven years of enactment (i.e,. April 30, 2001). In addition, the amendments established a threepart strategy to govern interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing operations.
These include the preparation of marine mammal stock assessment reports, a registration and
marine mammal mortality monitoring program for certain commercial fisheries (Category I and
II), and the preparation and implementation of take reduction plans (TRP).
NMFS relies on both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data to produce stock
assessments for marine mammals in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea.
Draft stock assessment reports are typically published around January and final reports are
typically published in the Fall. Final 2005 stock assessment reports are available and can be
obtained on the web at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html
The following marine mammal species occur off the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts that are or
could be of concern with respect to potential interactions with HMS fisheries.
Common Name
Atlantic spotted dolphin
Blue whale
Bottlenose dolphin
Common dolphin
Fin whale
Harbor porpoise
Humpback whale
Killer whale
Long-finned pilot whale
Minke whale
Northern bottlenose whale
Northern right whale
Pantropical spotted dolphin
Pygmy sperm whale
Risso’s dolphin
Sei whale
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Scientific Name
Stenella frontalis
Balaenoptera musculus
Tursiops truncatus
Delphinis delphis
Balaenoptera physalus
Phocoena phocoena
Megaptera novaeangliae
Orcinus orca
Globicephela melas
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Hyperoodon ampullatus
Eubalaena glacialis
Stenella attenuata
Kogia breviceps
Grampus griseus
Balaenoptera borealis
3-295

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Short-beaked spinner dolphin
Short-finned pilot whale
Sperm whale
Spinner dolphin
Striped dolphin
White-sided dolphin

Stenella clymene
Globicephela macrorhynchus
Physeter macrocephalus
Stenella longirostris
Stenella coeruleoalba
Lagenorhynchus acutus

Under MMPA requirements, NMFS produces an annual list of Fisheries (LOF) that classifies
domestic commercial fisheries, by gear type, relative to their rates of incidental mortality or
serious injury of marine mammals. The LOF includes three classifications:
1.

Category I fisheries are those with frequent serious injury or mortality to marine
mammals;

2.

Category II fisheries are those with occasional serious injury or mortality; and

3.

Category III fisheries are those with remote likelihood of serious injury or
mortality to marine mammals.

The final 2005 MMPA LOF was published on January 4, 2004 (71 FR 247) and the draft
2006 MMPA LOF was published on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 20941). The Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico large pelagic longline fishery is classified as Category I (frequent
serious injuries and mortalities incidental to commercial fishing) and the southeastern Atlantic
shark gillnet fishery is classified as Category II (occasional serious injuries and mortalities). The
following Atlantic HMS fisheries are classified as Category III (remote likelihood or no known
serious injuries or mortalities): Atlantic tuna purse seine; Gulf of Maine and Mid-Atlantic tuna,
shark and swordfish, hook-and-line/harpoon; southeastern Mid-Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
shark bottom longline; and Mid-Atlantic, southeastern Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico pelagic
hook-and-line/harpoon fisheries. Commercial passenger fishing vessel (charter/headboat)
fisheries are subject to Section 118 and are listed as a Category III fishery. Recreational vessels
are not categorized since they are not considered commercial fishing vessels. For additional
information on the fisheries categories and how fisheries are classified, see
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/.
Fishermen participating in Category I or II fisheries are required to register under the
MMPA and to accommodate an observer aboard their vessels if requested. Vessel owners or
operators, or fishermen, in Category I, II, or III fisheries must report all incidental mortalities and
serious injuries of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations to
NMFS. There are currently no regulations requiring recreational fishermen to report takes, nor
are they authorized to have incidental takes (i.e., they are illegal).
NMFS continues to investigate serious injuries to marine mammals as they are released
from fishing gear. In April 1999, NMFS held a joint meeting of the three regional scientific
review groups to further discuss the issue. NMFS is continuing to develop marine mammal
serious injury guidelines and until these are published, NMFS will apply the criteria listed by the
review groups to make determinations for specific fisheries. The current Biological Opinions for
Atlantic HMS fisheries have resulted in a conclusion of no jeopardy for marine mammals.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-296

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

However, a Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team (PLTRT) was recently formed and first met
on June 29-30, 2005. The PLTRT replaces the disbanded Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take
Reduction Team (AOCTRT). The PLTRT must develop a Take Reduction Plan (TRP) for pilot
whales within 11 months. The Draft TRP has been transmitted to NMFS and will be published
shortly. The 1999 HMS FMP implemented several of the recommendations of the AOCTRT
including: 1) a requirement that vessels fishing for HMS move one nautical mile (nm) after an
entanglement with protected species; 2) limiting the length of the mainline to 24 nm in the MAB
from August 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000; 3) voluntary vessel operator education
workshops for HMS pelagic longline vessels; 4) handling and release guidelines; and 5) limited
access for swordfish, shark and tuna longline permits. A summary of the observed and estimated
marine mammal interactions with the pelagic longline fishery is presented in Table 3.26 and
Table 3.27 of Section 3.4.1.
3.9.9.2 Interactions and the ESA
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) provides for
the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants.
The listing of a species is based on the status of the species throughout its range or in a specific
portion of its range in some instances. Threatened species are those likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future [16 U.S.C. §1532(20)] if no action is taken to stop the decline of the
species. Endangered species are those in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a
significant portion of their range [16 U.S.C. §1532(20)]. Species can be listed as endangered
without first being listed as threatened. The Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, is
authorized to list marine and anadromous fish species, marine mammals (except for walrus and
sea otter), marine reptiles (such as sea turtles), and marine plants. The Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the USFWS, is authorized to list walrus and sea otter, seabirds, terrestrial plants
and wildlife, and freshwater fish and plant species.
In addition to listing species under the ESA, the service agency (NMFS or USFWS)
generally must designate critical habitat for listed species concurrently with the listing decision
to the “maximum extent prudent and determinable” [16 U.S.C. §1533(a)(3)]. The ESA defines
critical habitat as those specific areas that are occupied by the species at the time it is listed that
are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may be in need of special
consideration, as well as those specific areas that are not occupied by the species that are
essential to their conservation. Federal agencies are prohibited from undertaking actions that are
likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Marine Mammals
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-297

Status
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Sea Turtles
Green turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
Olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)

*Endangered/Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened

Critical Habitat
Northern right whale

Endangered

Finfish
Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata)

Endangered

*Green sea turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed
as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguish between the populations away from the nesting beaches, green sea
turtles are considered endangered wherever they occur in U.S. waters.

Sea Turtles
NMFS has taken several steps in the past few years to reduce sea turtle bycatch and
bycatch mortality in domestic longline fisheries. On March 30, 2001, NMFS implemented via
interim final rule requirements for U.S. flagged vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to
have line clippers and dipnets to remove gear on incidentally captured sea turtles (66 FR 17370).
Specific handling and release guidelines designed to minimize injury to sea turtles were also
implemented. NMFS published a final report which provides the detailed guidelines and
protocols (Epperly et al., 2004) and a copy can be found at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Protected%20Resources/TM_524.pdf
A Biological Opinion completed on June 14, 2001, found that the actions of the pelagic
longline fishery jeopardized the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.
This document reported that the pelagic longline fishery interacted with an estimated 991
loggerhead and 1,012 leatherback sea turtles in 1999. The estimated take levels for 2000 were
1,256 loggerhead and 769 leatherback sea turtles (Yeung 2001).
On July 13, 2001 (66 FR 36711), NMFS published an emergency rule that closed the
Northeast Distant (NED) area to pelagic longline fishing (effective July 15, 2001), modified how
pelagic longline gear may be deployed effective August 1, 2001, and required that all longline
vessels (pelagic and bottom) post safe handling guidelines for sea turtles in the wheelhouse. On
December 13, 2001 (66 FR 64378), NMFS extended the emergency rule for 180 days through
July 8, 2002. On July 9, 2002, NMFS published a final rule (67 FR 45393) that closed the NED
to pelagic longline fishing. As part of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative, the BiOp
required NMFS to conduct an experiment with commercial fishing vessels to test fishery-specific
gear modifications to reduce sea turtle bycatch and mortality. This rule also required the length
of any gangions to be 10 percent longer than the length of any floatline on vessels where the
length of both is less than 100 meters; prohibited stainless steel hooks; and required gillnet vessel

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-298

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

operators and observers to report any whale sightings and required gillnets to be checked every
0.5 to 2 hours.
The experimental program required in the BiOp was initiated in the NED area in 2001 in
cooperation with the U.S. pelagic longline fleet that historically fished on the Grand Banks
fishing grounds. The goal of the experiment was to test and develop gear modifications that
might prove useful in reducing the incidental catch and post-release mortality of sea turtles
captured by pelagic longline gear while striving to minimize the loss of target catch. The
experimental fishery had a three-year duration and utilized 100 percent observer coverage to
assess the effectiveness of the measures. The gear modifications tested in 2001 included bluedyed squid and moving gangions away from floatlines. In 2002, the NED experimental fishery
examined the effectiveness of whole mackerel bait, squid bait, circle and “J” hooks, and reduced
daylight soak time in reducing the capture of sea turtles. The experiment tested various hook and
bait type combinations in 2003 to verify the results of the 2002 experiment.
On November 28, 2003, based on the conclusion of the three-year NED experiment, and
preliminary data that indicated that the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery may have exceeded the
Incidental Take Statement in the June 14, 2001, BiOp, NMFS published a Notice of Intent to
prepare an SEIS to assess the potential effects on the human environment of proposed
alternatives and actions under a proposed rule to reduce sea turtle bycatch (68 FR 66783). A
new BiOp for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery was completed on June 1, 2004. The BiOp
concluded that long-term continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, authorized
under the 1999 FMP, was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green,
hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles; and was likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of leatherback sea turtles.
On July 6, 2004, NMFS implemented additional regulations for the Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery to further reduce the mortality of incidentally caught sea turtles (69 FR 40734).
These measures include requirements on hook type, hook size, bait type, dipnets, lineclippers,
and safe handling guidelines for the release of incidentally caught sea turtles. These
requirements were developed based on the results of the 2001 – 2003 NED experiment (Watson
et al., 2003; Watson et al., 2004a; Shah et al., 2004). These requirements are predicted to
decrease the number of total interactions, as well as the number of mortalities, of both
leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS, 2004c). Post-release mortality rates are expected
to decline due to a decrease in the number of turtles that swallow hooks which engage in the gut
or throat, a decrease in the number of turtles that are foul-hooked and improved handling and
gear removal protocols. NMFS is working to export this new technology to pelagic longline
fleets of other nations to reduce global sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality. U.S gear experts
have presented this bycatch reduction technology and data from research activities at
approximately 15 international events that included fishing communities and resource managers
between 2002 and mid-2005 (NMFS, 2005).
Internationally, the United States is pursuing sea turtle conservation through international,
regional, and bilateral organizations such as ICCAT, the Asia Pacific Fisheries Commission, and
FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI). The United States intends to provide a summary report to
FAO for distribution to its members on bycatch of sea turtles in U.S. longline fisheries and the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-299

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

research findings as well as recommendations to address the issue. At the 24th session of COFI
held in 2001, the United States distributed a concept paper for an international technical experts
meeting to evaluate existing information on turtle bycatch, to facilitate and standardize collection
of data, to exchange information on research, and to identify and consider solutions to reduce
turtle bycatch. COFI agreed that an international technical meeting could be useful despite the
lack of agreement on the specific scope of that meeting. The United States has developed a
prospectus for a technical workshop to address sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries as a first
step. Other gear-specific international workshops may be considered in the future.
Smalltooth sawfish
On April 1, 2003, NMFS listed smalltooth sawfish as an endangered species (68 FR
15674) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). After reviewing the best scientific and
commercial information, the status review team determined that the U.S. DPS (Distinct
Population Segment) of smalltooth sawfish is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range from a combination of the following four listing factors: the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; over
utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. NMFS is working on designating critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish.
NMFS believes that smalltooth sawfish takes in the shark gillnet fishery are rare given
the high rate of observer coverage. The fact that there were no smalltooth sawfish caught during
2001, when 100 percent of the fishing effort was observed, indicates that smalltooth sawfish
takes (observed or total) most likely do not occur on an annual basis. Based on this information,
the 2003 BiOp estimates that one incidental capture of a sawfish (released alive) over the next
five years, will occur as a result of the use of gillnets in this fishery (NMFS, 2003a).
Smalltooth sawfish have been observed caught (eight known interactions, seven released
alive, one released in unknown condition) in shark bottom longline fisheries from 1994 through
2004 (A. Morgan pers. comm., 2003). Based on these observations, expanded sawfish take
estimates for 1994 – 2002 were developed for the shark bottom longline fishery (NMFS, 2003a).
A total of 466 sawfish were estimated to have been taken in this fishery during 1994 – 2002,
resulting in an average of 52 per year. It is important to note that all of the sawfish takes
observed, except for one, were released alive.
3.9.9.3 Interactions with Seabirds
Observer data from 1992 through 2005 indicate that seabird bycatch is relatively low in
the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery (Table 3.29). Since 1992, a total of 129 seabird
interactions have been observed, with 95 observed killed (73.6 percent). In 2005, there were 110
active U.S. pelagic longline vessels fishing for swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico,
and Caribbean Sea that reportedly set approximately 5.9 million hooks. A total of four seabirds
were observed taken.
The National Plan of Action (NPOA) for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in
Longline Fisheries was released in February 2001. The NPOA for Seabirds calls for detailed
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-300

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

assessments of longline fisheries, and, if a problem is found to exist within a longline fishery, for
measures to reduce seabird bycatch within two years. NMFS, in collaboration with the
appropriate Councils and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will prepare an
annual report on the status of seabird mortality for each longline fishery. The United States is
committed to pursuing international cooperation, through the Department of State, NMFS, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to advocate the development of National Plans of Action within
relevant international fora. NMFS intends to meet with longline fishery participants and other
members of the public in the future to discuss possibilities for complying with the intent of the
plan of action. Because interactions appear to be relatively low in Atlantic HMS fisheries, the
adoption of immediate measures is unlikely.
Bycatch of seabirds in the shark bottom longline fishery has been virtually non-existent.
A single pelican has been observed killed from 1994 through 2005. No expanded estimates of
seabird bycatch or catch rates for the bottom longline fishery have been made due to the rarity of
seabird takes.
3.9.10 Measures to Address Protected Species Concerns
NMFS has taken a number of actions designed to reduce interactions with protected
species over the last few years. Bycatch reduction measures have been implemented through the
Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (NMFS, 1999), in
Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2000), in Regulatory Adjustment 2 to the
1999 FMP (NMFS, 2002), in Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2003a), and in the June
2004 Final Rule for Reduction of Sea Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Fishery (69 FR 40734). NMFS closed the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area to
gillnet fisheries from February 15, 2006, to March 31, 2006, as a result of an entanglement and
subsequent mortality of a right whale with gillnet gear (71 FR 8223). NMFS continues to
monitor observed interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles on a quarterly basis and
reviews data for appropriate action, if any, as necessary.
3.9.11 Bycatch of HMS in Other Fisheries
NMFS is concerned about bycatch mortality of Atlantic HMS in any Federal or statemanaged fishery which captures them. NMFS plans to address bycatch of these species in the
appropriate FMPs through coordination with the responsible management body. For example,
capture of swordfish and tunas incidental to squid trawl operations is addressed in the Squid,
Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP. Capture rates of tunas in coastal gillnet fisheries are being
explored through issuance of exempted fishing permits and reporting requirements. NMFS
continues to solicit bycatch data on HMS from all state, interjurisdictional, and Federal data
collection programs. NMFS supports development of an interstate management plan for coastal
sharks by the ASMFC to protect sharks caught incidentally in state-managed fisheries. NMFS
has requested assistance from the ASMFC, GSMFC, and Atlantic and Gulf Regional Fishery
Management Councils in identifying potential sources of bycatch of finetooth sharks in state
waters fisheries or other fisheries outside the jurisdiction of this FMP.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-301

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

3.9.11.1 Squid Mid-Water Trawl
U.S. squid trawl fishermen, using mid-water gear, landed 8.6 mt ww of yellowfin tuna,
skipjack tuna, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, and swordfish in 2003 incidental to the squid, mackerel,
and butterfish trawl fishery (Table 3.108). Bycatch of HMS in other trawl fisheries may be
included as a portion of the overall reported trawl landings in Table 3.108. Landings decreased
from 2002 for bigeye and albacore tuna, and increased slightly for yellowfin and skipjack tuna.
Swordfish landings increased by 50 percent but remain at a low level relative to the directed
fishery landings. A retention limit of five swordfish per trip allows squid trawl fishermen with
swordfish limited access permits to land some of the swordfish that are encountered, although
regulatory discards still occur.
Table 3.108 Atlantic HMS Landed (mt ww) Incidental to Trawl Fisheries, 1998-2004. Source: NMFS, 2003,
NMFS, 2005.
Species

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Yellowfin tuna

0.7

4.1

1.76

2.7

0.3

2

1

Skipjack Tuna

0.2

1.0

<0.05

0.2

<0.05

0.5

0.2

Bigeye Tuna

0.5

1.2

1.7

0.4

0.5

<0.05

0.3

Albacore

2.4

0.4

<0.05

0.0

0.3

<0.05

2.6

Swordfish

5.9

7.5

10.9

2.5

3.9

6.0

7.6

Total

9.7

14.2

14.43

5.8

4.8

8.6

11.7

3.9.11.2 Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery
In the menhaden purse seine fishery, sharks were caught incidentally in approximately 30
percent of the purse seine sets observed (deSilva et al., 2001). Ten species of sharks were
identified with blacktip sharks being the most common species. Approximately 20 percent of the
sharks were not identified to species. An estimated 30,000 sharks were taken in this fishery
annually in 1994 and 1995. At the time of release, 75 percent of sharks were dead, 12 percent
were disoriented, and eight percent were healthy. The odds of observing shark bycatch was
highest in April and May. Stomach analyses of sharks suggest that their occurrence in the
fishery is probably the result of sharks preying on gulf menhaden (deSilva et al., 2001). No new
data are available at this time.
Industry workers in this fishery employ a fish excluder device to reduce the retention of
sharks and other large species (Rester and Condrey, 1999). In addition, a recently introduced
hose cage modification may prove to be effective in reducing shark bycatch. These devices vary
in effectiveness and no standards exist for such bycatch reduction measures in this fishery. In
addition, there are currently no reporting requirements for takes of sharks in the menhaden purse
seine fishery. Recent estimates of large coastal sharks discarded in this fishery range from
24,000 – 26,200 individuals (Cortés, 2005).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-302

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

3.9.11.3 Shrimp Trawl Fishery
Shark bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery consists mainly of sharks too small to be highly
valued in the commercial market. As a result, few sharks are retained. Bycatch estimates of
LCS in this fishery have been generated and were reviewed in the most recent LCS assessment
(Cortés et al. 2002). Cortés (2002) estimated bycatch in the south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery
(North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and
finetooth sharks based on expansion by fishing effort. Annual estimates of bycatch ranged from
zero to almost six million sharks from 1992 to 1997 (Table 3.109) (Cortés, 2002). The 2002
SCS assessment included estimates of SCS bycatch because they were likely to exceed the actual
landings for those species (Cortés, 2002). However, requirements for turtle excluder devices in
this fishery have probably resulted in less bycatch because sharks are physically excluded from
entering the gear.
Table 3.109

Expanded estimates of bycatch (number of fish) of bonnethead, Atlantic sharpnose, and
finetooth sharks in the U.S. south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery based on within stratum
expansion by effort as trips by fishing year. Source: Cortés, 2002.

Year

Estimated number of
trips

Bonnethead

Atlantic sharpnose

Finetooth

1992-93

20,181

53,674

1,753,829

0

1993-94

20,445

0

5,873,333

447,495

1995-96

23,333

34,378

0

0

1996-97

19,320

38,517

358,457

0

Bycatch of the SCS complex in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery consists mainly
of Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks (Cortés, 2002). Estimates of the bycatch of SCS in
this fishery ranged from 3.2 to 1.3 million sharks per year from 1972 - 2000 (Table 3.110).
Finetooth sharks were added as a select species for the shrimp trawl observer program in 2005 to
help determine if this fishery has bycatch of finetooth sharks. Prior to this, data on finetooth
shark bycatch was not recorded.
Table 3.110

Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

Estimates (in thousands of individuals and pounds dressed weight) of the bycatch of small
coastal sharks (as a complex and by species) in the shrimp trawl fishery operating in the Gulf
of Mexico. Source: S. Nichols, NMFS Pascagoula Lab., pers. comm. as cited in Cortés, 2002.

All SCS
(numbers)

All SCS
(lb dw)

Atlantic sharpnose
(numbers)

Atlantic sharpnose
(lb dw)

Bonnethead
(numbers)

Bonnethead
(lb dw)

1,575
1,579
1,903
2,055
2,193
2,187
2,223
2,829
2,591

1,500
1,580
1,899
1,997
2,209
2,142
2,156
2,754
2,436

1,051
831
1,508
1,587
1,706
1,507
1,799
2,384
2,148

1,010
842
1,407
1,473
1,632
1,457
1,625
2,254
1,933

468
620
420
347
456
520
367
388
368

371
525
400
313
436
427
370
341
330

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-303

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
H
MS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

All SCS
(numbers)

All SCS
(lb dw)

Atlantic sharpnose
(numbers)

Atlantic sharpnose
(lb dw)

Bonnethead
(numbers)

Bonnethead
(lb dw)

2,081
2,281
2,138
1,551
1,767
2,222
3,216
2,535
2,116
1,981
2,350
2,759
2,226
2,197
2,401
2,923
2,883
2,657
1,282
1,282

2,007
2,203
2,193
1,509
1,796
2,234
3,123
2,272
2,216
2,069
2,322
2,879
2,213
2,243
2,362
2,457
2,926
2,410
1,257
1,257

1,830
1,850
1,856
1,277
1,451
1,464
2,636
1,959
1,632
1,503
1,784
1,968
1,710
1,586
1,806
2,069
1,732
1,662
906
906

1,649
1,661
1,821
1,191
1,442
1,519
2,392
1,664
1,713
1,507
1,756
1,997
1,626
1,591
1,636
1,644
1,681
1,494
848
848

242
302
255
232
260
624
516
421
336
489
365
494
416
395
311
519
486
376
218
218

252
310
250
230
249
506
519
404
286
431
323
459
400
347
299
428
439
329
198
198

3.9.11.4 Southeast Gillnet Fishery
Gillnet fisheries operating in the south Atlantic, particularly off Florida, have been shown
to incidentally take various species of sharks (see Section 4.2.2 for full description). These
fisheries are primarily targeting Spanish mackerel and whiting (kingfish). Vessels participating
in these fisheries either have a mackerel permit and a commercial shark permit which allows
retention and landing of sharks, or may be operating in an unmanaged fishery (whiting) that
requires no permit at this time. Vessels operating in these fisheries and holding a Federal permit
are required to file trip reports (Coastal Fisheries Logbook). Preliminary data from observed
gillnet trips not targeting sharks indicate that Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, blacktip, finetooth,
scalloped hammerhead, blacknose, spinner and tiger sharks were caught (Carlson and Bethea,
2006). Expanding observer coverage in South Atlantic gillnet fisheries that are landing sharks
could provide additional data on the extent of the bycatch of HMS species in these fisheries and
thereby improving the stock assessments for these species. NMFS will attempt to continue
expanded observer coverage in these fisheries as resources allow.
3.9.12

Effectiveness of Existing Time/Area Closures in Reducing Bycatch

During the past several years, NMFS has implemented several time/area closures in the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico for the PLL fishery to reduce discards and bycatch of a
number of species (juvenile swordfish, bluefin tuna, billfish, sea turtles, etc.). Analyses of the
effectiveness of these closures are included in Section 4.1.2 and summarized here.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-304

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

The combined effects of the individual area closures were examined by comparing the
2001 – 2003 catch and discards to the averages for 1997 – 1999 throughout the entire U.S.
Atlantic fishery. Changes in the numbers of fish caught and discarded were compared to the
predicted values from Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2000). Overall effort,
expressed as the number of hooks set, declined by 15 percent between the two time periods.
Declines were noted for both the numbers of kept and discards of all species examined including
swordfish, tunas, sharks, billfish, and sea turtles. The number of reported discards of swordfish,
bluefin and bigeye tuna, pelagic sharks, dolphin, wahoo, blue and white marlin, sailfish, and
spearfish all declined by more than 30 percent. The reported discards of blue and white marlin
declined by about 50 percent and sailfish discards declined by almost 75 percent. The reported
number of sea turtles caught and released declined by almost 28 percent.
The reported declines in swordfish kept and discarded, large coastal sharks kept and
discarded, and dolphin kept were similar to the predicted values developed for Regulatory
Amendment 1. Reported discards of bluefin tuna, pelagic sharks, all billfish (with the exception
of spearfish for which no predicted change was developed in Regulatory Amendment 1), and
total BAYS tunas kept all declined more than the predicted values.
3.9.12.1 Prohibition of Live Bait in the Gulf of Mexico
Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP also prohibited the use of live bait on pelagic
longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico due to concerns over the incidental bycatch of billfish.
Based on logbook data, the number of hooks reported set with live bait or a combination of live
and dead bait in the Gulf of Mexico decreased from 22.7 percent in 2000, to less than 0.1 percent
in 2003 (Table 3.111). However, the number of hooks reported set with no bait type specified
increased from zero in 1999 – 2001 to 3.7 percent in 2003, but declined to less than one percent
in 2004. Also, the reported number of hooks set in the Gulf of Mexico has increased in recent
years. The reported effort in 2004 represents an increase of 21.8 percent from 2000. NMFS will
continue to analyze the effectiveness of the live bait prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico pelagic
longline fishery.
Table 3.111

Comparison of the number of hooks reported set in the Gulf of Mexico with dead or live bait,
or a combination of both baits, 1999-2004 (numbers in parentheses are percent of the total
number of hooks set in the Gulf of Mexico). Source: PLL Logbook data.
Year
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2,335,845

2,598,083

3,176,493

3,494,577

3,668,687

4,089,018

(70.9)

(77.3)

(98.3)

(97.6)

(96.3)

(99.8)

372,162

259,256

5,500

750

1,514

0

(11.3)

(7.7)

(0.2)

(>0.1)

(>0.1)

(0)

584,473

505,582

49,250

13,115

1,000

0

(17.8)

(15.0)

(1.5)

(0.4)

(>0.1)

(0)

Bait Type

1999

Dead
Live
Both

0

0

0

71,011

139,569

8,000

Unknown

(0)

(0)

(0)

(2.0)

(3.6)

(0.2)

Total hooks

3,292,480

3,362,921

3,231,243

3,579,453

3,810,770

4,097,018

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-305

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

3.9.12.2 Conclusions
The time/area closures and live bait prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico have been
relatively successful at reducing bycatch in the HMS pelagic longline fishery. Reported discards
of all species of billfish have declined (Table 4.8). The reported number of turtles caught,
swordfish discarded, bluefin tuna discarded, and pelagic and large coastal shark discards have
also declined. However, the reported number of target species kept, such as swordfish and
BAYS tuna, have decreased more than was predicted. This is contrary to the other objective of
the time/area closures, which was to minimize the reduction in target catch. NMFS will continue
to analyze these measures as additional data become available and examine the effects of
ongoing regulatory change over time.
3.9.13 Evaluation of Other Bycatch Reduction Measures
NMFS continues to monitor and evaluate bycatch in HMS fisheries through direct
enumeration (pelagic and bottom longline observer programs, shark gillnet observer program),
evaluation of management measures (closed areas, trip limits, gear modifications, etc.), and
vessel monitoring systems (VMS).
The following section provides a review of additional management measures or issues
that may address bycatch reduction:
•

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) regulations

Observers were placed on shark gillnet vessels during the 2005 season and covered 33
strikenet and 31 driftnet sets during and outside of right whale calving season (Carlson and
Bethea, 2006). In addition, observers were placed on vessels fishing with sink gillnets as part of
a pilot program and observed 88 sets. Protected species interactions occurred with all three types
of gear. One leatherback and four loggerhead sea turtles were observed with all but one
loggerhead released alive. One loggerhead was observed taken by strikenet and one with sink
net. Both were released alive. No marine mammals or smalltooth sawfish were observed taken.
NMFS has published a proposed rule to modify the right whale areas and the time periods when
100 percent observer coverage would be required (70 FR 35894; 21 June 2005).
•

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team

Due to the observed takes of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin in the shark drift gillnet fishery,
representatives of the fishery have been included in the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin Take
Reduction Team. The Team held seven meetings during 2001 – 2003 and developed a set of
recommendations which formed the basis for a TRP. NMFS published a proposed rule on
November 10, 2004, to implement the TRP (69 FR 65127), and a final rule was published on
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24776). Included in the final rule are: 1) effort reduction measures; 2)
gear proximity rules; 3) gear or gear deployment modifications; 4) fishermen training; and 5)
outreach and education measures to reduce dolphin bycatch below the stock’s potential
biological removal level. The final rule also includes time/area closures and size restrictions on
large mesh fisheries to reduce incidental takes of endangered and threatened sea turtles as well as
to reduce dolphin bycatch.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-306

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

•

MMPA List of Fisheries Update/Stock Assessment

NMFS continues to update the MMPA List of Fisheries and the 2005 final list is
available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr71-247.pdf. The proposed 2006 List of
Fisheries published on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 20941). Final 2005 marine mammal stock
assessment reports and draft 2006 reports are also available. See Section 3.9.9.1 for information
on obtaining these reports.
•

Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team (AOCTRT)

NMFS has disbanded the AOCTRT due to the fact that two of the three fisheries
addressed by the AOCTRT were closed by fishery management actions, leaving only the pelagic
longline fishery in operation. This fishery has been the subject of recent fishery management
actions and increased observer coverage related to bycatch. As discussed below, a take reduction
team specific to the pelagic longline fishery has been formed.
•

Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team (PLTRT)

NMFS appointed a PLTRT in June 2005, to address marine mammal interactions in the
longline fishery, specifically pilot whales. As required by the MMPA, the PLTRT must develop
a TRP within eleven months. The PLTRT has met four times since and a draft TRP should be
available shortly. NMFS intends to continue reviewing the fishery and any marine mammal
interactions to determine if additional take reduction measures are necessary.
•

Observer coverage of shark drift gillnet fleet

On March 30, 2001, NMFS reduced the level of observer coverage required in the shark
drift gillnet fishery from 100 percent year-round to 100 percent during right whale calving
season and to a statistically significant level during the rest of the year. Recent scientific
analyses indicate that a 33.8 percent level of coverage is statistically significant and adequate to
provide reasonable estimates of sea turtle and marine mammal takes outside of the right whale
calving season. The level of observer coverage necessary will be re-evaluated annually and
adjusted accordingly. During the 2005 season, 33 strikenet and 31 driftnet sets were observed
(Carlson and Bethea, 2006). No interactions with marine mammals were observed in either drift
gillnet or strikenet sets. Four loggerhead sea turtles were observed caught in drift gillnet sets
(three released alive, one released injured and assumed to be dead). One leatherback sea turtle
was caught in drift gillnet gear and released alive. NMFS began placing observers on vessels
with directed shark permits that were targeting species other than sharks in 2005. Management
options to address issues in the shark drift gillnet fishery, particularly overfishing of finetooth
sharks, are considered in this document.
•

Vessel monitoring systems in the pelagic longline fishery

NMFS adopted fleet-wide VMS requirements in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery in
May 1999, but was subsequently sued by an industry group. By order dated September 25, 2000,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-307

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prevented any immediate implementation of
VMS in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, and instructed to “undertake further consideration
of the scope of the [VMS] requirements in light of any attendant relevant conservation benefits.”
On October 15, 2002, the court issued a final order that denied plaintiff’s objections to the VMS
regulations. Based on this ruling, NMFS implemented the VMS requirement in September 2003.
•

Vessel monitoring systems in other HMS fisheries

Starting in 2004, gillnet vessels with a directed shark permit and gillnet gear onboard
were required to install and operate a VMS unit during the Right Whale Calving Season
(November 15 – March 31). In an attempt to better quantify bycatch, NMFS will require all
vessels with Limited Access Shark Permits to participate in the Directed Shark Gillnet Observer
program. Directed shark bottom longline vessels located between 33o N and 36o 30’ N need to
install and operate a VMS unit from January through July.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-308

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
HMS PERMITS AND TOURNAMENTS

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES
References for Section 3.1
Casey, J.G., F.J. Mather, J.M. Mason, and J. Hoenig. 1978. Offshore fisheries of the Middle
Atlantic Bight. In: Marine recreational fisheries. IGFA, NCMG, and SFI. Washington,
DC: pp. 107-129.
NMFS. 1993. Fishery Management Plan for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean. DOC/NOAA/NMFS.
Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 1996. Historic rationale, effectiveness, and biological efficiency of existing regulations
for the U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries: A report to Congress. DOC/NOAA/NMFS.
Silver Spring, MD. 90 p.
NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks.
DOC/NOAA/NMFS. Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan.
DOC/NOAA/NMFS. Silver Spring, MD.
Rae, B.B. 1962. Porbeagle sharks. Scot. Fish. Bull. 18:17-19.
SAFMC. 1985a. Source Document for the Swordfish Fishery Management Plan. Charleston, SC.
SAFMC. 1985b. Fishery Management Plan, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Atlantic Swordfish.
Charleston, SC.
SAFMC. 1988. Fishery Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory
Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Atlantic Billfishes.
Charleston, SC.
Wagner, M.H. 1966. Shark fishing gear: a historical review. Circular 238, U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
White Marlin Status Review Team 2002. 2002 Atlantic White Marline Status Review Document.
Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, September 3,
2002. 49 pp.
Reference for Section 3.2
Cortes, E. 2002. Stock Assessment of Small Coastal Sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama
City Laboratory. Panama City, FL.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-309

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Cortes, E., L. Brooks, and G. Scott 2002. Stock Assessment of Large Coastal Sharks in the U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico: Final Meeting Report of the 2002 Shark Evaluation
Workshop. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center,
Panama City Laboratory. Panama City, FL.
Restrepo, V.R., G.G. Thompson, P.M. Mace, W.L. Gabriel, L.L. Low, A.D.MacCall, D.Methot,
J.E. Powers, B.L. Taylor, P.R. Wade, J.F. Witzig, 1998. Technical guidance on the use of
precautionary approaches to implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-S/SPO, 54 pp.
SCRS 2004. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, ICCAT SCRS,
Madrid Spain, October 4 to 8, 2004.
SCRS 2005. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, PLE-013 / 2005,
ICCAT SCRS, Madrid Spain, October 3 to 7, 2005.
References for Section 3.2.1
Arocha, F. 1997. The Reproductive Dynamics of Swordfish Xiphias Gladius L. and Management
Implications in the Northwest Atlantic. University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette, and D.E. Facey. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Blackwell Science,
Inc. Malden, MA. 528 pp.
NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Division, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2003. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Highly Migratory Species Division, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2005. U.S. National Report to ICCAT, 2005. ANN/2005/038.
SCRS. 2003. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Standing Committee on Research
and Statistics, October 6 – October 10, 2003.
SCRS. 2004. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Standing Committee on Research
and Statistics, October 4 – October 8, 2004.
SCRS. 2005. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Standing Committee on Research
and Statistics, October 3-7, 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-310

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

References for Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3
Block, B., et al. 2005. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna.
Nature 434: 1121-1127.
Fromentin, J.M. and J.E. Powers. 2005. Atlantic bluefin tuna: population dynamics, ecology,
fisheries and management. Fish and Fisheries, 2005, Vol. 6, pgs 281-306.
NMFS 2004 U.S. National Report to ICCAT, 2004.
NMFS 2005 U.S. National Report to ICCAT, ANN/2005/038, 2005.
Rooker J.R., D.H. Secor, V.S. Zdanowicz, G. DeMetrio, and L.O. Relini 2003. Identification of
northern bluefin tuna stocks from putative nurseries in the Mediterranean Sea and
western Atlantic Ocean using otolith chemistry. Fish. Oceanogr. 12: 75-84.
Rooker, J.R., V.S. Zdanowicz, and D.H. Secor, D.H. 2001a. Chemistry of tuna otoliths:
assessment of base composition and post-mortem handling effects. Mar. Biol. 139: 35-43.
Rooker, J.R., D.H. Secor, V.S. Zdanowicz, and T. Itoh. 2001b. Discrimination of northern
bluefin tuna from nursery areas in the Pacific Ocean using otolith chemistry. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 218: 275-282.
SCRS/2003/105 Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 56(3): 1115-1120 (2004) Stock structure and mixing
of Atlantic bluefin tuna: evidence from stable δ13c and δ18o isotopes in otoliths. J. R.
Rooker1, D. H. Secor.
SCRS 2004. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, ICCAT SCRS,
Madrid Spain, October 4 to 8, 2004.
SCRS 2005. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, PLE-013 / 2005,
ICCAT SCRS, Madrid Spain, October 3 to 7, 2005.
Wilson, et.al. 2005. Movements of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the northwestern Atlantic
Ocean recorded by pop-up satellite archival tags. Marine Biology 146: 409- 423.
References for Section 3.2.4
De Sylva, D.P. and P.R. Breder. 1997. Reproduction, gonad histology, and spawning cycles of
North Atlantic Billfishes (Istiophoridae). Bulletin of Marine Science 60(3): 668-697.
Gaertner, D., F. Menard, C. Develter, J. Ariz, and A. Delgado de Molina. 2002. Bycatch of
billfishes by the European tuna purse-seine fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull..
100:683-689.
Graves, J.E., B.E. Luckhurst, E.D. Prince. 2002. An evaluation of pop-up satellite tags for
estimating postrelease survival (Makaira nigricans) from a recreational fishery. Fish.
Bull.. 100:134-142.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-311

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Hernandez-H, A. and Ramirez-R. 1998. Spawning seasonality and length at maturity of sailfish
(Istiophorus platypterus) off the Pacific coast of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science
63(3): 459-467.
Junior, T.V., C.M. Vooren, and R.P. Lessa. 2004. Feeding habits of four species of Istiophoridae
(Pisces: Perciformes) from Northeastern Brazil. Environmental Biology of Fishes 70:293­
304.
NMFS. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring,
MD. Public Document.
NMFS. 2003. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver
Spring, MD. Public Document.
Ortiz, M., E.D. Prince, J.E. Serafy, D.B. Holts, K.B. Davy, J.G. Pepperell, M.B. Lowry, and J.C.
Holdsworth. 2003. Global overview of the major constituent-based billfish tagging
programs and their results since 1954. Marine and Freshwater Research 54:489-507.
Prince, E.D., R.K. Cowen, E.S. Orbesen, S.A. Luthy, J.K. Llopiz, D.E. Richardson, and J.E.
Serafy. 2005. Movements and spawning of white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) an blue
marlin (Makaira nigricans) off Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Fish. Bull. 103:659­
669.
Rosas-Alayola, J., A. Hernandez-Herrera, F. Galvan-Magana, L.A. Abitia-Cardenas, A.F.
Muhila-Melo. Diet composition of sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) from the southern
Gulf of California, Mexico. Fisheries Research. 57:185.195.
Serafy, J.E., R.K. Cowen, C.B. Paris, T.R. Capo, and S.A. Luthy. 2003. Evidence of blue marlin,
Makaira nigricans, spawning in the vicinity of Exuma Sound, Bahamas. Marine and
Freshwater Research 54:299-306.
SCRS. 2004. Report of the 2004 Meeting of the Standing Committee on Research & Statistics.
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. PLE-025/2004.
Madrid, Spain, 4-8 October 2004.
SCRS. 2005. Report of the 2004 Meeting of the Standing Committee on Research & Statistics.
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. PLE-013/2005.
Madrid, Spain, 3-7 October 2005.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-312

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

References for Section 3.2.5
Bester, C. and G. Burgess. 2004. Biological Profiles – Finetooth Shark. Florida Museum of
Natural History – Ichthyology Division. January 11, 2005.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/finetoothshark/finetoothshark.html
Branstetter, S. and R. Stiles. 1987. Age and growth estimates of the bull shark, Carcharhinus
leucas, from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Biol. Fishes 20(3): 169-181.
Brown, C. 2002. Updated standardized catch rates of four shark species in the Virginia Massachusetts (U.S.) rod and reel fishery (1986-2001). 2002 SEW Document SB-02-06.
8 pp.
Brown, C.A. and S.H. Gruber. 1988. Age assessment of the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris,
using tetracycline validated vertebral centra. Copeia 1988(3): 747-753.
Brown, C.A. and J. Cramer. 2002. Large Pelagic Logbook catch rates for Large Coastal Sharks.
2002 SEW Document SB-02-07. 6pp.
Burgess, G.H. and A. Morgan. 2003. Commercial shark fishery observer program: Support for
an observer program monitoring the directed commercial shark fishery in the eastern Gulf
of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Final report to the Highly Migratory Species Division,
NMFS, Award No. NA06FM0194. 87 pp.
Carlson, J.K., E. Cortes, and D.M. Betheaa. 2003. Life history and population dynamics of the
finetooth shark (Carcharhinus isodon) in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull.
101:281-292.
Casey, J.G. and J.J. Hoey. 1985. Estimated catch of large shark by U.S. recreational fishermen in
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In: Shark catches from selected fisheries off the U.S.
east coast. U.S. Dept of Commerce, NOAA Tech Report NMFS 31, July: 15-19.
Cortes, E. 2002. Stock Assessment of Small Coastal Sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama
City Laboratory. Panama City, FL.
Cortes, E. and J. Neer. 2002. Updated Catches of Sharks. 2002 SEW Document SB-02-15.
Cortes, E., L. Brooks, and G. Scott 2002. Stock Assessment of Large Coastal Sharks in the U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico: Final Meeting Report of the 2002 Shark Evaluation
Workshop. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center,
Panama City Laboratory. Panama City, FL.
COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the porbeagle shark Lamna Nasus
in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 43
pp. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-313

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Heist, E.J., J.E. Graves, and J.A. Musick. 1995. Population genetics of the sandbar shark,
Carcharhinus plumbeus, in the Gulf of Mexico and Mid-Atlantic Bight. Copeia 1995(3):
555-562.
Restrepo, V.R., G.G. Thompson, P.M. Mace, W.L. Gabriel, L.L. Low, A.D. MacCall R.D.
Methot, J.E. Powers, B.L. Taylor, P.R. Wade, and J.F. Witzig. 1998. Technical Guidance
on the Use of the Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-###. 54pp.
Simpfendorfer, C.A. and G.H. Burgess. 2002. Assessment of the status of the Small Coastal
Sharks in U.S. Waters using an Age-structured Model. Mote Marine Laboratory
Technical Report No. 836. Sarasota, FL.
SCRS. 2004. Report of the 2004 Inter-Sessional Meeting of the ICCAT Sub-Committee On
Bycatches: Shark Stock Assessment. June 14-18, Tokyo, Japan. SCRS/2004/014.
Sminkey, T.R. and J.A. Musick. 1995. Age and growth of the sandbar sharks, Carcharhinus
plumbeus, before and after population depletion. Copeia 1995(4): 871-83.
References for Section 3.3.1
Appeldoorn, R. and S. Meyers. 1993. Puerto Rico and Hispa�ola, pp. 99-158, in: Marine fishery
resources of the Antilles: Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico and Hispa�iola, Jamaica, Cuba.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 326. Rome,
FAO, 235 pp.
Field, D.W., A.J. Reyer, P.V. Genovese, and B.D. Shearer. 1991. Coastal Wetlands of the United
States; An Accounting of a Valuable National Resource. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Silver Spring, MD. 59 pp.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), US Dept. of Interior. 1992. Comprehensive Program
1992-1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Outer Continental Shelf
EIS/EA MMS 92-0004.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), US Dept. of Interior. 1996. Outer Continental Shelf Oil
& Gas Leasing Program 1997-2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDOI,
MMS, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 96-0043.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997. NOAA’s Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey. Volume 4: Gulf of Mexico Region. Silver Spring, MD. Office of
Ocean Resources Conservation Assessment. 77 pp.
References for Section 3.3.2
Block, B.A. 2004. Electronic tagging of Bluefin Tuna, the Tag-A-Giant Campaign. Interim report:
8/02/02-6/30/04.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-314

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Carlson, J.K., D.M. Betha, A. Middlemiss, and I.E. Baremore. 2004. Shark Nursery Grounds and
Essential Fish Habitat Studies; GULFSPAN Gulf of Mexico-FY04. Report to NMFS,
Highly Migratory Species Office. NMFS, SEFSC, Panama City, FL.
Hueter, R.E. and J.P. Tyminski. In review. Shark nurseries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and
southeast Atlantic coasts: overview of research by Mote Marine Laboratory’s Center for
Shark Research. In: Shark Nursery Grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast of
the United States (C. McCandless, ed.). Special Publication of the American Fisheries
Society.
Kerstetter, D.W. Pers. Com. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, VA.
McCandless, C., W.D. McElroy, N.E. Kohler, C. Jensen, G. Ulrich, D. Abel, C. Belcher, and T.
Curtis. 2004. 2003 Report of the Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery
(COASTSPAN) Survey. Apex Predators Program. NMFS, NEFSC, Narragansett, RI.
Prince, E.D., R.K. Cowen, E.S. Orbesen, S.A. Luthy, J.K. Llopiz, D.E. Richardson, and J.E.
Serafy. In Review. Movements and spawning of white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) and
blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) off Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. NMFS, SEFSC,
Miami, FL.
References for Section 3.4
SCRS. 2005. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, ICCAT Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics, October 3 - October 7, 2005.
References for Section 3.4.1
Arocha, F. 1996. Taken from Hoey and Moore’s Captains Report: Multi-species catch
characteristics for the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. August 1999.
Beerkircher, L.R., E. Cortes, and M. Shivji. 2004. Characteristics of shark bycatch observed on
pelagic longlines off the southeastern United States, 1992 – 2002. Marine Fisheries
Review. 64 (4) 40 – 49.
Cramer, J. and H. Adams. 2000. Large Pelagic Logbook Newsletter: 1998. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-SEFSC - 433. 25 pp.
Foster, D., J. Watson, and A. Shah. 2004. 2003 NED experiment data analysis. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center, Pascagoula, MS. Unpublished report.
Garrison, L.P. 2003. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet during 2001 - 2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-515. 52 pp.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-315

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Garrison, L.P. and P.M. Richards. 2004. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the
U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2003. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-527. 57 pp.
Garrison, L.P. 2005. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet during 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-531. 52 pp.
Hoey, J. and N. Moore. 1999. Captain’s report: Multi-species catch characteristics for the U.S.
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. August 1999. 78 pp.
Honolulu Advertiser with the Hawaii Longline Association. 2000.
Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman, L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on
threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea
turtles. Ecological Letters 7: 221-231.
National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC.
NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2001. Stock Assessments of Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles and an Assessment
of the Impact of the Pelagic Longline fishery on the Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea
Turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution PRD-00/01-08.
NMFS. 2004a. U.S. National Report to ICCAT, 2004. NAT-035. 42 pp.
NMFS. 2004b. Endangered Species Act-Section 7 Reinitiation of Consultation on the Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Fishery for Highly Migratory Species. Biological Opinion, June1, 2004.
154 pp.
NMFS. 2005. U.S. National Report to ICCAT, 2005. ANN/2005/038. 58 pp.
SCRS. 2004. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, ICCAT Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics, October 4 – October 8, 2004.
SCRS. 2005. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, ICCAT Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics, October 3 - October 7, 2005.
Walsh, C.F. and L.P. Garrison. 2006. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the
U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-539. 51 pp.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-316

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Watson, J.W., D.G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2003. Experiments in the western Atlantic
northeast distant waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic longline
fishery. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, MS. Unpublished report.
Watson, J.W., D.G. Foster, S. Epperly, A. Shah. 2004. Experiments in the western Atlantic
northeast distant waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic longline
fishery: Report on experiments conducted in 2001 – 2003. February 4, 2004. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, MS. 123 pp.
Yeung, C. 1999a. Revised mortality estimates of marine mammal bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet in 1992-1997 based on serious injury guidelines. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-429. 23 pp.
Yeung, C. 1999b. Estimates of marine mammal and marine turtle bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet in 1998. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-430. 26
pp.
Yeung, C. 2001. Estimates of marine mammal and marine turtle bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet in 1999 - 2000. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC­
467. 43 pp.
References for Section 3.4.5
Beerkircher, L.R., E. Cortes, and M. Shivji. 2004. Characteristics of shark bycatch observed on
pelagic longlines off the southeastern United States, 1992-2000. Marine Fisheries Review
64 (4) 40-49.
Berkeley, S.A., E.W. Irby, Jr., and J.W. Jolley, Jr. 1981. Florida’s Commercial Swordfish
Fishery: Longline Gear and Methods. MAP-14, Marine Advisory Bulletin, Florida Sea
Grant College in cooperation with University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 23 pp.
Burgess, G.H. and A. Morgan. 2002. Commercial shark fishery observer program; support for an
observer program monitoring the directed commercial shark fishery in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Final report to Highly Migratory Species Division, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Award No. NA06FM0194.
Burgess, G.H. and A. Morgan. 2003. Commercial shark fishery observer program; renewal of an
observer program to monitor the directed commercial shark fishery in the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic 2002(2) and 2003(1) fishing seasons. Final report to Highly Migratory
Species Division, National Marine Fisheries Service. Award No. NA16FM1598.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-317

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Burgess, G.H. and A. Morgan. 2004. Commercial shark fishery observer program; an observer
program report on the monitoring of the directed commercial shark fishery in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 2003(2) fishing season. Final report to Highly
Migratory Species Division, National Marine Fisheries Service. Award No.
NA03NMF4540075.
Burgess, G.H. and A. Morgan. 2005. Support for an Observer Program Monitoring the Directed
Commercial Shark Fishery in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico off the Mid- and
Southeastern United States. Semiannual report to Highly Migratory Species Division,
National Marine Fisheries Service 2004(1). Award No. NA03NMF4540075.
Burgess, G.H. and A. Morgan. 2005. Commercial shark fishery observer program; Continuation
of monitoring the directed commercial shark fishery in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico of the mid- and southern United States. Final report to Highly Migratory Species
Division, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004(2). Award No. NA03NMF4540075.
Carlson, J.K. 2000. Progress report on the directed shark gillnet fishery: right whale season, 2002.
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama
City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-99/00-90. 12 pp.
Carlson, J. and I. Baremore. 2001. The directed shark gillnet fishery: non-right whale season,
2000 and 2001. SFD Contribution PCB-01/02-002. Panama City, FL. 8pp.
Carlson, J.K. and I. Baremore. 2002a. The directed shark gillnet fishery: non-right whale season,
2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution PCB-02/12. 10pp.
Carlson, J.K. and I. Baremore. 2002b. The directed shark gillnet fishery: right whale season,
2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution PCB-02/13. 8pp.
Carlson, J. K. and I. Baremore. 2003. The directed shark gillnet fishery: catch and bycatch, 2003.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries Division
Contribution PCB-03/07. 8pp.
Cortés, E. and J.A. Neer. 2002. Updated catches of sharks. Shark Bowl Working Document
SB/02/15. Document presented at the 2002 Shark Evaluation Workshop, NMFS, Panama
City, Florida.
Cortés, E. 2003. Updated catches of Atlantic sharks. SFD Contribution 2003-0031. NMFS,
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, Florida. 75 p.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-318

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Cortés, E. and J.A. Neer. 2005. Updated catches of Atlantic sharks. LCS05/06-DW-16. NMFS,
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, Florida. 58 p.
Garrison, L. 2003. Protected species interactions with the directed shark gillnet fishery of Florida
and Georgia from 1999-2002. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami,
FL. 10 pp.
McHugh, R.J. and T.J. Murry. 1997. An analysis of the demand for, and supply of shark. Marine
Fisheries Initiative Grant No., NA57FF0052, Univ. of South Florida and Georgia State
Univ.
NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring,
MD. Public Document.
NMFS. 2003a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation: Biological Opinion on the
continued operation of Atlantic shark fisheries (commercial shark bottom longline and
drift gillnet fisheries and recreational shark fisheries) under the Fishery Management Plan
for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) and the proposed Rule for Draft
Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP, July 2003. NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, Protected
Resources Division, I.D. No. F/SER/2003/00953. 65 pp. + apps.
NMFS. 2003b. 2003 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation for Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species
Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. 264 pp.
NMFS. 2003c. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks, and Highly Migratory. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public
Document.
NMFS. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Reduction of sea turtle
bycatch and bycatch mortality in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. NOAA, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division,
Silver Spring, MD.
Restrepo, V.R., G.G. Thompson, P.M. Mace, W.L. Gabriel, L.L. Low, A.D. MacCall, R.D.
Methot, J.E. Powers, B.L. Taylor, P.R. Wade, and J.F. Witzig. 1998. Technical Guidance
On the Use of Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-31. July 17, 1998.
Waring, G., J.M. Quintal and C.P. Fairfield. 2002. U.S. Atlantic And Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments. U.S. DOC. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-169.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-319

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

References for Section 3.4.7
Cortes, E. 2003. Updated catches of Atlantic sharks. NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Panama City
Lab., Sust. Fish. Div. Contr. SFD-2003-031. 75 p.
Cortes, E. 2005. Updated catches of Atlantic sharks. NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Panama City
Lab., Sust. Fish. Div. Contr. SFD-2005-054. 57 p.
Cortes, E. and J. Neer. 2002. Updated catches of sharks. NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Panama City
Lab. Document SB/02/15 of the 2002 Shark Evaluation Workshop. Panama City, FL,
June 24-28, 2002. 62 p.
Cortes, E. and J. Neer. 2005. Updated Catches of Atlantic Sharks. NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC,
Panama City Lab. Document LCS05/06-DW-16. 58 p.
NMFS. 1998. 1998 Report of the Shark Evaluation Workshop. NOAA, NMFS, Panama City
Laboratory, FL. 109 p.
NMFS. 2002. Final Meeting Report of the 2002 Shark Evaluation Workshop. NOAA, NMFS,
Panama City Laboratory, FL. 64 p.
NMFS. 2003. United States National Report to ICCAT, 2003. NAT-034.
NMFS. 2005. United States National Report to ICCAT, 2005. NAT-038.
References for Section 3.5
Cortes, E. 2005. Updated Catches of Atlantic Sharks. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center, Panama City, FL.
Ditton, R.B., D.K. Anderson, J.F. Thigpen III, B.L. Bohnsack, and S.G. Sutton. 2000.
1999 Pirates Cove Big Game Tournaments: Participants’ Characteristics, Participation in
Fishing, Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts. Human Dimensions of Fisheries
Laboratory Report #HD-615, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX. 126 pp.
Ditton, R.B. and D.J. Clark. 1994. Characteristics, Attitudes, Catch-and-release Behavior, and
Expenditures of Billfish Tournament Anglers in Puerto Rico. Report prepared for The
Billfish Foundation, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 27pp.
Ditton, R.B. and J.R. Stoll. 2003. Social and economic perspective on recreational billfish
fisheries. Marine & Freshwater Research (54)4: 545-554.
Fisher, M.R. and R.B. Ditton. 1992. Characteristics of Billfish Anglers in the U.S. Atlantic
Ocean. Marine Fisheries Review 54(1): 1-6.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-320

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

NMFS. 1997a. Fisheries of the United States: 1996. B.K. O’Brannon, Editor. Office of Science
and Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, NOAA, U.S. Department
of Commerce. Silver Spring, MD. 169 p.
NMFS. 1997b. 1997 Shark Evaluation Report. NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Science Center,
Miami, FL. 12 p.
NMFS. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan.
DOC/NOAA/NMFS. Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2004a. National Report of the United States (to ICCAT): 2004. NOAA, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. NAT/03/06.
NMFS. 2004b. Fisheries of the United States: 2004. E.S. Pritchard, Editor. Office of Science and
Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, NOAA, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2005a. National Report of the United States (to ICCAT): 2005. NOAA, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. NAT/03/06.
NMFS. 2005b. Fisheries of the United States: 2005. E.S. Pritchard, Editor. Office of Science and
Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, NOAA, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Silver Spring, MD.
Thailing, C.E., R.B. Ditton, D.K. Anderson, T.J. Murray, J.E. Kirkley, J. Lucy. 2001.
The 2000 Virginia Beach Red, White, and Blue Fishing Tournament: Participants’
Characteristics, Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts. VIMS, College of
William and Mary, Virginia Marine Resources Report No. 2001-9, VSG-01-88, Texas A
& M University, College Station, TX. 110pp.
References for Section 3.6
Kirkley, J.E. 2005. The Communities of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery:
An Overview of Change Associated with the HMS Fishery Management Plan.
Department of Coastal and Ocean Policy, School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. (NOAA­
NMFS-HMS contract report).
Impact Assessment, Inc. 2004. Identifying Communities Associated with the Fishing Industry in
Louisiana. La Jolla, California. (NOAA-NMFS-Contract WC133F-02-SE-0297).
Interorganizational Committee, 1994. Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.
Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA­
NMFS-TM-F/SPO-16)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-321

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

NMFS, 1999a. Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks. Silver
Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Services, Highly
Migratory Species Management Division.
NMFS, 1999b. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan. Silver Spring,
MD. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly
Migratory Species Management Division.
NMFS, 2001. NMFS Operational Guidelines – Fishery Management Process: Appendix 2(g):
Guidelines for Assessment of the Social Impact of Fishery Management Actions. Silver
Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.
NMFS, 2003. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Wilson, D., B.J. McCay, D. Estler, M. Perez-Lugo, J. LaMargue, S. Seminski, and A. Tomczuk.
1998. Social and Cultural Impact Assessment of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan and the Amendment to the Atlantic Billfish Fisheries Management
Plan. The Ecopolicy Center for Agriculture, Environmental, and Resource Issues, New
Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers, the State University of
New Jersey (NOAA-NMFS-HMS contract report).
References for 3.7
Goldsmith, K. NMFS Highly Migratory Species Management Division. 978/281-9140.
NMFS. 2003. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species, 2003. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2004. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species, 2004. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD
NMFS. 2005. U.S National Report to ICCAT, 2005. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
Silver Spring, MD. 37 p.
NMFS. 2005. Pre-draft of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan
including the 2005 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic
Highly Migratory Species. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD.
373 p.
O’Bannon, B., Ed. 2000. Fisheries of the United States 1999. NMFS, Office of Science and
Technology, Silver Spring, MD.126 p.
O’Bannon, B., Ed. 2001 Fisheries of the United States 2000. NMFS, Office of Science and
Technology, Silver Spring, MD.126 p.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-322

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

O’Bannon, B., Ed. 2002. Fisheries of the United States 2001. NMFS, Office of Science and
Technology, Silver Spring, MD.126 p.
Pritchard, E. 2004. Fisheries of the United States 2003. NMFS, Office of Science and
Technology, Silver Spring, MD.124 p.
Pritchard, E. 2005. Fisheries of the United States 2004. NMFS, Office of Science and
Technology, Silver Spring, MD.109 p.
Rose, D. 1996. An Overview of World Trade in Sharks. TRAFFIC International. 105 p.
Section 3.8 References
Angliss, R.P. and D.P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating serious and non-serious injury of marine
mammals taken incidental to commercial fishing operations. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS­
OPR-13: 48 p.
Babcock, E.A., E.K. Pikitch, and C.G. Hudson. 2003. How much observer coverage is enough to
adequately estimate bycatch? Report of the Pew Institute for Ocean Science, Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 36 pp. On­
line version: http://www.oceana.org/uploads/BabcockPikitchGray2003FinalReport.pdf
Belle, S. 1997. Mortalities and healing processes associated with hook and line caught juvenile
bluefin tuna and two different handling methods; control (untagged) and dart tagging.
New England Aquarium Bluefin Tuna Project, Final Report NOAA Award No.
NA27FL0199-01.
Beerkircher, L.R., C.J. Brown, and D.W. Lee. 2002. SEFSC Pelagic Observer Program Data
Summary for 1992-2000. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-486. 26 pp.
Carlson, J.K. and I.E. Baremore. 2002. The Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery: Non-Right Whale
Season, 2002 (catch, bycatch and estimates of sample size). NMFS/SEFSC/SFD
Contribution PCB-02/12. Panama City, FL. 10 p.
Carlson, J.K. and I.E. Baremore. 2003. The Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery: Catch and Bycatch,
2003. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. SFD
Contribution PCB-03/07.
Carlson, J.K. and D.M Bethea. 2006. The Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery: Catch and Bycatch,
2005. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Panama
City Lab.-Contribution 06-01.
Cortés, E. 2002. Stock Assessment of Small Coastal Sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. SFD­
02/03-177. 222 pp.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-323

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Cortés, E.,L. Brooks, and G. Scott. 2002. Stock Assessment of Large Coastal Sharks in the U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center,
Panama City, FL. SFD-01/02-152. 133 pp.
de Silva, J.A., R.E. Condrey, B.A. Thompson. 2001. Profile of Shark Bycatch in the U.S. Gulf
Menhaden Fishery. N. Amer. J. of Fish. Mgmt. 21:111-124.
Epperly, S., L. Stokes, and S. Dick. 2004. Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with
Minimal Injury. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-524.
Garrison, L.P. 2005. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the U.S. Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Fleet during 2004. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-531.
Graves, John E., B.E. Luckhurst, E.D. Prince. 2002. An evaluation of pop-up satellite tags for
estimating postrelease survival of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) from a recreational
fishery. Fish. Bull. 100(1):134-142 (2002).
Horodysky, A.Z. and J.E. Graves. 2005. Application of pop-up satellite archival tag technology
to estimate postrelease survival of white marlin (Tetrapterus albidus) caught on circle and
straight-shank (“J”) hooks in the western North Atlantic recreational fishery. Fish. Bull.
103(1):84-96.
NAS. 2006. Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods. Committee on the Review of
Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, National Research Council. ISBN: 0-309-10193­
X, 130 p.
NMFS. 1999. Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks.
NOAA, NMFS, HMS Management Division.
NMFS. 2000. Regulatory Amendment One to the 1999 HMS FMP. Reduction of Bycatch,
Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, June
14, 2000. NOAA, NMFS, HMS Management Division.
NMFS. 2002. Regulatory Adjustment 2 to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks Fishery
Management Plan. NOAA, NMFS, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 174
pp.
NMFS. 2003a. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks. NOAA, NMFS, HMS Management Division.
NMFS. 2003b. National Report of the United States: 2003. NAT/034. 40 pp.
NMFS. 2004a. Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring
Programs. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-66, 108 p.
NMFS. 2004b. National Report of the United States: 2004. NAT/035.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-324

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

NMFS. 2004c. FSEIS Reduction of Sea Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Fishery. NOAA, NMFS, HMS Management Division, Silver Spring,
MD.
NMFS. 2005. Annual Report of the United States of America. ANN/2005/038.
NOAA. 1998. Managing the Nation’s Bycatch: Programs, Activities, and Recommendations for
the National Marine Fisheries Service. 174 pp.
Rago, P.J., S.E. Wigley, and M.J. Fogarty. 2005. NEFSC Bycatch Estimation Methodology:
Allocation, Precision, and Accuracy. NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC Ref. Doc. 05-09.
Ryder, C.E., T.A. Conant, and B.A Schroeder. 2006. Report of the Workshop on Marine Turtle
Longline Post-Interaction Mortality. USDOC, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/OPR-29, 36
p.
Shah, A., J.W. Watson, D. Foster, and S. Epperly. 2004. Experiments in the Western Atlantic
Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate Sea Turtle Mitigation Measures in the Pelagic
Longline Fishery – Summary of Statistical Analysis. NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC,
Pascagoula, MS. Unpublished Report.
Skomal, G. and B. Chase. 1996. Preliminary results on the physiological effects of catch-and­
release on bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) caught off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
ICCAT SCRS/96/126, 13 pp.
Smith, P.C., L.F. Hale, and J.K. Carlson. 2006. The Directed Shark Longline Fishery: Catch and
Bycatch, 2005. NMFS Panama City Laboratory Contr. 06-04. 14 pp.
Walsh, C.F. and L.P. Garrison. 2006. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the
U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet During 2005. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC­
539.
Watson, J.W., D.G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2003. Experiments in the Western Atlantic
Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate Sea Turtle Mitigation Measures in the Pelagic
Longline Fishery – Summary of Statistical Analysis. NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC,
Pascagoula, MS. Unpublished Report.
Watson, J.W., D.G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2004. Experiments in the Western Atlantic
Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate Sea Turtle Mitigation Measures in the Pelagic
Longline Fishery: Report on experiments conducted in 2001–2003. February 4, 2004.
NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, Pascagoula, MS. 123 pp.
References for Section 3.9
NMFS. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan.
DOC/NOAA/NMFS. Silver Spring, MD.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-325

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

Ditton, R.B., D.K. Anderson, J.F. Thigpen III, B.L. Bohnsack, and S.G. Sutton. 2000.
1999Pirates Cove Big Game Tournaments: Participants’ Characteristics, Participation in
Fishing, Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts. Human Dimensions of
Fisheries Laboratory Report #HD-615, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.
126 pp.
Ditton, R.B. and D.J. Clark. 1994. Characteristics, Attitudes, Catch and Release Behavior, and
Expenditures of Billfish Tournament Anglers in Puerto Rico. Report prepared for The
Billfish Foundation, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 27pp.
Fisher, M.R. and R.B. Ditton. 1992. Characteristics of Billfish Anglers in the U.S. Atlantic
Ocean. Marine Fisheries Review 54(1): 1-6.
Thailing, C.E., R.B. Ditton, D.K. Anderson, T.J. Murray, J.E. Kirkley, J. Lucy. 2001. The 2000
Virginia Beach Red, White, and Blue Fishing Tournament: Participants’ Characteristics,
Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts. VIMS, College of William and Mary,
Virginia Marine Resources Report No. 2001-9, VSG-01-88, Texas A & M University,
College Station, TX. 110pp.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3-326

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCES

CHAPTER 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 4 Table Of Contents.....................................................................................................4-i

Chapter 4 list of Tables..............................................................................................................4-ii

Chapter 4 List of Figures .......................................................................................................... 4-x

4.0
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives ............................................................ 4-1

4.1
Bycatch Reduction ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1
Workshops ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2
Time Area Closures ........................................................................................... 4-25

4.2
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing................................................................... 4-128

4.2.1
Northern Albacore Tuna .................................................................................. 4-128

4.2.2
Finetooth Sharks .............................................................................................. 4-131

4.2.3
Atlantic Billfish................................................................................................ 4-158

4.3
Management Program Structure .............................................................................. 4-211

4.3.1
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Management...................................................... 4-211

4.3.2
Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries .................................. 4-230

4.3.3
Authorized Fishing Gear.................................................................................. 4-239

4.3.4
Regulatory Housekeeping................................................................................ 4-254

4.4
Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................ 4-289

4.4.1
Workshops ....................................................................................................... 4-290

4.4.2
Time/Area Closures ......................................................................................... 4-290

4.4.3
Northern Atlantic Albacore Tuna .................................................................... 4-290

4.4.4
Finetooth Sharks .............................................................................................. 4-290

4.4.5
Atlantic Billfish Management Measures ......................................................... 4-291

4.4.6
Bluefin Tuna Management Measures .............................................................. 4-291

4.4.7
Calendar Year/ Fishing Year ........................................................................... 4-291

4.4.8
Authorized Fishing Gears ................................................................................ 4-291

4.4.9
Regulatory Housekeeping................................................................................ 4-291

4.5
Impacts on Protected Resources .............................................................................. 4-291

4.6
Environmental Justice.............................................................................................. 4-294

4.7
Coastal Zone Management Act................................................................................ 4-296

4.8
Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-297

4.8.1
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ........................................ 4-297

4.8.2
Cumulative Ecological Impacts ....................................................................... 4-298

4.8.3
Cumulative Economic and Social Impacts ...................................................... 4-304

Chapter 4 References............................................................................................................. 4-323

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-i

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 4 LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 4.9

Extrapolated Total Sea Turtle and Marine Mammal Interactions in the HMS PLL
fishery for 1999-2005 and the 3 Year ITSs for 2004-2006 and 2007-2009.
Sources: Yeung, 2001; Garrison, 2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison,
2005; NMFS, 2004b; Walsh and Garrison, 2006 ................................................ 4-3
Extrapolated (1994-2002) and Observed (2003-2005) Takes and Five Year ITS
for Sea Turtles and Sawfish in the HMS Bottom Longline Fishery*. Source:
NMFS, 2005, Smith et al., 2006 .......................................................................... 4-4
Extrapolated (1999-2002) and Observed (2003-2005) Takes and Five Year ITS
for Protected Resources in the Shark Gillnet Fishery*. Source: Carlson, 2003;
NMFS, 2003a; Carlson et al., 2004; Carlson and Bethea, 2005.......................... 4-4
Percent change in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtles, and bluefin tuna kept and discards
combined, based on various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution
of effort. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals
are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: Pelagic Observer Program data (2001 – 2003)........................... 4-82
Percent change in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback, loggerhead, and bluefin tuna based on various time/area closure
alternatives with and without redistribution of effort. + = increase and - =
decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001 – 2003). ............................................................................................ 4-83
Total number of swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, total BAYS
(bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack tuna), reported landed or discarded in
the U.S. Atlantic PLL fishery, 1997 – 2003. Pred 1 = without redistribution of
effort, Pred 2 = with redistribution of effort. Predictions were predicted back in
2000. Source: HMS Logbook data..................................................................... 4-85
Total number of pelagic sharks, large coastal sharks, dolphin (mahi mahi), and
wahoo reported landed or discarded and number of billfish (blue and white
marlin, sailfish, spearfish) and sea turtles caught and discarded in the U.S.
Atlantic PLL fishery, 1997 – 2003. Pred 1 = without redistribution of effort, Pred 2
= with redistribution of effort. Predictions were predicted back in 2000. Source:
HMS logbook data. ............................................................................................ 4-86
Reported distribution of hooks set by area, 1995-2003 (CAR=Caribbean,
GOM=Gulf of Mexico, FEC=Florida East Coast, SAB=South Atlantic Bight,
MAB=Mid-Atlantic Bight, NEC=Northeast Coastal, NED=Northeast Distant,
SAR=Sargasso, NCA=North Central Atlantic, and TUNS=Tuna North & Tuna
South). Source: HMS logbook data. .................................................................. 4-87
Number of bluefin tuna (BFT), swordfish (SWO), sharks (PEL-pelagic; LCSLarge Coastal Sharks), billfish, and turtles kept and/or discarded in the MidAtlantic Bight (MAB) and Northeast Coastal (NEC) areas combined versus all

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-ii

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4.10

Table 4.11

Table 4.12

Table 4.13

Table 4.14

Table 4.15

Table 4.16

Table 4.17

other areas as reported in the pelagic logbook data, 1995-2003. Source: HMS
logbook Data...................................................................................................... 4-88
Alternative B2(a). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure
on discards from May through November with redistribution of effort in (a) all
open areas and (b) in the Gulf of Mexico only. Totals and percent changes are for
months of May-Nov only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in
discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)........................................................................................................ 4-89
Alternative B2(a). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards with and without redistribution of effort year-round and May-November
with redistribution of effort into (a) all open areas and (b) in the Gulf of Mexico
only. * excluding the NED. - + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003). 4­
91
Alternative B2(b). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-93
Alternative B2(c). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-94
Alternative B2(b). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure
on discards in June. Totals and percent decreases are for month of June only. *
excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001 – 2003)........................ 4-95
Percent change in kept and discarded catch based on different time/area closure
alternatives with and without redistribution of effort. - = decrease and + =
increase in kept and discarded catch; * with redistribution of effort assumes no
reduction in the number of hooks set. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-96
Alternative B2(c). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the
time/area closure on discards from April through June. Totals and percent changes
are for month of June only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease
in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001 – 2003)..................................................................................................... 4-97
Alternative B2(d). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area
closure on discards. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-iii

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4.18

Table 4.19

Table 4.20

Table 4.21

Table 4.22

Table 4.23

Table 4.24

Table 4.25

discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001 – 2003)..................................................................................................... 4-98
Alternative B2(d). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................... 4-99
Alternative B2(e). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area
closure on discards. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in
discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)...................................................................................................... 4-100
Alternative B2(e). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and
discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003). ............................................................................. 4-101
B2(a) and B2(b) Combined. Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the
time/area closure on discards for combined alternatives B2(a) and B2(b) yearround, and from May through November for B2(a) and in June for B2(b). *
excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................... 4-102
B2(a) and B2(b) Combined. Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target
catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + =
increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................................. 4-103
B2(d) and B2(e) Combined. Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the
time/area closure on discards for combined alternatives B2(d) and B2(e)year­
round. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003). 4­
104
B2(d) and B2(e) Combined. Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target
catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding the NED. + =
increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................................. 4-105
Alternative B3(a) Charleston Bump modification. Discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles from the
portion of the Charleston Bump to remain closed and the portion of the area
considered for reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in
discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-iv

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4.26

Table 4.27

Table 4.28

Table 4.29

Table 4.30

Table 4.31

Table 4.32

Table 4.33

obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997­
1999.................................................................................................................. 4-109
Alternative B3(b) Northeastern U.S. closure modification. Discards of white
marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea
turtles from the portion of the Northeastern U.S. closure to remain closed and the
portion of the area considered for reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase
and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS
Logbook 1997 - 1999....................................................................................... 4-110
Alternative B3(a) Charleston Bump modification. Catches and discards of
incidental bluefin tuna and target species in the portion of the area considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999...... 4-111
Alternative B3(b) Northeastern U.S. closure modification. Catches and discards of
incidental bluefin tuna and target species in the portion of the area considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999...... 4-112
Comparison of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles in the portion of the areas considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or
bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000...... 4-113
Comparison of of swordfish, incidental bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna,
and BAYS in the portion of the areas considered for reopening. * excluding the
NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999........................................... 4-114
Average swordfish lengths (cm LJFL) in the portion of the areas to remain closed
and the portion of the areas considered for reopening. The minimum size limit for
swordfish is 119 cm LJFL. The mature size is > 180 cm LJFL. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 1992-1999.......................................................................... 4-115
Landings by region from the PLL fishery for swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin
tuna and bigeye tuna. The 2004 gross fishing revenues was calculated by
converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003 value was
multiplied by 1.0266). Source: NMFS, 2004................................................... 4-117
Average annual change in gross revenues by species for each of the alternatives in
comparison to landings from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Note: 2003 gross
revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices. 2004 gross revenues are based on
2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004 annual loss or gain to the fishery was
calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003
value was multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease and + = increase. Source: NMFS,
2005.................................................................................................................. 4-118

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-v

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4.34

Table 4.35

Table 4.36

Table 4.37

Table 4.38

Table 4.39

Table 4.40

Table 4.41

Table 4.42

Average annual change in gross revenues by species for each of the modifications
to the existing time/area closures in comparison to landings from the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico. Note: 2003 gross revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices.
2004 gross revenues are based on 2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004 annual
loss or gain to the fishery was calculated by converting the 2003 total gross
revenues into 2004 dollars (2003 value was multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease
and + = increase; * excluding the NED. Source: NMFS, 2005. ...................... 4-122
Average annual change in gross revenues by species for the B2(a) time/area
closures in comparison to landings from the Gulf of Mexico only. Note: 2003
gross revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices. 2004 gross revenues are based
on 2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004 annual loss or gain to the fishery was
calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003
value was multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease and + = increase. Source: NMFS,
2005.................................................................................................................. 4-123
Total number of individual vessels and sets by year in some of the time/area
closures. Alternative B4 was not included due to confidentiality concerns. Note:
2004 data is only from January through June 2004. Source: HMS Logbook 2001­
2003.................................................................................................................. 4-124
Total number of vessels by state for some of the time/area closures from 2001
through 2003, and 2001 through June of 2004. Alternative B4 was not included
due to confidentiality concerns. Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2004 (first six
months of 2004). .............................................................................................. 4-125
Percent of total landings and discards in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in
comparison to all areas. * excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. .............................................................................. 4-126
Percent of total discards in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in comparison to all areas
(excluding the NED). * excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. .............................................................................. 4-127
Finetooth shark landings in lb dw (mt dw) by gear type in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) and South Atlantic (SA), 1999-2003, as reported in the General Canvass
(CN) and Coastal Fisheries (CL) Logbooks. Source: Enric Cortes, pers. comm. . 4­
150
Summary of Small Coastal Shark quotas and landings in commercial and
recreational fisheries between 1999-2005. Sources: Data from 1998-2000,Cortés,
pers. comm., data from 2001-2004, Cortés, 2005; Carlson and Baremore, 2001;
Carlson and Baremore, 2002; Carlson and Baremore, 2003; Carlson et al., 2004;
NMFS, 2005; Cortés and Neer, 2005; Carlson and Bethea, 2006. .................. 4-150
Total pounds (lb ww) and percent of total landings by weight of species landed on
gillnet trips that landed finetooth sharks, 1999-2004. Species and landings in bold
are those currently managed by the HMS Management Division. Species with
landings under 10 lbs ww were omitted. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook
(CFL)................................................................................................................ 4-151

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-vi

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4.43

Table 4.44

Table 4.45
Table 4.46

Table 4.47

Table 4.48

Table 4.49
Table 4.50

Table 4.51

Table 4.52

Table 4.53

Table 4.54
Table 4.55

Total pounds (lb ww) and percent of total landings by weight of species landed on
bottom longline trips that landed finetooth sharks, 1999-2004. Species and
landings in bold are those currently managed by the HMS Management Division.
Species with landings under 10 lbs ww were omitted. Source: CFL............... 4-152
Number of trips with finetooth shark landings (all gears) by NMFS Statistical
Reporting reas, 1999 - 2004. A copy of the map indicating the NMFS Statistical
Reporting Areas can be found in Figure 4.18. Bolded areas had more than 20 trips
with landings of finetooth sharks. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook........... 4-153
State information on commercial fisheries that may be landing finetooth sharks. 4­
155
Finetooth landings reported from the Florida Trip Ticket program 1999-2004 by
area and gear type. All landings in the Exclusive Economic Zone are denoted as
EEZ. Source: Steve Brown, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Trip Ticket
Program............................................................................................................ 4-156
U.S. Pelagic Longline Dead Discards and Rod & Reel Landings of Atlantic
Billfish (MT). Source: Pelagic U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004;
2005.................................................................................................................. 4-160
U.S. Landings of Atlantic Blue and White Marlin as Reported to ICCAT in
Numbers of Fish. Source: U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004; 2005; and
Erika Carlsen, NMFS Office of International Affairs, pers. comm................. 4-162
Tournament Landings and Releases 1999 - 2004 in Number of Fish. Source:
NMFS Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS) Database ..................................... 4-162
MRFSS Estimated Aggregate Landings and Releases of Atlantic Billfish 1999­
2004 in Number of Fish (includes Puerto Rico, excludes Texas). Source: NMFS
MRFSS Database. ............................................................................................ 4-163
Large Pelagics Survey Estimated Aggregate Landings and Releases of Atlantic
Billfish (Virginia to Maine) 1999-2004 in Number of Fish. Source: NMFS LPS
Database........................................................................................................... 4-164
Estimated Post-Release Mortality of White Marlin in Numbers of Fish Based on
J-hooks and 35 Percent Post-Release Mortality Rate as derived from Data from
the RBS, MRFSS, and LPS. Source: Recreational Billfish Survey; Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey; and Large Pelagic Survey............... 4-165
Estimated Post-Release Mortality of Blue Marlin in Numbers of Fish Based on Jhooks and 11 Percent Post-Release Mortality Rate as derived from Data from the
RBS, the MRFSS, and LPS. Source: Recreational Billfish Survey; Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey; and Large Pelagic Survey............... 4-166
White Marlin Estimated Net Circle Hook Mortality Benefit in Numbers of Fish.
Source: RBS, MRFSS, LPS ............................................................................. 4-170
Cumulative number of white and blue marlin landed below each minimum size in
tournaments from 1999-2004 between the current minimum size for blue (99”)
and white (66”) marlin and the potential increased minimum sizes indicated. A
minimum size would be selected between 68-71 inches for WHM and 103-106 for
BUM. Source: NMFS RBS Database. ............................................................. 4-178

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-vii

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4.56

Table 4.57
Table 4.58
Table 4.59
Table 4.60
Table 4.61

Table 4.62

Table 4.63

Table 4.64
Table 4.65
Table 4.66
Table 4.67
Table 4.68
Table 4.69
Table 4.70
Table 4.71
Table 4.72
Table 4.73
Table 4.74

Catch per unit effort and numbers of blue and white marlin kept and released
1999-2004. Source: Billfish Tournament Database, Southeast Fisheries Science
Center............................................................................................................... 4-179
Average Number of Boats per Tournament by Month and State, 1999-2004.
Source: Recreational Billfish Survey............................................................... 4-200
Average Number of Billfish Tournaments by Month and State 1999-2004*.
Source: Recreational Billfish Survey............................................................... 4-200
Alternative F1: Gross revenues associated with the No Action alternative
regarding the General Category time-period subquota allocation.* ................ 4-214
Alternative F3(a): Gross revenues associated with the even sub-allocation of the
General Category quota between the 8-month fishing season......................... 4-217
Alternative F3(b): Gross revenues associated with the proposed sub-allocation of
the General Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the South Atlantic
.......................................................................................................................... 4-218
Alternative F3(c) (preferred): Gross revenues associated with the proposed suballocation of the General Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the
South Atlantic. ................................................................................................. 4-219
Alternative F3(d): Gross revenues associated with the proposed sub-allocation of
the General Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the South Atlantic.
.......................................................................................................................... 4-220
Alternative F8: Gross revenues associated with the proposed rollover cap of 100
percent of the baseline quota allocation........................................................... 4-227
Fishing years by HMS proposed for Alternatives G1-G3. .............................. 4-230
Average number of commercially harvested BFT by month for 1999-2004. Data
source: NERO BFT landings database. .......................................................... 4-232
Graphic representation of the distribution of U.S. domestic BFT quota by year. . 4­
236
Reported Atlantic Commercial Green-stick Gear Catch for 1999-2003*, in
Numbers of Fish. Source: PLL Logbook Data ................................................ 4-242
Reported U.S. Pacific Commercial Green-stick Gear Catch for 2002-2004, in
Numbers of Fish and Weight in Pounds. Source: State of Hawaii, 2006 ........ 4-243
Handline catches, in Numbers of Fish, for 2000 – 2004. Source: HMS Logbook.
Note that confidential data cannot be released and are marked by an *. ......... 4-246
List of “Indicator” Species to Determine Composition of Catch. ................... 4-261
Historical Per Trip Average Catch Composition of “Indicator” Species. Source:
NMFS Coastal Logbook .................................................................................. 4-262
Historical Per Trip Average Catch Composition of “Indicator” Species. Source:
Pelagic Longline Logbook............................................................................... 4-262
Numbers of Trips Reported as Using Handline Gear in the HMS Logbook and
Numbers of Those Trips that were “Handline-Only.” Source: HMS Logbook.
Note that confidential data cannot be released and are marked by an *. ......... 4-274

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-viii

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4.75

Impacts of alternatives considered. The symbols +, –, and 0 refer to positive,
negative, and zero impacts respectively. The expected impacts should be
compared to other alternatives within that issue, not to the impacts between
issues. See preceding section for details of impacts of each alternative.......... 4-308

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-ix

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 4 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4

Figure 4.5

Figure 4.6

Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8

Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10

Figure 4.11

Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13

Existing time/area closures in HMS fisheries. Inset shows extent of the Northeast
Distant restricted fishing area. All closures except the Mid-Atlantic are applicable
to PLL gear only. The Mid-Atlantic Closure is applicable to bottom longline gear
only. Note: the Northeast Distant (NED) was a closed area to all vessels as of
2001. It became the NED Restricted Fishing Area on June 30, 2004 when it was
opened to those participating in the NED experiment. ...................................... 4-69
Map showing areas being considered for new time/area closures to reduce nontarget HMS and protected species interactions.................................................. 4-70
Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures.... 4-71
Pelagic and Bottom Longline Sets in the Madison-Swanson (upper left) and
Steamboat Lumps (lower right) Marine Reserves. Note: one set for the CSFOP
was in 2005. Although not indicated, no new sets were recorded for the CSFOP in
2004. Source: HMS Logbook, Pelagic Observer Program, Shark Observer
Program. The Desoto Canyon closure is also shown for reference. ................. 4-72
Map showing the potential closed area to bottom longline gear to reduce bycatch
of endangered smalltooth sawfish. Grey dots are locations of observed bottom
longline sets. Source: CSFOP 1994 – 2006. ...................................................... 4-73
Map showing all reported sets and white marlin interactions: a) shows the number
of interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. ................................................................................ 4-74
Map showing all observed sets and white marlin interactions. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 2001-2003............................................................................ 4-75
Map showing all reported sets and bluefin tuna discards: a) shows the number of
interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2003. ................................................................................ 4-76
Map showing all observed sets and bluefin tuna discards. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 2001-2003............................................................................ 4-77
Map showing all reported sets and leatherback sea turtle interactions: a) shows the
number of interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks).
Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.................................................................... 4-78
Map showing all reported sets and loggerhead sea turtle interactions: a) shows the
number of interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks).
Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.................................................................... 4-79
Map showing all observed sets and sea turtle interactions. Source: Pelagic
Observer Program 2001 – 2003. ........................................................................ 4-80
Map showing discards of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico from
2001-2003. The large box is not a proposed time/area closure, but is shown for
illustrative purpose only to delineate an area with high bluefin tuna discards. The
bluefin tuna discards are listed by month below the box. Source: HMS Logbook
2001-2003. ......................................................................................................... 4-81

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-x

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 4.14 Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures and
juvenile swordfish data (<180 cm LJFL). The minimum size limit for swordfish is
119 cm LJFL. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999. ....................... 4-106
Figure 4.15 Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures and
adult swordfish data (>180 cm LJFL) from the Pelagic Observer Program.
Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999................................................ 4-107
Figure 4.16 Map showing modification to the existing Northeast United States closure and
bluefin tuna discards. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999............................... 4-108
Figure 4.17 Map showing smalltooth sawfish bycatch. Numbers in parentheses in the legend
are the number of sawfish interactions. Gray dots indicate the location of each
observed bottom longline set. Source: CSFOP 1994-2006. ............................ 4-116
Figure 4.18 NMFS Statistical Reporting Areas. Areas 3, 23, 2780, 2880, 2980, 3079, and
3379 all had greater than 20 trips that reported finetooth shark landings in the
Coastal Fisheries Logbook between 1999-2004 as indicated in Table 4.44 Number
of trips with finetooth shark landings (all gears) by NMFS Statistical Reporting
reas, 1999 - 2004. A copy of the map indicating the NMFS Statistical Reporting
Areas can be found in Figure 4.18. Bolded areas had more than 20 trips with
landings of finetooth sharks. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook................... 4-154
Figure 4.19 Finetooth shark trips by month and gear type between 1999-2004. E/H = Electric
Reel, Bandit Gear, Handline; GN = Gillnet; and LL = Longline. Source: Coastal
Fisheries Logbook............................................................................................ 4-155
Figure 4.20 U.S. Pelagic Longline Dead Discards and Rod & Reel Landings of Atlantic
Billfish. Source: U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004; 2005............. 4-160
Figure 4.21 Number of blue marlin landed in tournaments between 1999-2004 by size (inches,
LJFL). Source: NMFS RBS database. ............................................................. 4-178
Figure 4.22 Number of white marlin landed in tournaments between 1999-2004 by length
(inches, LJFL). Source: NMFS RBS Database................................................ 4-179
Figure 4.23 Map of the East Florida Coast closed area (solid shaded area) and the boundary of
the U.S. EEZ (thin line wrapping around the coast). The inset is a close-up of the
closed area depicting both the old and proposed (new) boundary coordinates. The
small grey dots represent locations of longline sets from the year 2000 through the
first half of 2004............................................................................................... 4-271

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-xi

CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

4.0

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1

Bycatch Reduction
4.1.1

Workshops

The 1999 FMP identified reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality as a critical
management goal pursuant to National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The October 29, 2003, Biological Opinion (BiOp)
for the Atlantic shark fishery and the June 1, 2004, BiOp for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery
recommend and in some cases require further actions to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of
protected resources in the HMS fisheries. The following sections evaluate a number of
alternatives to meet these goals. Workshops enabling fishermen to become more proficient with
the techniques, protocols, and equipment for dehooking and disentanglement of protected
resources, as well as proper identification of these species, are an integral component to ensuring
that the post-release mortality reduction goals are realized.
4.1.1.1 Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops for
Pelagic Longline, Bottom Longline, and Gillnet Fishermen
The October 2003 Biological Opinion for the Atlantic shark fishery determined that the
shark fishery (i.e., bottom longline and drift gillnet) is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered green, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, endangered
smalltooth sawfish, threatened loggerhead turtles, or adversely affect marine mammals.
However, it requires the implementation of workshops or other programs to distribute
information on gear handling techniques, protocols for gear entanglements and the safe release of
protected species, information on smalltooth sawfish, and HMS requirements and regulations to
reduce serious injuries or mortalities (NMFS, 2003). The June 2004 BiOp for the Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery required that all captains or operators be proficient with the safe release
and disentanglement gears and protocols due, in part, to a jeopardy conclusion for leatherback
sea turtles (NMFS, 2004a). The protected species release, disentanglement and identification
workshops are intended to help further reduce the mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish,
and other protected resources captured incidentally in the HMS pelagic (PLL) and bottom (BLL)
longline and shark gillnet fisheries. Through these workshops, participants would be trained to
safely disentangle, resuscitate, release, and identify protected species, as per the current NMFS
standards for the pelagic and bottom longline fisheries. Participants may also receive instruction
on disentanglement and release for protected resources that lack formal protocols. The incidental
take statements issued in the October 2003 and June 2004 BiOps were contingent upon
fishermen becoming increasingly proficient with required release equipment and protocols, while
reducing the number of sea turtle mortalities resulting from longline and gillnet interactions over
time. The dissemination of this information is an important element in further reducing postrelease mortality of protected resources in the PLL, BLL, and shark gillnet fisheries.
In addition to BiOp requirements, the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team has
recommended the implementation of a mandatory certification program for owners and operators
of pelagic longline vessels, as one measure for reducing the bycatch and bycatch mortality of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas), short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala
macrorhynchus), common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), and other protected species in the
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Specifically, the recommendation suggests that the
certification program incorporate safe handling and release techniques; disseminate information
on relevant regulations; provide guidelines specific to marine mammal bycatch in the fishery; an
explanation of information that needs to be recorded in log books and auxiliary forms;
provideguidelines for operator communications; provide updates on NMFS observer program;
description of research and monitoring projects aimed to reduce marine mammal bycatch; and
species identification.
The protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops would be held
at several locations to minimize travel costs for most participants and during non-peak fishing
times to minimize disruptions to fishing activities. The workshops would be held in areas where
there is a high concentration of permit holders, according to the addresses provided when
applying for an HMS permit. A schedule of workshops would be released in advance to provide
fishermen with an opportunity to attend the workshop most convenient to them. The Agency
may provide an opportunity for the industry to schedule one-on-one training at the expense of the
individual, if they are unable to attend any of the previously scheduled workshops.
The individuals that attended the PLL industry-sponsored safe handling and release
workshops would be grandfathered-in to the requirements for all of the preferred alternatives,
meaning all owners and operators that attended and successfully completed the industry
certification workshops, as documented by workshop facilitators, held on April 8, 2005, in
Orlando, Florida, and on June 27, 2005, in New Orleans, Louisiana, would automatically receive
valid protected species workshop certificates. To the extent practicable, anyone who attends and
successfully completes the hands on training could be certified (e.g., enforcement, crew,
environmentalists, and recreational fishermen). Priority would be given to those who are
required to be certified if space is an issue.
In order to ensure that fishery participants are able to use the release and disentanglement
equipment effectively, workshop participants would be given hands-on instruction and a
practical examination. Participants who successfully complete the workshops would receive a
multi-year certification. A certificate would be required to be on board each longline and gillnet
vessel during fishing operations and would serve as proof that the participant completed the
necessary training workshop.
The Agency received public comment both in support of and opposed to the protected
species workshops. Some commenters were concerned about potential lost revenue on longline
trips if bycatch were to be handled correctly. Some comments supported extending the
workshop requirements to include all HMS fishermen, as well as expanding the release
techniques to include additional species. NMFS received many comments suggesting that
various combinations of owners, operators, and crew members be required to participate in the
workshops. And if the crew members are not required to attend, then the operators should be
responsible for training the crew. A few comments supported grandfathering in the industry
certified individuals, so that they do not need to attend the mandatory workshops. Additionally,
the Agency received comment on the recertification timeframes, and provided recommendations
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

for scheduling and selecting venues to mitigate any negative impacts to participants. The
Agency has considered all of these comments when selecting the final alternatives.
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for pelagic longline, bottom
longline, and gillnet fishery workshops are:
A1
A2

A3

A4
A5
A6

Voluntary protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops for
longline fishermen (No Action)
Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops and
certification for all HMS pelagic or bottom longline vessel owners – Preferred
Alternative
Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops and
certification for vessel operators actively participating in HMS pelagic and bottom
longline fisheries – Preferred Alternative
Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops and
certification for all HMS longline vessel owners, operators, and crew
Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops and
certification for shark gillnet vessel owners and operators – Preferred Alternative
Protected species safe handling, release, and identification certification renewal (every
3-years) – Preferred Alternative

Ecological Impacts
A summary of protected species interactions in the HMS PLL, BLL, and gillnet fisheries
are found in Table 4.1, 4-4Table 4.2, and Table 4.3, respectively. More information on gearspecific HMS fisheries as well as observed and extrapolated takes of protected species is
provided in Chapter 3. The June 2004 BiOp sets specific post-release mortality (PRM) targets
for the PLL fishery that decrease each year starting at 32.8 in 2004 and declining to 13.1 percent
in 2007 for leatherback turtles and from 21.8 to 17 percent for loggerhead sea turtles during the
same years. While NMFS does not have estimates of PRM for BLL and gillnet gears, observed
estimates of protected species takes are available and are summarized in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.
Table 4.1

Extrapolated Total Sea Turtle and Marine Mammal Interactions in the HMS PLL fishery for
1999-2005 and the 3 Year ITSs for 2004-2006 and 2007-2009. Sources: Yeung, 2001; Garrison,
2003; Garrison and Richards, 2004; Garrison, 2005; NMFS, 2004b; Walsh and Garrison, 2006
3 year ITS,
2004-2006 / 2007-2009
Total
Per Year

PLL

1999

2000

2001+

2002+

2003+

2004

2005

Average*

Leatherback

1,016

769

1,208

962

1,112

1,359

351

969

1,981 / 1,764

660 / 588

Loggerhead

994

1,256

312

575

727

734

274

696

1,869 / 1,905

632 / 635

Other/Unidentified
66
128
N/A
50
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
105 / 105
Sea Turtles
N/A
403
177
201
300
164
372
N/A
N/A
Marine Mammals
* An average was not provided for species without an estimate for all seven years.
+
The extrapolated total interactions in this table do not include any interactions associated with the NED
experiment, 2001-2003.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-3

35 / 35
N/A

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.2

Extrapolated (1994-2002) and Observed (2003-2005) Takes and Five Year ITS for Sea Turtles
and Sawfish in the HMS Bottom Longline Fishery*. Source: NMFS, 2005, Smith et al., 2006
1994 - 2002

BLL

2003

2004

2005

5 year ITS, (mortality)
(starting in 2004)
Total
Per Year
150 (85)
30 (17)

Leatherback

Total
269

Per Year
30 (17)

0

0

1(1)

Loggerhead

2,003

222 (123)

8(3)

5(2)

1(1)

1,360 (754)**

272 (150)

503

56

1

1

0

30 (5) +

6 (1)

Unidentified Sea Turtles

466
52
1
0
2
260 (0)
52
Sawfish
* All values include total takes with mortalities listed in parentheses, when available.
** 1,360 = 1,110 + 250 of the expected 280 unidentified, which are most likely loggerhead sea turtles.
+
30 for all species (i.e., hawksbill, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles), remaining 30 of the expected 280
unidentified. Five lethal takes per species.
Table 4.3

GILLNET

Extrapolated (1999-2002) and Observed (2003-2005) Takes and Five Year ITS for Protected
Resources in the Shark Gillnet Fishery*. Source: Carlson, 2003; NMFS, 2003a; Carlson et al.,
2004; Carlson and Bethea, 2005
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Leatherback

0

0

14 (2)

3.4

0

0

1

Loggerhead

0

5.4 (1)

1

1.7

0

0

5 (1)

5 year ITS
(starting in 2004)
Total
Per Year
22 (3)
4.4
10 (1)

2

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1 (0)
<1
Sawfish
Bottlenose
12.4 (12.4)
2 (2)
4 (4)
6.7 (6.7)
2 (1)
0
0
N/A
N/A
Dolphin
Spotted
1(1)
2
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Dolphin
* All values include total takes with mortalities listed in parentheses. Extrapolated estimates of the drift gillnet
fishery were provided for the 1999-2002 period and 2003-2005 are observed interactions for the entire shark gillnet
fishery.

Under alternative A1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would continue to provide
voluntary workshops for longline fishermen and continue to distribute wheelhouse placards, the
safe release protocols, and educational videos, as well as additional information through the
activities of the NMFS PLL Point of Contact (POC). Two separate PLL industry-sponsored
workshops were held on April 8, 2005, in Orlando, Florida, and on June 27, 2005, in New
Orleans, Louisiana, to teach the safe handling and release protocols for sea turtles. NMFS hosted
a series of nine voluntary workshops in June 2005 that included instruction on the safe handling
and release of protected resources in the commercial shark fishery; however, these voluntary
workshops were poorly attended. Furthermore, the Agency is engaged in a proposed rulemaking
(March 29, 2006, 71 FR 15680) that would update the requirements for dehooking equipment
that must be possessed, maintained, and utilized by participants in the Atlantic shark BLL
fishery, and additional training in the use of this new equipment may be necessary.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-4

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

This alternative could provide some positive ecological impacts by continuing to provide
voluntary workshops and outreach activities through the NMFS PLL POC. A critical component
of achieving the post-release mortality targets is to ensure that participants in the PLL fisheries
are proficient with the safe handling, dehooking, and resuscitation techniques, including the
proper use of all the required equipment. These efforts would increase the amount of gear
removed from sea turtles, increasing their probability of survival. To comply with the BiOps,
voluntary hands-on training would be provided for participants in the longline fisheries.
Additionally, NMFS would continue to distribute wheelhouse placards, safe release protocols,
educational videos, and additional information as needed.
Alternative A1 would not maintain compliance with the October 2003 or June 2004
BiOps because attendance at these workshops would not be mandatory and may not result in the
certification of operators. Alternative A1 might reduce the post-release mortality of protected
species captured in HMS fisheries; however, the voluntary nature of the workshops and minimal
attendance observed thus far may limit the dissemination of the safe release, disentanglement,
and protected resource identification information, reducing potential ecological benefits.
Furthermore, it is essential that fishermen are able to properly identify the protected resources
with which they interact, in order to comply with regulations. In the past, voluntary workshops
have not been well attended. The post-release mortality targets established for the PLL fishery
would not likely be met because current rates under the status quo exceed those targets, which
could further jeopardize threatened or endangered sea turtles and result in negative ecological
impacts to these species.
Alternative A2, a preferred alternative, would require mandatory protected species safe
handling, release, and identification workshops and certification for all vessel owners that have
pelagic or bottom longline gear on board their vessel and that have been issued or are required to
be issued HMS limited access permits. To further strengthen the requirement for longline vessel
owners to attend the protected species workshops, their attendance and demonstrated
understanding of the handling, disentanglement, resuscitation, release, and identification
techniques would be linked to the renewal of their HMS permit(s). Mandatory attendance and
the link to the permit renewal would increase industry participation compared to the poorly
attended voluntary workshops. Longline vessel owners would be required to obtain the
workshop certification prior to renewing their HMS permit(s) in 2007. Proof of successful
completion of a workshop would need to be submitted in order to renew a HMS permit(s), and
those without a workshop certification would be prohibited from participating in HMS fisheries.
Public comment both supported and opposed alternative A2, stating that mandatory owner
attendance may discourage them from hiring inexperienced operators who may not know how to
properly handle sea turtles and other protected resources, handling protected resources wastes
time on money making trips, and owners of a vessel may not always be the vessel operator.
Alternative A2 would ensure that owners are aware of the certification requirement and
the need for the PLL and BLL fisheries to meet or achieve the post-release mortality targets set
in the 2004 BiOp (NMFS, 2004a). Alternative A2 would likely have positive ecological
impacts. The ecological benefits of reduced post-release mortality would depend upon the
number of longline owners who are active in the fishery and/or take the initiative to properly
train the operators and crew working on their vessel. Longline vessels can have several different
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-5

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

operators in any given year; therefore, the owner may not always be on board the vessel and able
to disseminate the information and skills learned during the protected species workshops.
NMFS believes that allowing proxies to attend workshops on behalf of longline and
gillnet vessel owners would reduce the likelihood that those involved in the operation of
individual vessels would be the ones attending the workshops. NMFS is concerned that vessel
owners would select proxies that are not involved in the day-to-day operation of their fishing
operations, thus compromising the goal of these workshops. If permit holders were to send
proxies involved with the day-to-day activities of the vessel (i.e., crew or operators), the permit
holder runs the risk of having no proxy available on the boat due to the high turnover of crew
and operators. The proxy may not be employed on permit holder’s vessel for the entire three
years that the permit is valid. Additionally, NMFS does not have the means to validate a
connection between the permit holder and the proxy. It is important for vessel owners that are
not actually involved in the day-to-day operations of their vessels to be aware of the regulations
and management of the fisheries in which their vessels are participating in order to fully and
effectively implement the techniques taught at the workshops. Vessel owners should be aware of
the concepts and breadth of material, as well as the tools and techniques, that would be covered
in the workshops to understand the requirements for engaging fishing activities with PLL, BLL
or gillnets on board the vessel and to understand what is expected of the vessel’s crew. Non­
compliance with the requirements of the 2003 and 2004 BiOps could result in additional, more
restrictive management measures in the future.
Based on the estimated takes presented in Table 4.1, there were an average of 969
leatherback and 696 loggerhead sea turtles interactions per year in the PLL fishery between 1999
and 2005. Until mid-2004, the standard hooks used by the industry were 7/0 and 9/0 J-hooks. In
mid-2004, NMFS implemented mandatory circle hook and bait requirements in the fishery
intended to reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality. J-hooks can increase the number of
sea turtle interactions and increase the likelihood of hook ingestion, compared to using circle
hooks and specific baits (NMFS, 2004b). The post-release mortality target identified in the 2004
BiOp would require a 4.8 and 19.7 percent decrease in post release mortality for loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles, respectively, between 2004 and 2007 (NMFS, 2004a). Decreasing the
post-release mortality is dependent upon vessel owners disseminating information from the
workshops to operators and crew involved in fishing activities. As a result of the jeopardy
finding for leatherback sea turtles, the 2004 BiOp included additional requirements for PLL
closures or other comparable actions if the sea turtle incidental take and post-release mortality
targets are not met (NMFS, 2004a). The potential for additional regulations imposed upon the
fishery may provide adequate incentive for vessel owners to informally train their operators and
crew. The Agency received public comment in favor of owners/operators being required to train
all crew members onboard. NMFS encourages all workshop participants to disseminate this
information to all crew members involved with haul-back or fishing activities, however, is not
preferring an alternative requiring owners to train crew members at this time.
The October 2003 BiOp estimates that 42 percent of sea turtles die as a result of
interactions with BLL gear. Table 4.2 shows the extrapolated estimates in the BLL fishery (1994
- 2002) and the observed interactions for 2003 and 2004. The post-release mortality has not been
estimated for sea turtle interactions in the BLL fishery; therefore, it is difficult to estimate the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-6

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

post-release mortality reduction benefits of this alternative, but there may be positive ecological
impacts from the transfer of safe release and disentanglement protocols to owners in the BLL
fishery. NMFS is in the process of a rulemaking (March 29, 2006, 71 FR 15680) that would
update the safe handling, release and disentanglement equipment for sea turtles and other nontarget catch in this fishery. The current preferred alternative would require participants in the
BLL fishery to possess, maintain, and utilize the same equipment and protocols currently
required for the PLL fishery. While the available data show that the BLL fishery has fewer
interactions with sea turtles than the PLL fishery, the BLL fishery is not currently required to use
circle hooks or specific baits to reduce sea turtle interactions.
In addition to providing information and ensuring proficiency with the safe handling,
dehooking, and release of sea turtles, these workshops would also include information on the
proper techniques for safe release of smalltooth sawfish. Extrapolated estimates indicate that, on
average, the BLL fishery interacts with 52 smalltooth sawfish a year (Table 4.2). The October
2003 BiOp found that Atlantic shark fisheries would result in the temporary disturbance of
behavior and short term injury of smalltooth sawfish, but fishing activities are not expected to
affect the reproduction of the individuals that are caught, nor result in mortality. Alternative A2
would ensure BLL vessel owners understand safe release techniques, which would likely reduce
any mortality of smalltooth sawfish. Ecological benefits would likely be increased if vessel
owners are involved in fishing activities or successfully train their operators and crew members
in safe techniques covered in the workshops.
There have been no documented interactions between PLL gear and smalltooth sawfish to
date. However, if PLL owners are aware of safe handling and release techniques, this
information would likely benefit them in case of future interactions or if they participate in other
fisheries. Since PLL fishermen are required to possess at least an incidental shark permit and
because of the relative ease of modifying pelagic to bottom longline, fishermen could set bottom
longline gear on their way back to port, target sharks or other species, and potentially interact
with smalltooth sawfish.
In addition to safe release and disentanglement protocols, alternative A2 would also
provide information related to the proper identification of protected species. The proper
identification of protected species listed under the ESA or MMPA is an important skill for PLL
and BLL vessel owners to possess. The MMPA classifies the PLL and BLL fishery as Category
I and III, respectively. A Category I fishery results in frequent serious injuries and mortalities of
marine mammals, whereas a Category III fishery has a remote likelihood or no known serious
injuries or mortalities. Most longline interactions with marine mammals are in the PLL fishery.
Species commonly encountered include: Risso’s dolphin; pilot whales; pygmy sperm whales;
beaked whales; spotted dolphins; common dolphin; and, Minke whales. Table 4.1 contains the
estimated interactions with marine mammals in the PLL fisheries. The shark BLL fishery has
only interacted with two marine mammals (Delphinids) between 1994 and 2002. Improved
identification skills may increase the accuracy of logbook data and assist fishermen in complying
with the regulations.
Protected species can be difficult to identify, especially since interactions with them are a
relatively rare occurrence. Alternative A2 would provide information on key morphological
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-7

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

characteristics, distribution, and basic life history to improve identification of protected
resources. Positive identification of sea turtles and marine mammals in fishermen’s logbook
reports could reduce uncertainty and increase the accuracy of extrapolated estimates of
interactions by species. This is essential information for agency biologists, managers, and law
enforcement officials who seek to increase the knowledge of home range, habitat use, and
abundance. Furthermore, interactions with specific longline configurations (depth, hook type,
bait, target-fish species) may assist fishermen, managers, gear experts, and scientists in designing
experiments and gear to reduce interactions. Positive ecological impacts would likely occur as a
result of disseminating this information to the longline vessel owners. In addition to benefiting
protected resources, alternative A2 could benefit non-target HMS and other finfish by reducing
post-release mortality by increasing the proficiency with the currently required dehooking and
disentanglement equipment for sea turtles. Alternative A2 would likely result in positive
ecological impacts, however, the extent of these impacts are dependent upon the dissemination
of this information between owners and their operators and crew.
Alternative A3, a preferred alternative, would require mandatory protected species safe
handling, release, and identification workshops and certification for HMS PLL and BLL vessel
operators before the vessel’s permit expires in 2007. This alternative would have ecological
benefits similar to alternative A2; however, these benefits would be greater in magnitude as
operators are generally directly involved in fishing activities, including gear retrieval, when sea
turtles or other protected resources are most likely to be encountered. The initial operator
certification would be linked to the renewal of the vessel’s HMS LAP(s) in 2007; therefore, an
operator would need to attend a workshop and receive the certification prior to the owner
renewing any of the vessel’s HMS LAP(s) in 2007. If the vessel owner holds multiple HMS
LAPs, the operator would need to be certified prior to the earliest expiration date on any of the
permits in 2007. After the initial certification, the operator’s certification is no longer linked to
the renewal of a vessel’s HMS LAP and would need to be renewed prior to the expiration date on
the operator’s workshop certificate. The workshop certification would not be transferable any
other person and would have the operator’s name on the certificate. This alternative would
ensure that at least one person directly involved with a vessel’s fishing activities would be
certified in the safe handling and release protocols and identification of protected resources.
Alternative A3 was supported by public comment. Commenters suggested that vessel
operators should be certified and that they should, in turn, train each individual crew member
working aboard their vessel to ensure that the crew is informed and that proper procedures are
followed. Operators are encouraged to transfer the knowledge and skills obtained from
successfully completing the workshops to the crew members, potentially increasing the proper
release, disentanglement, and identification of protected resources. While this alternative would
not require crew members to attend the workshops, to the extent practicable, the workshops
would be open to anyone who wishes to attend and receive certification.
Alternative A4 would require owners, operators, and crew to attend protected species safe
handling, release, and identification workshops and become certified. This alternative would
certify the largest group of individuals involved with fishing activities, and therefore, would
likely have the greatest positive ecological impact. Alternative A4 would provide similar
benefits to those of alternatives A2 and A3 combined, in addition to including all crewmembers
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-8

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

associated with a vessel’s fishing activities. Vessel crew members are generally directly
involved during gear retrieval activities as the operator may be operating the vessel from the
wheelhouse. Furthermore, all of these participants would be provided with protected resource
identification information, which would have positive ecological impacts, likely increasing
proportionally to the number of individuals who attain certification. NMFS anticipates having
several operators and/or crew members per HMS vessel permit attend these workshops, as
vessels often have two operators and multiple crew members. Ensuring that operators and/or
crew are skilled at handling and release of sea turtles and adept at identification of protected
resources would increase the likelihood of achieving the post-release mortality targets prescribed
by the 2004 BiOp. The Agency received several comments opposing the requirement to have
crew certified because of their transient nature and the fact that some crew members are not U.S.
citizens and may not be available to attend workshops.
An indirect positive ecological benefit of involving vessel owners, operators, and/or crew
in these safe handling, resuscitation, release, and protected resource identification workshops,
may be to promote or transfer this technology to other countries that also target HMS and other
species with longline gear. Because of the migratory nature of most sea turtle species, these
animals frequently travel thousands of miles and may enter into the jurisdiction of other nations
or the high seas. Longline gear employed by different nations is relatively similar between
countries, therefore, the protocols discussed and materials employed in these workshops could be
translated by interested nations into languages appropriate for their use. Some materials are
already available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Since many HMS are managed by an
international Atlantic-wide commission (ICCAT), there are numerous opportunities for transfer
of technology between the United States and other ICCAT contracting parties, reinforcing the
United States’ role as a leader in global marine conservation.
Alternative A5, a preferred alternative, would mandate that all gillnet vessel owners
issued a shark permit and operators of vessels employing this gear attend workshops on the safe
release and disentanglement of protected resources, including sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and
marine mammals and obtain certification before the vessel’s HMS permit expires in 2007. The
shark gillnet fishery currently has several requirements intended to reduce interactions and
mortalities of protected species, such as observer coverage, net checks, and Atlantic Whale Take
Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) requirements. This alternative may provide positive ecological
impacts by reducing the mortality of protected species and teaching fishermen how to identify,
disentangle, and safely release protected species. The Agency received public comment
supporting alternative A5; however, requiring both owners and operators of these vessels to be
certified was a concern. The Agency realizes that many vessel owners may not operate or be
present on the vessels during fishing trips; therefore, certifying vessel owners ensures that they
are aware of the certification requirements and protocols. The owners would then be
accountable for having a certified operator on board while engaged in fishing activities.
As with the PLL and BLL requirements, the initial operator certification for gillnet
vessels would be linked to the vessel’s HMS permit renewal. An operator would be required to
attend a workshop and receive the certification prior to the owner renewing the vessel’s
certification in 2007. The owner would be required to submit proof of certification before the
HMS permit would be renewed. The initial operator certification would be linked to the renewal
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-9

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

of the vessel’s HMS LAP(s) in 2007. If the vessel owner holds multiple HMS LAPs, the
operator would need to be certified prior to the earliest expiration date on any of the permits in
2007. After the initial certification, the operator’s certification is no longer linked to the renewal
of a vessel’s HMS LAP and would need to be renewed prior to the expiration date on the
operator’s workshop certificate. The workshop certification would not be transferable any other
person and would have the operator’s name on the certificate. This alternative would ensure that
at least one person directly involved with a vessel’s fishing activities would be certified in the
safe handling and release protocols and identification of protected resources.
This alternative may result in positive ecological impacts by increasing the industry
awareness of the need to reduce protected species interactions, post-release mortality, and keep
the number of interactions and mortalities below the five year ITS for sea turtles and smalltooth
sawfish (Table 4.3). The combination of hands-on experience with the safe release and
disentanglement protocols for sea turtle interactions with gillnets, as well as proper sea turtle
identification and information on Atlantic shark regulations, would likely lead to decreased postrelease mortalities in the shark gillnet fishery. Workshops will help train operators to safely
handle and release sea turtles and reduce mortalities. While the interactions between gillnet gear
and marine mammals are relatively low, the workshops could also provide a positive ecological
impact through the education of vessel owners and operators regarding protected resource
identification and release techniques for marine mammals (Table 4.3). Furthermore, the gillnet
vessel owners and operators, who properly identify protected resources, would be able to apply
the appropriate safe release and resuscitation protocols. Finally, proper species identification
may improve the accuracy and usefulness of logbooks, as well as quota monitoring and stock
assessments.
The Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery is listed as a Category II fishery
under the MMPA indicating that occasional mortalities and serious injuries occur in this fishery
(69 FR 48407). The listing is attributed to interactions with bottlenose dolphins, North Atlantic
right whales, and Atlantic spotted dolphins. Category II fisheries are required to report
incidental injuries and mortalities of marine mammals, accommodate an observer, if requested,
and comply with the provisions of Take Reduction Plans (TRPs). Marine mammals are often
difficult to identify due to the infrequency with which they are encountered in the gillnet fishery.
It is essential for fishermen to know the morphological characteristics and distribution of
protected resources to positively identify these animals to the species level. When marine
mammals are encountered and properly recorded, the logbook reports provide significant
information regarding home range, habitat use, and abundance. All of this information is
important to Agency biologists, managers, and law enforcement officials because it may improve
accuracy of stock assessments and quota monitoring. For these reasons, the protected resources
identification component of these workshops would likely have positive ecological impacts for
marine mammals.
On February 16, 2006, NMFS issued a temporary rule (February 16, 2006, 71 FR 8223)
that prohibited the use of all gillnet gear in the Atlantic Right Whale Calving Area until March
31, 2006, because of a right whale calf interaction with gillnet gear. Dissemination of
information related to release and disentanglement of marine mammals from gillnet gear may

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-10

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

prevent additional closures in the future and would result in positive ecological impacts to
endangered Atlantic right whales.
Mandatory workshops for HMS gillnet vessel owners and operators could increase the
likelihood of the safe release of the rarely encountered and endangered smalltooth sawfish. In
the case of the one observed interaction with gillnet gear and the smalltooth sawfish, the sawfish
was cut from the net and released alive with no visible injuries (Carlson and Baremore, 2003). If
the entangled gear is sacrificed, smalltooth sawfish can be removed safely. The workshops
would inform owners and operators that smalltooth sawfish are listed as an endangered species,
enable them to identify the species, and educate them on the safe-handling and release
techniques to reduce potential sawfish mortalities occurring as a result of encounters with gillnet
gear.
An additional ecological benefit of training the vessel owners and operators on the safe
handling and release techniques for gillnet fishing gear is to potentially reduce the mortality of
non-target species, such as red drum, manta and cownose rays, king mackerel, great barracuda,
billfish, and little tunny. This alternative would likely benefit non-target species by increasing
post-release survival of all species discarded.
Alternative A6, a preferred alternative, considered several different timetables for
renewing the workshop certification under alternative A6 (e.g., two, three, or five year
timetable). The Agency may also consider additional recertification options in the future as new
information arises related to safe handling and release of protected resources. Requiring renewal
of mandatory workshop certification every two years would likely have slightly positive
ecological impacts. NMFS assumes that participants engaged in a hands-on, day-long, workshop
that requires participants to pass a practical examination demonstrating proficiency at the
culmination of the workshop would maintain familiarity with the protocols for a reasonable
period of time afterward. All new participants in the fishery would still be required to attain
certification before being able to attain their permit and permit holders would need to renew their
certification within two years of their original attendance to maintain an HMS permit.
Requiring re-certification every three years may have slightly less positive ecological
impacts than every two years. Recertification every three years is a reasonable frequency to
ensure that participants are kept abreast of the safe handling and release protocols and to also
maintain awareness of new research and development related to workshop curricula. Permit
holders would be required to recertify every three years before being able to renew their shark,
swordfish, or tuna permits that allow the use of longline or gillnet gear.
Requiring re-certification every five years would likely have less positive ecological
impacts than the two previously mentioned timeframes. Recertification every five years would
allow a more time to lapse between certification workshops than necessary to maintain
proficiency and provide updates on research and development of handling and dehooking
protocols. These impacts may be mitigated somewhat by also selecting alternative A3
(certification for operators) or A4 (certification for owners, operators, and crew) which ensures
that both operators and vessel owners are certified, thereby, increasing the number of fishery

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-11

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

participants who interact with sea turtles and/or other protected species and are aware of how to
safely handle and release them.
NMFS received several comments in support of alternative time periods for renewal of
certification; however, the Agency prefers to maintain the original preferred alternative of
recertification every three years. NMFS would require owners and operators of HMS longline
and shark gillnet vessels to renew the mandatory workshop certification every three years. A
three year period for recertification would likely maintain proficiency in the release,
disentanglement and identification protocols, and allow NMFS to update owners and operators
on new research and developments related to the subject matter while not placing an excessive
burden on the participants (e.g., lost fishing time and travel to attend workshops).
Social and Economic Impacts
Under alternative A1, there may be some negative economic impacts, related to protected
species safe handling, release, and identification workshop travel costs and lost fishing time,
which may be incurred by fishery participants who choose to attend; however, the travel costs
and lost fishing time for participants attending the voluntary workshops are discretionary, and
not mandatory. In addition to the participant cost, there is an Agency cost associated with the
implementation of these workshops as well. Determining the Agency cost for holding these
workshops is somewhat uncertain because no decision has been made on the instructors,
locations, curriculum, or materials for the course. Based on the voluntary workshops held in
2005, NMFS estimates that one protected species workshop would cost about $3,500. The hands
on training component would limit the number of participants in each workshop to a maximum
of about 48 people. Due to the voluntary nature of alternative A1, it is uncertain how many
workshops would be held. If one workshop were held each month, then the Agency cost would
be about $42,000 per year. In addition to running the workshops, materials would need to be
developed and reproduced for distribution at these workshops. Because the materials have not
yet been developed, this aspect of the Agency cost is unknown at this time.
Voluntary workshops hosted by NMFS or industry may be viewed more favorably by the
affected public than mandatory workshops; however, past experience has shown that these
workshops are generally not well attended. Poor attendance, and the resulting impact on postrelease mortality of threatened and endangered species, may hinder achieving the targets issued
for protected resources due to lack of proficiency with the dehooking techniques and equipment
on the behalf of the participants. Failure to achieve the target post-release mortality rates may
result in future time/area closures as specified in the BiOp, including a closure of the entire Gulf
of Mexico, which would result in extensive negative social and economic impacts to the pelagic
and bottom longline fisheries. Voluntary workshops may improve communication between
constituents and the Agency and would improve awareness of Agency actions.
Alternatives A2 - A4 would also likely result in some negative economic and social
impacts, as a result of traveling to the protected species safe handling, release, and identification
workshops and the fact that lost fishing time may be incurred by participants that would be
required to attend these mandatory workshops. In order to provide fishermen and vessel owners
time to prepare for economic costs associated with this mandatory requirement, owners and
operators would have until their permit expires in 2007 to obtain the workshop certification.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-12

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Additionally, the Agency will strive to host a number of workshops in regional fishing hubs to
minimize travel and lost fishing time. The workshops would be held during periods when the
fishery is typically inactive, effectively minimizing lost fishing time to the extent practicable.
For example, the workshops may be held when the fishery is closed and prior to the start of the
next trimester for sharks. However, since the Agency does not know what other fisheries
fishermen may be participating in, the Agency cannot guarantee that all workshops will be held
at appropriate times to minimize all lost fishing opportunities. The timing and location of these
workshops should lessen the negative social and economic impacts of taking the time away from
fishing, work, or other responsibilities. While these alternatives would have an economic impact
to the industry, these impacts may be mitigated by the benefits associated with increased industry
education (i.e., increased compliance, skills, and stewardship). These alternatives could result in
some social benefits.
NMFS conducted an opportunity cost analysis to determine the economic costs
associated with attending the various workshop alternatives. This analysis utilized the economic
information gathered in the PLL Logbook, and in particular the information in the economic
costs section that is required to be completed by selected vessels. For the vessels that completed
the economic portion of the PLL Logbook in 2004, revenues per trip were estimated by taking
the number of fish caught per trip, multiplying the number of fish by average weight for each
species harvested, and multiplying the total weight for each species by average prices for each
species as reported in the dealer landings system. The costs reported for each trip were then
subtracted from the estimated revenue for each trip. Then the number of days at sea, as reported
in logbooks, was used to determine the average net revenue per day at sea for each trip taken.
Finally, the information provided on crew shares was used to allocate the net revenue per day at
sea to owner, captain, and crew. The BLL cost earnings data set is limited compared to the PLL
cost earnings data in the HMS Logbook, therefore, the sample size is not as significant for BLL
trips. Information from the HMS permits database was then used to estimate the potential
number of participants in each of the workshop alternatives. Since information on the number of
operators per permitted vessel was not available, NMFS conservatively estimated that there
could be two operators per permit for PLL vessels, and one captain for all others. Net revenues
per day for owners, operators, and crew was then multiplied by the number of participants
expected for each workshop alternative to estimate the opportunity cost for a one day workshop.
The economic impacts (i.e., out of pocket cash costs) associated with attending workshops is
likely to be less than the economic opportunity costs estimated since NMFS intends to schedule
workshops on less productive fishing days to avoid lost time at sea.
As of February 2006, there are about 549 vessel owners permitted to fish for HMS with
pelagic and bottom longline gear, which would be the estimated number of participants included
in the workshops for alternative A2. According to an analysis of 2004 cost-earnings information
as reported in HMS logbooks, the median opportunity cost for individual, bottom and pelagic
longline vessel owners to participate in a one-day workshop would be $281 and $448,
respectively. Alternative A3 would apply to vessel operators. NMFS assumed there are
approximately two operators per vessel owner (permit), resulting in a total of 1,098 participants.
According to the cost-earnings analysis mentioned above, the median opportunity cost for
individual, bottom and pelagic longline vessel operators to participate in a one-day workshop
would be $345 and $149, respectively. Alternative A4 would include vessel owners, operators,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-13

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

and crew. Based on logbook data, an estimated average of four crewmembers is associated with
any particular vessel. These workshops would have 3,843 participants, thus, alternative A4
would have the largest economic impacts. According to the cost-earnings analysis mentioned
above, the median opportunity cost for individual, bottom, and pelagic longline vessel
crewmembers to participate in a one-day workshop would be $90 and $109, respectively. These
individual costs when added to the individual opportunity costs of owners and operators, results
in a combined individual opportunity cost of $716 for bottom longline fishery participants and
$706 for pelagic longline fishery participants to participate in a one-day workshop. These
opportunity cost estimates should be considered upper bounds on the potential economic costs
associated with attending workshops. Information quantifying the economic value of time spent
at the workshops is not currently available to further refine the upper bound cost estimates used
in the economic analysis of workshop alternatives. Additional information regarding economic
impacts for each of these alternatives can be reviewed in Chapter 6.
The cost to the Agency varies for each of these alternatives due to the number of people
that would be required to attend and achieve the workshop certification. Alternative A2 calls for
at least 549 workshop participants. If each workshop can accommodate 45 people, then a
minimum of 12 workshops would need to be held. At a cost of $3,500 per workshop, alternative
A2 has an Agency cost of about $42,000 plus the cost of outreach materials. Alternative A3
requires 1,098 owners and operators to obtain the workshop certification. The Agency would
need to hold about 23 workshops at a total cost of $80,500 plus materials. Alternative A4
requires 3,843 owners, operators, and crew members to obtain a workshop certification;
therefore, the Agency would need to hold at least 81 workshops at total cost of $283,500 plus
materials. The greater the number of people certified, the greater the number of copies that need
to be made for the outreach materials.
Under alternative A5, shark gillnet vessel owners and operators would be required to
attend workshops discussing safe release and disentanglement protocols, protected resources
identification, and current regulations. The administrative costs for workshops are high, but may
be mitigated by the benefits associated with increased industry education (i.e., increased
compliance, skills, and stewardship). This alternative would likely result in social benefits. On
February 14, 2006, NMFS issued a temporary rule that banned the use of all gillnet gears in the
Atlantic Right Whale Calving Area until March 31, 2006, because of a right whale calf that
interacted with gillnet gear on January 22, 2006. A closure results in a negative economic
impact to the fishery. Dissemination of information related to release and disentanglement of
marine mammals from gillnet gear may prevent additional closures in the future.
The costs incurred by vessel owners and operators would be related to travel and time to
attend the workshop, resulting in out of pocket expenses and lost opportunity costs. NMFS
estimates that there are approximately 20 participants in the shark gillnet fishery that would
attend workshops; 80 percent of the identified shark gillnet permit holders and operators are
located in Florida, and 20 percent are in North Carolina and New Jersey. As mentioned earlier,
NMFS conducted an analysis of 2004 cost-earnings information as reported in HMS logbooks.
Individual opportunity costs are not available for gillnet vessel owners and operators due to
confidentiality concerns, however the median opportunity cost for vessel owners and operators
of all gear types combined, including gillnets, to participate in a one-day workshop would be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-14

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

$578 ($424 owner’s share plus $154 captain’s share). Additional information regarding
economic impacts of this alternative can be reviewed in Chapter 6. To minimize cost to the
owners and operators, NMFS would offer workshops in the areas where the shark gillnet fishery
participants are located. Workshops would be held during periods when the shark gillnet fishery
is typically inactive, effectively minimizing lost fishing time to the extent practicable. For
example, the workshops may be held when the fishery is closed and prior to the start of the next
season. However, the Agency does not know what other fisheries the fishermen may be
participating in when the shark gillnet fishery is closed. The timing and location of these
workshops should lessen the negative social and economic impact of taking time away from
fishing, work, or other responsibilities. Additionally, owners and operators would have until the
vessel’s HMS permit expires in 2007 to receive the workshop certification. This delayed
effectiveness would provide fishermen and vessel owners with time to prepare for economic
costs associated with this mandatory requirement.
While there are only 20 participants associated with alternative A5, the participants are
spread out between Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey. To reduce the burden to the
industry, three workshops would need to be held, which would cost the Agency about $10,500.
If the all three preferred alternatives A2, A3, and A5 are considered together, the Agency would
likely hold at least one workshop in Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey, which could
accommodate the additional 20 participants associated with the gillnet fishery. The Agency cost
for all three workshops would be about $126,000 plus the cost of materials.
Most trades and professions require practitioners to obtain licenses demonstrating
competence; however, there is still an economic opportunity cost associated with any required
activity that would not otherwise be taken voluntarily. When analyzing the economic costs
associated with workshop alternatives, the next best activity that workshop participants would be
engaged in would be fishing. In the economic literature, it is common practice to use wage rates
from primary job activities as the opportunity cost of engaging in other activities.
Workshop attendance may increase the time spent away from family, particularly if the
workshops are scheduled during the fishery’s downtime. Because the workshops would be
scheduled where the permit holders are located in significant concentrations, attending the
workshop should not take more than a day to a day and a half away from their family,
responsibilities, or other fishing activities. The owners and operators would benefit from
participating in the workshop by advancing their knowledge and skills in their industry. The
training provided by workshops would be valuable to fishermen and could offset some
unquantifiable portion of the estimated opportunity costs.
These workshops would provide a forum for discussion and education. The vessel
owners and operator would have an opportunity learn about the latest advances in safe release
and disentanglement protocols, as well as protected species identification and the latest
regulations pertaining to their fishery. This knowledge also translates into a skill that could be
used to increase operators’ bargaining position for employment. Finally, these workshops are a
dedicated opportunity for the Agency to interact and communicate with the industry.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-15

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Recertification every two years would likely have the greatest economic impact on
participants; however, the extent of the impacts would depend on the mechanism for
recertification: in-person workshops versus the use of alternative sources of media including CD­
ROM, DVDs, or web-based media that would not result in travel costs or lost fishing time. The
Agency will consider ways to moderate the cost involved with recertification for all of the
alternatives considered. The potential economic impacts of having to get recertified in-person
would increase proportionately as the number of participants increase. Certifying the
participants every five years would result in the least negative economic impacts to the fishing
community because potentially it would result in the most infrequent recertification schedule. If
in-person recertification workshops were selected, travel costs, and lost fishing time would be
minimized.
Under the preferred alternatives, the Agency cost to recertify all HMS longline and
gillnet owners and operators every three years is difficult to estimate. Every three years, there
would likely be a large pulse of individuals that would need to be recertified in order for the
owners to renew their HMS permits. In these years, the Agency cost may be similar to the initial
year. During the interim years, there may be an unquantifiable number of new entrants to the
fishery or latent permit holders that would need to be certified. Because the number of
individuals is unknown, it is difficult to determine the number of workshops that would be
needed. At a minimum, one workshop each month would be held at total cost of $42,000 per
year plus materials.
A recertification frequency of three years would allow for sufficient retraining to
maintain proficiency and update fishermen on new research and development related to the
subject matter while not placing an excessive economic burden on the participants due to lost
fishing time and travel resulting from attending a recertification workshop in person.
Conclusion
Mandatory protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops for
PLL, BLL, and gillnet vessel owners and operators would result in positive ecological impacts
by reducing the mortality of protected resources. These workshops are essential for complying
with BiOp requirements by reducing the post-release mortality of sea turtles and other protected
resources. Workshop certification would be linked to the renewal of the vessel’s permit,
ensuring well attended workshops. Requiring certification for vessel operators would guarantee
at least one person on board the vessel during fishing activities trained in the safe handling and
release protocols. Educating vessel owners and operators on the proper identification of
protected resources would enable them to apply the appropriate safe handling and release
protocols, improve compliance with regulations, and enhance the utility of vessel logbook data.
To the extent that interactions cannot be avoided, the safe handling and release workshops
should result in increased survival rates of protected resources hooked or entangled by HMS
fishing gears. None of the alternatives considered for workshops on safe release,
disentanglement, and identification of protected resources are expected to have any impacts on
EFH. The one-day workshops are not expected to result in excessive economic impacts as they
would be scheduled at numerous locales along the Atlantic coast, minimizing travel, lost fishing
time, and other opportunity costs. The Agency would delay the workshop certification deadline
to facilitate the attendance of owners and operators. Requiring that owners and operators in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-16

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

longline and gillnet fisheries to recertify every three years would balance the ecological benefits
of maintaining familiarity with the protocols and the economic impacts of workshop attendance
due to travel costs and lost fishing opportunities. Owners and operators of longline and gillnet
vessels would be required to recertify every three years in an effort to maximize ecological
benefits and minimize economic impacts of attending workshops.
4.1.1.2 HMS Identification Workshops
The purpose of HMS identification workshops is to enhance the ability of individuals
involved in the HMS fisheries to identify sharks at the species level. Participants who
successfully complete the workshops would receive a multi-year certification, which would serve
as proof that the participant has completed the necessary training. To the extent practicable,
these workshops would be open to other interested individuals (e.g,, individuals participating in
the shark fishery, port agents, law enforcement officers, and state shark dealers) on a voluntary
basis, but mandatory for Federally permitted shark dealers.
Accurate species identification is important for compliance with HMS fishery
regulations, including the avoidance of prohibited species, maintaining quota limits, and accurate
data collection. Species data collected on vessels and by dealers are entered into vessel logbooks
and dealer reports, and are used to establish and monitor quotas and for stock assessments. It is
important that fishery scientists and managers have the most reliable data possible for assessing
the status of stocks and for formulating appropriate fishery management strategies based on this
information, both to prevent overfishing and to rebuild those stocks that are already overfished.
However, a large proportion of commercially landed sharks are reported as “unclassified” (i.e.,
unidentified), creating gaps in data collection in terms of actual species. As shown in Tables
3.40, 3.41, and 3.42, 19 percent of total 2004 LCS landings were unidentified, 0.3 percent of
total 2004 SCS landings were unidentified, and 53 percent of the pelagic shark landings were
unidentified. Of the total 2004 shark landings, 71 percent were unclassified shark species.
Species identification workshops could reduce this problem by improving species specific
reporting, thereby enhancing the quality of the data used in setting quotas and for stock
assessments.
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for conducting species
identification workshops are:
A7

No HMS identification workshops (No Action)

A8

Voluntary HMS identification workshops for dealers, all commercial vessel owners and
operators, and recreational fishermen

A9

Mandatory shark identification workshops for all shark dealers – Preferred Alternative

A10 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all swordfish, shark, and/or tuna dealers
A11 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial longline vessel owners
A12 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial longline vessel operators
A13 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial vessel owners (longline,
CHB, General category, and handgear/harpoon)
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-17

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

A14 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all commercial vessel operators (longline,
CHB, General category, and handgear/harpoon)
A15 Mandatory HMS identification workshops for all HMS Angling permit holders
A16 HMS identification certification renewal (every 3-years) – Preferred Alternative
Ecological Impacts
Under alternative A7, the No Action alternative, NMFS would continue to make
available for purchase the HMS identification manual, Guide to Sharks, Tunas, & Billfishes of
U.S. Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico, and distribute wheelhouse placards at no cost, as well as other
related educational materials. Although these materials enhance fishery participants’ ability to
identify HMS commonly caught in U.S. fisheries, discerning subtle identification features using
these materials is less effective compared to hands-on workshops, particularly when attempting
to distinguish species that are similar in appearance (e.g., certain sharks). Furthermore, this
guide does not contain pictures or information that may be beneficial for HMS carcass
identification, which is generally how the catch is offloaded to HMS dealers. Also, there is no
assurance that fishery participants will utilize or fully understand the materials distributed. As
species identification data is entered into fisheries logbooks and dealer reports, which are used in
quota monitoring and in preparing stock assessments, identification inaccuracies could be
reflected in the resulting quotas and assessments, thereby affecting associated fishery
management strategies.
Implementing voluntary workshops under alternative A8 could provide some ecological
benefits, provided fishery participants attend the voluntary workshops. In the past, however,
voluntary workshops conducted by NMFS have not been well attended, and could also be the
case if future identification workshops are voluntary. The hands-on approach of workshops
would enhance understanding of identification features so that those who do attend would be
better able to identify HMS and thus provide more accurate information in logbooks and dealer
reports. This, in turn, could provide some level of improvement in the accuracy of data used for
quota monitoring and stock assessments. In addition, those who attend and gain a better
understanding of identification features would be in a better position to comply with fishery
regulations, such as identifying prohibited species. All of these factors would indirectly
contribute to stock rebuilding efforts and, therefore, result in positive ecological effects on HMS
fishery resources.
Under alternative A9, a preferred alternative, HMS identification workshop attendance
and certification would be required for all Federally permitted shark dealers by December 31,
2007, with successful completion and mandatory recertification linked to the dealer’s ability to
obtain and renew their Federal dealer permit. Mandatory attendance by shark dealers is the
preferred alternative because: (1) a single dealer must identify offloaded catches from a number
of vessels, involving not only large numbers of fish but many different species of fish, as well;
(2) not only are some shark species difficult to distinguish from one another, but dealers need to
identify fish that have been dressed, making accurate identification even more difficult; and,
(3) while both logbook and dealer data are used for stock assessments, the dealer is ultimately
responsible for identifying the sharks, and their data is used for both quota monitoring and stock
assessments. Additionally, sharks on the prohibited species list are not to be purchased by shark
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-18

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

dealers. The shark identification workshops would improve dealer identification of prohibited
species, leading to the reduction of the number of prohibited species landed and purchased.
Without a market for prohibited shark species, shark fishermen would have greater pressure to
correctly identify sharks at the species level and land more non-prohibited sharks. The
identification workshops would help reduce the number of prohibited sharks landed and
possibility differentiate between SCS and LCS, thus facilitating dealer compliance with preferred
alternatives, I3b, to make it illegal for dealers to purchase sharks in excess of the 4,000 pound
LCS retention limit. With accurate shark identification, there may be a better understanding of
shark bycatch in the fleet.
The Agency received comment regarding the need for proxies; flexibility in certifying
newly hired proxies, and the need for multiple proxies. Shark dealers would be encouraged to
send as many proxies as is necessary to train the individuals responsible for shark species
identification within the dealer’s business. As all permitted dealers may not be geographically
located where vessels unload their catches, a proxy could attend the workshop to allow the
permitted dealer to meet mandatory attendance requirements. If a dealer opts to send a proxy,
then the dealer would be required to designate a proxy from each place of business covered by
the dealer’s permit. A proxy would be a person who is employed by a place of business, covered
by a dealer’s permit, a primary participant in identification, weighing, or first receipt of fish as
they are offloaded from a vessel, and involved in filling out dealer reports.
Public comment on the HMS Identification Workshops were supportive of mandatory
workshops for Federally permitted shark dealers, but also suggested that these workshops be
available to others, such as the recreational and commercial fishery, law enforcement, port
agents, and state shark dealers. While these workshops would be mandatory for Federally
permitted shark dealers, NMFS will accommodate other interested individuals when it is
feasible. The ecological benefits of alternative A9 would be similar to those described in
alternative A8, voluntary workshops, but would be expanded in magnitude, as a greater number
of individuals would be trained in identification, thereby substantially improving the accuracy of
data entered into dealer reports. Mandatory workshops for shark dealers, in turn, would
contribute to improved stock assessments, quota monitoring, and stock rebuilding efforts.
Under alternative A10, mandatory HMS identification workshops and certification would
be required not only for shark dealers, but for swordfish and tuna dealers as well. Benefits of
this alternative are that training would be increased to include additional participants compared
to only including shark dealers, in which case training would include identification of
commercially fished HMS as well as sharks. Although ecological benefits would be similar to
those described under alternative A9, they would be expanded to include other HMS fisheries,
and would likely result in greater ecological benefits. As with alternative A9, a proxy could
attend the workshop in order for the dealer to meet mandatory attendance requirements.
Under alternative A11, HMS identification workshops and certification would be
required for vessel owners issued limited access permits and using pelagic or bottom longline
gear during fishing operations. Workshop completion and mandatory periodic recertification
would be tied to Federal shark dealer permit issuance and renewal. Training of vessel owners
could serve to improve species data entry in vessel logbooks, but only if owners are on board the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-19

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

vessel. In some cases, the vessel owner may not be the vessel operator, and thus not involved in
daily fishing activities or be available to identify catches. Because of the potentially limited
involvement of longline vessel owners in the vessel’s fishing activities, ecological benefits
would likely be narrower in scope than expected under alternatives A8, A9, and A10.
Under alternative A12, HMS identification workshops would be required for all
commercial pelagic or bottom longline vessel operators. Ecological benefits to the fisheries,
although similar in nature to those expected under alternative A11, would be expanded in
magnitude, because operators are more actively involved in fishing activities and fish
identification. This would result in increased accuracy of species-specific data reported in
logbooks. Ecological benefits would be similar in nature as described for the alternatives above,
resulting in improved stock assessments and indirect benefits to stock rebuilding.
Under alternative A13, attending HMS identification workshops and obtaining a
certification in HMS identification would be required for all HMS permitted commercial fishing
vessel owners. Participants who have more than one permit would only be required to attend one
workshop. Successful workshop completion and mandatory periodic recertification would be
tied to the issuance and renewal of Federal HMS permits. Under this alternative, training and
identification accuracy would be significantly expanded in magnitude beyond that conducted
under alternatives A8 through A12. However, this alternative would only improve species data
entered into reports if the owners are on board the vessel, involved in daily fishing activities, and
available to identify fish landed. Given that in many cases the vessel owner is the operator
aboard the vessel during fishing activities, ecological benefits to HMS fishery resources could be
expanded beyond that expected under the other alternatives listed above, resulting in increased
indirect benefits to stock rebuilding.
Under alternative A14, mandatory HMS identification workshops and certification would
be required for all HMS permitted commercial fishing vessel operators. For the CHB, General
category, and handgear/Harpoon categories the Agency assumes that the vessel owners (permit
holders) are also the primary operators. Participants who are operators on multiple vessels
fishing under different permits would only be required to attend one identification workshop.
Due to the large number of participants, training and identification skills would be significantly
expanded beyond that under the other alternatives, resulting in a greater indirect benefit to HMS
fishery resources. This includes an improvement over alternative A13, as well, since in all cases
it can be expected that the vessel operator is on board the vessel, involved in daily fishing
activities, and available to identify catches. Therefore, training of all commercial vessel
operators could serve to significantly improve species data for fishing activities that are required
to submit a logbook and thereby improve the basis for quotas and stock assessments, as well as
regulatory compliance. Accordingly, ecological benefits to HMS fishery resources would also
be expanded beyond that expected under the previous alternatives, as a result of more accurate
species catch data, and improved regulatory compliance.
Under alternative A15, mandatory HMS identification workshops and certification would
be required for all HMS Angling category permit holders. The number of individuals trained
would be significantly greater than under the other alternatives, resulting in potentially greater
positive ecological benefits for HMS fisheries. NMFS received public comment in support of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-20

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

HMS identification workshops for the angling community; however, this alternative does not
resolve the data quality issues associated with commercial vessel logbooks and dealer reports.
Thus, quota monitoring, commercial regulatory compliance, and stock assessments would not
benefit as they would under the other alternatives.
Alternative A16 requires HMS identification workshop certification renewal every three
years. The Draft Consolidated HMS FMP considered and analyzed three timetables for
certification renewal - two, three, or five-year timetables. NMFS assumes that participants
engaged in a hands-on, day-long workshop that requires participants to pass a practical
examination demonstrating proficiency at the culmination of the workshop would maintain
familiarity with identification protocols for a reasonable period of time afterward. All new
entrants/owners into the fishery would still be required to obtain HMS identification workshop
certification before acquiring the Federal HMS permit, and permit holders would need to renew
their certification within three years of their prior attendance to maintain an active Federal HMS
permit. Requiring renewal of workshop certification every two years would likely have the most
positive ecological impacts. Requiring re-certification every three years would have somewhat
less positive ecological impacts. Requiring re-certification every five years would likely have
the least positive ecological impact, as this would allow a more extensive period of time to lapse
between certification workshops than may be necessary to maintain species identification
proficiency. Requiring workshops recertification every three years strikes a balance between
ecological benefits and economic costs.
Social and Economic Impacts
Under alternative A7, the No Action alternative, the social and economic impacts would
not change, positively or negatively, primarily because current activities related to the
dissemination of information to assist in identifying HMS would remain the same. Alternative
A7 would not have any additional Agency costs as it is the No Action alternative.
Under the remaining alternatives, the identification workshops would serve an
educational purpose and as a forum where the industry could also exchange information about
their business. This atmosphere could provide attendees with more information about their
fisheries and create a forum for participants to express their comments regarding fisheries
management and regulations. This communication could lead to better working relationships
with the Agency.
Under alternative A8, voluntary HMS identification workshops, there would be neither
positive nor negative social and economic impacts, primarily because attendance would be
voluntary and at the convenience of the participants. For those who do attend, there would be
some social benefit related to sharing of fishery information. Any associated travel costs would
be minimal, as it is not likely that participants would go to substantial expense and trouble for
this type of voluntary training. In the past, voluntary workshops conducted by NMFS have not
been well attended, and this could also be the case if identification workshops are voluntary.
The voluntary nature of the workshops proposed in alternative A8 makes it difficult to
estimate the number of individuals that would attend the workshops. As with the protected
species workshops, the number of workshops held is driven by the number of participants with
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-21

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

the maximum being 30 people and the location of the individuals. Determining the Agency cost
for holding these workshops is also uncertain at this time because the instructors, locations,
curriculum, and materials have not yet been determined. At this time, the NMFS estimates one
HMS identification workshop to cost about $2,100 including the cost of outreach materials and
staff time. If the Agency held one workshop per month, the Agency cost associated with
alternative A8 would be $25,200.
Under alternatives A9 through A15, social and economic impacts would be similar in
nature, the main difference being the number of attendees and the associated overall total costs,
taking all individuals into consideration. On an individual basis, the costs anticipated to be
incurred by fishermen would be those related to travel and time to attend the workshops,
resulting in out of pocket expenses and lost opportunity costs. Alternative A9 would require that
approximately 336 shark dealers attend mandatory workshops, alternative A10 would also
require tuna and swordfish dealers to attend, raising the total to 1,037 dealers. Daily opportunity
cost estimates for dealers are not currently known. Alternative A11 would require approximately
549 pelagic and bottom longline vessel owners to participate in identification workshops,
resulting in an individual opportunity cost ranging between $448 (median pelagic longline
owner’s share) and $281 (median bottom longline owner’s share) per day. Alternative A12
would include longline vessel operators. With 549 permitted vessels and an estimated two
operators per vessel, alternative A12 would call for about 1,098 participants in addition to the
owners (1,647 total). This estimated number of operators may be an overestimate because some
owners also operate the vessel, and not all vessels have two operators. Alternative A12 would
result in an individual opportunity cost ranging between $149 (median pelagic longline captain’s
share) and $345 (median bottom longline captain’s share) per day. Alternative A13 would
include all commercial HMS owners (longline, CHB, General category, and handgear/harpoon)
and would require approximately 9,636 participants to attend mandatory workshops. This
alternative would result in an individual opportunity cost of $424 (median owner’s share for all
gear types combined). Daily opportunity cost estimates for CHB owners are not currently
known. Alternative A14 would include operators of commercial HMS vessels. Alternative A14
would have an additional 1,098 participants as the Agency estimates two operators per vessel in
the longline fisheries for a total of 10,374 operators. Alternative A14 would result in a combined
opportunity cost of $578 (median owner’s share $424 plus median captain’s share $154 for all
gear types combined). Daily opportunity cost estimates for CHB owners/operators are not
currently known. Alternative A15 would require all HMS Angling permit holders to attend
workshops, which is the largest single category of HMS permit holders, including approximately
25,238 participants. Daily opportunity cost estimates for HMS Angling permit holders are not
currently known. Additional information regarding economic impacts of these alternatives can
be reviewed in Chapter 6.
To minimize costs to fishermen, NMFS intends to offer workshops at a variety of
locations near high concentrations of dealers, according to the addresses listed on the permits.
NMFS would also try to hold workshops during off-peak times to minimize interruption to the
businesses. However, since the Agency does not know what state fisheries dealers may be
involved with, the Agency cannot guarantee that all workshops will be held at appropriate times
to minimize all lost opportunities. Further, the requirement to obtain workshop certification
would be delayed until December 31, 2007, to provide dealers more time to prepare for the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-22

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

economic costs associated with this mandatory requirement. The administrative costs to NMFS
for the workshops is high, but may be exceeded by the benefits associated with the possible
impacts from increased education. Before implementation, NMFS would attempt to identify
ways to minimize costs to attendees as much as possible.
As with the protected species workshops, the Agency cost will vary depending upon the
number of participants required to obtain a workshop certification. Alternative A9, the preferred
alternative, requires the attendance of all Federally permitted shark dealers, which is about 336
individuals, plus any additional proxies involved with shark identification. At a minimum the
Agency would need to hold 12 workshops, accommodating a maximum of 30 people per
workshop. At a cost of $2,100 per workshop, 12 workshops would cost the Agency an estimated
$252,000. Alternative A10 would require all Federal HMS dealers or about 701 individuals to
be workshop certified; holding 24 workshops would cost the Agency about $50,400. Alternative
A11 would certify 549 commercial longline vessel owners at about 19 different workshops for an
Agency cost of $39,900. To certify all commercial longline operators (alternative A12), the
Agency would need to hold about 37 workshops with an estimated Agency cost of $77,700.
Expanding the universe of certified individuals in alternative A13 to all commercial HMS permit
holders would require at least 322 workshops and the Agency cost would be about $676,200.
The Agency would need to hold at least 346 workshops to accommodate all 10,374 commercial
HMS operators. Alternative A14 would have an estimated Agency cost of $726,600. The
largest number of individuals would be certified under alternative A15 with 25,328 Angling
permit holders. This alternative would cost the Agency an estimated $1,768,200.
Alternative A16 has a range of social and economic impacts depending on the frequency
of recertification workshop attendance. In the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS considered
requiring the workshop certification renewal every two, three, or five years. The two additional
years of a five-year timetable may compromise dealer proficiency in shark identification and
may have greater economic impacts to dealers because of the expense of one-on-one training, as
well as the cost of travel to the trainer location. In an effort to reduce economic impacts to shark
dealers, the schedule for HMS Identification Workshops would be available in advance to allow
dealers to select workshops close to them and most convenient to their schedule. If a dealer
and/or proxy is unable to attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS will consider granting one-on-one
training at the expense of the dealer. The Federally permitted shark dealer would be held
accountable for ensuring that the appropriate individuals receive the required training in shark
identification. The attendance of multiple proxies per shark dealer may ensure that the dealer has
at least one certified staff member and the skills to properly identify sharks if another certified
employee is terminated. According to public comment, NMFS should anticipate turnover in
dealer proxies. These one-on-one training sessions would accommodate the replacement of a
proxy whose employment was terminated on short notice, but, again, these sessions would be at
the expense of the permit holder. If dealer employee turnover is high and the renewals are
scheduled every five-years, a dealer may pay for a greater number of one-on-one training
sessions than with a three-year timetable.
In addition to the frequency, economic impacts would be dependent on the type of
recertification selected by the Agency, such as hands-on, in-person or training via the Internet,
DVD, and/or printed materials. In the future, the Agency intends to investigate the use of
alternative media to train shark dealers and/or renew the shark identification workshop
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-23

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

certification, however the initial training would be in-person and hands-on. If NMFS does
transition to Internet training, the Agency will look at the option of making any online training
available to all interested parties. Hands-on, in-person recertification workshops would result in
additional travel costs and lost fishing time. To the extent possible, NMFS would schedule
recertification workshops so as to minimize these factors, but the negative economic impacts
would be greater for hands-on, in-person recertification due to more frequent travel costs and
potential increased fishing down time.
Under the preferred alternative, to recertify every three years, there would likely be a
large pulse of individuals seeking to be recertified every three years when certificates expire. In
these years, the Agency cost may be similar to the initial year as discussed above. During the
interim years, there may be an unquantifiable number of new entrants to the industry or business
or latent permit holders that would need to be certified. Because the number of individuals
needing the workshop certification in the interim years is unknown, it is difficult to determine the
number of workshops that would be needed. At a minimum, one workshop each month would
be held at total annual cost of $25,200.
Conclusion
Alternative A9, mandatory workshops for all Federally permitted shark dealers, is the
preferred alternative because species-specific identification of offloaded shark carcasses is much
more difficult than for other HMS as evidenced by the large proportion of “unclassified” sharks
listed on shark dealer reports. This uncertainty compromises quota monitoring and stock
assessment efforts. Dealers are a focal point for gathering shark landings information as sharks
from numerous vessels are offloaded at each individual dealer. Positive identification is often
less difficult for fishermen than dealers as they know exactly where (depth, type of habitat, etc) a
shark has been caught and often see the sharks alive and intact. These workshops would be open
to other interested individuals (e.g., individuals participating in the shark fishery, port agents, law
enforcement officers, and state shark dealers) on a voluntary basis, but would be mandatory
Federally permitted shark dealers. Federally permitted shark dealers would be required to
receive this training in an effort to reduce unclassified shark landings and improve speciesspecific landings data. Improvements in shark dealer data could improve the existing quota
monitoring program, as well as future stock assessments. The HMS identification workshops are
also not expected to have any impacts on EFH. Additionally, these workshops are not expected
to alter existing fishing effort or practices, and therefore, should not result in increased
interactions with protected resources. The Agency would attempt to minimize economic impacts
to shark dealers by delaying the date of effectiveness until January 1, 2007, meaning shark
dealers would need to be certified by December 31, 2007. Additionally, workshops would be
held at fishing ports to minimize travel costs and during non-peak fishing times to minimize
perturbations to business activity, to the extent possible. Based on the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP analyses and public comment, the Agency has determined that the HMS identification
workshop certification for all Federally permitted shark dealers would be most appropriately
renewed on a three-year timetable. Recertification every three years is a reasonable frequency to
ensure that participants are kept abreast of identification protocols.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-24

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

4.1.2 Time Area Closures
NMFS considered alternatives ranging from maintaining existing closures (No Action) to
a complete prohibition of pelagic longline (PLL) gear in all areas in order to reduce the bycatch
and bycatch mortality of non-target HMS and protected species, such as sea turtles, in Atlantic
HMS fisheries. While NMFS primarily focused on pelagic and bottom longline gear in this
section, other gear types and other approaches to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality are
considered in other sections (e.g., Workshops in Section 4.1.1.1; restrictions on recreational
gears in Section 4.2.3). Alternatives B4 (complementary closures in Madison-Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps) and B5 (criteria to use when implementing or modifying area closures) are
the preferred alternatives. The No Action alternative (B1) is shown in Figure 4.1. Alternatives
B2(a) through B2(e) are shown in Figure 4.2. Alternatives B3(a) and (b) are shown in Figure
4.3. and alternatives B4 and B6 area shown in Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5.
The alternatives were grouped according to the primary objectives of the time/area
closure. Alternatives B2(a) through B2(e) consider new closures for PLL gear to primarily
address white marlin, bluefin tuna (BFT), and sea turtle bycatch. Alternatives B3(a) and B3(b)
consider modifying existing closures for PLL gear. Regardless of the grouping, bycatch of nontarget species and protected species, such as sea turtles, was taken into consideration for all of
the alternatives. Alternatives B4 through B7 consider either complementary measures, criteria
for time/area closures, closures for bottom longline (BLL) gear, or complete closure of the HMS
PLL fishery. Several other alternatives, B2(f) – (k) and B3(c) – (d), were initially considered for
new closures and modifications to existing closures but were not further analyzed (See Chapter 2
and Appendix A). Explanations of why certain alternatives were not further analyzed are
included in Chapter 2, and tables summarizing data for each of the alternatives that were
considered are included in Appendix A. The time/area closure alternatives considered are:
B1

Maintain existing time/area closures; no new time/area closures (No Action)

B2(a) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the central portion of the Gulf of
Mexico from May through November (7 months), annually
B2(b) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in an area of the Northeast during the
month of June (1 month), each year
B2(c) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the central Gulf of Mexico from April
through June (3 months), annually
B2(d) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico west of 86 degrees
W. Longitude year-round
B2(e) Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in an area of the Northeast to reduce sea
turtle interactions year-round
B3(a) Modify the existing Charleston Bump time/area closure to allow the use of PLL gear in
all areas seaward of the axis of the Gulf Stream
B3(b) Modify the existing Northeastern U.S. time/area closure to allow the use of PLL gear in
areas west of 72º 47’ W. Long. during the month of June each year

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-25

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

B4

Implement complementary HMS management measures in Madison-Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves year-round – Preferred Alternative

B5

Establish criteria to consider when implementing new time/area closures or making
modifications to existing time/area closures – Preferred Alternative

B6

Prohibit the use of bottom longline gear in an area southwest of Key West to protect
endangered smalltooth sawfish year-round

B7

Prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS fisheries in all areas

Ecological Impacts
Brief Summary of the Analyses for New Closures
As described below, each of the alternatives would have varying degrees of ecological
impacts. To help identify potential benefits and impacts of the various alternatives, NMFS
conducted analyses using available data. These analyses are fully explained in Appendix A and
a summary is provided below. Within this section, NMFS presents summary tables that were
created to show the changes in the numbers of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish,
spearfish, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, other sea turtles, and BFT based on data
from the Pelagic Observer Program (POP) (Table 4.4) or the Highly Migratory Species (HMS)
Logbook (this is the logbook used by the PLL fleet) (Table 4.5) for the various time/area closure
alternatives. In addition, individual tables for each of the alternatives are presented to show the
monthly discards or landings of non-target or target HMS respectively, that include pelagic and
large coastal sharks, and the percent reduction in numbers of hooks set. Data are also presented
for the estimated change in targeted and retained catch of swordfish, bluefin, bigeye, albacore,
yellowfin, and skipjack tunas (BAYS).
The analyses of the time/area closure alternatives utilized data from the POP, the HMS
logbook, and the Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP). Data from the
observer program is referred to in the text as “observed,” and data from the HMS Logbook is
referred to as “reported” or “logbook” data. To determine the effectiveness of the current
closures, NMFS compared data prior to implementation of the closed areas (1997 – 1999) with
effort and catch data from 2001 – 2003 for various species. The analyses of the new time/area
closures considered data primarily from the POP and HMS logbook from 2001 – 2003. Data
from 2001 – 2003 were used because they include data after the most recent closures went into
effect in 2000. For the alternatives considering modifications to existing time/area closures,
NMFS compared data prior to implementation of the closed areas (1997 – 1999) for various
species. In all cases, the POP and HMS logbook data were used to summarize monthly U.S.
PLL catches throughout the operational range of the U.S. fleet in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean (throughout the rest of this Section, the range of the PLL fishery is
considered the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean, although all three areas may
not be explicitly referenced).
Complete, finalized data from 2004 were not available for the analyses presented in the
Draft HMS FMP. Once the 2004 POP and HMS logbook data became available, NMFS
conducted an analysis of a subset of the HMS logbook dataset from 2001 – 2004 (first six
months of 2004 only) to determine whether there were any substantial differences from the 2001
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-26

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

– 2003 data presented in the Draft HMS FMP. NMFS took this approach because the 2001 –
2003 data are based largely on the use of J-hooks (as are the data for the first six months of 2004
before the circle hook requirement went into effect (July 6, 2004, 69 FR 40734)) whereas the
second six months of 2004 are based on circle hook data. The results of the analyses on the
subset of this dataset (i.e., the first half of 2004) are included in Appendix A. In general, the
inclusion of the January through June 2004 data with the 2001 – 2003 HMS logbook data did not
change the predicted percent change in bycatch and discards for the different closures.
Therefore, the inclusion of the additional six months of data from 2004 did not substantially alter
any of the data presented in the Draft HMS FMP, or result in any changes to the overall
conclusions or preferred alternatives in the Draft HMS FMP. Because these analyses were based
on data (i.e., 2004 HMS logbook data) that became available during the public comment period,
these additional analyses were not available for public comment and are not included in this
section (but are included in Appendix A). Given the additional six months of 2004 did not
change the results of the time/area analyses done in the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS used 2001 –
2003 HMS logbook and POP data for the analyses throughout the rest of this section, except
where other years are explicitly discussed.
NMFS used a Geographic Information System (GIS) program to plot observed (POP) and
reported (HMS logbook) effort and catches of all non-target HMS (white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, and BFT), protected species (leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtles
comprised of green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles), and retained HMS species
(swordfish, BFT, yellowfin, bigeye, and all BAYS tunas combined). Data for each of the species
were mapped and compared spatially to one another in order to select the areas of highest
concentration of bycatch. The areas of highest concentrations of bycatch for all species were
then selected for further analysis. For these analyses, estimates of discards of all target and nontarget HMS are comprised of both live and dead discards. All of the areas presented in this
section and Appendix A were initially selected by examining the HMS logbook and POP data
from 2001 - 2003 and identifying areas and times where bycatch was concentrated. NMFS has
provided maps of bycatch for individual species (Figure 4.6 through Figure 4.13). In response to
a specific request, NMFS has provided a map showing the spatial overlap of BFT, white marlin,
and sea turtle bycatch in appendix A (Figure A-9 in Appendix A). For the spatial overlap
analysis, NMFS combined the bycatch data from the HMS logbook for BFT, white marlin, and
sea turtles into one combined dataset, and then joined them to a 10 x 10 minute grid (which is
equivalent to approximately 100 nm2) to get the number of discards for all species combined per
100 nm2. A color scale is included to show the number of observations per 100 nm2. The map
shows the areas of highest bycatch for the three species combined. Monthly interactions for the
different species (i.e., temporal variability) were considered in the redistribution of effort
analyses and can be seen in Table 4.13 and Table 4.16.
NMFS also took into account a closure area and time period received in a petition for
rulemaking and considered an additional closure to reduce BFT discards in a reported spawning
area in the Gulf of Mexico (Blue Ocean Institute et al., 2005; Block et al., 2005) (see alternative
B2(c) discussion below). In addition, NMFS took into account a settlement agreement relating
to white marlin, which was approved by the court in Center for Biological Diversity v. NMFS,
Civ. Action No. 04-0063 (D.D.C.). With regard to the settlement agreement, NMFS specifically
took into account five suggested white marlin time/area closures in the U.S. EEZ described on
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-27

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

page 10 in a February 14, 2002, letter from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, re: Atlantic White
Marlin Critical Habitat Designation (see alternatives B2(g) – (k) in Section 2.1.2). The data used
to analyze these potential closure areas include more recent data than was presented in the
February 14, 2002, letter that relied on data from 1994 – 1996. All other time/area closure
boundaries were selected based on the areas of highest interactions for a number of species
(primarily white marlin, BFT, and leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles) (Figure 4.6 through
Figure 4.12).
Following the selection of specific areas, NMFS performed spatial analyses to determine
the fishing effort (number of hooks) and number of each species observed and reported caught
inside each time/area closure in comparison to the rest of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean, excluding the Northeast Distant restricted fishing area (NED). The NED data were
not included in the analyses because the area was closed to commercial PLL fishing, except for a
research experiment, during the period 2001 through 2003 (the years used in the analyses).
NMFS analyzed both absolute numbers of discards as well as areas of highest catch and
catch per unit effort (CPUE: number of animals per 1,000 hooks) for non-target HMS and
protected resources (white marlin, BFT, and sea turtles). In some cases these areas overlapped,
in others, they did not (Figure 4.6, Figure 4.8, Figure 4.10, and Figure 4.11). This may be due to
the fact that there are localized areas of high CPUE that may not necessarily represent the areas
of highest bycatch in terms of absolute numbers. In order to avoid underestimation of bycatch
reduction, in cases where the highest CPUE did not overlap with the areas of highest absolute
numbers of discards, NMFS decided to further analyze the area that had the highest overall
discards (in absolute terms), rather than areas with the highest CPUE. Thus, NMFS based the
analyses on absolute numbers to maximize the reduction in overall number of discards. Under
this approach, the projected number of discards may actually increase when redistribution of
fishing effort is taken into account because high levels of effort are displaced into open areas
with high CPUEs. Unlike other research on time/area closures (e.g., Block et al., 2005), NMFS
did not analyze CPUE in terms of soak hours (i.e., the number of animals caught per hour of a
longline set; soak time could be calculated by subtracting the time recorded when hooks were set
in the water from the time recorded when hooks were pulled out of the water). Because of the
variability between fishermen in reporting the soak time per set, NMFS felt the uncertainty
associated with this measure was too high to accurately calculate effort in terms of soak hours
(i.e., was the start time recorded when the first hook went in the water or when the entire set was
placed in the water? Or, similarly, was the end time recorded when the first hook was brought
back onboard or when the entire set was retrieved?). Rather, NMFS used absolute numbers of
catch as the most appropriate measure to assess time/area closures for bycatch reduction.
For all of the alternatives, NMFS compared monthly observed and reported catch and
CPUE in each of the potential time/area closures to catch and CPUE fleet-wide, excluding the
NED. Changes in bycatch and incidental catch resulting from time/area closures are thus
expressed as a percentage of total U.S. Atlantic PLL catch, calculated on a monthly basis.
NMFS evaluated the impacts of the closures both with and without redistribution of effort. The
full redistribution of effort model assumed that fishing effort in a closure would be redistributed
to all the remaining open areas. Therefore, evaluating impacts of a closure with and without
redistribution of effort provides NMFS the potential range for which changes in catch could
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-28

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

occur as a result of the closure(s). One end of the range assumes that all fishing effort within a
given closed area will be eliminated (e.g., fishermen will completely stop fishing in the closed
area not displace that effort into other areas for the duration of the closure). Thus, the number
and percent reduction in catch of both non-target and targeted species in these analyses
represents the highest possible expected reduction. This would also represent the greatest
negative social and economic impact that is anticipated for the industry. The other end of the
spectrum assumes that all fishing effort in a closed area is distributed to open areas (e.g.,
fishermen will move out of the closed area but continue fishing in surrounding open areas, move
their business, or sell their permits to someone near an open area). The method used to calculate
the resulting catch of target and non-target species is to multiply the effort that is being
redistributed due to the closure by the CPUE for each species in all remaining open areas (for a
complete description of the methodology used for redistribution of effort, please see Appendix
A.) This end of the continuum would be expected to provide the least amount of bycatch
reduction for a given closure depending on the CPUE of each species in all remaining open
areas, which often provides mixed results regarding impacts on catch and bycatch and the
economic and social impacts. In reality, the actual result may lie between the results obtained
from these two different scenarios. In addition, if fishermen switch to different fisheries, this in
turn, may have unanticipated consequences from gear interactions with other gear types and
increased exploitation of other species not caught by PLL. Predicting fishermen’s behavior is
difficult, especially as some factors that may determine whether to stay in the fishery, relocate, or
leave the fishery are beyond NMFS’ control (fuel prices, infrastructure, hurricanes, etc.). While
some fishermen will continue to fish in open areas of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, others
may be forced to leave the fishery entirely as a result of the closure.
During the comment period on the Draft HMS FMP, a number of commenters expressed
concern over the effort redistribution model. These commenters felt that PLL vessels were not
mobile enough to redistribute effort uniformly and that vessels in a certain area would move to
adjacent areas (e.g., vessels homeported in the Gulf of Mexico would stay in the Gulf of Mexico
and would not move into the mid-Atlantic bight). Thus, the commenters felt that NMFS’
“random” redistribution model did not accurately reflect the reality of the fleet.
As described in the Draft HMS FMP, the fleet-wide redistribution of effort model
approach was used because an analysis of the mobility of the PLL fleet, completed in 2001 as
part of a remand document regarding the implementation of a vessel monitoring system (NMFS,
2001), indicated that PLL vessels generally exhibit a high degree of mobility and are as likely to
fish in areas away from their homeport as they are to fish in areas immediately adjacent to their
homeport. This approach is also consistent with the methods used to analyze other time/area
closures for the PLL fishery (NMFS, 2000; NMFS, 2004). The 1999 closure in the Northeastern
United States to reduce BFT discards considered an effort displacement model for areas
immediately adjacent to the closures because it was small in geographic size and short in
duration compared to other time/area closures, and it was presumed fishermen would remain in
this general area to retain incidentally-caught BFT while targeting other species. In the Draft
HMS FMP, a similar approach of limiting the redistribution of effort to adjacent areas (Gulf of
Mexico only) was used for alternative B2(a). NMFS analyzed redistribution of effort in the Gulf
of Mexico only for alternative B2(a) because it is the smallest of the three closures considered in
the Gulf of Mexico and represents the most likely case in which fishermen would stay in the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-29

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Gulf of Mexico. Since there would still be open areas left to fish in the Gulf of Mexico during
this period (May through November), fishermen may turn to those areas rather than move out of
the Gulf of Mexico and into the Atlantic.
Due to the difficulty with predicting fishermen’s behavior once a closure is implemented,
NMFS cannot predict with precision where fishing effort will be displaced. As described above,
the effort redistribution model multiplied the effort seen in a potential closed area by the CPUE
for each species in all remaining open areas. Thus, under this scenario, fishing effort is as likely
to be displaced into areas with high bycatch rates as into areas with low bycatch rates, which
could potentially result in an increase in bycatch of certain species. For example, interactions
with leatherback sea turtles tend to be higher in the Gulf of Mexico, whereas interactions with
loggerhead sea turtles tend to be higher along the Atlantic coast. If fishing effort is redistributed
from the Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic, there may be an increase in loggerhead sea turtle
interactions. Conversely, if fishing effort is redistributed from the Atlantic to the Gulf of
Mexico, leatherback turtle interactions may increase. Similar positive and negative results occur
with the redistribution of effort model for other species. This indicates that, as fishing effort is
squeezed into smaller open areas, bycatch of one species may decrease, while bycatch of another
species may increase.
While the current redistribution of effort model could be improved in the future, the
model used by NMFS in this rulemaking has been successfully used by NMFS in past
rulemakings and is the based on the best science currently available for the Atlantic HMS PLL
fishery. The current redistribution of effort model accounts for displaced effort due to a closure,
and provides quantitative estimates of changes in bycatch, discards, and retained catch as a result
of a closure. Other models have been used for time/area analyses; however, in many cases, these
models did not consider redistribution of fishing effort (e.g., SCRS/2005/011; Block et al.,
2005). Those models that have investigated redistribution of effort as a result of time/area
closures have been random utility models (RUMs) that have been used for the Hawaiian PLL
fishery (e.g., Curtis and McConnell, 2004), and a closed area model used by the New England
Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) to evaluate closures for the groundfish fishery
(NEFMC, 2003). Both types of models are econometric models, which predict where fishermen
will reallocate effort based on maximizing revenues and/or profits. However, neither model is
currently designed to be used for the HMS PLL fishery, and in order for either framework to be
applicable to a time/area analysis for the Atlantic HMS PLL fishery, NMFS would have to
develop a specific model for the PLL fleet based the current economics, fishing grounds, and
fishing effort of the Atlantic HMS PLL fleet. Such development will take additional time and
effort. An additional RUM was developed for HMS (Strand, 2004) based on 1996 data. While
NMFS considered using this model, it was not used for the current analyses because it was based
on very large areas that were not applicable to the current time/area closures being considered,
and because the data were outdated (i.e., 1996 versus 2001 – 2003). In addition, the Strand
(2004) model was based on J-hook bycatch and economic data. Given the current PLL fishery
regulations require circle hooks, and that the applicability of J-hook data is questionable, NMFS
may want to develop a random utility model once it has circle hook bycatch and economic data.
Once NMFS has complete and finalized circle hook data, NMFS may consider revising the
model in the future to make it applicable to the current closed areas. In the meantime, NMFS has
chosen to use the current redistribution of effort model that has been used in past rulemakings.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-30

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

As noted in earlier chapters, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a
directive requiring Federal Agencies to have “influential scientific information” and “highly
influential scientific assessments” peer reviewed. Since NMFS decided that sections of the HMS
FMP, including the time/area section, could be classified as “influential scientific information,”
NMFS had three independent (i.e., people not involved in the drafting of the document) scientists
review these sections pursuant of the OMB directive. Two of the peer reviewers were NOAA
scientists and one peer reviewer was an independent scientist outside of NOAA. One of the peer
reviewers (Appendix E) stated that, “The model is based on generally accepted principles in
fisheries science. In general, such models rely on a set of assumptions related to static patterns
of relative abundance at some temporal and spatial resolution, limited consideration of fish
movements, and incomplete understanding of the effects of closure areas on redistribution of
effort. Nonetheless, such models can provide useful insights for comparison of alternative
management strategies. Without such a model there would be no such pragmatic way of
comparing the potential closed areas. In general, it is probably safe to assume that the limitations
of the model will be comparable across alternatives. Thus, the rankings of each alternative
should be relatively insensitive to the assumptions.” Another OMB reviewer suggested testing
“other plausible assumptions” or “redistribution scenarios.” The third OMB reviewer stated that,
“Given the assumption of effort redistribution, it is difficult to believe that NMFS will be able to
implement a time/area closure that does not have ecological impacts that counter gains. Hence,
for time/area closures to be effective, assumptions on effort redistribution need to be rigorously
tested…[and] reality likely lies between no effort redistribution and complete redistribution.”
In response to the public comments received and to some of the comments by the OMB
peer reviewers, NMFS investigated the movement of the PLL fleet from 2001 through June of
2004 to see where vessels fished in relation to their reported homeports. This mobility analysis
broke the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico into six distinct areas, with one area, Area 2,
split along the west and east coasts of Florida (Areas 2A and 2B, respectively; Figure A.5).
Using GIS, NMFS plotted vessels according to where they fished (i.e., made sets) in those six
different areas in relation to their reported homeport. This provided NMFS with a spatial
understanding of the distance different vessels could move. Figure A.6 shows the results of this
analysis. Overall, most of the movement and effort (in terms of hooks) out of the Gulf of
Mexico (Areas 1 and 2A) went to Area 6, the high seas, but some other effort was also moved up
along the eastern seaboard (Figure A.7). Conversely, a few vessels that fished along the eastern
seaboard also moved into the Gulf of Mexico, although the movement was somewhat limited.
NMFS also investigated the physical characteristics of vessels to see if there were any
differences in the vessels that reported fishing only in the Gulf of Mexico compared to vessels
that reporting fishing out of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS found no significant differences in the
vessels’ length (t104 = 0.43, P = 0.35) or vessels’ horsepower (t104 = 0.43, P = 0.66) for vessels
that fished only in the Gulf of Mexico versus those that fished out of the Gulf of Mexico (Table
A.36). These results indicate that vessels that fish exclusively in the Gulf of Mexico have the
physical capability (in terms of vessel size and horsepower) to fish outside of the Gulf of
Mexico. Furthermore, despite the upgrading restrictions, this indicates that the vessel owners
could sell their permits and/or boats to fishermen who may like to fish outside the Gulf of
Mexico.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-31

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

NMFS also provided maps showing where the PLL sets have occurred inside and outside
the U. S. EEZ (Figure A.8a). These maps show the true extent of fishing effort by the U.S. PLL
fleet whereas most of the other figures in Chapter 4 and Appendix A are focused on the U.S.
EEZ. Figure A.8b shows the size of closures B2(a) and B2(c) in the Gulf of Mexico relative to
the entire Gulf of Mexico and shows that the U.S. PLL fleet has been fishing within and outside
the U. S. EEZ. Figure A.8c shows that PLL vessels can relocate to distant ports and fish outside
of their immediate homeport region (in some cases, up to 4,000 miles) whereas movement from
the Gulf of Mexico to the Mid-Atlantic Bight is only 1,500 miles (Figure A.8d).
Based on these analyses, NMFS evaluated several different scenarios of the redistribution
of fishing effort model for some of the closed areas where each scenario had different
assumptions regarding how fishing effort would be redistributed into open areas. NMFS
evaluated different scenarios for redistribution of fishing effort for B2(a) since it was the smallest
closure in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS also evaluated different scenarios of redistribution of
effort for the B2(c) based on substantive issues identified during from public comments on this
alternative. Finally, NMFS also evaluated different scenarios for the redistribution of effort
model for B2(b) because it was the smallest closure along the eastern seaboard. Specifically,
NMFS calculated redistribution of effort only to open areas along the eastern seaboard for a
closure in the Northeast [B2(b)]. NMFS also redistributed fishing effort in the open areas of the
Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 for two closures in the Gulf of Mexico (B2(a) and B2(c); see
Appendix A). By doing this, NMFS was able to investigate how different assumptions of
redistribution of fishing effort for different size closures in different regions of the Gulf of
Mexico and Atlantic would effect predictions of bycatch, discards, and retained catch.
Taken with the results from both no redistribution of effort and the full redistribution of
effort model, these additional scenarios provide estimates of changes in bycatch and retained
catch somewhere in-between the two base scenarios (i.e., some movement is expected, and thus,
some redistribution of effort is expected into a particular area (in this case, Area 6)). However,
these additional scenarios assume that the same amount of effort is moved out of the Gulf of
Mexico regardless of the size of the closure in the Gulf of Mexico, when in reality, larger
closures may result in more movement out of the Gulf of Mexico since a smaller area in the Gulf
of Mexico will be open for fishing. These scenarios also assume that fishermen do not relocate,
possibly due to community ties to unloading docks, processing plants, etc. However, it should
be noted that while fishermen may prefer not to disrupt ties to their communities, the available
data indicate that fishermen from the Gulf of Mexico already fish outside of the Gulf of Mexico.
If a large closure were implemented in the Gulf of Mexico, it is likely that additional fishermen
would move their fishing locations or sell their permits rather than go out of business. However,
in the future, NMFS intends to investigate the choices fishermen have made regarding previous
closures (i.e., did they move, sell their permits, go out of business, retain their permit but fish for
something else, etc?). This type of analysis could help NMFS improve the redistribution of
effort models used in the future.
Data for each of the new closures (alternatives B2(a) through (e)) were analyzed with and
without redistribution of effort. Both POP and HMS logbook data were used to analyze bycatch
and discards without redistribution of effort. However, only the HMS logbook data were used to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-32

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

estimate bycatch with redistribution of effort because these data are collected for the entire fleet
and provide an effort estimate for the entire fleet needed for redistribution calculations, whereas
the POP data are only collected from a portion of the fleet. NMFS is aware that discards may be
underreported in the HMS logbook data compared to the POP data. However, if there are no
differences in underreporting for different species between different regions, then the relative
effect of each closure on bycatch reduction for each species should be comparable across
alternatives. Cramer (2000) compared dead discards from the HMS logbook and POP data. In
her paper, Cramer used POP data to estimate dead discards of undersized swordfish, sailfish,
white and blue marlin, and pelagic sharks from the PLL fishery operating in the U.S. Atlantic,
Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Cramer (2000) provided the ratio of catch estimated from the
POP data divided by the reported catch in the HMS logbooks. This ratio indicated the amount of
underreporting for different species in a given area. Due to public comment that expressed
concern over using HMS logbook data rather than POP, NMFS analyzed the ratios in Cramer
(2000) to test whether underreporting varied for different species in different parts of the
Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS used a Kruskal-Wallis test (a non-parametric
test equivalent to a parametric Analysis of Variance) to account for small sample sizes and nonnormally distributed data. NMFS found that there was no difference in the ratio of estimated
catch versus reported catch for undersized swordfish, sailfish, blue marlin, white marlin, or
pelagic sharks (undersized swordfish: Chi-square = 3.63; d.f. = 5; P = 0.60; sailfish: Chi-square =
1.72; d.f. = 5; P = 0.89; blue marlin: Chi-square = 3.89; d.f. = 5; P = 0.57; white marlin: Chisquare = 2.97; d.f. = 5; P = 0.70; pelagic sharks: Chi-square = 4.78; d.f. = 5; P = 0.44).
Therefore, there were no differences in underreporting between the POP and HMS logbooks for
the above species in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico. Based on the available
information, NMFS believes HMS logbooks may underestimate the amount of bycatch, however,
the relative effect of each closure for each species should be comparable across alternatives.
While the data used in the Cramer (2000) study represented an earlier time period (1997 – 1998)
compared to the 2001 – 2003 data used here, it gives some indication that the use of HMS
logbook data over POP data should not invalidate or bias the results of the time/area analyses.
NMFS will continue to investigate potential differences in reporting between HMS logbook and
POP data for all discarded species as well as potential biases in reporting between geographical
areas for different species.
Results of the Analyses
The No Action alternative, B1, would maintain the existing time/area closures (Figure
4.1) and would not implement any new time/area closures. These areas include the June
Northeastern U.S. closure (effective June 1, 1999), the DeSoto Canyon (effective November 1,
2000), the Charleston Bump and Florida East Coast closures (effective March 1, 2001), and the
Northeast Distant closed area (effective July 9, 2002, and modified July 6, 2004). The Northeast
Distant area is currently a restricted fishing area with specific gear requirements (69 FR 40734,
July 6, 2004). Since most of the time/area closures were implemented in 2001 or earlier, data
from 2001 – 2003 provide the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the closures. The
following sections provides an overview of the effectiveness of the existing time/area closures at
reducing discards and bycatch and in maintaining target catches for the entire fishery. These
analyses are ongoing and additional data are collected and reviewed annually.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-33

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Data used in these analyses were taken from the HMS logbook database administered
through the NMFS Southeast Region. The reported catch and discards for each species and the
number of hooks set were pooled by month (Table 4.6 and Table 4.7). The monthly and annual
Atlantic wide totals catch and discards were calculated for each species. A reference period of
1997 – 1999 was chosen for the initial comparisons to examine the effect of closures
implemented in 2000 – 2001. The percent change from 1997 – 1999 to 2001 – 2003 in numbers
kept and discarded were calculated for the domestic PLL fleet for the entire Atlantic basin (Table
4.6 and Table 4.7). Changes in the numbers of fish caught and discarded were compared to the
predicted changes presented in Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (NMFS, 2000). The
reported distribution of hooks set by area each year was examined to evaluate trends and/or shifts
in fishing effort (Table 4.8). In addition, the reported number of fish kept and discarded in the
MAB and NEC was compared to the reported numbers for all other areas combined in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of the June Northeastern U.S. closure (Table 4.9).
The analyses showed that the existing closures have been effective at reducing bycatch of
protected species and non-target HMS and have provided positive ecological benefits. For
example, the overall number of reported discards of swordfish, BFT and bigeye tunas, pelagic
sharks, blue and white marlin, sailfish, and spearfish have all declined by more than 30 percent.
The reported discards of blue and white marlin declined by about 50 percent and sailfish discards
declined by almost 75 percent. The reported number of sea turtles caught and released declined
by almost 28 percent (Table 4.6 and Table 4.7). Thus, the No Action alternative would continue
to have a positive ecological impact by maintaining a low overall byctach of non-target and
protected species.
The closures have had an impact on landings of target species as well. For example, from
1997 to 2003, the number of swordfish kept declined by nearly 28 percent, the number of
yellowfin tuna kept declined by 23.5 percent, and the total number of BAYS kept (including
yellowfin tuna) declined by 25.1 percent (Table 4.6). The reported declines (without
redistribution of effort) in swordfish kept and discarded, large coastal sharks kept and discarded,
and dolphins kept were similar to the predicted values developed for Regulatory Amendment 1.
Reported discards of BFT, pelagic sharks, all billfish (with the exception of spearfish for which
no predicted change was developed in Regulatory Amendment 1) and total BAYS kept have all
declined more than the predicted values. Thus, the existing closures appear to have had a
positive ecological impact on these species as well. However, such declines in landings may
also have had negative economic impacts on commercial fisheries as discussed later in this
section.
Overall effort in the Atlantic PLL fishery based on reported number of hooks set declined
by 15 percent during the pre- to post-closure period (Table 4.8). The distribution of effort does
not indicate a major shift in fishing effort as a result of the time/area closures (Table 4.8). The
average number of hooks reported set in 2001 – 2003 by area was compared to the average for
1997 – 1999. Declines in effort were reported for the majority of the areas. However, fishing
effort increased during the pre- to post-closure period in the Gulf of Mexico, by slightly more
than eight percent (Table 4.8). This increase could be the result of a shift in effort attributable to
the implementation of East Florida Coast closure area. Reported effort also increased in the
Sargasso (SAR) and North Central Atlantic (NCA) statistical areas where little activity had been
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-34

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

reported prior to 2002. This increase could also represent a shift in effort due to implementation
of the East Florida Coast closed area, and possibly the seasonal Charleston Bump closure. Effort
in the South Atlantic Bight, where the Charleston Bump closure is located, declined by 30
percent from the 1997 – 1999 level. Effort in the MAB and NEC also declined, 26 and 31
percent, respectively. The June Northeastern U.S. closed area is located within these two areas.
The June Northeastern U.S. closed area (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999) was implemented
in order to decrease BFT discards in the Atlantic PLL fishery. The closure spans a portion of
two statistical reporting areas, the MAB and the NEC. The reported effort, catch, and discards
were combined for these two areas to evaluate the effectiveness of the closure (Table 4.9). The
reported effort, catch, and discards for the remaining areas were also combined and presented.
It appears that BFT discards in the MAB and NEC have been considerably reduced since
the implementation of the June closure in 1999 (Table 4.9). Reported discards of BFT prior to
implementation of the closure ranged from 558 to over 2,700 per year. Since 1999, the number
of BFT reported discarded has remained below 500 per year. The number of swordfish kept in
the MAB and NEC has increased since the closure was implemented while the number of billfish
discarded has declined.
Analysis of the change in effort and bycatch after implementation of existing closures
indicates that reduction in bycatch may have been greater than predicted with redistribution of
effort, and in some cases, without redistribution of effort. There are several possible
explanations for the higher than predicted decline in bycatch and effort resulting from time/area
closures that may have ecological impacts as well as economic repercussions on fishing behavior
and the PLL fishing industry: (1) stocks may be declining; (2) time/area closures may have acted
synergistically with declining stocks to produce greater declines in catch than predicted; (3)
fishermen may have left the fishery; and (4) fishing effort may have been displaced into areas
with lower CPUEs. With regard to the last point, the redistribution of effort model is incapable
of making predictions based on a declining CPUE. Instead the model assumes a current CPUE
that remains constant in the remaining open areas when estimating reductions. It is possible that
one or more of these factors, or others, may have contributed to the observed decline in landings
and bycatch in recent years. However, despite these declines, several species continue to be
overfished with overfishing still occurring, warranting further consideration of closures or the
other alternatives described in this Final HMS FMP.
In addition to B1, the No Action alternative, NMFS analyzed several new potential
time/area closures. After comparing the potential bycatch reduction for all of the closures that
NMFS initially considered (see Chapter 2), NMFS chose five closures with the highest overall
bycatch for further analysis in addition to complementary measures in the Madison-Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves and BLL closures to protect smalltooth sawfish.
Alternatives B2(a) and B2(b) were chosen for analysis because they had higher overall discards
of white marlin, BFT, and most other species than any of the other closures. Alternative B2(c)
was chosen for analysis in response to a petition received by NMFS from several conservation
organizations requesting consideration of a closure of the “Gulf of Mexico bluefin spawning
area” (Figure 4.2) (Blue Ocean Institute et al., 2005). The area analyzed was obtained directly
from the petition. Alternatives B2(d) and B2(e) were chosen for analysis in order to determine if
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-35

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

any other closure, or combination of closures, would be more effective at reducing bycatch than
the alternatives B2(a), B2(b), or B2(c). The analyses indicated that almost all of the closures and
combinations of closures considered for white marlin, BFT, or sea turtles would result in a net
increase in bycatch for at least some of the primary species considered when redistribution of
fishing effort was taken into account (Table 4.5). In addition, the predicted reduction in bycatch
when redistribution of fishing effort was taken into account was typically less than 30 percent for
any given species, with overall reduction in the number of individual species being very low
(Table 4.5 and Table A.1 in Appendix A).
Currently, in terms of new closures, NMFS has chosen to go forward with only the
complementary measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves.
This is due, in part, to all the available data used in the time/area analyses being based on J-hook
data. A circle hook requirement for the PLL fishery went into effect on June 30, 2004, in the
NED (69 FR 40734), and in all remaining areas on August 6, 2004. NMFS currently only has
finalized data on the catch associated with circle hooks from July through December of 2004
(see Appendix A). Based on the NED experiment, it is expected that circle hooks likely have
significantly different catch rates than J-hooks. However, since the impact of circle hooks on
bycatch is uncertain for most species (except sea turtles and swordfish), further investigation is
required to determine the impact of any new time/area closures. NMFS anticipates that 2005
HMS logbook data will become available in the summer of 2006, and NMFS will continue to
monitor and analyze the effect of circle hooks and bycatch reduction. NMFS is also awaiting
additional information regarding the status of the PLL fleet after the devastating hurricanes that
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico during the fall of 2005. The number of active vessels and level
of fishing effort will be assessed beginning in the summer of 2006, when the 2005 HMS logbook
final data becomes available.
Alternative B2(a) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in an 11,991 nm2 area of the central Gulf of Mexico (Figure 4.2) from
May through November of each year (7 months). The effectiveness of alternative B2(a), and all
subsequent closure alternatives, was evaluated by determining the percent reduction in bycatch
of non-target HMS, protected species, and retained species on a monthly basis with and without
redistribution of effort. Without redistribution of effort, the observer program data indicate that
the alternative B2(a) from May through November would potentially reduce discards (live and
dead combined) of all non-target HMS and sea turtles from 4.0 percent for loggerhead sea turtles
to 19.6 percent for sailfish (Table 4.4). Without redistribution of effort, the logbook data
indicate that alternative B2(a) from May through November would potentially reduce discards
from 3.4 percent for loggerhead sea turtles to 17.6 percent blue marlin discards (Table 4.5).
Thus, the percent reductions in most bycatch species were very similar for both the observed and
reported data.
Data from monthly catches and discards were examined for both a year-round closure
and a seven-month closure (Table 4.4 and Table 4.5). The annual seven-month closure was
selected for further analysis because the reductions in bycatch were similar to the year-round
closure without redistribution of effort, except for BFT. In some cases, reductions in bycatch
were higher than the year-round closure with redistribution of effort (Table 4.5). For example,
white marlin discards (live and dead combined) increased 0.9 percent with redistribution of effort
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-36

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

for the year-round closure, as did sailfish (1.1 percent), spearfish (4 percent), and BFT discards
(7.9 percent). The May through November closure, on the other hand, would reduce discards of
all species except loggerhead sea turtles and BFT.
With redistribution of effort, the logbook data indicate that there would be a reduction in
bycatch for some species, but an increase in others. For example, the bycatch of leatherback sea
turtles would be decreased by eight percent (76 leatherback sea turtles over a three year period,
or 25 per year; yearly averages can be calculated by dividing the numbers in the tables by three),
whereas loggerhead sea turtle interactions would potentially increase by 7.9 percent (six
loggerhead sea turtles over a three year period, or two per year) (Table 4.5), pelagic and LCS
discards would increase by 14.5 percent and 11.7 percent, respectively (Table 4.10a), and BFT
discards would increase by 10.3 percent (75 discards over a three year period, or 25 per year;
Table 4.11a). For some of the species, the percent reduction in discards was minimal. For
example, white marlin discards are predicted to decrease by only 2.7 percent. This amounts to a
projected decrease of 85 white marlin over three years, or 28 white marlin per year (3,143 x
0.027 = 85) (Table 4.5 and Table 4.10a). When compared to the overall annual reported white
marlin discards (1,047 annually; Table 4.10a), this reduction would provide minimal benefit.
Thus, while there may be an ecological benefit for some species, such as leatherback sea turtles
and blue marlin, the benefits to other species as a result of this closure are less clear.
As explained above, NMFS considered redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico only
for alternative B2(a) because it was the smallest closure in the Gulf of Mexico and the most
likely scenario where fishermen would stay in the Gulf of Mexico while this closure was in place
(i.e., there would still be enough fishing areas open in the Gulf of Mexico to fish in unlike the
larger closures). The result was a predicted increase in bycatch for some species and reductions
in bycatch for others (Table 4.10b). Interactions with spearfish and discards of LCS, for
example, could increase by 3.3 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively (Table 4.10b), whereas BFT
discards could decrease by 1.2 percent (Table 4.11b). Interestingly, the catch of all targeted
species, with the exception of BFT, are predicted to increase as a result of the closure (Table
4.11b). With redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 combined, the logbook
data from 2001 – 2004 indicated that there could be reductions in bycatch for some species, but
increases in others. For example, bycatch could range from a 15.4 percent decrease for other sea
turtles to an increase of 4.7 percent for sailfish (Table A.37). Bluefin tuna discards could
increase by 1.6 percent with redistribution of effort (Table A.38). These results indicate that for
alternative B2(a), even when effort was assumed to be redistributed in the Gulf of Mexico only,
or in the Gulf and Area 6, there was still a potential for increased discards of certain species.
Alternative B2(b) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in a 2,251 nm2 area of the Northeast in June primarily to reduce BFT
discards (Figure 4.2). NMFS decided to further analyze this area because it had a high
concentration of BFT discards, with a greater number of discards than any other area in the
Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico. For example, from 2001 – 2003, there were 461 reported BFT
discards in this comparatively small area, compared to 470 reported discards in the entire Gulf of
Mexico (~300,000 nm2) (Figure 4.13). Furthermore, approximately 80 percent of the discards in
alternative B2(b) (365 BFT discards) occurred in the month of June only (Table 4.12). In

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-37

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

contrast, the majority of BFT discards in the Gulf of Mexico occurred over a three-month period
from March through May and were much more randomly and broadly distributed (Table 4.13).
Additionally, alternative B2(b) had a lower number of BFT kept (34 over three years;
Table 4.12) than the B2(a) closure in the Gulf of Mexico (133 over three years; Table 4.11b),
which may have potential social and economic consequences for both areas, as discussed in
greater detail later in this section. NMFS considered both a year-round and a June only closure,
but decided not to analyze a year-round closure because the percent reductions were similar to
the June only closure for most of the species considered (Table 4.5). The following information
thus pertains to the June only closure.
According to observer program data, alternative B2(b) would reduce BFT discards by
15.4 percent and loggerhead sea turtles by 6.0 percent. All other non-target HMS and protected
resources would experience zero-percent reductions (Table 4.4). Without redistribution of effort,
the logbook data indicate that alternative B2(b) would result in a 22.6 percent decrease in BFT
discards (461 BFT over 3 years, or an average of 154 per year) (Table 4.12) and an 11.2 percent
decrease in loggerhead sea turtle interactions (Table 4.14). Therefore, the percent reductions
predicted from HMS logbook and POP data were similar. While not large, most other species
would have reductions in bycatch as predicted from the logbook data as well, ranging from a
zero-percent reduction in sailfish and spearfish discards to 14.9 percent for pelagic sharks (Table
4.14). With redistribution of effort, the area would result in a 21.9 percent reduction in BFT
discards (354 BFT over three years or 118 per year) (Table 4.15 and Table A.5 in Appendix A),
but relatively small increases in bycatch for nearly all of the other species except leatherback (­
1.3 percent; Table 4.14) and loggerhead sea turtles (-10.3 percent; Table 4.14).
Although there may be an ecological benefit for BFT and loggerhead sea turtles as a
result of this closure, the benefits to other species are less clear and may, in fact, be negative.
Clearly, alternative B2(b) would reduce BFT discards, but would potentially increase the bycatch
of other species. This is likely the result of a lower than average CPUE for most of the other
species in the area. When redistribution of effort is considered, there may be an increase in
bycatch of species such as blue and white marlin, spearfish, sailfish, and LCS.
As explained above, NMFS considered redistribution of effort in the Atlantic only for
alternative B2(b) given its small size and temporal duration (as opposed to redistribution of effort
in all areas of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico). The result was a predicted slight increase in
bycatch for some species and slight reductions in bycatch for others. Interactions with
leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles could decrease by 0.8 percent and 5.9 percent,
respectively, whereas blue and white marlin discards could increase by 0.9 and 2.0 percent,
respectively (Table A.39). However, BFT discards could decrease by 15.1 percent resulting in
333 fewer discards over three years or 111 fewer per year (Table A.40).
Alternative B2(c) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in a 101,670 nm2 area in the Gulf of Mexico from April through June
(three months) each year (Figure 4.2). According to observer program data, without
redistribution of effort alternative B2(c) would reduce discards of all non-target HMS and
protected resources from a minimum of 2.3 percent for spearfish to a maximum of 25.0 percent
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-38

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

for other sea turtles (Table 4.4). Without redistribution of effort, the logbook data indicate that
alternative B2(c) would potentially reduce discards of all of the species being considered from a
minimum of 0.8 percent for pelagic sharks to a maximum 21.5 percent for BFT (Table 4.5 and
Table 4.16). With redistribution of effort, however, bycatch is predicted to increase for all
species except leatherback and other sea turtles (Table 4.16). Even BFT discards, which showed
a fairly dramatic decline without redistribution of effort, are predicted to increase by 9.8 percent
with redistribution of effort (for an overall increase of 158 BFT over three years or an average
increase of 53 per year) (Table 4.13 and Table A.5 in Appendix A). The apparent increase in
predicted BFT discards with redistribution of effort is likely due to the fact that BFT are caught
in months other than April through June in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the high number of
BFT discards in other areas, as described in alternative B2(b) above. However, it must be noted
that the increase of BFT discards in other areas outside of the Gulf of Mexico are most likely
discards of non-spawning BFT such as non-spawning adults, juveniles, and sub-adults.
Therefore, there is not necessarily a 1-to-1 equivalency between benefits to individual spawning
BFT in the Gulf of Mexico and individual non-spawning BFT outside of the Gulf of Mexico.
However, increasing the number of discards of BFT in areas outside the Gulf of Mexico could
still be detrimental to the stock. Bluefin tuna kept (landed), on the other hand, would be reduced
by 18.3 percent (a decrease of 110 BFT kept over three years, or an average of 37 per year),
indicating that the Gulf of Mexico has a high number of BFT landed in addition to BFT discards
(Table 4.13 and Table A.5 in Appendix A). As with the alternatives described above, with
redistribution of effort, there may be an ecological benefit to some species, but negative impacts
on others. For example, LCS discards are predicted to increase 25.9 percent and loggerhead sea
turtles by 23.5 percent under this alternative Table 4.16.
NMFS also performed a second scenario of the redistribution of effort analysis where
effort was redistributed to open areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 of the Atlantic only (see
Figure A.5 in Appendix A). The results of this analysis indicated a potential reduction in
bycatch for white marlin, leatherback and other sea turtles, and pelagic shark discards, bluefin
discards, yellowfin discards, and BAYS tuna discards, with the largest being for BFT (19.3
percent decrease over 3 ½ years or ~ 122 discards per year) (Tables A.41 and A.42, Appendix
A). However, the analysis also predicted an increase in bycatch of blue marlin, sailfish,
spearfish and large coastal sharks (Table A.41 in Appendix A). The largest expected increase
would be for LCS of 12.8 percent or 2,454 LSC over 3 ½ years. Interestingly, the analysis
suggested that this closure could result in an increase in the amount of swordfish kept. This is
expected to be from more fishermen utilizing the area around the Desoto Canyon closure, since
effort in the western portion of the Gulf of Mexico would be squeezed into the eastern portion of
the Gulf of Mexico where swordfish catch rates are higher. However, it is unknown how
realistic this result is; if increased effort in the eastern portions of the Gulf of Mexico could
occur, more fishermen may leave the Gulf of Mexico to fish in Area 6 due to overcrowding in
the Gulf of Mexico.
According to the full redistribution of effort model, the petition to close 101,670 nm2 in
the Gulf of Mexico from April through June each year (alternative B2(c)) was predicted to
decrease the number of BFT kept by an average of 37 fish per year and is predicted to increase
the number of BFT discards by an average of 53 fish per year (Table A.5 in Appendix A).
Alternative B2(b), on the other hand, would close 2,251 nm2 in the Northeast for the month of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-39

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

June only, and would potentially reduce the number of BFT discards by 118 per year (Table A.5
in Appendix A). Although alternative B2(b) is not considered a BFT spawning area, data from
the observer program indicate that large fish (>171 cm TL) are present in the area (2001 – 2003
POP data). Additionally, there is evidence to indicate that the area is utilized as a feeding and
staging area by BFT prior to migrating to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn (Block et al., 2005). Popup satellite tags on BFT tagged in feeding areas of the Northeast show fairly rapid (~ one month)
migrations from the Northeast to the Gulf of Mexico (Block et al., 2005). Hence, while NMFS
recognizes that the same proportion of western spawning BFT would not be protected from a
closure in the Northeast as one in the Gulf of Mexico, potentially a small proportion of western
spawning-size BFT could be protected by a closure like B2(b), especially given the prevalence of
larger individuals in Northeast area from the POP data. Therefore, a closure like B2(b) may be
able to protect a few spawning-size individuals as well as pre-spawners, or sub-adults, which are
also valuable age classes with regard to the stock (although, presumably, there is a mixture of
eastern and western origin fish in this area, and a closure in this area may protect sub-adults of
western as well as eastern origin). Furthermore, the total proportion of dead discards in the
Northeast was similar to the Gulf of Mexico. In the Northeast, 48 percent (219 out of 461) of all
BFT discards from 2001 – 2003 were discarded dead, whereas 53 percent (249 out of 470) of all
BFT discards from the Gulf of Mexico were discarded dead (as reported in the 2001 – 2003
HMS Logbook). Given the high number of discards in the Northeast, a closure there may
provide similar ecological benefits compared to a closure in the Gulf of Mexico (depending on
post-release survival in the two areas). In addition, a small closure in the Northeast would
minimize the economic impacts when compared to a closure of 101,670 nm2 in the Gulf of
Mexico, as discussed in more detail later in this section.
Alternative B2(d) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in a 162,181 nm2 area in the Gulf of Mexico west of 86 degrees W.
Long. year-round (Figure 4.2), thus closing an area where approximately 50 percent of all
domestic effort (Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) and 90 percent of all domestic effort
in the Gulf of Mexico has been reported in recent years (2001 – 2003). According to observer
program data, alternative B2(d) would have the greatest positive ecological impact of all the
alternatives considered (Table 4.4). It would potentially reduce discards (live and dead
combined) of all non-target HMS and protected resources by a minimum of 14 percent for
loggerhead sea turtles to a maximum of 75 percent for other sea turtles (Table 4.4). Similarly,
the logbook data without the redistribution of effort indicated that there could be large reductions
in all non-target HMS, ranging from a 10.1 percent reduction in loggerheads to 83.5 percent
reduction in spearfish discards (Table 4.5 and Table 4.17).
With redistribution of effort, alternative B2(d) is predicted to reduce discards of blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, and leatherback sea turtles, but increase discards of white marlin,
BFT, pelagic sharks, LCS, and loggerhead sea turtles (Table 4.5, Table 4.17, and Table 4.18).
Loggerhead sea turtles, in particular, would be of great concern since interactions could
potentially increase by 65.5 percent (117 over three years, or an average of 39 per year; Table
A.1 in Appendix A). BFT discards could increase by 38 percent (614 over three years or 205 per
year; Table A.5 in Appendix A), and pelagic shark discards could increase by 88 percent (30,194
over three years, or an average of 10,064 per year; Table 4.17). The reason for the dramatic
increase in discards for some species with redistribution of effort is that these species are more
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-40

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

commonly encountered in the Atlantic than the Gulf of Mexico. With nearly 50 percent of
overall effort predicted to redistribute into open areas of the Atlantic, the discards of these
species would likely increase. Given approximately 90 percent of the fishing effort in the Gulf
of Mexico has in recent years occurred in this area, if this closure were implemented, very few
areas would be left open for fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, in order to stay in
business, fishermen would likely have to move out of the Gulf of Mexico. Fishermen might also
sell their permits to fishermen outside of the Gulf, resulting in a further increase in fishing effort
in open areas. For an example of the impact of redistribution of effort, see Table A.28 in
Appendix A. Since a majority of leatherback sea turtles interactions occur in the Gulf of
Mexico, and a majority of loggerhead interactions occur in the Atlantic, closing an area of this
size in the Gulf of Mexico could potentially redistribute effort to areas of the Atlantic where
loggerhead interactions are higher.
Alternative B2(e) would prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels
permitted to fish for HMS in a 46,956 nm2 area in the Northeast year-round (Figure 4.2). The
area was primarily considered to reduce loggerhead sea turtle interactions, which occur with
greater frequency there than in nearly all other areas. Without redistribution of effort, the closure
is predicted to decrease bycatch and discards of all non-target HMS and protected species by a
minimum of 0.3 percent for spearfish, to a maximum of 40.7 percent for BFT discards (Table
4.5, Table 4.19, and Table 4.20). However, with redistribution of effort, bycatch of all species
except pelagic sharks, BFT, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles, is predicted to increase
(Table 4.19).
Given the mixed results for some of the species in each of the alternatives analyzed
individually above, NMFS considered combining alternatives B2(a) and B2(b), as well as
alternatives B2(d) and B2(e) to maximize bycatch reduction. Combining these areas could
potentially reduce the number of discards beyond what could be achieved by a single closure.
For alternatives B2(a) and B2(b), NMFS considered both a year-round closure and a closure
during the months of May through November for alternative B2(a), combined with a closure
during June only for alternative B2(b), similar to the individual closures described previously.
For alternatives B2(d) and B2(e), NMFS considered a year-round closure only. It should be
noted that percent reduction in discards and retained catch without redistribution of effort for the
combination of closures is simply the addition of percent reduction without redistribution of
effort for the individual closures (Table 4.5 and Table 4.15). Therefore, only a discussion of
predicted impacts of combinations of closures with redistribution of effort is included below.
With redistribution of effort, combining alternatives B2(a) and B2(b) year-round would
increase discards of most species except BFT and sea turtles (Table 4.5 and Table 4.21). Thus, a
year-round closure of both of these areas could have a positive ecological impact on BFT and all
sea turtle species, but a negative impact on blue and white marlin, sailfish, spearfish, pelagic
sharks, and LCS. Combining alternatives B2(a) and B2(b) on a seasonal basis from May through
November for B2(a) and June only for B2(b), as described above, would result in reductions in
discards of all species except sailfish (which would increase 1.5 percent, or 15 over three years),
pelagic sharks (which would increase 9.6 percent or 3,276 over three years), LCS (which would
increase 10.1 percent or 1,680 over three years), and other sea turtles (which would increase 7.1
percent or one sea turtle over three years) (Table 4.21 and Table 4.22). The net ecological
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-41

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

benefit of combining the closures with redistribution of effort would be an 8.4 percent decline in
leatherback sea turtle interactions (~41 leatherback sea turtles from 2001 – 2003, or 14 per year),
a 3.1 percent decline in loggerhead interactions (~ six loggerheads from 2001 – 2003, or two per
year), a 13.6 percent decline in BFT discards (~220 BFT from 2001 – 2003, or 73 per year), a 1.7
percent decline in white marlin discards (~53 white marlin from 2001 – 2003, or 18 per year),
and a 6.7 percent decline in blue marlin discards (~164 blue marlin from 2001 – 2003, or an
average of 55 per year) (Table 4.21 and Table 4.22). Thus, the overall benefit would be greater
for a seasonal closure than a year-round closure. In particular, the seasonal closure would
potentially decrease leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle interactions, BFT discards, and blue
and white marlin discards. However, the overall reduction in bycatch for most species was
relatively low when combining closures, resulting in some ecological benefit to most species.
Although discards of some species may decline with combined seasonal closures of alternatives
B2(a) and B2(b), the positive ecological impacts would be offset by an increase in discards of
other species. In addition, NMFS must also consider the social and economic impacts of such
combination of closures (see discussion below).
With redistribution of effort, combining alternative B2(d) and B2(e) year-round would
increase discards of white marlin, spearfish, pelagic sharks, LCS, and loggerhead sea turtles
(Table 4.5 and Table 4.23). Discards of pelagic sharks and LCS, in particular, are predicted to
increase by 65 percent and 102 percent, respectively, because these species are discarded at
much higher rates in the Atlantic than in the Gulf of Mexico. Redistributing a large amount of
effort from the Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic would thus increase discards of these and other
species. The only species for which there would be a substantial positive benefit would be BFT
and leatherback sea turtles; 35.2 fewer dead discards of BFT are predicted, and leatherback sea
turtle interactions would decrease by 30.2 percent over three years or an average of 50 fewer
interactions per year (Table 4.5, Table 4.15, Table 4.23, and Table 4.24).
In addition to proposing new closed areas, NMFS initially considered modifying current
or existing time/area closures (alternatives B3(a) and B3(b); see Section 2.1.2). In general,
closed areas considered for modification (i.e., partial re-opening) were chosen based on
examining the HMS logbook and POP data from 1997 through 1999. The data were analyzed in
GIS, allowing NMFS to identify areas associated with minimal bycatch within current time/area
closures for re-opening (e.g., Figure 4.3, Figure 4.14, and Figure 4.15). The overall goal was to
modify existing areas, if possible, using the latest analysis techniques and technology available
to NMFS, while minimizing bycatch and maximizing catch of retained species. This is
especially pertinent for target species such as swordfish, where the United States is currently not
fully utilizing its swordfish quota. In addition, due to the natural variability of many of the HMS
fisheries, it may be necessary to change or refine the boundaries of time/area closures over time
to reduce bycatch of non-target species.
Given that fishing effort and landings have declined in recent years, NMFS considered
modifying existing closures to increase the opportunity to harvest the swordfish quota (Figure
4.3). In addition, if new time/area closures were to be implemented, then NMFS wanted to
consider possible ways to offset those additional economic impacts by lifting restrictions in areas
that had minimal bycatch. Originally four modifications to existing time/area closures were
considered: B3(a) (the Charleston Bump), B3(b) (the Northeastern United States (NEC)), B3(c)
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-42

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

(the Florida East Coast (FEC)), and B3(d) (DeSoto Canyon) (Figure A.2 in Appendix A).
However, only alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) were further analyzed because they minimized
bycatch while maximizing retained catch when compared to the other two alternatives (see
Chapter 2 and Tables A.22 through A.27 in Appendix A). For each modification further
analyzed, NMFS considered the bycatch and retained species catch that would be affected by re­
opening a portion of a current closure (Table 4.25 through Table 4.30). In addition, NMFS
considered the size of swordfish caught in the portions that would remain closed to the size of
swordfish in the areas that were considered for reopening (Table 4.31).
Alternative B3(a) would modify the Charleston Bump time/area closure boundary to
include only those areas shoreward of the axis of the Gulf Stream. The remaining areas seaward
of the axis of the Gulf Stream would be reopened from February 1 through April 30. The B3(a)
modification area (i.e., the hatched area in Figure 4.3) was chosen because a minimal increase in
bycatch would be expected with the 0.5 percent predicted increase in fishing effort associated
with this re-opening, based on 1997 – 1999 logbook data and fishing practices from that time.
For instance, the largest increase in discards would be for blue marlin (0.7 percent; Table 4.25)
whereas no increase is predicted for interactions for leatherback or other sea turtles (Table 4.25).
In addition, there was minimal increase in retained catch associated with modifying the
Charleston Bump. There was a predicted increase in swordfish catches of 1.1 percent and
yellowfin tuna catches of 0.16 percent (Table 4.27). The majority of the bycatch from 1997 –
1999 occurred in the portion that would remain closed (i.e., the shaded area of Figure 4.14 and
Figure 4.15; Table 4.25). For instance, the highest increase in bycatch would be expected for
sailfish (3.0 percent), spearfish (2.4 percent), and white marlin (2.0 percent) (Table 4.25). On
average, the area considered for re-opening in B3(a) would have an increase in bycatch of 0.5
percent whereas the predicted average bycatch associated with the area that would remain closed
was 2.7 percent (Table 4.25). Thus, by using refined GIS maps (see Figure 4.14 and Figure
4.15) that were not available to NMFS when the time/area closures were first implemented,
NMFS is now able to identify and refine areas of higher bycatch within current time/area
closures.
As described above, NMFS considered re-opening existing closures in conjunction with
new time/area closures (Table 4.5). Such combinations would help balance social and economic
impacts of additional closures, while mitigating any potential negative ecological impacts of
opening or modifying existing time/area closures. Year-round closures of B2(a) and B2(b) in
combination with the B3(a) modification would potentially result in increases of bycatch of all
species considered except sea turtles and BFT. Leatherback sea turtles interactions and BFT
discards would decline by slightly more than 20 percent (Table 4.5). However, seasonal closures
of the B2(a)/B2(b) in conjunction with the B3(a) modification would result in a decrease, albeit
small (on average, 5.5 percent), in bycatch of all species considered except sailfish (Table 4.5).
This could result in small, but net positive ecological impacts. Similarly, NMFS considered
B3(a) in conjunction with the B2(d)/B2(e) year-round closure. This combination could result in
decreases of discards for blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback sea turtles and BFT (Table
4.5). However, it could also result in increases of discards for white marlin, and loggerhead sea
turtles (Table 4.5). Therefore, the ecological effects of such a combination would be variable.
Alternative B3(b) would modify the existing Northeastern U. S. closed area to allow the
use of PLL gear in areas west of 72º 47’ W Longitude during the month of June. This area was
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-43

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

mainly considered as a way to refine the Northeastern U. S. closed area and re-open areas where
there were few swordfish or BFT discards (Figure 4.14 through Figure 4.16; Table 4.28). Based
on fishing effort from 1997 – 1999 before the closures went into effect (taken from logbook data
from 1997 – 1999), there could be an estimated 0.2 percent increase in fishing effort associated
with this modification. However, this modification could result in additional fishing effort given
management actions that have taken place since 2000 (i.e., time/area closure put into place in
2000). While there is a predicted minimal increase in retained catch, there would be virtually no
increase in bycatch associated with this modification (Table 4.26 and Table 4.28). For example,
there is only one predicted BFT discard associated with this modification (Table 4.28). Discards
of sailfish and sea turtles are not predicted to increase. Thus, such a modification would have
minimal to no ecological impact.
Since the bycatch associated with B3(b) was essentially zero (Table 4.5 and Table 4.26),
combinations of this modification with any time/area closure would mirror the benefits in
bycatch reduction associated with the particular time/area closure. For instance, seasonal
closures of B2(a)/B2(b) in conjunction with the B3(b) modification could result in small
decreases (on average, six percent), in bycatch of all species considered except sailfish (Table
4.5). This could result in a small, but net positive ecological impact. NMFS also considered a
combination of B3(b) with year-round closures of B2(a)/B2(b). However, this combination
resulted in a higher number of discards (with the exception of sea turtles and BFT) than the
combination with seasonal closures (Table 4.5). When B3(b) was considered in conjunction
with the B2(d)/B2(e) closure, there could be increases in bycatch for white marlin, spearfish, and
loggerhead sea turtles (Table 4.5). Decreases in bycatch could be seen for blue marlin, sailfish,
leatherback sea turtles, and BFT. So, as with the B2(d)/B2(e) closure, this modification in
combination with this closure could have variable ecological effects.
As described in Chapter 2, alternative B4 would implement year-round complementary
HMS management measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves,
consistent with the recommendations of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
(GMFMC) (Figure 4.4). Specifically, this alternative would prohibit all HMS-permitted vessels
from fishing or deploying any fishing gear in the marine reserves from November through April.
From May through October, surface trolling would be the only HMS fishing activity allowed.
Surface trolling is defined as fishing with lines trailing behind a vessel that is in constant motion,
at speeds in excess of four knots, and with a visible wake (in accordance with the Southeast
regional regulations, 622.34(k)(5), NMFS is adopting the same definition for surface trolling in
the final rule associated with this document). Such surface trolling may not involve the use of
down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices. The two marine reserves are located
shoreward of the Desoto Canyon Closed Area (see Section 2.1.2).
At a July 14 – 17, 2003, meeting, the Gulf Council approved a six-year extension of these
two marine reserves, originally implemented in 2000, to protect spawning aggregations of gag
grouper. An Environmental Assessment (EA) describing the ecologic, economic, and social
impacts associated with the marine reserves was prepared and submitted to the Secretary in
August 2003. On September 3, 2003, NMFS received a formal request from the Gulf Council
for the Secretary to implement “compatible” regulations for HMS fisheries in these two areas.
The final rule, effecting non-HMS fishing activities, published in the Federal Register on May 4,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-44

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

2004 (69 FR 24532), and became effective on June 3, 2004. It will expire on June 16, 2010.
The complementary HMS management measures described above in alternative B4 would
similarly expire on June 16, 2010.
The purpose of this alternative is to implement compatible HMS regulations in the
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves to provide, as described in the EA
prepared by the GMFMC (August 2003), protection for spawning aggregations of gag grouper to
prevent overfishing, improve spawning success, protect a portion of the offshore population of
male gag grouper, and facilitate continued evaluation of the effect and usefulness of marine
reserves as a fishery management tool. These two marine reserves were originally implemented
in 2000 by the Gulf Council (for Gulf species) in response to a determination by NMFS that gag
grouper were experiencing overfishing and scientific information indicating that the proportion
of male gag had declined substantially since the 1970s. A four-year timeframe for the reserves
was initially established in 2000, so that their effects could be evaluated before deciding whether
to continue with the marine reserves. In 2002, NMFS reclassified gag grouper as neither
overfished, nor undergoing overfishing. However, the stock was not at optimum yield.
Therefore, the Gulf Council voted to extend the marine reserves an additional six years, for a
total of ten years, and to request compatible HMS management measures. This alternative would
significantly reinforce the protections afforded gag grouper and other Gulf reef species by
closing a potential loophole whereby vessels can currently fish for HMS in the marine reserves.
Closing this loophole should provide a better opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the
marine reserves as a fishery management tool.
As described in the EA (GMFMC, 2003), anticipated conservation benefits of the marine
reserves include the protection of seasonal spawning aggregations of gag grouper, and the yearround protection of a portion of the male gag grouper population. Other reef species that may
also benefit from the marine reserves include red grouper, snowy grouper, red snapper, silk
snapper, vermillion snapper, scamp, speckled hind, red porgy, knobbed porgy, triggerfish,
greater amberjack, honeycomb moray, and bank sea bass. A complete description of the
ecological benefits for Gulf reef fish is provided in the EA (GMFMC, August 2003) and is not
repeated here. Although this alternative is not specifically intended to provide protection for
HMS, it could provide some minor ancillary conservation benefits for HMS as a result of the
year-round prohibition on HMS fishing activities in the reserves (except for surface trolling from
May through October). Any positive ecological impacts on HMS are expected to be minimal
because there has been little reported or observed HMS fishing effort in the area in recent years;
however, such complementary management measures would help prevent future potential
increases in fishing efforts, thus offering protection to the gag grouper spawning aggregations
until 2010. From 1997 to 2003, only one PLL set and one bottom longline set were reported in
the HMS logbook in these areas. Both sets occurred in the Madison-Swanson site. Four
swordfish were kept on the PLL set, and eight swordfish were discarded. There were no reported
HMS caught on the bottom longline set, and there were no new PLL or bottom longline sets
recorded in 2004. One bottom longline vessel carried an observer onboard in the MadisonSwanson site. The observed set occurred in 1996 and kept eight sandbar sharks (CSFOP data).
No new sets were recorded for the CSFOP in 2004. In summary, NMFS anticipates positive
ecological benefits for gag grouper and other Gulf reef species. Any conservation benefits for
HMS, however, are expected to be minor for several reasons, but are expected to enhance the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-45

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

protection for spawning gag grouper aggregations. Because the closure areas are relatively
small, any HMS fishing activity that otherwise would have occurred in these areas would likely
relocate to nearby open areas with similar catch rates. Furthermore, because possession of Gulf
reef species is already prohibited within the areas (except when transiting), bottom longline sets
targeting both sharks and Gulf reef species have already likely decreased since initial
implementation of the reserves in 2000. Finally, recreational and charter/headboat fishing trips
for HMS in the marine reserves are not likely to be significantly curtailed due to the allowance
for surface trolling from May through October, which are the prime fishing months.
Preferred alternative B5 would establish criteria for regulatory framework adjustments to
implement new time/area closures or make modifications to existing time/area closures. These
adjustments would allow NMFS would to implement and/or modify time/area closures through
proposed and final rulemaking through a framework action rather than adjusting the HMS FMP
amendment. The criteria would provide a more definitive process for the establishment or
modification of time/area closures while allowing for greater transparency and predictability in
the decision making process. Criteria that would be considered may include, but are not limited
to, the following: any ESA-related issues, concerns, or requirements including applicable
Biological Opinions; bycatch rates of protected species, prohibited HMS, or non-target species
both within the specified or potential closure area (s) and throughout the fishery; bycatch rates
and post-release mortality rates of bycatch species associated with different gear types;
applicable research; new or updated landings; bycatch and fishing effort data; social and
economic impacts; and the practicability of implementing new or modified closures, including
consistency with the FMP, Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law. If the
species is an ICCAT managed species, NMFS would need to determine the overall effect of the
United States’ catch on that species before implementing time/area closures. In these cases,
other factors that NMFS would consider before implementing time/area closures include, but are
not limited to, gear types and the location and timing of a closed area. NMFS would attempt to
balance the ecological benefits with economic and social impacts. NMFS would also consider
alternatives to closed areas, such as reducing quotas, mandatory gear modifications, or
alternative fishing practices such as designated fishing days. Thus, before the implementation of
a time/area closure, NMFS would determine that such a closure would be the best option for a
given set of management goals, consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and
applicable law.
Ultimately, the criteria are aimed to develop smaller, more focused time/area closures
that maximize bycatch reduction and catch of retained species. While new time/area closures or
modifications to current closures may have ecological, social, and economic impacts, the criteria
themselves would not be expected to have positive ecological impacts and minimal, to the extent
practicable, economic and social impacts.
The primary goals of time/area closures are to maximize the reduction of bycatch or nontarget and protected species while minimizing the reduction in the catch of target species.
However, closures are not the only means of addressing bycatch and in some cases may increase
bycatch (see Table 4.5). Bycatch in and of itself would not necessitate implementation of a
time/area closure. However, if the HMS stock was either overfished and/or experiencing
overfishing; the bycatch is a prohibited, threatened or endangered species; no other option exists
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-46

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

to reduce interactions in the time period required; and analyses indicate that an appropriate
time/area could be designed that would not significantly increase bycatch of other species, then
NMFS may consider a time/area closure. In such cases, NMFS could include time/area closures
as part of a rebuilding plan for overfished species and/or serve as a method for decreasing
interactions with protected species.
If the public believes that modification to an existing time/area closure or the
establishment of a new time/area closure is warranted based on these criteria, they can submit a
petition for rulemaking to NMFS. A petition for rulemaking should contain sufficient
information for NMFS to consider the substance of the petition. For a petition regarding a new
time/area closure or a change or modification to an existing time/area closure, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. § 553(e), the petition should, at a minimum:
• Indicate the area that should be considered as a time/area closure or the current
time/area closure that should be modified
• Identify which criteria warrant the addition or modification of a time/area closure
• Provide data, information, etc., relevant to those identified criteria
• State the resources necessary to develop the proposed regulations
• Explain the interest of the petitioner in the action requested
• Indicate the size of the population affected (i.e., who is affected by the action)
• Indicate the public interest in the proposed regulation
• Explain the importance of the action requested to promoting NMFS’ established
priorities and policies.
During the comment period, NMFS heard from commenters and the peer reviewers that
the Agency should design a “decision matrix” that could help to guide the choices that NMFS
would have to make between different closures and different species. This request is interpreted
to mean that NMFS should decide whether, for example, it is more important to protect
spawning BFT during particular times and areas than leatherback sea turtles. If NMFS decided
that were the case, then an area would be closed to protect spawning BFT even though it could
potentially increase takes of leatherback sea turtles. Related to this idea of a decision matrix,
some commenters noted that NMFS should set bycatch reduction goals. For example, NMFS
would need to reduce BFT discards by some set percent; under this concept, NMFS would need
to find ways to reduce BFT discards by the appropriate percent, possibly to the detriment of
other species. Once that percent reduction was made, NMFS would no longer need to reduce
BFT discards. Similarly, if NMFS implements measures that reduce BFT discards by more than
the decided amount, NMFS could potentially relax some of the measures to bring the reduction
down to the pre-decided level. Finally, NMFS received comments from commercial interests
indicating that the bycatch reduction goals of the existing closures have already been met and,
therefore, the Agency should reopen at least portions of the current closures.
During the rulemaking process that implemented the East Florida Coast, the DeSoto
Canyon, and the Charleston Bump closures, NMFS heard similar comments from all interested
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-47

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

parties (commercial, recreational, and environmental) that the Agency should establish bycatch
reduction goals for all species. At that time, NMFS did not establish such goals, and stated that
establishing pre-determined target reduction goals for specific species is inappropriate because it
does not consider the impact on the remaining portion of the catch. This statement remains
valid. While not a formalized decision matrix, NMFS used the analyses in the time/area closure
section, which considered all species, to evaluate the effects of the potential time/area closures,
including all species for a combination of closures. NMFS used the results of the analyses to
guide the Agency in determining which management measures are appropriate at this time.
NMFS, however, cannot place more value on one species over another species and believes that
setting pre-determined or pre-set reduction goals in bycatch and/or discards will compromise
NMFS’ ability to consider multiple species. Consideration of the overall catch is critical when
implementing a multispecies or ecosystem-based approach to management. Furthermore, while
the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS the authority to manage all species, NMFS must
balance the impacts of management measures on all managed species and my choose protections
for one species to the detriment of protected or overfished species (e.g., choosing to protect BFT
even if sea turtle interactions may increase substantially). National Standard 1, which requires
NMFS to prevent overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from
each fishery for the United States fishing industry, clearly applies to all species and all fisheries.
Similarly, National Standard 9, which requires NMFS to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality
to the extent practicable, applies to all species and fisheries. By not choosing a specific threshold
or establishing a decision matrix, NMFS retains the flexibility to balance the needs of all the
species encountered and the fishery as a whole. If NMFS is given a specific goal (e.g., a
jeopardy conclusion regarding the PLL fishery and leatherback sea turtles), this flexibility allows
NMFS to close certain areas or take other actions to protect that specific species while also
protecting, to the extent practicable, the other species and the rest of the fishery. Absent this
flexibility, NMFS might potentially have to implement more restrictive measures to protect one
species causing potential cascade effects (e.g., closing one area may increase the bycatch of
another species which could result in closing another area, etc.). This approach also provides
NMFS with the flexibility to re-examine the need for existing closures and modify them
appropriately based on the analyses rather than the attainment of a specific goal (e.g., NMFS
would not have to wait for 30 percent to be met; it could open the closure at 25 percent,
depending on the result of reducing bycatch of other species or other consideration, as
appropriate). This does not preclude NMFS from considering the establishment of a more
formalized decision matrix in the future if such a matrix could be designed that would provide
for the flexibility to consider all the species involved. This may be more appropriate when
NMFS has a longer temporal dataset on the simultaneous effect of circle hooks and the current
time/closures. At this time, NMFS believes that the criteria contained in the preferred alternative
B5 provides the guidance needed, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and this FMP, to
help NMFS make the appropriate decisions regarding the use of time/area closures in HMS
fisheries.
Alternative B6 would prohibit the use of all bottom longline gear targeting HMS in an
area southwest of Key West to protect endangered smalltooth sawfish (Figure 4.5). Smalltooth
sawfish were listed under the ESA in 2001, but critical habitat has not yet been designated.
NMFS has assembled a Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team (SSRT) comprised of researchers,
managers, and representatives from constituent groups to develop a recovery plan for the U.S.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-48

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

population of smalltooth sawfish. Once a plan is completed, NMFS may consider time/area
closures to reduce sawfish interactions. Preliminary analysis of some of the SSRT data (Burgess,
unpublished data) documented approximately 178 smalltooth sawfish interactions, mainly in
state and Federal waters off the state of Florida, between 1990 and 2004. Of the 178, three (1.7
percent) were caught on hook and line, five (2.8 percent) were caught in shrimp trawl gear, and
three were observed while people were swimming. All other interactions (167 out of 178 or 94
percent) occurred with shark bottom longline gear. The data represents a comprehensive data set
that the SSRT has accumulated over time; however, it is preliminary and anecdotal in nature and
will be formally analyzed by the SSRT. Therefore, NMFS focused on smalltooth sawfish
interactions from the CSFOP, Gillnet, and POP, which represents more recent and welldocumented data. In addition, most interactions with smalltooth sawfish have occurred with
bottom longline gear. From 1994 – 2006, these combined observer programs only documented
one interaction of smalltooth sawfish with gillnet gear in 2003 off the southeast coast of Florida,
and only one smalltooth sawfish interaction was documented in the POP, which occurred during
a bottom longline set. Therefore, since smalltooth sawfish seem to be much more susceptible to
bottom longline gear, only bottom longline would be prohibited in this closure.
The interactions with smalltooth sawfish from 1994 to 2006 during the CSFOP are shown
in Figure 4.5 (these interactions were specific to observed interactions from the CSFOP and
bottom longline gear unlike the SSRT data). A total of 12 smalltooth sawfish were observed on
bottom longline gear (out of 1,563 total observed sets) from South Carolina to the west coast of
Florida. Given how widely dispersed and few in number the interactions with smalltooth
sawfish were, NMFS tried to choose the smallest area possible that would encompass the highest
number of interactions. The result was a 49 nm2 area off the southwest tip of the Key West
(Figure 4.5). This area encompasses 18 of the 1,563 total observed sets and is where five of the
12 smalltooth sawfish were observed caught with bottom longline gear from 1994 to 2006.
While this area is small compared to the other closures being considered for other species
and could have a positive ecological impact percentage-wise (i.e., upwards of 42 percent or five
out of 12 observed interactions), it still translates into five individuals. In addition, this high
percentage of bycatch reduction would depend on whether sawfish occur regularly in the area or
whether the high number of interactions observed during 1997 was an anomaly. There have
been no observed interactions in the area since 1997 (i.e., nine years), and only a total of seven
observed interactions occurred since 1997 through 2006 in different areas (1 in 1999, 1 in 2002,
1 in 2003, 2 in 2005 and 2 in 2006; Figure 4.17). Of the five observed sawfish interactions that
occurred in this area on BLL gear, four were on a single set, highlighting the episodic nature of
sawfish interactions. Additionally, 11 of 12 sawfish were released alive, and one was released in
unknown condition. The one sawfish observed caught in the shark gillnet fishery was also
released alive. Given the limited amount of data available, it is difficult to determine whether the
area being considered would result in overall reduction in interactions, or whether sawfish
exhibit a higher degree of mobility, and are as likely to be caught in other areas. If the latter is
the case, then such a closure could redistribute effort into areas where there are higher
interactions with smalltooth sawfish and cause increases in these interaction rates. The SSRT is
currently in the process of identifying sawfish critical habitat, which may be helpful in
determining an appropriate closure area in the future.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-49

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative B7 would prohibit the use of PLL gear in all HMS fisheries. Prohibiting the
use of PLL gears would likely have positive ecological benefits on HMS, non-target HMS, and
protected species. The number of discards would potentially be reduced by 1,047 white marlin,
816 blue marlin, 343 sailfish, 141 spearfish, 11,340 pelagic sharks, 5,524 LCS, 165 leatherback
sea turtles, 60 loggerhead sea turtles, and 539 BFT annually (Table 4.11; annual discards were
estimated by dividing the total from ‘All Areas’ by three). The number of retained species
would also be reduced by a significant amount. The number of fish kept would be reduced by
42,500 swordfish, 200 BFT, 55,734 yellowfin tuna, 12,378 bigeye tuna, and 75, 385 BAYS
annually (Table 4.11). However, elimination of this retained catch would result in substantial
negative social and economic impacts as described below. In addition, any ecological benefits
may be lost if ICCAT reallocates U.S. quota to other countries that may not implement
comparable bycatch reduction measures as the United States. The PLL fishery has undergone
many management measures to reduce bycatch including circle hooks implementation, live bait
restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico, no targeted catch of billfish and BFT, time/area closures, and
safe handling and release protocols for protected resources. These restrictions have been
successful. Methods that have been employed and designed by U.S. PLL fishermen, such as
circle hooks and safe handling and release protocols for protected resources, are being
transferred around the world to reduce bycatch world-wide. Therefore, this alternative could
ultimately provide support for the fisheries of other countries that do not implement conservation
and bycatch reduction measures.
Lastly, the alternatives considered in this section are not expected to have any negative
impacts on essential habitat or protected resources. The preferred alternative, B4, will help
protect spawning aggregations of gag grouper, and therefore, would be expected to have a
positive impact on essential fish habitat for these species. In addition, any potential impacts to
protected resources (i.e., leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles) were discussed for each
alternative. However, since no closures were preferred at this time, except the MadisonSwanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves, and the other preferred alternative, B5, would
establish criteria to implement and/or modify closed areas in the future, no impacts on protected
resources are anticipated at this time.
Social and Economic Impacts
Each of the alternatives considered for time/area closures would have varying degrees of
social and economic impacts. To determine the potential impacts, NMFS estimated the amount
of fishing effort (number of hooks), total number of vessels, landings of retained species, and
total loss or gain in gross revenues for each species that would be affected by any new closure
with and without redistribution of fishing effort. A similar approach was used to predict the
economic impact of any potential modifications to existing closures. To estimate the loss (or
gain) in gross revenues for a single species, NMFS first estimated the total weight (lb dw) of
each species harvested by PLL gear only (Table 4.32) based on data from Section 3.4.5, and then
calculated the total weight lost or gained for each species as a result of the closure. Total weight
for each species was then multiplied by the average ex-vessel price ($/lb dw) by area based on
2003 prices (Section 3.5.1). The gross revenues for all species were then added together to
estimate a total annual loss or gain in gross revenues as a result of the closure. As described
above, not considering redistribution of fishing effort assumes that all fishing effort within the
time/area closures alternative is eliminated (and not transferred outside the closure). While this
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-50

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

may not be realistic, it provides a worst-case scenario of the potential economic impacts of any
new closure(s). The redistribution of effort analysis, on the other hand, assumes that all fishing
effort is displaced into open areas, which also may not be realistic given that a closure of a prime
fishing area may force some fishermen out of business, to switch fisheries, or that some
fishermen may relocate nonrandomly, etc. Overall effort may also increase slightly if there is a
need to compensate for increased operating costs. Therefore, the actual result may lie
somewhere in between. NMFS considered both estimates because they provide a range of
potential economic impacts depending upon the response of the PLL industry. As mentioned
above, the NEFMC is aware of different econometric optimization models to predict impacts of
time/area closures (e.g., NEFMC, 2003). However, such models are not currently designed to be
used for the current HMS PLL fishery. Therefore, NMFS chose to evaluate the economic
impacts of different closures based on the redistribution of effort model described in this
rulemaking.
During the Draft HMS FMP, 2004 ex-vessel prices and 2004 dollars were not available.
However, subsequent to the Draft HMS FMP, these values have become available, and NMFS
analyzed the potential cost and/or gain to the PLL fishery associated with the implementation of
each closures and modification. Total weight for each species was multiplied by the average exvessel price ($/lb dw) by area based on 2004 prices (Section 3.5.1). The total 2004 annual loss
or gain to the fishery was calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004
dollars (2003 value was multiplied by 1.0266). Therefore, the total gain or loss associated with
2004 is similar to what was seen in 2003. These results are shown in Table 4.33, Table 4.34, and
Table 4.35.
The estimates of gross revenues lost or gained as a result of a closure do not take into
account additional costs that may be incurred by having to relocate to new fishing grounds.
These costs may be substantial. For example, alternative B2(d), a closure of nearly the entire
Gulf of Mexico, would likely require fishermen to move to the Atlantic, resulting in relocation
costs, additional travel and fuel costs, additional crew costs, losses to fish dealers and
distributors, and other associated social and economic costs. Other impacts may include intense
competition for existing resources as fishermen are forced into smaller open areas resulting in
potential gear conflicts, shifting to other fisheries, or fishermen going out of business. There
may also be a concern for species whose landings are predicted to rise substantially with
redistribution of effort, and whether those species can sustain a large increase in harvest.
NMFS also examined the impacts of each of the alternatives on gross vessel revenues
based on the number of vessels that reported fishing in potential closed areas from 2001 to 2003
(Table 4.36), as well as the number of vessels per state potentially impacted by a particular
closure (Table 4.37). This information was also updated with finalized data from January
through June 2004 when J-hooks were still being used. However, since this is only six months
of data, the information is provided in Table 4.36 and Table 4.37, but is not included in the
discussion below.
Alternative B1, the No Action alternative that would maintain existing closures has, and
would likely continue to have, negative economic impacts on the PLL industry revenues, relative
to pre-closure revenues. As described earlier, when comparing pre- and post-closure logbook
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-51

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

reported data, the existing closures may have contributed to the reported 15 percent decline in
fishing effort (Table 4.8), and the ten percent decline in the number of directed and incidental
limited access permits from 1,275 permits in 2001 to 1,144 permits in 2005 (Table 3.92 in
Section 3.9.2). The number of retained species kept has declined by 37.4 percent for bigeye
tuna, 27.9 percent for swordfish, 23.5 percent for yellowfin tuna, and 25.1 percent for BAYS
tunas (Table 4.6). In addition, there are a number of other species that are frequently retained by
PLL fishermen, and landings of these species have also been declining (Table 4.7). For example,
the number of pelagic sharks kept declined by 18.9 percent, LCS by 38.9 percent, dolphin by
25.9 percent, and wahoo by 25 percent. Although an exact figure is not available, the estimated
annual loss in gross fishery revenues when compared to other alternatives with similar reductions
in retained species may have been in the millions of dollars. However, the decline in landings
reflect the period immediately after the closures were implemented, and do not reflect continuing
loss of revenue into the future for the fishery.
Another factor which may have impacted the landings and effort is the implementation of
a mandatory circle hook requirement for the PLL fishery in 2004 (69 FR 40734). Preliminary
analyses of the logbook data from July to December of 2004 against the same time period for
1997 – 1999 (pre-closures) and 2001 – 2003 (post-closures) indicate that landings and discards
of most retained species and bycatch have declined (Tables A.34 and A.35 in Appendix A).
Percent declines reported in this analysis should be considered preliminary as it is based on only
six months of data post circle hook implementation.
A number of factors may be contributing to the decline in permits and overall fishing
effort including, but not limited to: (1) the time/area closures implemented in 1999 to 2002; (2) a
decline in ex-vessel prices for swordfish and some tunas (Table 3.65 in Section 3.5) in
combination with increasing fuel and operational costs that may have forced fishermen to curtail
fishing effort; and (3) fishermen transitioning to other fisheries to adjust for declining revenues.
It is unclear at this point whether the decline in fishing effort and number of permits will
continue, or whether the fishery has stabilized at its current level. Given the North Atlantic
swordfish stock is estimated to be at 94 percent of BMSY (SCRS, 2004), overfishing is no longer
occurring, and there have been large underharvests in recent years resulting in an ever larger
quota, it is possible that effort may stabilize and possibly increase despite the existence of current
time/area closures.
Alternative B2(a), a closure in the Gulf of Mexico from May through November each
year, would potentially impact a total of 61 vessels that reported fishing in the area from 2001 –
2003, or an average of 46 vessels per year (Table 4.36). A total of 2,918 sets were reported from
2001 – 2003, or an average of 973 sets per year (Table 4.36). Without redistribution of effort,
alternative B2(a) would potentially result in an 11.4 percent decline in fishing effort, and
reductions in landings of retained species ranging from a minimum of 1.1 percent for bigeye tuna
to a maximum 14.3 percent for yellowfin tuna. For yellowfin tuna, the most lucrative species
affected by a Gulf of Mexico closure, this would amount to a loss of $1,796,654 in annual gross
revenues based on Gulf of Mexico prices (Table 4.33). Swordfish landings would potentially
decrease by 3.1 percent for a loss of approximately $423,382, BFT landings would decrease by
6.7 percent for a loss of $60,791, and bigeye tuna landings would decrease by 1.1 percent for a
loss of approximately $18,190 (Table 4.33). Thus, the combined total loss in gross revenues for
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-52

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

alternative B2(a) without redistribution of effort would be approximately $2,299,018 annually
(Table 4.33), or $49,978 per vessel annually ($2,299,018 / 46 vessels). Of the three major states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico with vessels permitted to fish for HMS with PLL gear (Florida,
Louisiana, Texas), Louisiana had the highest number of vessels (40 out of 61, or 66 percent) that
fished in the area from 2001 – 2003 (Table 4.37). The vessels with homeports in Louisiana also
reported a majority (88 percent) of all sets in the area. There were some changes in anticipated
losses from B2(a) when 2004 prices were considered. The ex-vessel price for BFT went down in
the Gulf region for 2004, unlike the price of swordfish, yellowfin or bigeye tuna (Table 4.33).
Therefore, the loss associated with BFT was less using 2004 ex-vessel prices, whereas the
greatest loss was anticipated for yellowfin tuna followed by swordfish (Table 4.33).
With redistribution of fishing effort, alternative B2(a) is predicted to result in an increase
in all retained species landings and gross revenues except yellowfin tuna, which are predicted to
decrease by 1.1 percent for a loss of approximately $138,204 annually (Table 4.33). Swordfish
landings, on the other hand, would potentially increase by 9.1 percent for a gain in gross
revenues of $1,242,832. Similarly, bluefin and bigeye tuna gross revenues are predicted to
increase by $27,871 and $42,997 respectively (Table 4.33). Thus, the combined total gain in
gross revenues for alternative B2(a) with redistribution of effort would be approximately
$1,175,496 annually (Table 4.33), or $25,554 per vessel annually ($1,175,496 / 46 vessels). The
analysis based on 2004 prices indicated that the largest gain in gross revenues would come from
increase swordfish catch whereas the biggest loss in gross revenues would be from decreased
yellowfin tuna landings (Table 4.33). Gross revenues from increased landings of BFT would be
less in 2004 compared to 2003, but there would be an increase in gross revenues with 2004 exvessel prices associated with bigeye tuna landings (Table 4.33).
These results reflect differences in abundance and CPUEs for different HMS in different
regions, and the variability in landings and economic estimates with redistribution of effort. For
example, the entire Gulf of Mexico accounted for 68.8 percent of all yellowfin tuna landings,
57.6 percent of all BFT landings, but only 22.8 percent of all swordfish landings from 2001 –
2003 (Table 4.38). As a consequence, with redistribution of effort outside of the Gulf of Mexico,
yellowfin tuna landings would be expected to decrease and swordfish landings to increase.
However, one potential economic incentive would be reducing the interaction with non-target
HMS and protected species. For instance, the Gulf of Mexico also accounted for the highest
interactions of non-target HMS species, such as 62.8 percent of the leatherback sea turtle
interactions (Table 4.39). Moving fishing effort out of this area could reduce interactions with
protected resources; however, this may result in unanticipated interactions with other non-target
and/or protected species in the Atlantic and high seas. In the event that effort is displaced into
open areas of the Gulf of Mexico only, NMFS analyzed the landings from alternative B2(a) in
comparison to landings from the Gulf of Mexico only (as opposed to overall landings from the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico). Without redistribution of effort, landings of all retained species
are predicted to decrease with a total loss in gross revenues of $5,003,298 (Table 4.35), or
$108,767 per vessel annually ($5,003,298 / 46 vessels). This equated to -$5,136,386 in 2004.
With redistribution of effort, there would be an increase in all retained species kept except bigeye
tuna resulting in a predicted increase in gross revenues of $679,212 (Table 4.35), or $14,765 per
vessel annually ($679,212 / 46 vessels). Incidentally caught BFT and targeted bigeye tuna are
the only two species for which landings are predicted to decrease by 0.8 percent and 8.7 percent,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-53

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

respectively, with redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico only. However, since the 2004
ex-vessel price of BFT went down in the Gulf of Mexico, the loss associated with decreased BFT
landings was less than in 2003. However, the loss associated with bigeye tuna using 2004 exvessel prices was larger, due to the increase in ex-vessel prices for bigeye tuna in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2004. Thus, the predicted economic impacts to gross revenues for the fleet could
range from a loss of approximately $5.1 million to a gain of approximately $1.2 million (Table
4.35).
The apparent increase in landings and gross revenues for several of the species with
redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico only is somewhat surprising, and may point to the
fact that tunas other than bluefin and bigeye tuna are more likely to be caught outside the
alternative B2(a) area. This may indicate that fishermen are targeting not only yellowfin tuna,
which has the highest overall economic value, but also BFT. In other words, even though
catches of yellowfin tuna may be higher outside the alternative B2(a) area, fishermen may be
targeting the area for the increased opportunity to catch an occasional BFT. The incidental catch
limit in all areas, at all times, is 2,000 lb to retain one BFT, 6,000 lb to retain two BFT, and
30,000 lb to retain three BFT. The analysis of both the observer program and logbook data
indicates that the central Gulf of Mexico is one of the prime areas for BFT discards, as well as
bluefin and yellowfin tuna landings. NMFS is concerned about the potential negative economic
impacts of closing this prime fishing ground for tunas as well as indications that PLL vessels
may be targeting BFT (as incidental only species). By comparison, alternative B2(b) could result
in a much higher reduction in BFT discards, with a much lower decrease in overall landings than
alternative B2(a). Additionally, anecdotal information suggests that a proportion of the Gulf of
Mexico PLL fishing fleet is comprised of Vietnamese fishermen, who may be reluctant to leave
their traditional homeports and would likely stay in the Gulf of Mexico (Wilson et al., 1998;
NMFS, 2004), perhaps making a redistribution model of effort in the Gulf of Mexico more
realistic. Closing this area could thus have potential social impacts in addition to economic
impacts.
Alternative B2(a), and most of the other time/area closures described in this section,
could have numerous social impacts ranging from disruption of local fishing communities to
relocation of vessels and homeports, loss of crew, and other social hardships associated with loss
of income. A majority of the vessels (66 percent) impacted by alternative B2(a) have a homeport
in Louisiana (Table 4.37), whereas 23 percent have a homeport in Florida and 11 percent have a
homeport in Texas. Depending on the extent of redistributed fishing effort, revenues could range
from a loss of $5.1 million to a gain of approximately $1.2 million (Table 4.35). Thus, the
homeports and communities associated with those homeports in TX, LA, and FL could
experience either loss of fishery revenues and social hardship associated with the loss, or they
could potentially benefit from increased revenues. Given that this is the smallest closure
considered for the Gulf of Mexico, the types of impacts described above would be similar for
most other alternatives, although the scale of impacts from other alternatives considered would
likely be greater.
Alternative B2(b), would potentially impact a total of 20 vessels that fished in an area of
the Northeast from 2001 – 2003, or an average of 10 vessels per year. There were a total of 226
sets reported from 2001 – 2003, or an average 75 sets per year (Table 4.36). Without
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-54

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

redistribution of effort, alternative B2(b) would potentially result in a 0.9 percent decrease in
fishing effort, with reductions in landings of retained species ranging from a minimum of 0.3
percent for yellowfin tuna to a maximum 1.8 percent for incidentally caught BFT (Table 4.15).
Swordfish landings would potentially decrease by 1.5 percent for a loss of approximately
$231,252, yellowfin tuna landings would decrease by 0.3 percent for a loss of $27,102 and
bigeye tuna landings would decrease by 1.5 percent for a loss of approximately $26,011. Thus,
the combined total loss in gross revenues for a alternative B2(b) closure without redistribution of
effort would be approximately $299,120 annually (Table 4.33), or $29,912 per vessel annually
($299,120 / 10 vessels). In general, the loss associated with decreased landings from B2(b)
increased for all species when 2004 prices were considered (Table 4.33). This was due to an
increase in ex-vessel prices for these species in 2004 in the North Atlantic region. Vessels with
homeports in ten different states reported landings from the area in 2001 – 2003, with the highest
number of vessels from New York (Table 4.37).
With redistribution of fishing effort, alternative B2(b) was predicted to result in a
decrease in all retained species landings and gross revenues except yellowfin tuna, which are
predicted to increase by 0.9 percent for a predicted gain of approximately $81,306 annually
(Table 4.33). Swordfish landings would potentially decrease by 0.8 percent for a loss in gross
revenues of $123,334, and bigeye tuna and incidental BFT gross revenues are predicted to
decrease by $20,809 and $9,837 annually, respectively. Thus, the combined total loss in gross
revenues for alternative B2(b) with redistribution of effort would be approximately $72,675
annually (Table 4.33), or $7,267 per vessel annually ($72,675 / 10 vessels). Using 2004 prices, a
greater gain in gross revenues was predicted for yellowfin tuna with the consideration of
redistribution of effort (Table 4.33). However, a greater loss was predicted for swordfish, BFT,
and bigeye tuna, resulting in a total loss of $74, 608 for 2004 (Table 4.33).
Alternative B2(c), would potentially impact a total of 75 vessels that fished in the area
from 2001 – 2003, or an average of 64 vessels per year. A total of 12,623 sets were reported
from 2001 – 2003, or an average of 4,207 sets per year (Table 4.36). Without redistribution of
effort, alternative B2(c) would potentially result in a 13.4 percent decrease in fishing effort, and
reductions in landings ranging from a minimum of 0.2 percent for bigeye tuna (kept) to a
maximum 29.0 percent for incidentally-caught BFT (kept) (Table 4.15). For yellowfin tuna, the
most lucrative species affected by alternative B2(c), a 19.8 percent reduction in landings would
amount to an estimated loss of $2,483,678 annually based on Gulf of Mexico prices (Table 4.33).
Swordfish landings would potentially decrease by 2.8 percent for a loss of approximately
$384,981, and incidental BFT landings would decrease by 29.0 percent for a loss of
approximately $263,563 annually (Table 4.33). Thus, the total loss in gross revenues for
alternative B2(c) without redistribution of effort would be approximately $3,136,229 annually
(Table 4.33), or $49,003 per vessel annually ($3,136,229 / 64 vessels). As with B2(a), there
were some changes in anticipated losses from B2(c) when 2004 prices were considered. The exvessel price for BFT went down in the Gulf region for 2004, unlike the price of swordfish,
yellowfin or bigeye tuna (Table 4.33). Therefore, the loss associated with decreased BFT was
less using 2004 ex-vessel prices whereas the greatest loss was anticipated for yellowfin tuna
followed by swordfish (Table 4.33). Similar to alternative B2(a), a majority of the vessels that
would be affected by the closure were from Louisiana (Table 4.37).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-55

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

With redistribution of fishing effort, alternative B2(c) is predicted to result in a decrease
in bluefin and yellowfin tuna landings of 18.3 and 11.0 percent respectively, for estimated losses
of approximately $166,040 and $1,382,042 annually (Table 4.33). Swordfish and bigeye tuna
landings would potentially increase by 21.1 and 11.4 percent respectively for a gain in gross
revenues of approximately $2,881,732 and $188,520 annually, respectively. Thus, there would
be a net gain in gross revenues for alternative B2(c) with redistribution of effort of
approximately $1,522,170 annually (Table 4.33), or $23,783 per vessel annually ($1,522,170 /
64 vessels). 2004 ex-vessel prices resulted in a greater gain for bigeye tuna gross revenues and
smaller loss in BFT gross revenues (Table 4.33). The largest gain in gross revenues with 2004
ex-vessel prices would be for swordfish landings, and the greatest loss would be for yellowfin
tuna (Table 4.33)
Alternative B2(d), closing all areas west of 86 degrees W. Long. to pelagic longlining in
the Gulf of Mexico, would potentially impact a total of 78 vessels that fished in the area from
2001 – 2003, or an average of 65 vessels per year. A total of 12,897 sets were reported from
2001 – 2003, or an average 4,299 sets per year (Table 4.36). Without redistribution of fishing
effort, alternative B2(d) would potentially result in a 47.4 percent decrease in fishing effort, and
reductions in landings ranging from a minimum of 3.5 percent for bigeye tuna to a maximum of
64 percent for yellowfin tuna (Table 4.15). For yellowfin tuna, this would amount to an
estimated loss of $8,035,791 annually. The total loss for all species combined would be
approximately $10,638,133 annually (Table 4.33), or $163,663 per vessel annually ($10,638,133
/ 65 vessels). The estimated losses using 2004 ex-vessel data were even larger than those
anticipated in 2003, except for BFT (Table 4.33). The total lost gross revenue in 2004 dollars
was estimated as -$10,921,107 (Table 4.33). The closure of a major portion of the Gulf of
Mexico would have the largest impact on Louisiana, where approximately 56 percent of all the
vessels that reported 72 percent of all sets from the area have their homeports (Table 4.37).
With redistribution of fishing effort, alternative B2(d) is predicted to result in an overall
increase in gross revenues of approximately $6,014,934 annually, or $92,537 per vessel, due
primarily to the large potential increase in swordfish landings (62.5 percent) and bigeye tuna
landings (80.6 percent) that are predicted to occur with redistribution of effort (Table 4.33).
2004 ex-vessel prices indicated largest gross revenues associated with swordfish and yellowfin
tuna landings (Table 4.33). Losses associated with decreased BFT landings were less than those
predicted by 2003 ex-vessel prices (-$80,601 vs. -$109,786; Table 4.33). As discussed earlier,
these estimates do not take into account fishermen who may not relocate to open areas in the
Atlantic, but may instead stay in the Gulf of Mexico where competition for existing resource
may be intense, potentially resulting in fishermen going out of business.
Alternative B2(e), a 46,956 nm2 closure in the Northeast, would potentially impact a total
of 49 vessels that fished in the area from 2001 – 2003, or an average of 35 vessels per year. A
total of 2,587 sets were reported from 2001 – 2003, or an average 862 sets per year (Table 4.36).
Without redistribution of effort, total gross revenues losses would amount to approximately
$3,234,660 annually (Table 4.33), or $92,418 per vessel annually ($3,234,660 / 35 vessels).
2004 ex-vessel prices indicated an increase in gross losses from those anticipated with 2003 exvessels prices for all species without the redistribution of effort (Table 4.33). With redistribution
of effort, gross revenues losses are predicted to total $820,132 annually (Table 4.33), or $23,432
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-56

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

per vessel annually ($820,132 / 35 vessels). This translated into a total gross loss of -$841,948 in
2004 (Table 4.33).
NMFS also considered combining alternatives B2(a) and B2(b), as well as alternatives
B2(d) and B2(e), as described earlier under ecological impacts, to maximize bycatch reduction.
Combining closures B2(a) from May through November and B2(b) in June only, resulted in the
highest overall reduction in bycatch for the largest number of species under consideration.
Combining these alternatives would potentially impact a total of 81 vessels that fished in the area
from 2001 – 2003. A total of 3,144 sets were reported from 2001 – 2003 (Table 4.36). Without
redistribution of effort, the economic impact of combining these closures would be a decrease in
landings of all retained species for a loss of $5,428,120 annually (Table 4.33), or $96,930 per
vessel annually ($5,428,120 / 56 vessels). This was estimated as a loss of -$5,572,508 in 2004
(Table 4.33). With redistribution of effort, the landings of all retained species are predicted to
increase. The percent increase ranged from a minimum 0.3 percent for yellowfin tuna to a
maximum of 10.0 percent for bigeye tuna. The result would be an increase in total gross
revenues of approximately $1,091,570 annually (Table 4.33), or $19,492 per vessel annually
($1,091,570 / 56 vessels). Thus, the overall economic cost of combining alternatives B2(a) and
B2(b) could potentially range from a loss of $5.42 million to a gain of $1.09 million. Using
2004 ex-vessel prices, the overall economic cost of combining the two alternatives would be a
range of a loss of $5.57 million to an increase of $1.1 million (Table 4.33). Given that the actual
decline in overall effort of previously enacted time/area closures was nearly twice what was
predicted (Section 3.8.9; Table 4.6 and Table 4.7), the combined closures are likely to have a
substantial negative economic impact. When considering the comparatively low numbers of
leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle interactions, and BFT and white marlin discards that would
be avoided by this closure, the economic costs appear to be high in comparison to the ecological
benefits.
Combining closures B2(d) and B2(e) year-round would potentially impact a total of 127
vessels that fished in the area from 2001 – 2003. A total of 15,484 sets were reported from 2001
– 2003. Without redistribution of effort, the economic impact of combining these closures would
result in a decrease in landings for a loss of $12.9 million annually (Table 4.33), or $101,633 per
vessel annually ($12,907,345 / 127 vessels). In 2004, the total gross loss was estimated as ­
$13.25 million (Table 4.33). With redistribution of effort, the landings of swordfish and bigeye
tuna are predicted to increase, whereas the remaining species are predicted to decrease. The
percent increase ranged from a minimum of 63.1 percent for swordfish to a maximum of 78.4
percent for bigeye tuna (Table 4.15). The result would be an increase in total gross revenues of
approximately $7,600,258 annually (Table 4.33), or $59,845 per vessel annually ($7,600,258 /
127 vessels). In 2004, the total gross revenues when the redistribution of effort considered was
$7,802,425 (Table 4.33). Thus, the overall economic cost of combining alternatives B2(d) and
B2(e) could potentially range from a loss of $12.9 million to a gain of $7.8 million.
In addition to any economic impacts, there could be a range of social impacts from
disruption of local fishing communities to relocation of vessels and homeports as a result of any
additional closures. Anecdotal information suggests that many PLL fishermen own several
permits in addition to HMS limited access permits and engage in other fisheries during periods
when they are not pursuing HMS. Fishermen may have had to diversify to continue to meet
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-57

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

financial obligations and remain in business due to time/area closures; however, many changes in
the HMS fisheries have been out of NMFS’ control, such as increases in fuel prices and
hurricanes. However, NMFS realizes that any additional economic hardship such as a time/area
closure could potentially result in fishermen going out of business.
The modifications to the two closed areas, B3(a) and B3(b), would potentially result in
positive social and economic impacts. Re-opening areas of either closure would allow fishermen
access to previously closed fishing grounds, potentially resulting in increased landings of
retained species. In addition, the modified area of B3(b) would be inshore, which would allow
fishermen to have access to nearshore fishing grounds, reducing fuel costs and time at sea.
However, this may create gear conflicts between recreational and commercial fishermen.
Conversely, the modified area of B3(a) would be along the axis of the Gulf Stream, which would
afford recreational fishermen closed portions inshore and allow PLL gear to fish in re-opened
areas offshore.
Alternative B3(a), the Charleston Bump modification, would potentially result in a 0.5
percent increase in fishing effort based on 1997 – 1999 logbook data. The most prominent
increase in landings would be for swordfish (1.1 percent; Table 4.27). This potential increase
could result in increased revenue of $220,806 annually for swordfish alone (Table 4.34). In
addition, the modification could result in increased landings of yellowfin tuna (0.16 percent;
Table 4.27) and bigeye tuna (0.02 percent; Table 4.27). The total increase in potential revenues
from increased landings resulting from this modification would be $234,460 annually (Table
4.34). Using 2004 ex-vessel prices, this translates into $238,417 in swordfish landings, a
decrease in yellowfin tuna landings ($11,625 vs. $13,372), and approximately the same for
bigeye tuna landings ($282 vs. $281; Table 4.34)
Alternative B3(b), the Northeastern U.S. modification, would potentially result in a very
small increase in fishing effort (0.01 percent; Table 4.28). As with B3(a), the largest increase in
landings would be for swordfish, which would translate into an increase in an annual revenue of
$482 (Table 4.34). There is also a small predicted increase in yellowfin tuna landings, making
the total increase in revenue associated with this modification is $550, annually (Table 4.34).
2004 ex-vessel prices predicted a slight increase for both swordfish landings ($588 vs. $482) and
yellowfin tuna landings ($74 vs. $68; Table 4.34). While this is small in comparison to B3(a),
this modification serves as a way for NMFS to pinpoint areas of high bycatch and refine current
closed areas.
While NMFS considered each alternative individually, there is the possibility that a
closure, or a combination of closures, could also be implemented in concert with a potential
modification to a closed area. Since the potential modifications would most likely have positive
social and economic impacts, any combination of closures with potential modifications could
result in an increase in revenue. When looking at revenues associated with the potential closures
after the consideration of the redistribution of fishing effort (Table 4.33), B3(a), in combination
with most of the potential closed areas or combinations of potential closed areas, would result in
a net increase in revenue (Table 4.33 and Table 4.34). The largest increase in annual revenue
based on 2003 prices would be $7,834,718 for the B2(d)/B2(e) closure combination ($7,600,258;
Table 4.33) with the B3(a) modification ($234,460; Table 4.34), or $6,249,394 for the B2(d)
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-58

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

closure ($6,014,934; Table 4.33) and the B3(a) modification ($234,460; Table 4.34).
Conversely, the greatest loss in annual revenue would be $-819,582 from the B2(e) closure (­
$820,132; Table 4.33) and the B3(b) modification ($550; Table 4.34). One drawback to such
combinations of closed areas and modifications would be the difficulty of compliance by the
public and subsequent enforcement. Such combinations of closures and modifications during
different time periods could add complex regulations for the public to adhere to and enforcement
to monitor.
The preferred alternative B4 to implement complementary HMS management measures
in Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves could potentially impact
commercial and recreational fishery participants that have (1) traditionally harvested HMS from
the two marine reserves, (2) provided charter or headboat trips for HMS to the areas, or (3)
would be expected to harvest HMS from the two areas prior to the sunset date associated with
this alternative (June 16, 2010).
As described above, from 1997 – 2003, only one PLL set and one bottom longline set
were reported in the HMS logbook in these areas (Figure 4.4). No new sets were reported in
2004. Both sets occurred in the Madison-Swanson site. Four swordfish were kept on the PLL
set, and eight swordfish were discarded. With regard to observer data, only one set was observed
within the areas from 1994 – 2003, out of a total of 1,433 observed sets in the CSFOP during that
period. No new sets were reported for the Observer Program in 2004. These data indicate that
comparatively little HMS commercial fishing activity has historically occurred within these two
areas, although some sandbar sharks and swordfish have been caught. Most HMS fishing
activity has been reported to the west of Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps.
The EA prepared by the Gulf Council estimated that the closures could affect 356
commercial fishing vessels that reported fishing in the larger Statistical Areas 6 or 8, in the
snapper/grouper logbook and unknown number of for-hire vessels. The Council’s closures were
projected to reduce total gross revenues of commercial vessels fishing primarily in the snappergrouper and reef fish fishery by $352,000 annually, based upon pre-closure fishing information.
This was estimated to represent approximately one percent to four percent of individual gross
vessel revenues if equally divided among the 356 affected vessels, or two percent to five percent
of individual gross vessel revenues if 59 trap vessels (which fish in shallower waters) are
excluded from the universe of affected vessels. The vast majority of the revenues derived from
these areas were from landings of shallow-water groupers and other reef fish. In 2001 and 2002,
coastal migratory pelagics represented only 2.1 percent of gross revenues derived from Statistical
Areas 6 and 8. Based upon this information, CSFOP data, and reported sets in the HMS
Logbook, NMFS does not anticipate any significant reduction in gross vessel revenues of
commercial HMS vessels associated with implementing complementary HMS regulations in the
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves beyond those already projected in the
Gulf Council EA (GMFMC, 2003). Because the preferred closure areas are relatively small, any
HMS fishing activity that otherwise would have occurred in these areas would likely relocate to
nearby open areas with similar catch rates.
The extent of HMS recreational and charter/headboat fishing activity within the marine
reserves is unknown. It is, therefore, not possible to provide an estimate of the impacts of the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-59

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

two marine reserves on the gross revenues and profits of charter/headboat vessels. However,
given the interest that this topic generated among the recreational fishing community during
2003 Gulf Council deliberations on extending the duration of the marine reserves, it may be
inferred that traditionally there has been some HMS recreational fishing activity within these
areas. The Gulf Council recommended that NMFS implement compatible regulations that would
provide for a seasonal allowance (May – October) for surface trolling to partially alleviate any
negative social or economic impacts associated with the marine reserves. Because this
alternative includes the seasonal surface trolling allowance, it is not expected to substantially
impact the HMS recreational or charter/headboat sector. These months coincide with a period of
increased HMS recreational fishing activity in the western Gulf of Mexico. This alternative
strives to balance the need to ensure adequate conservation benefits for reef species while
minimizing regulatory effects on fisheries, which have limited impacts on reef species.
Preferred alternative B5 would establish criteria for regulatory framework adjustments to
implement new time/area closures or make modifications to existing time/area closures. This
alternative would help provide greater transparency and predictability in the decision making
process and would allow fishermen to plan for future changes. Although there are no direct
economic impacts resulting from the establishment of the criteria themselves, the implementation
of new closures or modification of existing closures could have variable economic impacts.
Positive economic impacts could result from modifications or removals of time/area closures,
which would reopen areas to commercial fishing. Such modifications could allow fishermen to
more readily utilize retained species, resulting in additional economic opportunity for fishermen.
However, modifications to current time/area closures (i.e., opening up current closures) could
lead to negative social impacts if there is gear conflicts involved between recreational and
commercial fishermen. Additional closures could also result in negative economic impacts in the
short-term. Since the economic and social impacts related to the criteria are difficult to predict,
specific economic and social impacts would be analyzed when a particular closure is
contemplated.
There are expected to be minimal negative economic or social impacts due to alternative
B6, the closure off the southwest tip of Key West to bottom longline gear to protect smalltooth
sawfish. However, calculating the economic and social impact of this closure is more difficult
than calculating the impacts of closures for PLL gear; impacts for this closure are based on the
CSFOP, which only covers approximately 1.6 percent of the commercial shark bottom longline
vessels (based on the number of hooks set). Commercial shark bottom longline vessels typically
report their landings in the snapper/grouper logbook, however, these landings are reported
according to statistical reporting areas, and not according to locations of individual sets as is
reported in the HMS logbook. Therefore, NMFS must extrapolate the number of sets that may
have occurred from 2001 – 2003 in the B6 closure from the 1994 – 2006 CSFOP.
Since this closure is small in size, it is expected to affect very few bottom longline
fishermen. For instance, 18 sets of the total 1,563 sets observed by the CSFOP from 1994 –
2006 occurred in the potential closed area. The level of observer coverage has ranged from
approximately 1.6 percent (based on the number of hooks set) to four percent (based on LCS
landings) of the HMS-permitted bottom longline vessels. Using a mid-range value of observer
coverage (2.8 percent), it is estimated that approximately 55,821 HMS commercial bottom
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-60

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

longline sets (1,563 sets / 2.8 percent observer coverage) occurred during this time, with 642 sets
occurring in the closure area (18 sets / 2.8 percent observer coverage). Since bottom longline
vessels in the Gulf of Mexico soak their gear an average of 11.25 hr/set (Burgess and Morgan,
2003), NMFS estimates that each vessel would have made one set per day. Thus, the closed area
could affect 1.2 percent (642 sets / 55,821 sets) of the sets based on the number of sets between
1994 – 2006 or approximately 49 fishing days a year for the entire HMS bottom longline fleet
(i.e., 642 sets / 13 years ~ 49 sets per year). Given the extrapolated nature of these estimates,
NMFS cannot estimate the economic impact of this closure in 2003 or 2004 dollars nor can
NMFS determine which state would be most impacted by such a closure.
In addition, the closed area would help reduce the number of interactions with smalltooth
sawfish by the bottom longline fishing industry, thereby helping the bottom longline industry
stay below their Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for smalltooth sawfish (which is 260
interactions over five years with no reported fishing mortalities). Staying below the ITS will
have positive economic and social impacts by keeping the entire bottom longline fishery open
and operating, allowing economic gain by the bottom longline fishermen and their associated
communities.
Alternative B7, which would prohibit pelagic longlining in all areas, would potentially
impact a total of 177 active vessels that made 30,409 sets from 2001 – 2003 (Table 4.36). Active
vessels are defined as vessels that reported landings in the HMS logbook during the years in
question. It would have immediate and significant economic and social impacts on the longline
vessel owners, vessel operators, and crew that would need to re-rig their vessels to continue
fishing for HMS, find alternative fisheries, or discontinue fishing. It would also negatively
impact dealers that purchase fish from PLL vessels, and families who own the fishing vessels
that would either have to re-rig or discontinue fishing. It would also indirectly impact the local
communities that support the PLL fishery. Figures 9.4 and 9.7 show the spatial distribution of
tuna and swordfish permit holders, and Tables 9.36 and 9.39 show the number of tuna or
swordfish permit holders per state. The states with the most tuna permit holders are
Massachusetts (31.5 percent), North Carolina (12.9 percent), Maine (10.2 percent), New Jersey
(7.0 percent), and New York (6.4 percent) (Table 9.36). The states with the most swordfish
permit holders are Florida (32.4 percent), New Jersey (13.9 percent), Louisiana (11.9 percent),
Massachusetts (9.1 percent), and New York (8.0 percent) (Table 9.39). In 2004, the total fishery
revenue was $21.4 million for tunas (compared to $49.9 million in 2003) and $15.4 million for
swordfish (compared to $14.6 million in 2003; Table 3.65 in Section 3.5.1.2). In 2004, the PLL
fishery accounted for annual gross revenues of $14.9 million for swordfish, $871,187 for BFT,
$9.1 million for yellowfin tuna, and $1.6 million for bigeye tuna based on average ex-vessel
prices ($/lb dw) for 2004 (Table 4.32 and Table 3.65 in Section 3.5.1.2). Thus, closing the PLL
fishery would result in, at a minimum, a loss of $26.5 million in revenue. However, this does not
include revenue lost from sharks and other tunas and finfish landings. In addition, this estimate
does not take into account the negative indirect economic and social impacts that small local
businesses and fishing communities, which support the PLL industry, will also experience from
such an industry closure.
In addition, under ATCA, the United States cannot implement measures that have the
effect of raising or lowering quota, although NMFS has the ability to change the allocation of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-61

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

that quota among different gear groups. The swordfish fishery is confined, by regulation, to
three gear types: harpoon, longline, and handlines. Since it is unlikely that the handgear sector
would be able to catch the quota given the size distribution of the stock, prohibiting longline gear
may reduce the ability of U.S. fishermen to harvest the full quota. It would also have the effect
of reducing traditional participation in the swordfish fishery by U.S. vessels relative to the
foreign competitors because the United States would harvest a vastly reduced proportion of the
overall quota.
Summary of Alternatives
After carefully reviewing the results of all the different time/area closures analyses,
including different scenarios of redistributed effort, NMFS is preferring not to implement any
new closures, except the complementary measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps Marine Reserves, and not to modify any existing closures at this time. Alternatives B4
and B5 are the preferred alternatives. Alternative B4 would establish complementary HMS
regulations in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves at the request of the
GMFMC with minimal ecological, economic, or social impacts. Alternative B5 would establish
criteria that would guide future decision-making regarding implementation or modification of
time/area closures. This alternative was a preferred alternative because it would provide
enhanced transparency, predictability, and understanding of HMS management decisions, allow
for more adaptive management, and should result in minimal social and economic impacts. Any
impacts for specific closures would be analyzed when those closures are considered.
At this time, the following alternatives are not preferred for a variety of reasons. The
ecological benefits of alternatives B2(a) through B2(e) for white marlin, BFT, and sea turtles are
predicted to be variable with redistribution of effort, with potential negative ecological impacts
to several species. All closures had predicted reductions in bycatch and discards without
consideration of redistributed effort. For instance, B2(d) predicted some of the largest decreases
in spearfish bycatch (83.5 percent), leatherback turtle interactions (57.5 percent) and yellowfin
tuna discards (66.4 percent). However, no redistribution of effort assumes that all fishing effort
that occurred in the closed area would cease if a closure was implemented and would not be
transferred elsewhere. Therefore, a closure such as B2(d) was also predicted to have large
negative economic impacts with a predicted 53.6 percent and 64 percent reduction in retained
bluefin and yellowfin tuna, respectively. Under redistribution of effort assumptions, each of
these alternatives (B2(a) through B2(e)) was predicted to result in an increase in bycatch of at
least one, and in several cases, more than one of the species considered (Table 4.5 and Table
A.37 through Table A.42 in Appendix A). For example, alternative B2(a) (May-November),
intended primarily to reduce leatherback sea turtle interactions, and white marlin and BFT
discards, could result in a 7.9 percent increase in loggerhead sea turtle interactions and a 10.3
percent increase in BFT discards (Table 4.5). Even the modified redistribution of effort model
for alternative B2(a) predicted increases in sailfish discards (4.7 percent; Table A.37 in
Appendix A), LCS discards (4.4 percent; Table A.37 in Appendix A), BFT discards (1.6 percent;
Table A.38 in Appendix A), and BAYS discards (0.7 percent; Table A.38 in Appendix A).
When closure areas were combined, the redistribution of effort model predicted similar results
with an increase in discards of several species. For example, combining alternatives B2(a) (May
– Nov) with B2(b) (June only) would result in a 1.5 percent increase in sailfish, 9.6 percent
increase in pelagic sharks, and 10.1 percent increase in LCS discards (Table 4.21). Combining
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-62

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

alternatives B2(d) with B2(e) (year-round) would result in a 6.5 percent increase in white marlin,
a 12.1 percent increase in spearfish discards, and a 4.8 percent increase in loggerhead sea turtle
interactions (Table 4.23).
Alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) were considered to refine existing closures and to provide
additional opportunity to harvest legal-sized swordfish while not increasing bycatch. Additional
swordfish catch is desirable because the United States has not lately met its quota under ICCAT.
As of April 30, 2006, only 18 percent of the directed North Atlantic swordfish quota and 2
percent of the incidental North Atlantic swordfish quota had been filed, leaving 4,905.9 mt and
294.7 mt of directed and incidental quota, respectively, still available for the 2005 fishing year.
NMFS, however, is not preferring any modifications to the existing closures. None of the
modifications considered would have resulted in a large enough increase in retained catch to
alleviate concerns over uncaught portions of the swordfish and BFT quotas. For instance, B3(a)
was predicted to increase retained swordfish catch by only 30.72 mt, and B3(a) was predicted to
increase the retained swordfish catch by 0.07 mt. In addition, modifications to existing closures
could result in increased bycatch of blue and white marlin, which is a concern given the stock
status of blue and white marlin and the scheduled white marlin ESA review. Increased
interactions with sea turtles and marine mammals (e.g., pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins) are an
additional concern.
Finally, all of the analyses (those analyzing the impacts of new closures and those
analyzing the impacts of modifications to existing closures) were conducted using J-hook data.
New circle hook management measures were put into place in 2004, and NMFS is still assessing
the effects of circle hooks on bycatch rates for HMS. Until NMFS can better evaluate the effects
of circle hooks on bycatch reduction, especially with regard to sea turtles interactions and
bycatch of other non-target HMS, NMFS prefers, at this time, not to modify the current time/area
closures. NMFS intends to reconsider modifications to existing closures once further analyses of
circle hook data are available as well as the results of stock assessments for blue marlin, white
marlin, north and south swordfish, eastern and western BFT, and LCS when they become
available. Given the general anticipation that the North Atlantic swordfish stock will be
identified as fully rebuilt, per the pending September 2006 stock assessment, a number of
fishermen and others have asked NMFS to assist in revitalizing this fishery. One option that has
been raised is opening the time/area closures. While NMFS does not prefer modifying any
existing closures at this time, under the preferred alternative, NMFS could modify the closed
areas and/or allow experiments to test gears or other fishing methods in the closed areas.
Similarly, pending the results of the marlin and BFT stock assessments, the criteria could allow
for additional closures to be considered for all HMS fisheries.
Alternative B6, to prohibit bottom longline gear in an area southwest of Key West to
protect endangered smalltooth sawfish, is not preferred due to the low number of observed
interactions of smalltooth sawfish with BLL gear, the highly variable and episodic nature of
interactions with smalltooth sawfish, and the fact that almost all of the smalltooth sawfish
observed caught on BLL gear were released alive (one was released in unknown condition).
Only one smalltooth sawfish has been observed in the shark gillnet fishery, and it was also
released alive. There is also a lack of current information on smalltooth sawfish critical habitat.
Once critical habitat has been designated by the SSRT, NMFS may consider a closure in areas
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-63

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

where bottom longline or other HMS gears overlap with critical habitat. Until the SSRT and
NMFS can coordinate on appropriate areas to close for smalltooth sawfish, NMFS feels it is
premature to implement a closure for smalltooth sawfish at this time.
Finally, while alternative B7 (close all areas to PLL gear in HMS fisheries) would result
in the greatest short-term ecological benefits of all the alternatives, it would also have severe
economic impacts on permit holders in multiple communities and states ranging from Maine to
Texas. As described above under social/economic consequences, in recent years there have been
177 active PLL vessels with annual gross fishery revenues in excess of $25 million in 2003.
This revenue was ~27 million in 2004. Therefore, this alternative would have a significant
impact on communities, individuals, and small businesses. Additionally, fishing mortality of
several species of concern (i.e., marlin, BFT, and sea turtles) may increase if the Unites States’
quota is reallocated to other ICCAT countries that do not have comparable conservation bycatch
reduction methods. NMFS does not prefer eliminating the entire PLL fishery at this time
because of the significant economic impacts, the potential effect of shifting quota to other
countries, and the likely increase in fishing mortality of both HMS and protected species. NMFS
is addressing bycatch and bycatch mortality in other sections of this FMP (Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9
and other sections within Chapter 4 such as workshops and Atlantic billfish).
Overall Conclusion
NMFS used POP and HMS logbook data to identify new areas for time/area closures and
selected alternatives based on these data to further analyze 10 different closures or modifications
for this rulemaking. NMFS also considered new time/area closures based on a settlement
agreement relating to white marlin, which was approved by the court in Center for Biological
Diversity v. NMFS, Civ. Action No. 04-0063 (D.D.C.), and a petition for rulemaking received by
the Blue Ocean Institute. NMFS chose to use absolute numbers of discards and bycatch instead
of CPUEs to identify areas for closures as well as for the time/area analyses in order to maximize
the reduction in the overall number of discards (for further discussion, please see page 4-28). In
addition, NMFS used HMS logbook data to analyze redistribution of effort. While NMFS is
aware that discards may be underreported in the HMS logbook, the HMS logbook data were
collected over the entire PLL fleet and provided an effort estimate for the entire fleet, which is
needed for redistribution calculations, whereas POP data are only collected from a portion of the
fleet (for further discussion, please see pages 4-32 to 4-33). NMFS also calculated the
ecological, social, and economic impacts of each closure with and without the consideration of
redistributed effort.
NMFS evaluated the reduction in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish,
spearfish, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, other sea turtles, and BFT without
redistribution of effort based on POP data (Table 4.4) and the HMS logbook data (Table 4.5 and
Table 4.15) for the various time/area closure alternatives. In addition, individual tables for each
of the alternatives are presented to show the monthly discards or landings of non-target or target
HMS respectively, that include pelagic and large coastal sharks, and the percent reduction in
numbers of hooks set based on HMS logbook data. A time series of HMS logbook data are also
presented for the estimated change in targeted and retained catch of swordfish, bluefin, bigeye,
albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas (BAYS) for each closure (please see Table 4.6 and Table
4.19).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-64

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

NMFS evaluated different scenarios for redistribution of fishing effort, where each
scenario had different assumptions regarding how fishing effort would be redistributed into open
areas. The model used in this time/area analysis was the same model used in previous time/area
rulemakings that resulted in implementation of closed areas (for more information on
redistribution of effort model selection, please see page 4-30). Additional redistribution
scenarios were considered based on comments received on the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP
and the OMB reviews. Considering redistribution of fishing effort is important because
fishermen are unlikely to stop fishing as a result of a closure, and are more likely to move to
open areas to continue fishing. Thus it is important to take into account any additional effort in
open areas that may result in an increase in bycatch. In addition, HMS and protected species are
not uniformly distributed throughout the ocean, and tend to occur in higher concentrations in
certain areas. Therefore, a closure in one area might reduce the bycatch of one or two species,
but may increase bycatch of others as fishing effort in those areas increases.
The scenario(s) used for each closure depend on the spatial size and temporal duration of
the individual closure. One scenario assumed that fishing effort (i.e., hooks) from a closed area
would be displaced into all remaining open areas. In this case, effort from a closed area was
multiplied by the average CPUE for each species from all the remaining open areas (for further
discussion, refer to Appendix A and Table A.28). NMFS also considered scenarios that assumed
all fishing effort would only be redistributed within a) the Gulf of Mexico only, b) the Gulf of
Mexico and the eastern seaboard, and c) the Gulf of Mexico and other areas of the Atlantic. The
last scenario assumed that fishing effort would be displaced within the Gulf of Mexico and into
another area where the majority of vessels with Gulf of Mexico homeports have reported fishing
during 2001 – 2004 (i.e., Area 6). In each of these scenarios, the effort from a closure was
multiplied by the CPUE for each species either for the Gulf of Mexico only or for only the
eastern seaboard, or by the CPUE for the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 (for further discussion,
please refer to pages 4-32 and 4-33, Appendix A, and Tables A.29 and A.30). These different
scenarios were developed after NMFS evaluated the movement of the PLL fleet based on 2001 –
2004 HMS logbook data, which indicated where the fleet has been fishing in the Atlantic,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (for further discussion, please refer to pages 4-32 and 4-33).
Each scenario of the redistribution of effort model had different assumptions. For
instance, the scenario where effort from a closed area was redistributed to all open areas assumed
that all fishing effort in a closed area would be distributed to open areas in the Gulf of Mexico
and the Atlantic (e.g., fishermen will move out of the closed area but continue fishing in
surrounding open areas, move their business, or sell their permits to someone near an open area).
This scenario also assumed fishermen could fish far away from their homeports, and fishermen
have the ability to leave their communities, unloading docks, and other associated infrastructure
to fish in the remaining open areas. Other scenarios assumed the movement of fishermen was
confined to areas near their homeports assumed that fishermen do not relocate, possibly due to
community ties to unloading docks, processing plants, etc. These additional scenarios also
assumed that the same amount of effort would be moved out of a given area regardless of the
size of the closure implemented. In reality, larger closures may result in more movement in
order for fishermen to find open areas to fish and stay in business.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-65

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Predicting fishermen’s behavior is difficult, especially as some factors that may
determine whether to stay in the fishery, relocate, or leave the fishery are beyond NMFS’ control
(fuel prices, infrastructure, hurricanes, etc.). While some fishermen will continue to fish in the
remaining open areas of the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, others may be forced to
leave the fishery entirely, such as selling their permits and going out of business, as a result of
the closure. In addition, given the limited access restrictions of permits for other fisheries,
NMFS predicts that it would be difficult for fishermen to switch to a different gear and different
fisheries unless they currently possess other permits. NMFS has looked at the effect of the
current closures on a fishery-wide basis (please see the analysis of alternative B1 on pages 4-33
through 4-35). This analysis indicated that there was an overall 15 percent decline in fishing
effort between 1997-1999 and 2001 – 2003 or since the existing closures went into place (Table
4.8). However, there was also a reported increase in fishing effort of about eight percent in the
Gulf of Mexico during this time period (Table 4.8), suggesting some shift in effort, possibly due
to the existing closures. At this time, NMFS cannot precisely predict how individual vessels
would move in response to a closure. For the purpose of this analysis, NMFS believes it is
reasonable to assume that some redistribution of effort will occur even though NMFS cannot
predict how much or where. However, in the future, NMFS intends to investigate the choices
fishermen have made regarding previous closures (i.e., did they move, sell their permits, go out
of business, retain their permit but fish for something else, etc?). This type of analysis could
help NMFS improve the effort redistribution models used in the future.
NMFS’ decision to not prefer any new closures, except the complementary measures in
the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves, and not to modify any existing
closures at this time is based primarily upon the analyses described in this section indicating that
no single closure or combination of closures would reduce the bycatch of all species considered,
assuming there is some redistribution of effort (Table 4.5 and Table 4.15 and Tables A.37
through A.42). NMFS decision assumes that there will be some redistribution of effort if a new
closure is implemented. While NMFS recognizes that the analysis of the change in effort and
bycatch after implementation of existing closures indicates that reduction in bycatch may have
been greater than predicted with redistribution of effort (Table 4.6 and Table 4.7), and in some
cases, without redistribution of effort, there was also an increase in fishing effort in the open
areas in the Gulf of Mexico after the implementation of the existing closures (Table 4.8), which
suggests that fishing effort will be displaced to other areas. In addition, the existing closures
were the first round of closures implemented for HMS. The reported reduction in bycatch and
discards as a result of these initial closures may not be seen in the future from additional
closures, especially given the reduced size of the PLL fleet since 1997 – 1999. Based on the
results of these analyses and considering that some level of displaced effort will occur, NMFS
does not feel it is appropriate to implement additional closures or modify existing closures at this
time. Furthermore, while the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS the authority to manage all
species, NMFS must balance the impacts of management measures on all managed species and
may not choose protections for one species to the detriment of protected and overfished species
(e.g., NMFS may not choose to protect BFT even if sea turtle interactions or bycatch of
overfished species may increase substantially). For instance, even with the additional scenarios
of redistributed effort for B2(c), there is a predicted increase for LCS discards (12.8 percent or
2,545 over 3 ½ years), blue marlin discards (0.7 percent or 20 over 3 ½ years), sailfish discards
(21.7 percent or 281 over 3 ½ years), and spearfish discards (2 percent or 10 over 3 ½ years)
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-66

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

(Table A.41). Given either the overfished stock status or unknown stock status of these species,
NMFS does not prefer to implement a new closure, such as B2(c), at this time. National
Standard 1, which requires NMFS to prevent overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis,
the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry, applies to all species
and all fisheries. Similarly, National Standard 9, which requires NMFS to minimize bycatch and
bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, applies to all species and fisheries. Furthermore, the
economic impacts of each of the alternatives may be substantial, ranging in losses of up to
several million dollars annually, depending upon the alternative, and displacement of a
significant number of fishing vessels (Table 4.33 and Table 4.35). Thus, NMFS feels that the
impact on all species must be considered and any negative impacts must be minimized.
Future Efforts
With regard to the Gulf of Mexico, although NMFS has decided to not move forward
with B2(c), or any other closure in the Gulf of Mexico at this time, NMFS will be pursuing
alternatives to reduce bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico, especially for BFT. NMFS has currently
adopted all of the ICCAT recommendations regarding BFT, a rebuilding plan is in place
domestically for this species, and NMFS has implemented measures to rebuild this overfished
stock. NMFS is currently trying to assess how protecting one age class at the potential detriment
of other age classes will affect the fish stock as a whole. For instance, how will protecting
spawning BFT help rebuild the stock if it results in increased discards of non-spawning adults,
juveniles, and sub-adult BFT along the eastern seaboard? Therefore, more information is needed
to further understand how to manage this species given its complex migratory patterns, life
history, and age structure. NMFS is also considering developing incentives that would dissuade
fishermen from keeping incidentally caught BFT, particularly spawning BFT, in the Gulf of
Mexico. This may involve research on how changes in fishing practices may help reduce
bycatch of non-target species as well as the tracking of discards (dead and alive) by all gear
types. In addition, sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico have recently been thought to
be associated with congregations of BFT and putative BFT spawning grounds in the Gulf of
Mexico (Block, pers. comm.). NMFS intends to investigate the variability associated with sea
surface temperatures as well as the temporal and spatial consistency of the association of BFT
with these temperatures regimes. By better understanding what influences the distribution and
timing of BFT in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS can work on developing tailored management
measures over space and time to maximize ecological benefits while minimizing economic
impacts to the extent practicable.
In addition, NMFS prefers not to implement new closures or modify existing closures
because all of the data used in the time/area analyses were based on J-hook data. New circle
hook management measures were put into place in 2004, and NMFS is still assessing the effects
of circle hooks on bycatch rates for HMS. Until NMFS can better evaluate the effects of circle
hooks on bycatch reduction, especially with regard to sea turtles interactions and bycatch of
other non-target HMS, NMFS prefers not to implement new or modify the current time/area
closures at this time. While time/area closures play an important part in resource management, a
number of time/area closures have been implemented since 2000. Those closures are beginning
to demonstrate their conservation benefits (for further discussion of the effect of current closures,
refer to pages 4-33 through 4-35); however, NMFS is still trying to assess the effect of additional
management measures, such as circle hooks, that have been implemented since 2000. NMFS
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-67

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

currently only has finalized data on the catch associated with circle hooks from July through
December of 2004 (see Appendix A). Based on the NED experiment, circle hooks likely have a
significantly different catch rate than J-hooks. Therefore, further investigations are required to
determine the potential impact of any new time/area closures as well as assess the cumulative
affect of current time/area closures and circle hooks. NMFS anticipates that 2005 HMS logbook
final data will become available in the summer of 2006 when the quality control procedures on
the 2005 HMS logbook data are complete.
NMFS is also awaiting additional information regarding the status of the PLL fleet after
the devastating hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico during the fall of 2005. A majority of the PLL
fleet was thought to be severely damaged or destroyed during the 2005 hurricane season. The
amount of PLL fishing effort, especially within the Gulf of Mexico, will be assessed in the
summer of 2006 when 2005 HMS logbook final data becomes available. Until NMFS can better
estimate the current fishing effort and potential recovery of the PLL fleet, NMFS believes it is
premature to implement any new time/area closures at the present time. Additionally, a number
of stock assessments will be conducted during 2006 (LCS, blue marlin, white marlin, North and
South Atlantic swordfish, and eastern and western Atlantic BFT). NMFS is awaiting the results
of these stock assessments to help determine domestic measures with regard to management of
these species, especially for North Atlantic swordfish, white marlin and western Atlantic BFT.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-68

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.1

Existing time/area closures in HMS fisheries. Inset shows extent of the Northeast Distant restricted fishing area. All closures except the
Mid-Atlantic are applicable to PLL gear only. The Mid-Atlantic Closure is applicable to bottom longline gear only. Note: the Northeast
Distant (NED) was a closed area to all vessels as of 2001. It became the NED Restricted Fishing Area on June 30, 2004 when it was
opened to those participating in the NED experiment.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-69

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.2

Map showing areas being considered for new time/area closures to reduce non-target HMS and protected species interactions.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-70

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.3

Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-71

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.4

Pelagic and Bottom Longline Sets in the Madison-Swanson (upper left) and Steamboat Lumps (lower right) Marine Reserves. Note: one
set for the CSFOP was in 2005. Although not indicated, no new sets were recorded for the CSFOP in 2004. Source: HMS Logbook, Pelagic
Observer Program, Shark Observer Program. The Desoto Canyon closure is also shown for reference.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-72

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.5

Map showing the potential closed area to bottom longline gear to reduce bycatch of endangered smalltooth sawfish. Grey dots are
locations of observed bottom longline sets. Source: CSFOP 1994 – 2006.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-73

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

a)

b)
Figure 4.6

Map showing all reported sets and white marlin interactions: a) shows the number of
interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source: HMS Logbook
2001-2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-74

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.7

Map showing all observed sets and white marlin interactions. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 2001-2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-75

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

a)

b)
Figure 4.8

Map showing all reported sets and bluefin tuna discards: a) shows the number of interactions
in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-76 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.9

Map showing all observed sets and bluefin tuna discards. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 2001-2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-77

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

a)

b)

Figure 4.10

Map showing all reported sets and leatherback sea turtle interactions: a) shows the number of
interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source: HMS Logbook
2001-2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-78

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

a)

b)
Figure 4.11

Map showing all reported sets and loggerhead sea turtle interactions: a) shows the number of
interactions in absolute numbers, b) shows CPUE (per 1,000 hooks). Source: HMS Logbook
2001-2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-79

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.12

Map showing all observed sets and sea turtle interactions. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 2001 – 2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-80

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.13 Map showing discards of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico from 2001-2003. The large box is not a proposed time/area
closure, but is shown for illustrative purpose only to delineate an area with high bluefin tuna discards. The bluefin tuna discards are
listed by month below the box. Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-81

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.4

Alternative
Alternative
B2(a)
(year-round)
Alternative
B2(a)
(May-Nov)
Alternative
B2(b)
(year-round)
Alternative
B2(b)
(June only)
Alternative
B2(c)
(April-June)
Alternative
B2(d)
(year-round)
Alternative
B2(e)
(year-round)

Percent change in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback,
loggerhead, and other sea turtles, and bluefin tuna kept and discards combined, based on
various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution of effort. + = increase and - =
decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: Pelagic Observer Program data (2001
– 2003).
White
Marlin
discards

Blue
Marlin
discards

Sailfish
discards

Spearfish
discards

Bluefin
Tuna
Discards

-14.6%

-11.1%

-20.9%

-4.5%

-12.2%

-18.9%

-7.0%

-25.0%

-13.2%

-9.3%

-19.6%

-4.5%

-7.0%

-11.3%

-4.0%

0.0%

-1.4%

-0.7%

0.0%

0.0%

-16.2%

-0.6%

-9.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-15.4%

0.0%

-6.0%

0.0%

-8.4%

-11.1%

-14.2%

-2.3%

-18.4%

-15.1%

-7.0%

-25.0%

-38.8%

-26.8%

-52.0%

-15.9%

-24.3%

-52.8%

-14.0%

-75.0%

-3.3%

-1.1%

0.0%

-2.3%

-44.3%

-6.9%

-16.0%

0.0%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-82

Leatherback Loggerhead Other Sea
Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.5

Percent change in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and bluefin tuna based on various
time/area closure alternatives with and without redistribution of effort. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001 – 2003).

Alternative

White Marlin
discards

Blue Marlin
discards

Sailfish
Spearfish
Leatherback Loggerhead
discards
discards
Sea Turtles
Sea Turtles
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
-19.9%
-15.8%
-14.9%
-34.6%
-5.0%
-17.6%
-14.2%
-11.3%
-15.4%
-3.4%

Alternative B2(a) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)

-16.0%
-14.7%

Alternative B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(b) (June only)

-3.9%
-0.4%

-0.9%
-0.2%

Alternative B2(c) (April-June)
Alternative B2(d) (year-round)
Alternative B2(e) (year-round)

-10.3%
-47.3%
-8.7%

-10.0%
-57.0%
-1.6%

Alternative B2(a) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)

0.9%
-2.7%

-4.0%
-7.3%

Alternative B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(b) (June only)

3.5%
1.0%

6.7%
0.9%

Alternative B2(c) (April-June)
Alternative B2(d) (year-round)
Alternative B2(e) (year-round)

7.0%
0.3%
6.0%

Alternative B2(a)/B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)/B2(b)
(June)
Alternative B2(d)/B2(e) (year-round)

4.3%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

-1.7%
6.5%

-0.1%
0.0%

-12.2%
-4.6%

-5.7%
-2.0%

-20.7%
-11.2%

-28.5%
-22.6%

-12.1%
-8.3%
-11.1%
-62.4%
-83.5%
-57.5%
-0.3%
-1.9%
-9.9%
WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
1.1%
4.0%
-20.0%
-0.8%
-2.1%
-8.0%

-3.9%
-10.1%
-36.3%

-21.5%
-27.1%
-43.3%

15.0%
7.9%

7.9%
10.3%

-18.5%
-10.3%

-27.0%
-21.9%

2.0%
4.4%
13.2%
-2.6%
23.5%
-20.3%
-26.8%
-73.3%
-21.3%
65.5%
14.7%
17.7%
9.1%
-0.6%
-33.3%
COMBINATIONS WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
3.3%
11.9%
8.6%
-22.7%
-7.3%

9.8%
38%
-40.7%

8.3%
1.7%

-6.7%
-3.5%

1.5%
-3.1%

4-83

-0.5%
0.0%

Bluefin Tuna
discards

4.8%
0.8%

-2.3%
12.1%

-1.7%
-1.3%

-8.4%
-30.2%

-3.1%
4.8%

-19.1%
-13.6%
-35.2%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative
B3(a): Partial Reopening of Charleston
Bump and:
Alternative B2(a)/B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)/B2(b)
(June)
Alternative B2(d)/B2(e) (year-round)
B3(b): Partial Reopening of Northeastern
U.S. closure and:
Alternative B2(a)/B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)/B2(b)
(June)
Alternative B2(d)/B2(e) (year-round)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

White Marlin Blue Marlin
Sailfish
Spearfish
Leatherback Loggerhead Bluefin Tuna
discards
discards
discards
discards
Sea Turtles
Sea Turtles
discards
COMBINATIONS W/ REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT & REOPENED AREAS

4.9%

4.0%

12.9%

9.5%

-22.7%

-6.7%

-24.3%

-1.4%
6.8%

-6.1%
-3.6%

2.5%
-2.4%

-1.4%
-13.1%

-8.4%
-30.2%

-2.5%
5.4%

-13.6%
-35.2%

4.3%

3.3%

11.9%

8.6%

-22.7%

-7.3%

-24.24%

-1.7%
6.5%

-6.7%
-3.5%

1.5%
-3.1%

-2.3%
12.1%

-8.4%
-30.2%

-3.1%
4.8%

-13.54%
-35.14%

4-84

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.6

Year

Total number of swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, total BAYS (bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack tuna),
reported landed or discarded in the U.S. Atlantic PLL fishery, 1997 – 2003. Pred 1 = without redistribution of effort, Pred 2 = with
redistribution of effort. Predictions were predicted back in 2000. Source: HMS Logbook data.
Number of
hooks set Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
(x1000)
kept
discards Tuna kept

Bluefin
Tuna
discards

Yellowfin
Tuna kept

Yellowfin
Tuna
Bigeye
discards Tuna kept

Bigeye
Tuna
discards

Total
BAYS
kept

Total
BAYS
discards

1997

9,637.8

68,691

20,433

178

681

74,035

1,847

21,405

1,611

102,706

4,223

1998

8,019.2

70,310

23,234

231

1,320

54,662

2,628

19,259

874

81,610

3,932

1999

7,901.8

67,120

20,558

263

604

83,619

2,885

22,467

906

114,438

4,384

2000

7,975.5

62,978

17,074

235

737

72,385

1,769

13,678

344

94,136

2,944

2001

7,564.0

47,560

13,993

177

348

52,337

1,798

18,216

554

80,466

3,757

2002

7,150.2

49,320

13,035

178

585

59,255

1,635

13,826

277

79,917

2,552

2003

7,008.1

51,835

11,829

273

881

50,817

1,987

7,473

337

63,321

2,763

1997-99

8,519.6

68,707

21,408

224

868

70,772

2,453

21,044

1,130

99,585

4,180

2001-03

7,240.8

49,572

12,952

209

605

54,136

1,807

13,172

389

74,568

3,024

-15.0

-27.9

-39.5

-6.7

-30.3

-23.5

-26.3

-37.4

-65.6

-25.1

-27.7

Pred 1

-24.6

-41.5

-1.0

-5.2

Pred 2

-13.0

-31.4

10.7

10.0

% dif

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-85

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.7

Total number of pelagic sharks, large coastal sharks, dolphin (mahi mahi), and wahoo reported landed or discarded and number of
billfish (blue and white marlin, sailfish, spearfish) and sea turtles caught and discarded in the U.S. Atlantic PLL fishery, 1997 – 2003.
Pred 1 = without redistribution of effort, Pred 2 = with redistribution of effort. Predictions were predicted back in 2000. Source: HMS
logbook data.

Number
of hooks
set
(x1000)

Pelagic
Sharks
kept

Pelagic
Shark
discards

1997

9,637.8

5,078

81,518

13,217

7,762

62,770

1,201

4,503

90

2,290

2,422

1,735

380

267

1998

8,019.2

3,717

44,516

6,401

5,470

23,503

298

5,253

305

1,295

1,506

843

103

886

1999

7,901.8

2,894

28,967

6,382

5,442

31,536

320

5,136

128

1,253

1,969

1,407

151

631

2000

7,975.5

3,065

28,046

7,896

6,973

29,125

292

4,193

46

1,443

1,261

1,091

78

271

2001

7,564.0

3,460

23,813

6,478

4,836

27,586

325

3,068

62

635

848

356

137

424

2002

7,150.2

2,987

22,828

4,077

3,815

30,384

185

4,188

32

1,175

1,438

379

148

465

2003

7,008.1

3,037

21,705

5,326

4,813

29,372

451

3,919

126

595

809

277

108

399

1997 –
1999

8,519.6

3,896

51,667

8,667

6,225

39,270

606

4,964

174

1,613

1,966

1,328

211

595

2001 –
2003

7,240.8

3,161

22,782

5,294

4,488

29,114

320

3,725

73

802

1,032

337

131

429

% dif

-15.0

-18.9

-55.9

-38.9

-27.9

-25.9

-47.2

-25

-58.1

-50.3

-47.5

-74.6

-37.9

-27.9

Pred 1

-9.5

-2.0

-32.1

-42.5

-29.3

-12.0

-6.4

-29.6

-1.9

Pred 2

4.1

8.4

-18.5

-33.3

-17.8

6.5

10.8

-14.0

7.1

Year

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Large
Coastal
Sharks
kept

Large
Coastal
Shark
discards

Blue
White
Dolphin Dolphin Wahoo Wahoo Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish
kept
discards kept discards discards discards discards discards

4-86

Sea
Turtles

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.8

Reported distribution of hooks set by area, 1995-2003 (CAR=Caribbean, GOM=Gulf of Mexico, FEC=Florida East Coast, SAB=South
Atlantic Bight, MAB=Mid-Atlantic Bight, NEC=Northeast Coastal, NED=Northeast Distant, SAR=Sargasso, NCA=North Central
Atlantic, and TUNS=Tuna North & Tuna South). Source: HMS logbook data.

Year

CAR

GOM

FEC

SAB

MAB

NEC

NED

SAR

NCA

TUNS

Total

1995

688,754

2,662,303

646,841

852,230

2,394,364

1,072,433

765,485

16,430

785,727

297,730

10,182,297

1996

651,673

3,530,127

574,284

1,588,944

1,039,594

1,137,229

588,782

87,285

501,674

611,116

10,310,708

1997

473,500

3,402,436

784,920

946,220

1,203,832

1,226,406

688,344

21,640

209,946

680,563

9,637,807

1998

333,766

3,003,054

667,592

719,125

1,319,860

883,059

503,579

3,500

247,457

338,191

8,019,183

1999

177,628

3,619,402

709,809

769,738

1,276,008

587,225

338,719

17,795

117,031

288,434

7,901,789

2000

259,369

3,648,345

700,505

810,272

1,032,173

610,103

544,549

10,959

236,864

122,390

7,975,529

2001

196,733

3,453,533

467,155

725,951

1,092,030

865,531

316,559

11,437

256,383

178,639

7,563,951

2002

169,562

3,577,753

495,245

435,231

1,011,138

550,096

456,668

104,165

215,121

135,252

7,150,231

2003

137,315

3,808,066

494,113

537,660

692,196

448,438

576,727

112,787

132,205

68,600

7,008,107

1997 –
1999

328,298

3,341,631

720,774

811,694

1,266,567

898,897

510,214

14,312

191,478

435,729

8,519,593

2001 –
2003

167,870

3,613,117

485,504

566,281

931,788

621,355

449,985

76,130

201,236

127,497

7,240,763

% dif

-48.9

8.1

-32.6

-30.2

-26.4

-30.9

-11.8

431.9

5.1

-70.7

-15.0

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-87

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.9

Number of bluefin tuna (BFT), swordfish (SWO), sharks (PEL-pelagic; LCS-Large Coastal Sharks), billfish, and turtles kept and/or
discarded in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) and Northeast Coastal (NEC) areas combined versus all other areas as reported in the
pelagic logbook data, 1995-2003. Source: HMS logbook Data.
SPECIES

Area

MAB &
NEC

All Other
Areas (nonMAB/NEC)

Year

Hooks
set
(x1000)

BFT
kept

BFT
discards

SWO
kept

SWO
discards

1995

3,466.8

95

2,755

5,824

5,382

2,647

36,395

7,717

2,121

1,454

80

1996

2,176.8

74

1,596

3,108

871

2,456

37,638

6,433

1,975

1,179

20

1997

2,430.2

71

558

6,247

3,642

3,043

40,085

6,423

928

800

52

1998

2,209.2

93

1,156

9,659

4,943

2,136

27,889

1,837

907

399

54

1999

1,863.2

70

335

8,168

4,308

1,727

12,468

1,974

746

816

174

2000

1,892.5

29

437

11,168

3,756

2,229

15,689

4,796

1,433

262

39

2001

1,957.6

45

200

10,559

3,981

2,506

8,903

4,383

991

307

69

2002

1,561.2

18

380

10,704

4,212

2,324

7,005

2,331

1,207

311

40

2003

1,140.6

67

471

10,752

2,951

2,135

6,875

2,761

1,384

169

42

1995

6,715.5

137

96

66,795

24,367

3,007

53,787

17,469

6,121

6,165

1,047

1996

8,137.3

124

105

70,168

23,514

2,978

47,388

13,815

8,246

6,445

472

1997

7,210.6

107

123

62,470

16,801

2,037

41,433

6,794

6,834

6,029

215

1998

5,816.3

138

164

60,651

18,291

1,581

16,627

4,564

4,563

3,348

832

1999

6,038.6

193

269

58,952

16,250

1,167

16,499

4,408

4,696

3,964

457

2000

6,333.2

209

382

54,319

13,743

970

15,038

3,106

5,563

3,633

241

2001

5,606.4

132

148

37,001

10,012

954

14,910

2,095

3,845

1,669

355

2002

5,589

160

205

38,616

8,823

663

15,823

1,746

2,608

2,829

425

2003

5,867.5

206

410

41,083

8,878

902

14,830

2,565

3,429

1,620

357

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-88

PEL shark PEL shark
kept
discards

LCS
kept

LCS
Billfish
Turtle
discards discards interactions

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.10

Alternative B2(a). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure on discards from May through November with
redistribution of effort in (a) all open areas and (b) in the Gulf of Mexico only. Totals and percent changes are for months of May-Nov
only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

a)

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

White
Number of Marlin
hooks set discards
354,851
14
183,157
2
239,525
3
337,802
7
412,790
37
343,018
124
287,935
121
354,682
67
277,354
45
329,758
40
341,643
29
347,767
14

Blue
Marlin
discards
16
4
4
13
21
89
127
66
58
49
22
18

Sailfish
discards
5
1
2
5
14
26
37
22
21
13
13
4

Spearfish
discards
4
0
3
5
5
7
13
5
4
11
3
3

Pelagic
Shark
discards
19
18
19
27
25
15
10
13
15
10
11
20

Large
Coastal
Shark Leatherback Loggerhead Other Sea
discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
24
11
1
0
61
9
0
0
56
18
1
0
27
16
0
2
35
10
5
0
45
12
0
0
24
9
1
0
24
5
0
0
31
7
0
0
38
18
0
0
24
15
0
0
21
41
1
3

Total (May-Nov) 2,347,180

463

432

146

48

99

410

76

6

0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-11.1%

-14.7%

-17.6%

-14.2%

-11.3%

-0.3%

-2.5%

-15.4%

-3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

-2.7%

-7.3%

-0.8%

-2.1%

14.5%

11.7%

-8.0%

7.9%

-7.1%

All Areas*
% Reduction
without
redistribution of
effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-89

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

b)
Spearfish
discards
4
0
3
5
5
7
13
5
4
11
3
3

Pelagic
Shark
discards
19
18
19
27
25
15
10
13
15
10
11
20

Large
Coastal
Shark
discards
24
61
56
27
35
45
24
24
31
38
24
21

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
11
9
18
16
10
12
9
5
7
18
15
41

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
1
0
1
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

146

48

99

221

76

6

0

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-14.7%

-17.6%

-14.2%

-11.3%

-0.3%

-1.3%

-15.4%

-3.4%

0.0%

-4.4%

-5.8%

1.8%

3.3%

0.3%

3.6%

-9.4%

-1.4%

0.0%

-139

-142

18

14

112

598

-46

-3

0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Number
of hooks
set
354,851
183,157
239,525
337,802
412,790
343,018
287,935
354,682
277,354
329,758
341,643
347,767

White
Marlin
discards
14
2
3
7
37
124
121
67
45
40
29
14

Blue
Marlin
discards
16
4
4
13
21
89
127
66
58
49
22
18

Sailfish
discards
5
1
2
5
14
26
37
22
21
13
13
4

Total (May-Nov)

2,347,180

463

432

21,148,706

3,143

-11.1%

Month

All Areas*
% Reduction
without
redistribution of
effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution of
effort
No. reduced with
redist. of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-90

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.11

Alternative B2(a). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and discards with and without redistribution of effort yearround and May-November with redistribution of effort into (a) all open areas and (b) in the Gulf of Mexico only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing
the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

a)
Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction

Number of Swordfish Swordfish
hooks set
kept
discards
355,191
1,110
488
193,937
928
361
242,885
718
468
347,360
556
656
424,810
526
991
352,129
597
543
304,242
414
241
351,376
602
239
281,104
452
262
337,578
635
396
351,773
733
316
356,739
1,098
484
3,899,124
21,148,706
-18.4%

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

424,810
352,129
304,242
351,376
281,104
337,578
351,773
Total
2,403,012
All Areas*
21,148,706
% Reduction w/out redistribution
-11.4%
% Reduction with redistribution
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Bluefin Bluefin
Yellowfin Bigeye Bigeye
tuna
tuna Yellowfin tuna
tuna
tuna
BAYS BAYS
kept discards tuna kept discards kept discards kept discards
9
2
3,425
105
95
1
3,563
110
14
2
853
13
40
1
904
14
29
36
1,678
42
9
0
1,691
48
32
82
3,726
121
10
0
3,738
122
31
71
3,923
335
2
0
3,928
345
7
3
4,333
176
17
0
4,350
198
0
0
3,978
103
33
0
4,017
120
0
0
3,184
85
46
0
3,249
96
0
1
2,515
45
34
0
2,553
80
166
0
0
3,053
139
121
2
3,226
2
0
2,860
69
147
0
3,097
147
9
1
3,369
77
130
1
3,622
140

8,369
5,445
133
198
36,897
127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
-6.6%
-14.8% -22.2% -12.2%
-22.1%
MAY THROUGH NOVEMBER ONLY
526
991
31
71
3,923
597
543
7
3
4,333
414
241
0
0
3,978
602
239
0
0
3,184
452
262
0
1
2,515
635
396
0
0
3,053
733
316
2
0
2,860
3,959
2,988
40
75
23,846
127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
-3.1%
-8.1% -6.7%
-4.6%
-14.3%
9.1%
4.4%
3.4%
10.3%
-1.1%

4-91

1,310
5,486
-23.9%

684
37,133
-1.8%

5 37,938
1,006 226,156
-0.5% -16.8%

1,586
8,990
-17.6%

335
176
103
85
45
139
69
952
5,486
-17.4%
3.0%

2
17
33
46
34
121
147
400
37,133
-1.1%
2.6%

0
3,928
0
4,350
0
4,017
0
3,249
0
2,553
2
3,226
0
3,097
2 24,420
1,006 226,156
-0.2% -10.8%
11.6%
2.6%

345
198
120
96
80
166
147
1,152
8,990
-12.8%
0.0%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

b)
Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Other Areas
% Reduction
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
All GOM only
% Reduction w/out
Redist. of effort
% Reduction with
Redist. of effort
No. reduced with
redist. of effort

Number
of hooks
set
355,191
193,937
242,885
347,360
424,810
352,129
304,242
351,376
281,104
337,578
351,773
356,739

Swordfish
kept
1,110
928
718
556
526
597
414
602
452
635
733
1,098

3,899,124
21,148,706
-18.4%

8,369
127,500
-6.6%

424,810
352,129
304,242
351,376
281,104
337,578
351,773
2,403,012
11,138,444
-21.6%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Bluefin
tuna
kept
9
14
29
32
31
7
0
0
0
0
2
9

Bluefin
tuna
discards
2
2
36
82
71
3
0
0
1
0
0
1

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
105
13
42
121
335
176
103
85
45
139
69
77

Bigeye
tuna
kept
95
40
9
10
2
17
33
46
34
121
147
130

Bigeye
tuna
discards
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1

BAYS
kepts
3,563
904
1,691
3,738
3,928
4,350
4,017
3,249
2,553
3,226
3,097
3,622

BAYS
discards
110
14
48
122
345
198
120
96
80
166
147
140

684
37,133
-1.8%

5
1,006
-0.5%

37,938
226,156
-16.8%

1,586
8,990
-17.6%

526
597
414
602
452
635
733
3,959
29,070

5,445
133
198
36,897
1,310
36,748
599
1,617
167,203
5,486
-14.8%
-22.2%
-12.2%
-22.1%
-23.9%
MAY THROUGH NOVEMBER ONLY
991
31
71
3,923
335
543
7
3
4,333
176
241
0
0
3,978
103
239
0
0
3,184
85
262
0
1
2,515
45
396
0
0
3,053
139
316
2
0
2,860
69
2,988
40
75
23,846
952
14,517
345
470
114,961
4,025

2
17
33
46
34
121
147
400
1,505

0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
34

3,928
4,350
4,017
3,249
2,553
3,226
3,097
24,420
117,172

345
198
120
96
80
166
147
1,152
5,313

-13.6%

-20.6%

-11.6%

-16.0%

-20.7%

-23.7%

-26.6%

-5.9%

-20.8%

-21.7%

0.6%

4.4%

-0.5%

-1.2%

2.7%

22.3%

-0.4%

0.4%

11.8%

1.0%

703

1,635

-3

-20

4,571

1,224

-131

4

4,365

91

Swordfish
discards
488
361
468
656
991
543
241
239
262
396
316
484

4-92

Yellowfin
tuna kept
3,425
853
1,678
3,726
3,923
4,333
3,978
3,184
2,515
3,053
2,860
3,369

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.12

Alternative B2(b). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding
the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Bluefin Bluefin
Yellowfin Bigeye Bigeye
Number of Swordfish Swordfish tuna
tuna Yellowfin
tuna
tuna
tuna
kept discards tuna kept discards
kept discards
hooks set
kept
discards
YEAR-ROUND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
648
183,851
256,598
235,512
225,096
78,630
10,086
1,500
991,921
21,148,706
-4.7%

7
1,867
2,712
2,327
2,875
1,076
85
25
10,974
127,500
-8.6%

183851
Total
183851
All Areas*
21,148,706
% Reduction w/out redistribution
-0.9%
% Reduction with redistribution

1,867
1,867
127,500
-1.5%
-0.8%

Total
All Areas*
% Reduction
6

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

0
256
394
499
509
207
124
8
1,997
36,748
-5.4%

0
0
11
365
14
43
3
2
2
48
1
0
3
3
0
0
34
461
599
1,617
-5.7% -28.5%
JUNE ONLY
256
11
365
256
11
365
36,748
599
1,617
-0.7%
-1.8% -22.6%
-0.1%
-1.2% -21.9%

4-93

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
505
552
2,625
3,407
524
39
10
7,662
167,203
-4.6%

0
11
5
12
51
2
0
0
81
5,486
-1.5%

0
557
197
157
373
180
159
4
1,627
37,133
-4.4%

0
0
0
1,337
0
929
2
3,019
3
4,167
0
980
0
266
0
15
5 10,713
1,006 226,156
-0.5%
-4.7%

0
15
8
16
54
3
1
0
97
8,990
-1.1%

505
505
167,203
-0.3%
0.9%

11
11
5,486
-0.2%
1.1%

557
557
37,133
-1.5%
-1.2%

0
1,337
0
1,337
1,006 226,156
0.0%
-0.6%
0.3%
0.4%

15
15
8,990
-0.2%
0.9%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.13

Alternative B2(c). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding
the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Number of Swordfish Swordfish
hooks set
kept
discards

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

734,991
480,238
533,964
814,452
1,075,255
954,628
1,102,300
1,101,773
807,867
818,964
715,282
714,878

2,334
2,512
1,872
1,288
1,185
1,121
1,294
1,412
1,002
1,132
1,186
1,747

9,854,592
21,148,706
-46.6%

18,085
127,500
-14.2%

814,452
1,075,255
954,628

1,288
1,185
1,121

Total (Apr-Jun)
2,844,335
All Areas*
21,148,706
% Reduction w/out redistribution
-13.4%
% Reduction with redistribution

3,594
127,500
-2.8%
21.1%

Total
All Areas*
% Reduction
4
5
6

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1,052
931
1,104
1,176
1,520
925
994
752
663
726
600
894

Bluefin Bluefin
Yellowfin Bigeye Bigeye
tuna
tuna Yellowfin tuna
tuna
tuna
BAYS BAYS
kept discards tuna kept discards kept discards kept discards
YEAR-ROUND
26
2
8,144
278
212
6
8,454
303
31
4
2,274
91
72
3
2,371
98
49
73
3,657
122
22
0
3,688
134
92
189
7,772
370
20
0
7,796
380
64
151
11,768
571
13
0 11,804
641
18
8
13,513
539
57
2 13,576
656
3
0
15,432
528
84
0 15,545
714
0
5
13,612
300
76
1 13,716
436
20
1
8,615
147
77
0
8,715
254
0
1
7,728
234
198
5
7,992
340
2
4
5,745
163
264
1
6,166
281
13
1
6,780
235
199
1
7,194
344

11,337
318
439 105,040
3,578 1,294
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486 37,133
-30.9% -53.1% -27.1% -62.8% -65.2% -3.5%
APRIL THROUGH JUNE ONLY
1,176
92
189
7,772
370
20
1,520
64
151
11,768
571
13
925
18
8
13,513
539
57

19 107,017
1,006 226,156
-1.9% -47.3%
7,796
11,804
13,576

380
641
656

3,621
174
36,748
599
-9.9% -29.0%
6.0% -18.3%

2 33,176
1,006 226,156
-0.2% -14.7%
1.7%
-5.4%

1,677
8,990
-18.7%
-11.8%

4-94

348
1,617
-21.5%
9.8%

33,053
167,203
-19.8%
-11.0%

1,480
90
5,486 37,133
-27.0% -0.2%
-18.3% 11.4%

0
0
2

4,581
8,990
-51.0%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.14

Alternative B2(b). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure on discards in June. Totals and percent decreases are for
month of June only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001 – 2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

White
Number of Marlin
hooks set discards
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
648
0
184,435
12
256,598
31
235,512
49
224,296
26
78,130
6
10,086
0
1,500
0

Total (June)
All Areas*

Blue
Marlin
discards
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
6
7
2
0
0

Sailfish Spearfish
discards discards
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

Pelagic
Shark
discards
0
0
0
0
21
1,302
1,720
645
603
457
310
13

Large
Coastal
Shark Leatherback Loggerhead Other Sea
discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
10
20
0
196
7
9
0
85
5
3
0
41
1
3
0
13
0
1
0
2
4
0
0
0
1
1
0

184,435

12

4

0

0

5,071

344

10

20

0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-0.9%

-0.4%

-0.2%

0.0%

0.0%

-14.9%

-2.5%

-2.0%

-11.2%

0.0%

1.0%

0.9%

1.7%

0.8%

-2.6%

2.2%

-1.3%

-10.3%

0.0%

% Reduction
without
redistribution
of effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution
of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-95

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.15

Percent change in kept and discarded catch based on different time/area closure alternatives with and without redistribution of effort. = decrease and + = increase in kept and discarded catch; * with redistribution of effort assumes no reduction in the number of hooks set.
Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003).

Alternative
Alternative B2(a) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)

Number
Bluefin Bluefin
Yellowfin Bigeye Bigeye
of hooks Swordfish Swordfish tuna
tuna Yellowfin tuna
tuna
tuna
BAYS BAYS
set
kept
discards
kept discards tuna kept discards
kept discards kept discards
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
-18.4%
-6.6%
-14.8% -22.2% -12.2%
-22.1%
-23.9%
-1.8%
-0.5% -16.8% -17.6%
-11.4%
-3.1%
-8.1%
-6.7%
-4.6%
-14.3%
-17.4%
-1.1%
-0.2% -10.8% -12.8%

Alternative B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(b) (June only)

-4.7%
-0.9%

-8.6%
-1.5%

-5.4%
-0.7%

Alternative B2(c) (April-June)
Alternative B2(d) (year-round)
Alternative B2(e) (year-round)

-13.4%
-47.4%
-10.1%

-2.8%
-15.1%
-13.7%

-9.9%
-31.5%
-11.0%

Alternative B2(a) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)

*
*

15.3%
9.1%

5.4%
4.4%

Alternative B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(b) (June only)

*
*

-5.5%
-0.8%

-1.9%
-0.1%

Alternative B2(c) (April-June)
Alternative B2(d) (year-round)
Alternative B2(e) (year-round)

*
*
*

21.1%
62.5%
-6.8%

Alternative B2(a)/B2(b) (year-round)
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)/B2(b) (June)
Alternative B2(d)/B2(e) (year-round)

*
*
*

9.8%
5.8%
63.1%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

-5.7%
-1.8%

-4.4%
-1.5%

-0.5%
0.0%

-4.7%
-0.6%

-1.1%
-0.2%

-29.0% -21.5%
-19.8%
-27.0%
-0.2%
-53.6% -27.1%
-64.0%
-66.4%
-3.5%
-12.4% -43.3%
-7.6%
-3.6% -19.7%
WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
-3.9%
7.9%
-4.6%
-6.9% 21.2%
3.4%
10.3%
-1.1%
3.0%
2.6%

-0.2%
-1.9%
-13.8%

-14.7%
-48.2%
-12.0%

-18.7%
-51.8%
-8.3%

20.8%
11.6%

2.3%
2.6%

1.4%
0.04%

5.6%
0.3%

0.7%
0.4%

4.5%
0.9%

6.0% -18.3%
9.8%
-11.0%
-18.3% 11.4%
1.7%
31.9% -12.1%
38.0%
-29.8%
-35.6% 80.6%
84.8%
-2.9%
-7.6% -40.7%
5.5%
8.3% -11.9%
-2.5%
COMBINATIONS WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
3.6%
-7.4% -19.1%
-3.2%
-2.9% 20.8%
26.5%
4.4%
5.4% -13.6%
0.3%
2.2% 10.0%
11.8%
36.1% -22.0% -35.2%
-25.1%
-21.6% 78.4% 117.4%

-5.4%
-0.6%
-0.3%

-11.8%
-6.9%
4.1%

2.9%
3.2%
-0.4%

5.9%
3.5%
5.6%

-3.5%
-1.2%

4-96

-28.5%
-22.6%

-27.0%
-21.9%

-4.6%
-0.3%

1.3%
0.9%

-1.5%
-0.2%

4.1%
1.1%

-0.5%
-1.2%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.16

Alternative B2(c). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure on discards from April through June. Totals
and percent changes are for month of June only. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001 – 2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total April-June
All Areas*
% Reduction
without
redistribution of
effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

White
Number of Marlin
hooks set discards
734,991
19
480,238
8
533,964
6
814,452
22
1,075,255
78
954,628
225
1,102,300
545
1,100,973
248
807,867
110
818,964
120
715,282
53
714,878
35

Blue
Marlin
discards
29
6
9
28
54
162
547
187
146
92
44
34

Pelagic
Sailfish Spearfish Shark
discards discards discards
17
10
60
4
0
55
3
5
44
12
6
71
36
9
147
76
20
69
178
58
58
110
23
52
71
26
41
42
13
60
20
6
30
5
9
46

Large
Coastal
Shark Leatherback Loggerhead Other Sea
discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
93
11
1
0
138
12
0
0
161
17
1
0
130
19
0
2
294
15
6
0
195
21
1
0
123
65
3
0
102
28
1
0
96
25
1
0
132
29
0
0
228
19
1
0
64
67
3
3

2,844,335

325

244

124

35

287

619

55

7

2

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-13.4%

-10.3%

-10.0%

-12.1%

-8.3%

-0.8%

-3.7%

-11.1%

-3.9%

-18.2%

7.0%

2.0%

4.4%

13.2%

17.1

25.9

-2.6%

23.5%

-18.2%

4-97

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.17

Alternative B2(d). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure on discards. * excluding the NED. + =
increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001 – 2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Large
White
Blue
Pelagic Coastal
Other
Shark Leatherback Loggerhead Sea
Number of Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish Shark
hooks set discards discards discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
739,191
19
29
17
13
60
101
11
1
0
488,238
8
6
5
0
58
175
12
0
0
546,944
6
9
3
6
47
188
17
1
0
825,627
22
28
12
9
78
146
19
0
2
1,085,255
78
55
37
17
149
309
14
6
0
978,848
224
173
108
49
70
197
18
1
0
1,136,250
547
583
209
108
59
347
47
3
0
1,125,483
248
188
110
59
52
138
21
1
0
820,167
126
151
74
46
43
97
14
1
0
828,954
120
95
42
28
60
132
26
0
0
725,772
53
46
20
10
30
233
19
1
0
720,028
36
34
5
9
47
80
67
3
3

Total

10,020,757

1,487

1,397

642

354

753

2,143

285

18

5

All Areas*

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-47.4%

-47.3%

-57.0%

-62.4%

-83.5%

-2.2%

-2.5%

-57.7%

-10.1%

-45.5%

0.3%

-20.3%

-26.8%

-73.3%

88.8%

66.9%

-21.3%

65.5%

-3.3%

% Reduction
without
redistribution
of effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution
of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-98

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.18

Alternative B2(d). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding
the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Bluefin
Yellowfin Bigeye Bigeye
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna Yellowfin tuna
tuna
tuna
kept
discards
hooks set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
739,191
2,354
1,067
26
2
8,158
278
214
6
488,238
2,746
986
31
4
2,274
91
72
3
547,564
2,230
1,168
50
73
3,660
122
22
0
825,627
1,591
1,248
93
189
7,780
370
20
0
1,085,255
1,260
1,530
64
151
11,836
571
14
0
978,848
1,134
924
18
8
14,310
582
56
2
1,136,250
1,304
998
3
0
15,687
530
84
0
1,127,083
1,442
758
0
5
13,864
301
77
1
820,167
1,023
668
20
1
8,832
154
78
0
828,954
1,140
727
0
1
7,839
234
199
5
725,772
1,243
610
3
4
5,829
169
264
1
720,028
1,748
895
13
1
6,872
239
199
1

Total
10,022,977
All Areas*
21,148,706
% Reduction w/out Redistribution
-47.4%
% Reduction with redistribution

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

19,215
127,500
-15.1%
62.5%

11,579
36,748
-31.5%
31.9%

321
599
-53.6%
-12.1%

4-99

439
1,617
-27.1%
38.0%

106,941
167,203
-64.0%
-29.8%

3,641
5,486
-66.4%
-35.6%

1,299
37,133
-3.5%
80.6%

19
1,006
-1.9%
84.8%

BAYS
BAYS
kept
discards
8,470
305
2,371
98
3,691
134
7,804
380
11,873
641
14,372
705
15,800
716
13,969
446
8,933
261
8,104
340
6,250
287
7,286
348
108,923
226,156
-48.2%
-0.6%

4,661
8,990
-51.8%
-6.9%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.19

Alternative B2(e). Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure on discards. * excluding the NED. + = increase
and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total
by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction
without
redistribution
of effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution
of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Large
White
Blue
Pelagic Coastal
Other
Shark Leatherback Loggerhead Sea
Number of Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish Shark
hooks set discards discards discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
9,800
0
0
0
0
157
2
0
1
0
6,300
0
0
0
0
90
0
0
1
0
4,200
0
0
0
0
65
0
0
2
0
999
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
8,913
0
0
0
0
72
0
1
0
0
247,068
16
5
0
1
1750
11
11
27
0
476,917
52
3
1
2
2257
284
9
10
0
515,418
121
10
1
4
1290
204
9
6
0
395,521
71
19
1
1
1192
75
3
3
0
277,781
9
2
0
0
1755
102
3
8
0
137,838
4
1
0
0
1724
18
10
6
0
46,755
1
0
0
0
372
2
3
1
0
2,127,510

274

40

3

8

10,759

698

49

65

0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-10.1%

-8.7%

-1.6%

-0.3%

-1.9%

-31.6%

-2.5%

-9.9%

-36.3%

0.0%

6.0%

14.7%

17.7%

9.1%

-23.9%

5.8%

-0.6%

-33.3%

5.7%

4-100

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.20

Alternative B2(e). Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and discards without redistribution of effort. * excluding
the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction w/out
Redistribution
% Reduction with Redistribution

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Number
Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
of hooks Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Yellowfin
tuna
Bigeye
tuna
set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
9,800
37
36
0
0
27
0
72
0
7,700
28
23
0
2
0
0
10
0
4,200
5
4
0
2
1
0
9
0
999
0
1
0
40
2
0
0
0
8,913
45
9
0
12
6
0
12
1
247,068
2,344
322
13
388
729
17
705
0
475,917
4,016
590
20
66
1,313
10
450
5
515,418
3,532
838
5
2
3,997
32
1,463
48
394,621
3,856
805
2
52
4,175
88
1,592
62
277,781
2,648
897
11
49
1,548
41
1,350
14
138,463
647
495
23
86
690
10
1,109
2
46,755
264
34
0
1
204
2
531
7
2,127,635
21,148,70
6
-10.1%

BAYS
kept
187
70
16
3
39
1,762
2,188
6,345
6,786
5,357
3,111
1,277

BAYS
discards
0
0
0
0
2
21
23
91
187
105
205
114

17,422

4,054

74

700

12,692

200

7,303

139

27,141

748

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

-13.7%
-6.8%

-11.0%
-2.9%

-12.4%
-7.6%

-43.3%
-40.7%

-7.6%
5.5%

-3.6%
8.3%

-19.7%
-11.9%

-13.8%
-2.5%

-12.0%
-0.3%

-8.3%
4.1%

4-101

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.21

B2(a) and B2(b) Combined. Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure on discards for combined alternatives
B2(a) and B2(b) year-round, and from May through November for B2(a) and in June for B2(b). * excluding the NED. + = increase and = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Decrease without
redistribution of effort
% Decrease with
redistribution of effort
(Year-round)
% Decrease with
redistribution of effort
B2(a) (May-Nov) and
B2(b) (June)
No. reduced with redist.
of effort
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Spearfish
discards
4
0
3
5
5
8
13
5
5
11
3
2

Pelagic
Shark
discards
19
18
19
27
46
1,317
1,730
658
618
467
321
33

Large
Coastal
Shark
discards
24
61
56
27
35
52
220
109
72
51
26
21

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
11
9
18
16
10
22
16
10
8
18
18
41

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
1
0
1
0
5
20
10
3
3
1
0
2

Other
Sea
turtles
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

148

64

5,273

754

197

46

4

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-19.5%

-19.9%

-14.4%

-15.1%

-15.5%

-4.5%

-39.9%

-25.7%

-36.4%

4.3%

3.3%

11.9%

8.6%

9.2%

21.9%

-22.7%

-7.3%

-20.3%

-1.7%

-6.7%

1.5%

-2.3%

9.6%

10.1%

-8.4%

-3.1%

7.1%

-53

-164

15

-10

3,276

1,680

-42

-6

1

Number
of hooks
set
352,141
176,609
232,645
330,682
397,942
514,590
524,443
564,244
489,540
399,058
344,368
341,864

White
Marlin
discards
14
2
3
7
37
135
149
107
71
46
29
14

Blue
Marlin
discards
16
4
4
13
19
90
128
65
64
50
22
13

Sailfish
discards
5
1
2
5
13
20
35
16
22
12
13
4

4,668,126

614

488

21,148,706

3,143

-22.1%

4-102

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.22

B2(a) and B2(b) Combined. Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and discards without redistribution of effort. *
excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Other Areas
% Reduction w/out
Redistribution
% Reduction with
Redistribution (year-round)
% Reduction with
Redistribution B2(a) (MayNov) and B2(b) (June)
No. reduced with redist. of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Number of
hooks set
355,191
193,937
242,885
347,360
425,458
535,980
560,840
586,888
506,200
416,208
361,859
358,239

Swordfish
kept
1,110
928
718
556
533
2,464
3,126
2,929
3,327
1,711
818
1,123

Swordfish
discards
488
361
468
656
991
799
635
738
771
603
440
492

Bluefin
tuna
kept
9
14
29
32
31
18
14
3
2
1
5
9

Bluefin
tuna
discards
2
2
36
82
71
368
43
2
49
0
3
1

Yellowfin
tuna kept
3,425
853
1,678
3,726
3,923
4,838
4,530
5,809
5,922
3,577
2,899
3,379

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
105
13
42
121
335
187
108
97
96
141
69
77

Bigeye
tuna
kept
95
40
9
10
2
574
230
203
407
301
306
134

Bigeye
tuna
discards
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
1

BAYS
kept
3,563
904
1,691
3,738
3,928
5,687
4,946
6,268
6,720
4,206
3,363
3,637

BAYS
discards
110
14
48
122
345
213
128
112
134
169
148
140

4,891,045
21,148,706

19,343
127,500

7,442
36,748

167
599

659
1,617

44,559
167,203

1,391
5,486

2,311
37,133

10
1,006

48,651
226,156

1,683
8,990

-23.1%

-15.2%

-20.3%

-27.9%

-40.8%

-26.6%

-25.4%

-6.2%

-1.0%

-21.5%

-18.7%

9.3%

3.4%

-7.6%

-24.3%

-3.1%

-2.2%

21.6%

29.0%

3.2%

7.1%

5.8%

4.4%

5.4%

-13.6%

0.3%

2.2%

10.0%

11.8%

3.2%

3.5%

7,350

1,635

32

-221

458

118

3,695

119

7,209

314

4-103

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.23

B2(d) and B2(e) Combined. Example of temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure on discards for combined alternatives
B2(d) and B2(e)year-round. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Spearfish
discards
10
0
5
6
9
21
60
27
28
13
6
9

Pelagic
Shark
discards
217
148
112
113
221
1820
2322
1342
1235
1815
1754
419

Large
Coastal
Shark
discards
103
175
188
146
309
208
631
342
172
234
251
82

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
11
12
17
19
15
29
56
30
17
29
29
70

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
2
1
3
0
6
28
13
7
4
8
7
4

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

645

194

11,518

2,841

334

83

5

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

-56.0%

-58.7%

-62.7%

-45.8%

-33.9%

-17.1%

-67.6%

-46.4%

-45.5%

6.5%

-3.5%

-3.1%

12.1%

65.0%

102.0%

-30.2%

4.8%

18.3%

205

-86

-32

51

22,098

16,970

-149

9

2

Number of
hooks set
748,991
494,538
551,144
826,626
1,094,168
1,225,916
1,615,167
1,640,901
1,215,688
1,106,735
863,610
766,783

White
Marlin
discards
19
8
6
22
78
240
599
369
197
129
57
37

Blue
Marlin
discards
29
6
9
28
55
178
586
198
170
97
47
34

Sailfish
discards
17
5
3
12
37
108
210
111
75
42
20
5

Total

12,150,267

1,761

1,437

All Areas*

21,148,706

3,143

-57.5%

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

% Reduction
without
redistribution
of effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution
of effort
No. reduced
with redist.
of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-104

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.24

B2(d) and B2(e) Combined. Percent change in incidental bluefin tuna and target catch and discards without redistribution of effort. *
excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Other Areas
% Reduction w/out
Redistribution
% Reduction with
Redistribution
No. reduced with
redist. of effort

Number of
hooks set
748,991
495,938
551,764
826,626
1,094,168
1,225,916
1,615,167
1,642,501
1,214,788
1,106,735
864,235
766,783

Swordfish
kept
2,391
2,774
2,235
1,591
1,305
3,478
5,355
4,974
4,879
3,788
1,890
2,012

Swordfish
discards
1,103
1,009
1,172
1,249
1,539
1,246
1,589
1,596
1,473
1,624
1,105
929

Bluefin
tuna
kept
26
31
50
93
64
31
23
5
22
11
26
13

Bluefin
tuna
discards
2
6
75
229
163
396
66
7
53
50
90
2

Yellowfin
tuna kept
8,185
2,274
3,661
7,782
11,842
15,039
17,006
17,861
13,007
9,387
6,519
7,076

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
278
91
122
370
571
599
540
333
242
275
179
241

Bigeye
tuna kept
286
82
31
20
26
761
538
1,540
1,670
1,549
1,373
730

Bigeye
tuna
discards
6
3
0
0
1
2
5
49
62
19
3
8

BAYS
kept
8,657
2,441
3,707
7,807
11,912
16,134
17,998
20,314
15,719
13,461
9,361
8,563

BAYS
discards
305
98
134
380
643
726
739
537
448
445
492
462

12,153,612
21,148,706

36,672
127,500

15,634
36,748

395
599

1,139
1,617

119,639
167,203

3,841
5,486

8,606
37,133

158
1,006

136,074
226,156

5,409
8,990

-57.5%

-28.8%

-42.5%

-65.9%

-70.4%

-71.6%

-70.0%

-23.2%

-15.7%

-60.2%

-60.2%

63.1%

36.1%

-22.0%

-35.2%

-25.1%

-21.6%

78.4%

117.4%

-0.4%

5.6%

80,468

13,262

-132

-570

-41,986

-1,186

29,114

1,181

-980

502

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-105

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.14

Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures and juvenile swordfish data (<180 cm LJFL). The minimum
size limit for swordfish is 119 cm LJFL. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-106

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.15

Map showing areas being considered for modifications to existing closures and adult swordfish data (>180 cm LJFL) from the Pelagic
Observer Program. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-107

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Figure 4.16

Map showing modification to the existing Northeast United States closure and bluefin tuna discards. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-108

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.25

Alternative B3(a) Charleston Bump modification. Discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles from the portion of the
Charleston Bump to remain closed and the portion of the area considered for reopening. *
excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook 1997-1999.

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Other
White
Blue
Number of Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Sea
hooks set discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
PORTION OF AREA TO REMAIN CLOSED
154,536
7
4
7
2
0
0
1
156,595
11
7
5
3
0
1
1
302,955
35
7
15
1
0
1
0
117,133
18
17
11
6
0
0
0
229,426
24
26
16
2
0
0
0
210,309
53
54
45
7
6
3
1
99,983
11
27
45
0
1
1
0
42,198
3
17
31
0
1
0
0
24,456
2
11
10
0
1
0
0
28,830
4
7
6
1
1
0
0
26,455
4
5
7
0
2
0
0
30,934
1
9
5
0
0
0
0

Total (Feb - April)
All Areas*
% of All Areas*

576,683
21,148,706
2.7%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

28,429
35,545
29,920
42,938
50,773
84,298
42,229
33,900
57,915
69,360
27,882
26,765

Total (Feb - April)
All Areas*
% of All Areas*

108,403
21,148,706
0.5%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

64
31
31
10
0
2
3,143
2,449
1,029
424
494
179
2.0%
1.3%
3.0%
2.4%
0.0%
1.1%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING
2
3
4
1
0
1
4
7
2
1
0
0
8
2
5
1
0
1
7
8
3
2
0
0
7
3
2
0
0
0
33
15
18
5
0
0
2
7
21
1
0
0
1
15
24
3
0
0
4
38
27
2
0
0
6
23
19
1
0
1
3
10
4
1
0
1
0
8
3
0
0
0
19
3,143
0.6%

17
2,449
0.7%

4-109

10
1,029
1.0%

4
424
0.9%

0
494
0.0%

1
179
0.6%

1
11
9.1%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.0%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.26

Alternative B3(b) Northeastern U.S. closure modification. Discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles from the portion of
the Northeastern U.S. closure to remain closed and the portion of the area considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997 - 1999.

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% of All Areas*
6
Total
All Areas*
% of All Areas*

White
Blue
Other
Number of Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Sea
hooks set discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32,535
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,550
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
8,739
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47,424
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
21,148,706
3,143
2,449
1,029
424
494
179
11
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING (June only)
2,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,400
21,148,706
0.0%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

0
3,143
0.0%

0
2,449
0.0%

0
1,029
0.0%

4-110

0
424
0.0%

0
494
0.0%

0
179
0.0%

0
11
0.0%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.27

Alternative B3(a) Charleston Bump modification. Catches and discards of incidental bluefin tuna and target species in the portion of the
area considered for reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999.

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Increase
2
3
4
Total
All Areas*
% Increase

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Yellowfin
tuna
Bigeye
tuna
hooks set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING (Year-round)
28,429
644
196
0
0
65
11
0
0
35,545
484
164
0
0
97
3
5
0
29,920
461
181
0
0
53
3
3
1
42,938
426
203
0
0
125
13
0
0
50,773
359
77
1
1
118
4
6
0
84,298
963
202
2
0
323
7
9
0
42,229
969
227
0
0
85
7
1
0
33,900
787
199
0
0
54
10
2
0
57,915
2,192
540
0
0
282
13
16
0
69,360
2,864
1,007
0
0
536
17
4
3
27,882
880
312
1
2
150
12
0
2
26,765
717
157
0
0
115
15
1
2
529,954
11,746
3,465
4
3
2,003
115
47
8
21,148,706 127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
2.5%
9.2%
9.4%
0.7%
0.2%
1.2%
2.1%
0.1%
0.8%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING (Feb-April)
35,545
484
164
0
0
97
3
5
0
29,920
461
181
0
0
53
3
3
1
42,938
426
203
0
0
125
13
0
0
108,403
1,371
548
0
0
275
19
8
1
21,148,706 127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
0.51%
1.1%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.16%
0.35%
0.02%
0.1%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-111

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

65
105
57
135
134
339
86
56
301
540
152
116
2,086
226,156
0.9%

11
3
4
14
4
8
7
10
14
20
14
17
126
8,990
1.4%

105
57
135
297
226,156
0.13%

3
4
14
21
8,990
0.23%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.28

Alternative B3(b) Northeastern U.S. closure modification. Catches and discards of incidental bluefin tuna and target species in the
portion of the area considered for reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999.

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Increase
6
Total
All Areas*
% Increase

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Yellowfin
tuna
Bigeye
tuna
hooks set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING (Year-round)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,400
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
32,535
0
1
0
1
9
0
0
0
2,550
27
2
0
0
13
0
12
0
8,739
20
20
0
0
129
0
29
1
1,200
6
0
0
0
9
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47,424
21,148,706
0.2%

56
127,500
0.0%

2,400
2,400
21,148,706
0.01%

3
3
127,500
0.002%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

23
0
2
161
0
46
1
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING (June only)
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
0.0%
0.0%
0.06%
0.001%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

4-112

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

0
0
0
0
0
1
10
28
161
18
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

218
226,156
0.1%

1
8,990
0.0%

1
1
226,156
0.0004%

0
0
8,990
0.0%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.29

Comparison of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and
loggerhead sea turtles in the portion of the areas considered for reopening. * excluding the
NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or bycatch. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
1997-2000.
Other
White
Blue
Number of Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Sea
hooks set discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING

B3(a) Charleston Bump (Feb - Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern U.S. (June)
All Areas*
B3(a) Charleston Bump (Feb - Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

108,403
2,400

19
0

17
0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

0.3%
0.01%

0.6%
0.0%

0.7%
0.0%

4-113

10
0

4
0

0
0

1
0

0
0

1,029
424
% of All Areas
1.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%

494

179

11

0.0%
0.0%

0.6%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.30

Comparison of of swordfish, incidental bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and BAYS in the portion of the areas considered for
reopening. * excluding the NED. + = increase and - = decrease in discards or retained catch. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999.
Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Yellowfin
tuna
Bigeye
tuna
hooks set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING

B3(a) Charleston Bump
(Feb-Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern
U.S. (June)
All Areas*

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

108,403

1,371

548

0

0

275

19

8

1

297

21

2,400

3

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

% of All Areas
B3(a) Charleston Bump
(Feb-Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern
U.S. (June)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

0.51%

1.1%

1.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.16%

0.35%

0.02%

0.1%

0.13%

0.23%

0.01%

0.002%

0.0%

0.0%

0.06%

0.001%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0004%

0.0%

4-114

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.31

Average swordfish lengths (cm LJFL) in the portion of the areas to remain closed and the
portion of the areas considered for reopening. The minimum size limit for swordfish is 119 cm
LJFL. The mature size is > 180 cm LJFL. Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1992-1999.

Portion
Considered
for
Portion to
Closed Area
Reopening Sample Size Remain Closed Sample Size
t-test
1992-1999
B3(a) Charleston Bump
124
3,374
125
1,664
P = 0.372
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
96
1695
71 cm LJFL
2
P = 0.34
1997 - 1999
B3(a) Charleston Bump
125
2,067
126
455
P = 0.10
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
112
409
71
2
P = 0.05

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION
4-115

Figure 4.17

Map showing smalltooth sawfish bycatch. Numbers in parentheses in the legend are the number of sawfish interactions. Gray dots
indicate the location of each observed bottom longline set. Source: CSFOP 1994-2006.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-116

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.32

Landings by region from the PLL fishery for swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna and bigeye
tuna. The 2004 gross fishing revenues was calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues
into 2004 dollars (2003 value was multiplied by 1.0266). Source: NMFS, 2004.
Region

PLL Landings (mt)

2003 Gross Fishing 2004 Gross Fishing
Revenues
Revenues

SWORDFISH
Northwest Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Caribbean
NC Area 94a
Southwest Atlantic
Total (mt)
Total (lb)
Total (lb dw)
Percent of all landings

1,347
515.8
276.4
632.9
20.9
2,793
6,157,448
4,629,660
99.2%

14,481,889

14,867,107

BLUEFIN TUNA
Northwest Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Caribbean
NC Area 94a
Southwest Atlantic
Total
Total (lb)
Total (lb dw)
Percent of all landings

16.3
53.8
0
11.3
0
81.4
179,454
143,564
5.7%

848,614

871,187

YELLOWFIN TUNA
Northwest Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Caribbean
NC Area 94a
Southwest Atlantic
Total
Total (lb)
Total (lb dw)
Percent of all landings

272
1828
7
5
42
2154
4,748,708
3,795,775
28.0%

8,891,195

9,127,700

1,601,921
25,823,620

1,644,532
26,510,526

BIGEYE TUNA
Northwest Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Caribbean
NC Area 94a
Southwest Atlantic
Total
Total (lb)
Total (lb dw)
Percent of all landings
TOTAL

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

168.7
27.5
7.2
36.9
44.6
284.9
628,091
502,637
59.4%

4-117

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.33

Alternative
Alternative B2(a)
(May-Nov)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(b)
(June only)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(c)
(Apr-June)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(d)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues

Average annual change in gross revenues by species for each of the alternatives in comparison to landings from the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico. Note: 2003 gross revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices. 2004 gross revenues are based on 2004 ex-vessel prices. The total
2004 annual loss or gain to the fishery was calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003 value was
multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease and + = increase. Source: NMFS, 2005.

Swordfish kept

-3.1%
-143,519

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna
tuna
tuna
Swordfish Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye tuna
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept
discards
kept
discards
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
-8.1%

-$423,382

-4.6%

-$60,791

-$475,048

-1.5%
-69,445

-6.7%
-9,619

-1.8%
-2,584

-17.4%

-$1,796,654
­
$2,035,485

-$44,632

-0.7%

-14.3%
-542,796

-22.6%

-0.3%
-11,387

-1.1%
-5,529

-0.2%

-1.5%
-7,540

-$27,102

-$26,011

-$281,947

-$19,173

-$30,176

-$33,327

-29.0%
-41,703

-21.5%

-19.8%
-750,356

-27.0%

-0.2%
-1,218

-$384,981

-$263,563

-$2,483,678

-$4,008

-$431,962

-$193,502

-$2,813,835

-$5,530

-15.1%
-697,717

-31.5%

-53.6%
-76,935

-27.1%

-64.0%
-2,427,731

-66.4%

-3.5%
-17,583

-$2,058,265

-$486,227

-$8,035,791

-$57,849

-$2,309,443

-$356,978

-$9,103,991

-$79,827

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-118

-10.8%

-12.8%

2003 Total

2004 Total

-$2,299,018

-$2,360,172

-$299,120

-$307,077

-$3,136,229

-$3,219,653

-$10,638,133

$10,921,107

-$25,102

-$14,755

-9.9%

BAYS
discards

-$18,190

-$231,252

-2.8%
-130,502

-0.2%

BAYS
kept

0.0%

-0.2%

-1.9%

-0.6%

-14.7%

-48.2%

-0.2%

-18.7%

-51.8%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative
Alternative B2(e)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(a)
(May-Nov)/B2(b)
(June)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(d)
/B2(e) (year-round)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(a)
(May-Nov)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(b)
(June only)
Weight

Bluefin
Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Swordfish kept
discards tuna kept discards
-13.7%
-11.0%
-12.4% -43.3%
-632,611
-17,736
-$2,106,596

-$101,271

-$2,568,401

-15.2%
-703,708

Yellowfin
tuna kept
-7.6%
-288,129

Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna
Bigeye tuna
tuna
discards
discards
kept
-3.6%
-19.7%
-13.8%
-98,854

-$685,746

-$341,047

-20.3%

-27.9%
-40,054

-40.8%

-26.6%
-1,009,676

-25.4%

-6.2%
-31,163

-$240,926

-$2,872,529

-$105,021

-$2,593,164

-$241,526

-$3,230,963

-$139,610

-42.5%

-65.9%
-94,990

-70.4%

-71.6%
-2,722,984

-70.0%

-$571,840

-$4,905,338

-$572,790
-$8,713,549
-$532,829
WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
4.4%

3.4%
4,881

-$7,760,504

-23.2%
-118,935

-$4,174,190

9.1%
421,299

10.3%

-1.1%
-41,754

3.0%

2.6%
13,069

$27,871

-$138,204

$42,997

$1,394,500

$22,648

-$156,578

$59,333

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

-0.1%

-1.2%
-1,723

-21.9%

0.9%
34,162

4-119

-1.0%

-15.7%

-21.5%

2004 Total

-$3,234,660

-$3,320,702

-$5,428,120

-$5,572,508

-60.2%

-$12,907,345

$13,250,680

$1,175,496

$1,206,764

-18.7%

60.2%

-$400,811

$1,242,832

-0.8%
-37,037

2003 Total

-$131,601
-$763,542
-$436,935
COMBINATIONS WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

-$2,209,644

-28.8%
-1,329,360

BAYS
BAYS
kept
discards
-12.0%
-8.3%

1.1%

-1.2%
-6,032

11.6%

0.3%

2.6%

0.4%

-0.04%

0.9%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(c)
(Apr-June)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(d)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues
Alternative B2(e)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues

Swordfish kept

Swordfish Bluefin
discards tuna kept

Bluefin
tuna
discards

Yellowfin
tuna kept

Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna
Bigeye tuna
tuna
discards
discards
kept

-$123,334

-$9,837

$81,306

-$20,809

-$150,370

-$12,785

$90,529

-$26,661

21.1%
976,858

6.0%

-18.3%
-26,272

9.8%

-11.0%
-417,535

-18.3%

11.4%
57,301

$2,881,732

-$166,040

-$1,382,042

$188,520

$3,233,400

-$121,902

-$1,565,756

$260,147

62.5%
2,893,538

31.9%

-12.1%
-17,371

38.0%

-29.8%
-1,131,141

-35.6%

80.6%
405,125

$8,535,936

-$109,786

-$3,744,077

$1,332,861

$9,577,611

-$80,601

-$4,241,779

$1,839,268

-6.8%
-314,817

-2.9%

-7.6%
-10,911

-40.7%

5.5%
208,768

8.3%

-11.9%
-59,814

-$1,048,340

-$62,301

$496,867

-$206,358

-$1,278,157

-$80,960

$553,235

-$264,378

1.7%

84.8%

-2.5%

BAYS
kept

-5.4%

-0.6%

-0.3%

BAYS
discards

2003 Total

2004 Total

-$72,675

-$74,608

$1,522,170

$1,562,660

$6,014,934

$6,174,931

-$820,132

-$841,948

$1,091,570

$1,120,606

-11.8%

-6.9%

4.1%

COMBINATIONS WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
Alternative B2(a)
(May-Nov)/B2(b)
(June)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross

5.8%
268,520
$843,154
$989,496

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4.4%

5.4%
7,752
$46,631
$46,745

-13.6%

0.3%
11,387
$32,397
$36,438

4-120

2.2%

10.0%
50,264
$169,389
$225,183

11.8%

3.2%

3.5%

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Alternative
Revenues
Alternative B2(d)
/B2(e) (year-round)
Weight
2003 Gross
Revenues
2004 Gross
Revenues

Swordfish kept

63.1%
2,921,315

Swordfish Bluefin
discards tuna kept

36.1%

-22.0%
-31,584

Bluefin
tuna
discards

-35.2%

Yellowfin
tuna kept

-25.1%
-952,740

Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna
Bigeye tuna
tuna
discards
discards
kept

-21.6%

78.4%
394,067

$9,172,931

-$190,136

-$2,710,544

$1,328,007

$10,779,652

-$190,452

-$3,048,768

$1,765,420

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-121

117.4%

BAYS
kept

-0.4%

BAYS
discards

2003 Total

2004 Total

5.6%

$7,600,258

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

$7,802,425

Table 4.34

Average annual change in gross revenues by species for each of the modifications to the existing time/area closures in comparison to
landings from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Note: 2003 gross revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices. 2004 gross revenues are
based on 2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004 annual loss or gain to the fishery was calculated by converting the 2003 total gross
revenues into 2004 dollars (2003 value was multiplied by 1.0266). - = decrease and + = increase; * excluding the NED. Source: NMFS,
2005.
Swordfish
kept

Swordfish
discards

B3(a) Charleston Bump
(Feb-Apr)
Number
Weight
2003 Gross Revenues
2004 Gross Revenues

1.1%
1,371
67,732
$220,806
$238,417

1.5%
548

B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
(June)
Number
Weight
2003 Gross Revenues

0.002%
3
145
$482

0.000%
0

2004 Gross Revenues

$588

All Other Areas*

127,500

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Bluefin
tuna
kept

Bluefin
tuna
discards

0.0%
0
0
$0
$0

0.0%
0

0.000%
0
0
$0

0.062%
1

$0
36,748

599

Yellowfin
tuna
discards

Bigeye
tuna
kept

Bigeye
tuna
discards

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

0.2%
275
7,598
$13,372
$11,625

0.4%
19

0.2%
8
126
$281
$282

0.1%
1

0.1%
297

0.2%
21

0.001%
1
28
$68

0.000%
0

0.000%
0
0
$0

0.000%
0

Yellowfin
tuna kept

$74
1,617

167,203

4-122

2003
Total

$234,460

0.000%
1

2004
Total

$241,025

0.000%
0
$550

$0
5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

$565

Table 4.35

Average annual change in gross revenues by species for the B2(a) time/area closures in comparison to landings from the Gulf of Mexico
only. Note: 2003 gross revenues are based on 2003 ex-vessel prices. 2004 gross revenues are based on 2004 ex-vessel prices. The total 2004
annual loss or gain to the fishery was calculated by converting the 2003 total gross revenues into 2004 dollars (2003 value was multiplied
by 1.0266). - = decrease and + = increase. Source: NMFS, 2005.

Alternative
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)
Number caught in B2(a)
% Reduction vs. Overall
% Reduction vs. GOM only
Weight
2003 Gross Revenues
2004 Gross Revenues

Swordfish
kept

3,959
-3.1%
-13.6%
-629,634
-$1,857,420
-$2,084,089

Swordfish
discards

2,988
-8.1%
-20.6%

Bluefin
Yellowfin
tuna
tuna
Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna kept discards tuna kept
discards
tuna kept
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
40
-6.7%
-11.6%
-16,653
-$105,249
-$77,270

75
-4.6%
-16.0%

23,846
-14.3%
-20.7%
-785,725
-$2,600,751
-$2,946,469

952
-17.4%
-23.7%

400
-1.1%
-26.6%
-133,701
-$439,878
-$60,700

Bigeye
tuna
discards

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

2
-0.2%
-5.9%

24,420
-10.8%
-20.8%

1,152
-12.8%
-21.7%

2003 Total

2004 Total

-$5,003,298 -$5,136,386

WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT
Alternative B2(a) (May-Nov)
Number caught in B2(a)
% Reduction vs. Overall
% Reduction vs. GOM only
Weight
2003 Gross Revenues
2004 Gross Revenues

11,590
9.1%
2.4%
111,112
$327,780
$367,781

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1,635
4.4%
11.3%

20
3.4%
-0.8%
-1,149
-$7,259
-$5,331

166
10.3%
-4.3%

-1,881
-1.1%
4.0%
151,831
$502,561
$569,366

4-123

166
3.0%
30.4%

4,393
2.6%
-8.7%
-43,729
-$143,870
-$198,530

117
11.6%
10.4%

5,897
2.6%
3.7%

-4
-0.04%
1.7%
$679,212

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

$697,279

Table 4.36

Total number of individual vessels and sets by year in some of the time/area closures. Alternative
B4 was not included due to confidentiality concerns. Note: 2004 data is only from January through
June 2004. Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.
Number of
Vessels

Alternative

Number of
Sets

Alternative B2(a)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total No. Vessels 01-03
Total No. Vessels 01-04

47
42
50
40
61
101

1,092
880
946
968
2,918
3,886

12
10
7
5
20
25

97
78
51
39
226
265

62
65
63
53
75
128

3,946
4,201
4,476
2,466
12,623
15,089

62
66
66
54
78
132

4,046
4,312
4,539
2,470
12,897
15,367

41
36
28
10
49
59

1,156
764
667
86
2,587
2,673

123
145
157
109
177
286

10,857
9,847
9,705
4,968
30,409
35,377

Alternative B2(b)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total No. Vessels 01-03
Total No. Vessels 01-04
Alternative B2(c)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total No. Vessels 01-03
Total No. Vessels 01-04
Alternative B2(d)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total No. Vessels 01-03
Total No. Vessels 01-04
Alternative B2(e)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total No. Vessels 01-03
Total No. Vessels 01-04
Alternative B7
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total No. Vessels 01-03
Total No. Vessels 01-04

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-124

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.37

Total number of vessels by state for some of the time/area closures from 2001 through 2003, and
2001 through June of 2004. Alternative B4 was not included due to confidentiality concerns. Source:
HMS Logbook 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004).
State
Alternative B2(a)
FL
LA
TX
Total
Alternative B2(b)
DE
FL
MD
NC
NJ
NY
PA
RI
Total
Alternative B2(c)
AL
FL
LA
MA
TX
Total
Alternative B2(d)
AL
FL
LA
MA
TX
Total
Alternative B2(e)
CT
DE
FL
MA
MD
NC
NJ
NY
PA
RI
SC
TX
VA
Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Number of Vessels
2001 - 2003 2001 - 2004

Number of Sets
2001 - 2003 2001 - 2004

14
40
7
61

19
74
8
101

262
2,574
88
2,924

277
3,521
94
3,892

1
1
1
1
4
7
4
1
20

1
1
1
3
6
8
4
1
31

3
7
18
7
91
66
32
2
226

3
7
18
18
116
69
32
2
265

1
21
44
0
9
75

1
35
79
1
12
128

46
2,145
9,214
0
1,218
12,623

46
2,640
11,111
7
1,285
15,089

1
24
44
0
9
78

1
39
79
1
12
132

50
2,266
9,258
0
1,323
12,897

50
2,764
11,156
7
1,390
15,367

1
2
6
4
1
5
9
11
6
1
1
1
1
49

1
4
7
4
2
7
12
12
6
1
1
1
1
59

15
30
309
127
62
189
510
1,014
223
70
9
18
11
2,587

15
45
324
127
70
207
537
1,017
223
70
9
18
11
2,673

4-125

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.38

Percent of total landings and discards in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in comparison to all areas. * excluding the NED. Three year totals
are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Yellowfin
tuna
Bigeye
hooks set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept
856,057
3,454
1,514
27
4
8,633
333
246
578,574
3,853
1,397
34
5
2,453
111
89
679,555
3,865
1,578
61
83
4,061
151
56
928,458
2,783
1,452
97
203
8,097
402
31
1,187,637
2,310
1,862
68
155
12,663
588
36
1,092,622
1,857
1,237
18
8
15,719
669
73
1,253,510
1,882
1,151
3
0
16,878
610
99
1,218,704
1,674
905
0
5
15,014
334
82
872,529
1,482
803
20
1
9,352
169
87
901,145
2,005
883
0
1
8,419
244
212
795,768
1,811
762
3
4
6,324
173
283
773,885
2,094
973
14
1
7,348
241
211

Bigeye
tuna
discards
6
3
10
3
0
2
0
1
0
5
3
1

BAYS
kept
8,982
2,570
4,128
8,132
12,726
15,798
17,006
15,124
9,463
8,698
6,764
7,781

BAYS
discards
364
118
173
415
658
836
857
522
294
372
313
391

Total in GOM

11,138,444

29,070

14,517

345

470

114,961

4,025

1,505

34

117,172

5,313

All Areas*

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

52.7%

22.8%

39.5%

57.6%

29.1%

68.8%

73.4%

4.1%

3.4%

51.8%

59.1%

Percent of Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-126

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Table 4.39

Percent of total discards in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in comparison to all areas (excluding the NED). * excluding the NED. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook 2001-2003.
Large
Coastal
Shark Leatherback Loggerhead Other Sea
discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
147
16
1
0
307
14
1
0
621
19
1
0
278
19
0
2
440
15
6
0
386
24
1
0
762
49
3
0
162
22
1
0
126
14
1
0
151
26
1
0
279
20
1
0
104
72
3
3

Number of
hooks set
748,991
494,538
551,144
826,626
1,094,168
1,225,916
1,615,167
1,640,901
1,215,688
1,106,735
863,610
766,783

White
Marlin
discards
27
11
10
30
93
253
574
269
140
131
58
42

Blue
Marlin
discards
37
16
26
39
67
200
604
214
171
100
52
42

Total

12,150,267

1,638

1,568

722

194

995

3,763

310

20

5

All Areas*

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

34,020

16,573

494

179

11

Percent of
Total

57.5%

52.1%

64.0%

70.2%

45.8%

2.9%

22.7%

62.8%

11.2%

45.5%

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Pelagic
Sailfish Spearfish Shark
discards discards discards
19
10
78
12
2
92
7
5
91
17
6
92
54
10
173
126
22
88
218
58
82
118
23
62
79
29
63
43
14
66
22
6
50
7
9
58

4-127

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

4.2

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing
4.2.1

Northern Albacore Tuna

ICCAT assumes three Atlantic albacore stocks for assessment purposes: northern and
southern Atlantic stocks, separated at 5E N latitude, and a Mediterranean stock (See Section
3.2.3.3). ICCAT’s SCRS conducted a stock assessment for the northern stock in 2000, using
data from 1975 through 1999. Based on the results of this stock assessment, at its November
2000 meeting, ICCAT recommended a total allowable catch (TAC) of 34,500 mt ww with an
allocation to the United States of 607 mt ww. Subsequent ICCAT recommendations have
extended both the 34,500 mt ww TAC, and the U.S. share of 607 mt ww, through 2006.
In 2004, SCRS advice was based on the 2000 assessment as updated with CPUE trends
through 2003. SCRS concluded that the northern stock is probably about 30 percent below
BMSY, but the possibility of a lower BMSY could not be dismissed. It was further concluded that
northern albacore was not being growth overfished 1 and that spawning stock biomass could be
increased if catches do not exceed 31,000 mt (ww) (SCRS, 2004). SCRS plans to conduct the
next stock assessment in 2007. ICCAT does not currently have a rebuilding plan for this species.
U.S. harvest of Atlantic Northern albacore tuna has historically been less than two
percent of the recorded total international landings, based on 1997 through 2004 data.
Approximately 98 percent of total U.S. landings are harvested primarily by rod and reel and
pelagic longline fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic (See Table 3.60). Since the 2000 ICCAT
recommendation of a 607 mt TAC was implemented, U.S. fishing year landings have been well
below the annual TAC of 607 mt (ww) until 2004. In 2004, U.S. calendar year landings of 645.9
mt remained 16 percent below the adjusted annual quota of 765.2 mt. The United States had a
domestic adjusted quota in the 2005 fishing year of 728.8 metric tons.
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for a rebuilding plan are:
C1

Maintain compliance with the current ICCAT recommendation (No Action)

C2

Unilateral proportional reduction of United States northern albacore fishing mortality

C3

Establish the foundation with ICCAT for developing an international rebuilding program
– Preferred Alternative

Ecological Impacts
The SCRS has determined that, under the current exploitation limits, the total catch has
remained below the 34,500 metric ton TAC for 2001-2003, although they have not been able to
assess the effect of this limit on the stock. However in 2004, a northern albacore tuna stock
1

Growth overfishing occurs when animals are harvested at an average size that is smaller than the size
required to produce the maximum yield per recruit. The total yield from the fishery is therefore less than it would be
if the fishing mortality rate was lower. In such a case, less fishing would produce higher landings. This is true even
when the resource is abundant. Stock depletion and stock collapse are caused by recruitment overfishing. This
means that the adult population was fished so heavily that the number and size of the adult population (spawning
biomass) was reduced to the point that it did not have the reproductive capacity to replenish itself.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-128

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

update using CPUE trends through 2003 indicated the stock was probably about 30 percent
below MSY.
Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, would not be expected to result in any
ecological impacts, as no changes in the stock status, bycatch, or catch rates are expected. This
alternative would not establish a foundation to develop an international rebuilding plan for
overfished northern albacore tuna and would be inconsistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act, which
requires rebuilding plans for overfished stocks.
Alternative C2, which would implement unilateral U.S. restrictions in albacore landings,
would not be expected to result in any changes in the stock status. The U.S. harvest is so low
relative to the international 34,500 mt TAC that any positive ecological impacts resulting from
decreased albacore landings would be expected to be negligible. NMFS received comment
supporting unilateral action and the implementation of bag limits and seasonal limits on albacore
landings. It is likely that a unilateral rebuilding plan would require reductions in landings from
both the commercial and recreational sectors. Such an action could potentially change fishing
behavior and/or increase dead discards because albacore are an incidental catch when directing
for other species. NMFS also received a comment opposing unilateral action because such
restrictions would only create unnecessary waste and discards, and that such actions would
weaken the U.S. negotiating position at ICCAT. The agency agrees that implementation of an
ineffective unilateral rebuilding plan may weaken the U.S. negotiation position at ICCAT to
implement an effective international rebuilding plan, potentially resulting in continued
international fishing on a stock biomass below MSY. Furthermore, setting the U.S. quota above
or below current ICCAT recommendations would not be consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act
§304(g) (1) (d) and ATCA.
Alternative C3, a preferred alternative to establish a foundation for an international
rebuilding plan, would have no immediate ecological impacts, as ICCAT would probably
develop an international rebuilding plan following the next scheduled stock assessment in 2007.
This alternative would allow for international discussions and the creation of a comprehensive
rebuilding plan for all three Atlantic stocks of albacore. Following implementation of rebuilding
plan recommendation(s), some negative impacts would be possible as changes in fishing
practices may be necessary to reduce fishing mortality, which may result in an increase in dead
discards in U.S. fisheries due to quotas, size limits, or other restrictions. However, engaging all
concerned ICCAT parties in the rebuilding would be expected to generate long term positive
ecological impacts. As the stock rebuilds and more resource becomes available to the fleet, U.S.
quotas would likely increase and dead discards may decline.
Under the preferred alternative C3, the United States would work through ICCAT to
establish a foundation for an international rebuilding program for northern albacore tuna.
Implementation of this alternative would include a thorough analysis of the ICCAT Rebuilding
Program to ensure that it contains a specified recovery period, biomass targets, fishing mortality
rate limits, and explicit interim milestones expressed in terms of measurable improvements of the
stock. Each of these components would comply with the objectives of this FMP and the intent of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. If successful, an Atlantic-wide TAC for northern albacore tuna,
along with other conservation and management measures, would be adopted by ICCAT to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-129

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

rebuild the stock. The United States would then implement the ICCAT Rebuilding Program for
northern albacore tuna through appropriate management measures such as quotas and/or
increased minimum sizes and retention limits in domestic fisheries. Such a rebuilding plan
would be expected to reduce harvest levels, which could increase discards of northern albacore
tuna because the pelagic longline fishery primarily targets other species. Fishermen may
increase fishing effort to compensate for lost revenues from northern albacore that would have to
be discarded. Therefore, reduction in landings of northern albacore tuna could also cause a shift
in both commercial and recreational fishing effort, and perhaps mortality, towards other species.
Overall, however, alternative C3 would likely result in long term positive ecological impacts on
the stock because current international catch rates exceed the levels needed to produce MSY.
Social and Economic Impacts
There would essentially be no impact from alternative C1, the No Action alternative, as
the U.S. fleets are currently fishing below their ICCAT allocation. For commercial fisheries,
alternative C2, implementation of a unilateral rebuilding plan, would likely result in a reduction
in income, as incidental catches of northern albacore tuna would have to be discarded rather than
landed. However, expected reductions in income would be small since the level of landings for
northern albacore is two orders of magnitude smaller than pelagic longline target species (e.g.,
swordfish, other tunas). For the recreational fishery, alternative C2 would likely result in shifts
for other opportunistic target species and catch and release of northern albacore tuna. Economic
impacts would be difficult to evaluate for the recreational fishery since there is high variation in
the catch from year to year. As ICCAT has not yet adopted a rebuilding program for northern
albacore tuna, a complete analysis of the social and economic impacts of alternative C3 cannot
be conducted at this time. If the ICCAT Rebuilding Program involves a substantial reduction in
allowable catch, minimum size restrictions, or effort restrictions, there would likely be a shortterm reduction in economic benefits to the pelagic longline fishery until the stock recovers.
Since northern albacore tuna are targeted by recreational fishermen in certain times of the year
and in certain areas, it is difficult to estimate the effect that a reduction in allowable landings of
northern albacore would have on angler consumer surplus. It might be reduced, but to an
unknown extent, because many recreational trips targeting northern albacore tuna often target
other tuna species. Overall, however, ICCAT recommendations for stock rebuilding tend to be
long term and so any negative social and economic impacts may be mitigated in the short term.
Conclusion
The preferred alternative for northern albacore tuna is C3, which would establish a
foundation with ICCAT for developing an international rebuilding plan. This alternative appears
to be an effective plan for meeting the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and this
FMP. NMFS will continue to work with ICCAT member nations to develop and adopt an
appropriate international rebuilding plan for northern albacore tuna with a specified recovery
period, biomass targets, fishing mortality rate limits, and explicit interim milestones. The U.S.
harvest of the North Atlantic stock is proportionally so low that the socio-economic impacts to
the United States would likely be minimal but would depend upon the specifics of the rebuilding
plan adopted by ICCAT. The other alternatives of no action or unilateral action would not be
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act or ATCA. Also, alternative C2 would not be
consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act §304(g)(1)(d) and ATCA because it would set the U.S.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-130

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

quota above or below the current ICCAT recommendation. Furthermore, implementation of an
ineffective unilateral rebuilding plan may weaken the U.S. negotiation position at ICCAT to
implement an international rebuilding plan, potentially resulting in continued international
fishing on a stock biomass below MSY.
4.2.2 Finetooth Sharks
NMFS determined that overfishing of finetooth sharks is occurring based on the 2002
stock assessment for SCS (Cortes, 2002). More detailed information on the stock assessment can
be found in the Status of the Stocks section (Section 3.2.5) of this document. National Standard
1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to prevent overfishing. As described in Chapter
2, the alternatives considered to address overfishing of finetooth sharks are:
D1

Maintain current regulations for recreational and commercial fisheries. (No Action),

D2

Implement commercial management measures to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth
sharks,

D3

Implement recreational management measures to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth
sharks, and

D4

Identify sources of finetooth fishing mortality to target appropriate management actions.
(Preferred Alternative).

Ecological Impacts
None of the alternatives analyzed for preventing overfishing of finetooth sharks would
have any additional negative impacts on protected resources or EFH. The alternatives
considered are not expected to modify fishing techniques, fishing effort, or fishing gears in any
way that has not already been considered in relevant BiOp’s. Furthermore, the measures are not
expected to have “more than minimal and not temporary” impacts on areas that have designated
as EFH for finetooth sharks.
Alternative D1 is the No Action alternative and would maintain the existing regulations.
This alternative would likely maintain fishing mortality of finetooth sharks at current levels, and
therefore, may have negative ecological impacts. Over 80 percent of finetooth sharks harvested
commercially are landed with either drift gillnets, strikenets, encircling nets, or sinknets.
Finetooth sharks are susceptible to these net gears as they have a tendency to “roll” upon contact
with gillnets. This rolling behavior means that they become entangled by a wide range of gillnet
mesh sizes and are often brought to the vessel dead (Carlson and Cortes, 2003). Currently,
commercial gillnets are banned in most states’ waters throughout the finetooth sharks’ range,
including: Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana. South Carolina allows the use of gillnets less
than 100’ long (30.4 m) in state waters. South Carolina’s gillnet fishery is primarily a
recreational fishery. Between 1997 and 2003, 95 and 99 percent of the finetooth landings
reported to the General Canvass and Coastal Fisheries logbooks, respectively, were from the
South Atlantic region (Table 4.40). Finetooth sharks are generally found in shallow coastal
waters (Castro, 1993) in predominantly state, but also in Federal waters. For more information
on finetooth shark life history, please see Section 3.2.5.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-131

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

The ecological impacts of the alternatives are difficult to quantify because it is difficult to
determine exactly which fisheries are contributing to commercial and recreational landings of
finetooth sharks because Federal dealer logbooks (General Canvass) are not linked to a specific
vessel; rather, they are an aggregation of shark purchases from various fishermen and submitted
every 14 days. Recreational landings of finetooth sharks in state and Federal waters do not have
to be reported, therefore, it is difficult to quantify these landings. Vessel logbooks submitted by
shark and other Federal permit holders indicate which vessels are landing finetooth sharks,
however, these landings only represent a fraction of the total dealer landings (General Canvas
landings) for finetooth sharks (Table 4.40 and Table 4.41). This discrepancy may be a result of
landings in state waters by non-Federally permitted fishermen, landings by Federally permitted
fishermen who are not reporting all their catch in logbooks, misidentification of finetooth sharks
by the dealers, or landings of finetooth sharks by vessels that are targeting unmanaged species
and therefore are not required to report landings in logbooks.
Based on observer reports, the directed shark fishery landed an average of 685 finetooth
sharks (approximately 2.9 mt dw) per year between 1999 and 2004 (Table 4.41). The range of
annual landings varied widely from 65 to 1,615 individual finetooth sharks per year. The
average number of finetooth observed landed per year equates to approximately 3.6 percent of
the average number of finetooth landings reported by dealers to the General Canvass system
during the same time period (1999-2004). There are several reasons why there is a discrepancy
between observed landings and landings reported by dealers. One reason could be because
historically there were more directed (i.e., Federally permitted) shark gillnet vessels (11) subject
to observer coverage. Overtime, the number of gillnet vessels specifically targeting sharks has
decreased. Currently, there are between 5 and 6 vessels targeting sharks with gillnet gear that are
subject to extensive observer coverage. However, there are other vessels that use gillnet gear,
target other species, and land sharks. In 2003, there were approximately 15 gillnet vessels with
directed shark permits that reported landing finetooth sharks. These vessels also possessed
permits for, and targeted, Spanish mackerel. Because these vessels were not specifically
targeting sharks, observer coverage may not have been required if fishermen claimed they were
targeting non-HMS (Spanish mackerel or unmanaged species) or not using shark gillnet gear.
These vessels may be using gillnets that have stretched mesh smaller than 5 inches. Under the
regulations for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), gillnets with
stretched mess smaller than 5 inches are not considered shark gillnet vessels. Thus, while these
vessels are able to land finetooth sharks opportunistically under their directed shark permit, they
were not previously observed as part of the shark gillnet fishery.
In 2005, NMFS modified the criteria for selection of gillnet vessels for observer coverage
requirement outside of the right whale calving season (Nov. 15 – March 31) when 100 percent
coverage in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area is required. New criteria outside of the calving
season included all vessels with a directed shark permit that reported fishing for sharks with
gillnet gear and reported greater than 25 percent of their total landings from sharks during the
previous year. This modification does not include those vessels selected for 100 percent
observer coverage based on the ALWTRP. The 100 percent observer coverage under that plan
only includes vessels that have stretched mesh gillnets five inches or greater. While observer
coverage is extensive during the right whale calving season (100 percent from November 15 –
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-132

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

March 31), it does not include all of the vessels that can land sharks with gillnet gear.
Additionally, observer coverage outside the Atlantic Right whale calving season (April 1 –
November 14) is reduced to approximately 30 percent. Figure 4.18 indicates that the majority of
trips landing finetooth occur between October and March every year. Increasing the pool of
vessels that are subject to observer coverage has led, and would continue to lead, to improved
understanding of finetooth shark landings outside of the current 5-6 boats that comprise the
directed shark gillnet fishery universe.
As described in Section 3.4. and in the 2005 Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery Observer
Program Report, the gear and soak time deployed by drift gillnet, strike gillnet, and sink gillnet
fishermen are varied. Set duration was generally 0.3 hours and haulback averaged 2.9 hours.
The average time from setting the net through completion of haulback was 10.2 hours. The most
frequently used mesh size for drift gillnets was 12.7 cm. Strikenetters use the largest mesh size
(22.9 cm) and the set times were 2.7 hours. The primary difference between sink gillnets and
other gillnets (drift gillnets and strikenets) is the species being targeted. Sink gillnets can be
used to target sharks, Spanish mackerel, and kingfish. These sink gillnets are generally weighted
with a lead line in 10-20 m (33-65 ft.) of water, with the net being checked every 15-20 minutes.
Sink gillnet gear is fished slightly differently depending the target species (sharks vs. nonsharks). If targeting Spanish mackerel or southern kingfish, vessels deploy a 68-912 m long net
that is 1-9 m deep. Mesh sizes range from 6.4-12.7 cm with 7.6 cm being the most common.
Vessels targeting sharks deployed sink gillnets between 137 and 1,824 m in length and 2-8 m
deep with mesh sizes ranging from 7.3-20.3 cm (17.8 cm most common) and set at an average
depth of 18.9 m (Carlson and Bethea, 2006). The No Action alternative would not affect or
modify any of the gillnet gear that currently being deployed for finetooth sharks, other HMS and
non-HMS species.
The No Action alternative (D1) may not result in the acquisition of additional landings
data or information about fisheries that may be landing finetooth sharks. By taking no action, the
Agency may not be able to obtain the additional information on fisheries that may be harvesting
finetooth sharks. This could prevent the Agency from identifying further management measures
to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks, and may reduce the certainty associated with the stock
status of finetooth sharks and other SCS in the upcoming stock assessment. Furthermore, the No
Action alternative would not result in the development of collaborative efforts between
management entities, which may be the most effective means of preventing overfishing of
finetooth sharks.
While the No Action alternative is not expected to have positive ecological benefits,
NMFS recently published a temporary rule under the authority of the ALWTRP and the
Endangered Species Act (February, 16, 2006, 71 FR 8223) that prohibited, through March 31,
2006, any vessel from fishing with any gillnet gear in the Atlantic Ocean between 32º N and 27º
51’ N and extended the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area out to 80º W. This action was based on
NMFS’ determination that a right whale mortality, documented on January 22, 2006, was the
result of an entanglement by gillnet gear within the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. The action
was necessary to protect north Atlantic right whales from further serious injury or mortality from
entanglement in gillnet gear. Because this six-week gillnet closure occurred at a time when
finetooth sharks are generally present in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area, it is expected that
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-133

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

the closure would result in positive ecological impacts for finetooth sharks. The actual impact
will likely not be known until dealer and logbook data are analyzed. In addition to this
temporary rule, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) is likely to initiate
further rulemaking prior to re-opening the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area next year during this
six-week time period (Feb. 14 – March 31) to address this take. NMFS would expect that any
recommendations that reduce the use of gillnet gear during that time period would have positive
ecological benefits for fineooth sharks. The actual benefit is not quantifiable at this time.
Alternative D2 would implement commercial fishery management measures (directed
trip limits for SCS, gillnet gear restrictions, prohibiting the use of gillnet gear for targeting
sharks, and/or reducing the SCS quota) to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth sharks. As
described above, the majority of finetooth sharks are landed by commercial fishermen deploying
gillnet gear in the South Atlantic region. This alternative might potentially affect all participants
in possession of a commercial shark permit who are involved in gillnet fisheries in the south
Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico regions.
A directed shark gillnet vessel is defined as a vessel that possesses directed shark permits
and fishes with gillnets greater than 5 inch (12.7 cm) stretched mesh. These vessels are
prohibited from deploying shark drift gillnet gear in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area (roughly
between Sebastian Inlet, FL, and Savannah, GA) during the right whale calving season between
November 15 and March 31, unless they are fishing with strikenets and maintain 100 percent
observer coverage. Also, during right whale calving season, directed shark gillnet vessels fishing
outside the restricted area are subject to 100 percent observer coverage. Any vessel that has been
issued a directed shark permit and that has gillnet gear onboard, regardless of location or mesh
size, must have an operating VMS unit onboard during right whale calving season.
Currently, there are five directed shark gillnet vessels targeting sharks with drift gillnets,
strikenets, and sinknets in Federal waters. These five gillnet vessels are responsible for less than
10 percent of the commercial finetooth shark landings based on observer reports (Table 4.41).
The remaining finetooth sharks are likely being landed in state waters or by fishermen pursuing
other species in Federal waters, such as those managed by the Gulf of Mexico or South Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils (e.g., Spanish and king mackerel) or species that are not currently
managed (e.g., kingfish). Since some of these fishermen may also possess directed shark
permits, they can keep all finetooth sharks. However, because their harvest of finetooth sharks is
incidental to landing of other non-HMS species or they are deploying gillnet gear with stretched
mesh sizes less than five inches, these vessels are not subject to the stringent regulations
implemented for the Southeastern U.S. Restricted Area, which are only applicable for vessels
targeting sharks using shark gillnets (>5” stretched mesh) or strikenets. Vessels in the directed
shark gillnet fishery also possess other permits and may modify gillnets to target other nonHMS. Thus, the measures under alternative D2 may have positive ecological impacts in
general, but because they would not impact fishermen who do not target finetooth sharks, may
not have an impact on the commercial fisheries that are the largest source(s) of finetooth shark
fishing mortality. In fact, it is likely that some of the measures under alternative D2 would
increase dead discards of finetooth sharks by preventing fishermen targeting other fish from
landing finetooth sharks, thereby increasing the effort they expend in order to land enough
permissible species to cover fishing costs.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-134

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

One of the management measures considered under alternative D2 is a trip limit for
directed shark permit holders. Currently, there is no directed trip limit for SCS. A directed trip
limit for SCS or one specific to finetooth sharks could potentially reduce the number of finetooth
sharks landed per trip. However, since the overall SCS quota has never been taken in any single
year, fishermen would likely compensate for missed income as a result of the trip limit by
increasing the number of trips taken and discarding any sharks fish harvested in excess of the trip
limit. Given that gillnets are the predominant gear type used to harvest finetooth sharks and
finetooth sharks tend to roll and die in gillnets, this alternative may result in an increased number
of finetooth sharks dying by increasing the number of finetooth sharks that are discarded dead,
by increasing the number of gillnet trips by vessels to maintain economic viability, or both.
Additionally, gillnet gear is generally non-selective, and it is difficult for fishermen to deploy
sets that would not also catch finetooth sharks. Thus, the net effect of this measure may increase,
rather than prevent, overfishing on finetooth sharks which would result in negative ecological
impacts.
Other management measures possible under alternative D2 are gear restrictions,
specifically those that would modify mesh size and/or limit gillnet soak times. Soak times and
mesh sizes deployed in this fishery are described above and in Section 3.4. Currently, for
directed shark fisheries, the 50 CFR Part 635 regulations do not define a minimum or maximum
mesh size requirement. Vessels targeting king and Spanish mackerel already have minimum
mesh size restrictions of 4.75 and 3.5 inches (12.1 and 8.9 cm), respectively. The ALWTRP
regulations define shark gillnet as having a minimum of 5 inches mesh size. For many species,
limiting the mesh size is effective at reducing interactions because the fish swim through the net
(the mesh is too big), are “gilled” by the net (if the mesh size is appropriate for that fish), or the
fish swims into the net and swims away (the mesh size is too small). However, as noted under
alternative D1, finetooth sharks are highly susceptible to entanglement in gillnet gear regardless
of mesh size. Thus regulating the mesh size used in directed shark fisheries may have little
impact on reducing finetooth shark fishing mortality. Similarly, while limiting the soak time
(i.e., the time the gillnet gear is in the water) may reduce the number of finetooth sharks
harvested per trip as well as the catch of other SCS and LCS, fishermen may simply increase the
number of sets made per trip to compensate for reduced catches which could potentially negate
any benefit gained by reduced soak times. Thus, NMFS does not believe that modifying gillnet
mesh size and/or limiting gillnet soak times would reduce finetooth shark fishing mortality or
result in any significant ecological benefits.
Another management measure possible under alternative D2 would be a reduction in the
overall SCS quota. Since it was established in 1999, the SCS annual quota has not been caught
and finetooth sharks are the only species in the SCS complex that are experiencing overfishing.
Between 1999 and 2002, total commercial landings of all SCS ranged from 263-330 mt dw per
year. This was well below the 1,760 mt dw quotas established for SCS during this time period.
In 2003, the quota was reduced to 326 mt dw, a reduction of 1,434 mt dw. The current quota of
454 mt dw was established in 2004. From 1999 – 2004, commercial landings of finetooth sharks
averaged 34 percent of the SCS landings (Table 4.41). Given that the existing quota for SCS has
never been reached and that finetooth sharks represent approximately a third of the SCS that are
landed, a reduction in the overall quota may have minimal beneficial impacts on reducing the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-135

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

mortality of finetooth sharks. Furthermore, even if the quota were reduced, it may not
necessarily mean that landings of finetooth sharks would decrease because the quota includes all
SCS.
Lastly, under alternative D2, NMFS could close the shark gillnet fishery and remove
gillnet gear from the list of authorized gears. The Agency received numerous comments during
this rulemaking, including one from the State of Georgia, indicating support for closing the
directed shark gillnet fishery. A similar alternative was analyzed in Amendment 1 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. As was determined at that time,
banning gillnets in HMS fisheries would likely have positive ecological impacts on finetooth
sharks and other species (including HMS and non-HMS species) by reducing bycatch and
bycatch mortality, and may reduce gillnet fishing effort in areas that are designated as right
whale critical habitat. However, because very few vessels use drift gillnets, strikenets, and
sinknets to target sharks and may only be responsible for a small portion of the finetooth shark
fishing mortality, closing this fishery would not likely prevent overfishing because other vessels
would continue to land (or discard dead) finetooth sharks while targeting other non-HMS.
Most of the directed shark gillnet vessels also possess Spanish mackerel permits and would
continue deploying gillnet gear in that fishery. Regarding gillnet fishing effort in the
Southeastern U.S. restricted area, unauthorized gillnets would continue to be deployed in this
area in other fisheries and the potential for interactions with right whales would continue to exist
despite removal of gillnet gear from the authorized gear for sharks. Moreover, a permanent
closure of the shark gillnet fishery may displace fishing effort to other fisheries, resulting in
unknown ecological impacts. Vessels may shift to BLL gear, which is the primary gear used to
target LCS but also can be used to harvest finetooth sharks. Therefore, these species might be
subject to additional fishing pressure from the vessels that used to fish primarily with gillnet
gear.
NMFS also received a comment indicating support for initiating a cap on the number of
vessels that can use gillnet gear to target sharks. NMFS does not currently issue gear-based
permits for shark fisheries. Rather, permit holders possess either directed or incidental permits
and both permits are valid for use with any authorized gear for sharks (gillnet, bottom and
pelagic longlines, handline, rod and reel, or bandit gear). Additionally, logbook and permit data
does not indicate that there has not been a significant increase in recent years in the number of
vessels targeting sharks with gillnet gear. The majority of shark fishermen employ bottom
longline gear. NMFS did not consider gear based permitting endorsements in this rulemaking
but may consider gear-based permits in another rulemaking (see Chapter 1). Such a rulemaking
could consider limiting vessel participation in the shark gillnet fishery.
The Agency received several comments in support of seasonal commercial gillnet fishing
restrictions to reduce finetooth shark fishing mortality, including one from the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. Seasonal closures of commercial gillnet fisheries landing
finetooth shark were not analyzed as part of alternative D2, however, these closures may be
considered in the future, as necessary, to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth sharks. Trips that
landed finetooth sharks, by gear and month, between 1999 - 2004 were analyzed from the
Coastal Fisheries Logbook data. This data indicates that there is an increase in the number of
trips landing finetooth sharks in October and November. This could be due to finetooth sharks
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-136

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

moving southward from the Carolinas to warmer waters off of Florida in these months.
Furthermore, the expansion of effort targeting Spanish mackerel as they are also moving south to
Florida in October and November each year might also be a factor behind elevated finetooth
shark landings. Finetooth sharks tend to move in schools north and south along the coast,
depending on water temperatures and forage availability. Initiating annual geographic closures
based on these paramaters would be confounding as oceanographic conditions are difficult to
predict. Furthermore, initiating seasonal closures based on logbook data indicating where
finetooth sharks have historically been landed (Table 4.44 and Figure 4.18) may not reduce
fishing mortality because gillnet gear would likely continue to be deployed in these same areas
for fisheries that are pursuing other species (i.e., Spanish mackerel). Since most of the fishing
pressure on finetooth sharks occurs on finetooth sharks after they have pupped in the coastal
waters (2-7 m ( water depth) surrounding Bulls Bay, SC in May it is difficult to use protection
during pupping as a justification for seasonal closures as most states in the region have already
banned gillnet gear for commercial fisheries. Seasonal commercial gillnet fishing restrictions
were not considered in this rulemaking but may result in positive ecological impacts and may be
considered in a future rulemaking. These closures would have to be for all gillnets as fishermen
are not able to exclude finetooth sharks from being caught in this gear.
Alternative D3 would implement recreational management measures (e.g., mandatory use
of circle hooks and/or increasing the minimum size) to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth
sharks. The current Federal minimum size is already approximately 15-20 cm (six to eight
inches) greater than the size at maturity. Some states have smaller minimum size requirements,
more liberal bag limits, and do not require compliance with Federal regulations when fishing in
state waters. Babcock and Pikitch (2002) claim that the majority of sharks (LCS, SCS, and
Pelagic sharks) sampled by the MRFSS survey were below the existing minimum size limits.
Ecological impacts of increasing the minimum size would be contingent upon compliance with
existing and or future regulations. Since finetooth sharks are predominantly found in inshore
waters under states’ jurisdiction, where additional Federal regulations traditionally may have
limited impact, the positive ecological impacts of increasing the minimum size further might be
minimized.
A preferred measure (alternative I11 (b)) included in this action would require all
recreational anglers with an HMS Angling, CHB, or General Category permit to abide by
Federal regulations regardless of where they are fishing, unless a particular state has more
stringent regulations. This measure could have positive ecological impacts because it would
compel recreational fishermen to abide by the more stringent Federal minimum sizes and bag
limits for recreational shark harvest. If more stringent Federal measures, regardless of where one
were fishing, were implemented as a result of alternative I11 (b), improved consistency between
Federal and state regulations might occur as a result. Improved compliance with existing and
future regulations is necessary to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks. Similar analyses
related to increasing the minimum size were conducted in Amendment 1 to the 1999 HMS FMP.
Additional consideration of increasing the minimum size has produced no new information/data
on which to base a change in the current minimum size because most landings of finetooth
sharks are likely in state waters, finetooth sharks only comprise a small portion of recreational
SCS landings (1.4 percent), and the minimum size is already well above the size at first maturity
for finetooth sharks. The results from the next SCS stock assessment should be available in 2007
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-137

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

and further information regarding the status of finetooth shark stocks may warrant
reconsideration of this alternative at that time.
Although NMFS received several comments supporting more aggressive conservation
measures to protect finetooth sharks in recreational fisheries, measures affecting the minimum
size in Federal waters may have negligible ecological impacts since recreational fisheries are
already regulated under a conservative bag limit and minimum size well under size at first
maturity. Furthermore, since finetooth sharks only comprised 1.4 percent of recreational SCS
landings between 1999 and 2004, it does not seem that there are many participants targeting
finetooth sharks.
Another management measure under alternative D3 is a requirement to use circle hooks
when targeting SCS in the recreational fishery. Currently, there are no other recreational HMS
fisheries that have a circle hook requirement. However, a preferred alternative in this action
(alternative E3) would restrict all billfish tournament participants issued an HMS permit to using
circle hooks when using natural baits. Requiring circle hooks when targeting SCS may have
some ecological benefits by reducing the post-release mortality of finetooth sharks, assuming
that similar decreases in post-release mortality may be achieved for finetooth sharks as for other
HMS that have been studied. Cooke and Suski (2004) suggest that overall post-release mortality
rates are often lower when using circle hooks compared to J-hooks because of the reduced
likelihood of fish ingesting the hook. However, they also recommend that management agencies
implement circle hook requirements only in instances in which appropriate scientific data for
similar species exists. While there have been numerous studies evaluating ecological benefits of
circle hook usage in recreational fisheries, including several HMS, these studies have not been
conducted in recreational fisheries that specifically target sharks to demonstrate decreases in
post- release mortality compared to J-hooks for these fishes. In general, sharks caught in
recreational fisheries are thought to have low post-release mortalities if they are kept in the
water, handled properly, not deeply hooked, and not fought for extensive periods of time because
many species of sharks are considered relatively hardy based on tag recaptures. Gurshin and
Szedlmayer (2004) recently documented high post-release survival (nine out of ten hooked fish)
of Atlantic sharpnose sharks on 9/0 J-hooks. The absence of similar research on circle hooks,
coupled with reports of low post-release mortality for similar species caught with J-hooks,
precludes a quantitative estimate of the ecological benefits to finetooth sharks that may occur as
a result of requiring circle hooks.
Alternative D4, the preferred alternative, is expected to result in positive long-term
ecological impacts. This alternative, while it does not prevent overfishing immediately, would
implement a plan to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks, through determining which fisheries
catch finetooth sharks, and to what extent, those fisheries are responsible for mortality of
finetooth sharks. NMFS believes that the measures contained in alternative D4 comprise an
appropriate plan to implement at this time for the following reasons: information regarding
finetooth shark landings is currently incomplete; landings or dead discards of finetooth sharks
would continue to occur or could increase in other fisheries if stringent measures directed at
commercial shark permit holders were implemented; the lack of catch series and bycatch data
included in the 2002 SCS stock assessment (Section 3.2.5) impacted the results and conclusions
drawn from that assessment; and that collaborative management measures among fisheries
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-138

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

management entities may be the most effective means of preventing overfishing of finetooth
sharks. A better understanding of where finetooth sharks are being landed, by whom, and which
management entities are responsible for the fisheries in which they participate, could direct
future management initiatives.
Table 2.1 lists activities, anticipated outcomes, and a timeline that constitute the plan to
prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks as a result of alternative D4. This table and the actions it
describes were produced in response to public and HMS Advisory Panel dissatisfaction related to
the activities that had been undertaken to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks and serves as a
road map detailing how the Agency is engaged in current and future activities related to this end.
Some of the activities described have already been initiated to attain a better understanding of
how NMFS should proceed to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks. The activities described
in this table are not an exhaustive list and the Agency intends to explore other viable alternatives
that would prevent overfishing if necessary. NMFS received several comments stating that the
Agency needs to work harder to find sources of finetooth shark mortality in state-managed,
Federally managed, and/or unmanaged fisheries. The following paragraphs provide a summary
of NMFS’ findings since the publication of the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. In order to
attempt to understand which fisheries may be interacting with finetooth sharks it is necessary to
understand which permits (if any) that vessels maintain; what other species were being landed
simultaneously or on the same trip as finetooth sharks based on Federal logbook data; the
seasonality and geography of finetooth shark landings; and, to establish contacts with individual
states, Councils, and Commissions to get more information on fisheries nder their jurisdiction
that may be interacting with finetooth sharks, among other activities. Acquiring this information
could focus future management initiatives which may result in positive ecological impacts if they
can be employed to prevent further overfishing of finetooth sharks.
A recent analysis of landings data submitted via the Fishing Vessel Logbook Record for
Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish, South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper, King and Spanish Mackerel, and
Shark (Coastal Fisheries Logbook) between 1999-2004 indicate that a total of 46 vessels
reported landings of finetooth sharks. Of these, 17 vessels only had a shark limited access
permit, 17 vessels had both a directed shark permit and a Spanish mackerel permit (managed
under the Coastal Pelagics FMP and its amendments by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council), and 12 vessels had neither permit. In 2003, 15 vessels reported landings of finetooth
sharks, all of which had both a shark directed permit and a Spanish mackerel permit.
Management measures for shark fishing under commercial Federal shark permits would
effectively only address finetooth shark fishing mortality by the 34 (17 vessels with a shark
permit only + 17 vessels with a shark permit in addition to a Spanish mackerel permit) vessels
that have a shark limited access permit. Preventing overfishing of finetooth sharks will be
facilitated by understanding what permits that participants currently possess because that
provides insight as to what regulations might be most effective at modifying current practices.
Since the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council manages Spanish mackerel under the
Coastal Pelagics FMP, and many participants possess this permit, the Agency is engaging in
collaborative efforts with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and may propose
specific management measures in the future as new information warrants. Collaborative
management measures may be the most viable option to ensure sustained long-term positive
ecological impacts and prevent overfising of finetooth sharks.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-139

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Observed finetooth shark landings in 2005 included 1,556 finetooth sharks landed by
strike gillnet gear, 413 finetooth sharks landed by drift gillnet gear, and 37 finetooth sharks
landed by sink gillnet gear. On trips deploying sinknet gear and not targeting sharks, southern
kingfish and Spanish mackerel were the most commonly encountered species. However, these
trips interacted with 13 finetooth sharks, all of which were landed. The average size of finetooth
sharks landed in 2005 was 123 cm, based on measurements attained from 38 individuals
(Carlson and Bethea, 2006). As mentioned previously, many of the Federally managed gillnet
vessels in the South Atlantic that were observed possess both Spanish mackerel and directed or
incidental shark permits, thereby limiting the effectiveness of regulations directed at only one of
these fisheries, and suggesting the need for collaborative strategies between management
entities.
Expansion of this program was initiated in 2005 and will continue in the future, yielding
valuable fisheries dependent data on finetooth shark landings, distribution, and interactions with
vessels outside of the vessels traditionally covered by this observer program resulting in positive
ecological impacts. Furthermore, data from observers on protected species interactions and other
bycatch has utility for fisheries managers, scientists, and law enforcement officials. Vessels
strictly targeting unmanaged species (and not in possession of a directed shark permit) such as
kingfish are not subject to observer coverage under the regulations at 50 CFR Part 635 and are
not required to submit logbooks, but may still be harvesting finetooth sharks. These vessels
could be selected for observer coverage under the ALWTRP regulations which could further
enhance efforts to document landings of finetooth sharks in non-HMS or unregulated fisheries,
resulting in positive ecological impacts. The ALWTRP is currently engaged in efforts to better
address gillnet vessels that are participating in unmanaged fisheries in the Southeast U.S.
Restricted Area.
The Agency has been actively involved in gathering more information about fisheries that
may be interacting with finetooth sharks, especially off the coast of Florida where most finetooth
sharks are landed. NMFS collected some anecdotal information describing gillnet fisheries for
Spanish mackerel and kingfish at a recent meeting of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Team in St. Augustine, FL, April 10-12, 2006, to better understand the fisheries that may be
harvesting finetooth sharks. The intent of this meeting was to determine if additional
management measures may be necessary to further regulate gillnet fisheries in the Southeast U.S.
Restricted Area because of the right whale calf mortality that occurred on January 22, 2006.
The fisheries information that was gathered is critical to understanding the potential for
interactions with finetooth sharks in fisheries where finetooth sharks are not being targeted. The
Spanish mackerel gillnet fishery deploys gillnets that are a minimum of 3.5 inch stretched mesh
and the fishery occurs predominantly between September and December, until the water
temperature drops below 69ºF. Fishermen fish one net at a time, at one hour intervals, and the
soak ends when the nets are hauled onboard. Buoys are marked with permit numbers every 100
yards, and fishermen are allowed to possess two, 800 yard nets, per vessel. These participants
may also target Spanish mackerel at night (fire fishing) when conditions are such that
phosphorescence in the water is activated by schools of Spanish mackerel. Gillnet sets for
Spanish mackerel that also harvest sharks, including finetooth sharks, are not uncommon.
Spanish mackerel fishermen report their harvests in the same logbooks that shark fishermen use
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-140

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

to report their landings (Coastal Fisheries Logbook). The Agency will be participating in the
Spanish mackerel species working group at an upcoming South Atlantic Fishery Management
council meeting in June, 2006, to gain additional information about this fishery and to determine
how future collaborative regulations might address finetooth shark fishing mortality, resulting in
positive ecological impacts.
NMFS also obtained anecdotal information on the kingfish (whiting) fishery that is
occurring off the northeast coast of Florida at the St. Augustine meeting of the ALWTRT. The
Agency learned about this fishery from staff at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and from
HMS fishermen in 2004, however, the meeting in St. Augustine provided additional substantive
information about how the fishery is conducted, gear deployed, set duration, etc. This fishery
started in 2004 and includes approximately 15 vessels, three of which possess directed shark
permits. This fishery deploys sinknets in 60-70 feet of water (in Federal waters) as the kingfish
prefer cooler water temperatures. Fishing methods are essentially the same for most vessels,
however, there is some variation in how nets are retrieved. Soak times vary; however, nets are
generally set at dawn for 4-6 hours. Gear may be left overnight and retrieved the next morning.
Fishermen may deploy 2-3 nets at a time. The majority of gillnets are less than 3 inch stretched
mesh, approximately 1.22 m (4 feet) high, with variable gillnet lengths. Since only three of these
vessels possess directed shark permits, NMFS does not have complete information on landings
of finetooth sharks in this fishery. Vessels participating in this fishery can’t be selected for
observer coverage under HMS regulations if they do not possess a limited access HMS permit.
Participants in this fishery do not currently need to possess Federal permits for kingfish,
therefore, there is no requirement for them to report any of their landings in logbooks. Gillnets
deployed for kingfish are in areas that finetooth sharks likely inhabit, however, these fishermen
would not be able to possess or land sharks legally without a limited access shark permit.
Including the kingfish fishery within some type of management regime would result in positive
ecological impacts for finetooth sharks and other species of incidental catch or bycatch that this
fishery may be interacting with. The Agency will continue to stay engaged in the deliberations
of the ALWTRT and any potential management measures they may implement to regulate gillnet
fishing in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and minimize interactions between gillnet gear and
right whales.
NMFS has learned more about other fisheries that may be landing finetooth sharks by
analyzing the Coastal Fisheries Logbook data which describes the non-HMS species that were
landed with finetooth sharks by Federally permitted vessels between 1999 - 2004 (Table 4.42
and Table 4.43). These data indicate that the majority of finetooth sharks are landed with gillnet
gear (81 percent) or bottom longline gear (19 percent). Trips landing finetooth sharks generally
included 21.5 and 8.3 percent non-HMS, in gillnet and bottom longline trips, respectively. NonHMS species landed on gillnet trips included (in descending order): Spanish mackerel (13.6
percent), bluefish (2.73 percent), blue runner (1.51 percent), little tunny (0.59 percent), king
whiting (kingfish) (0.42 percent), and cobia (0.32 percent). These data may be somewhat
misleading, however, since they indicate the percent of total landings by weight, on trips that also
landed finetooth sharks. Generally speaking, the HMS listed in these tables may have a greater
whole weight on average than the non-HMS species and may not be representative of the number
of individuals (HMS or non-HMS) landed. Furthermore, the Coastal Fisheries Logbook is a trip
report (versus a set report) that fishermen complete upon returning to port and therefore does not
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-141

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

provide set-specific information that would indicate whether or not fishermen are able to “target”
HMS or non-HMS on individual sets, or simply opportunistically land whatever species they are
permitted to keep. Understanding the catch composition of trips that are landing finetooth sharks
may assist the Agency in determining potential management measures that prevent overfishing
of finetooth sharks and reduce incidental or non-target catch. NMFS has, and will continue to
place observers on vessels targeting non-HMS and in possession of a commercial shark permit to
get more information on this fishery via the DSGFOP. Since gillnets are generally a nonselective gear, it is important to understand other species that fishermen may be landing when
they harvest finetooth sharks so that potential future regulations are not circumvented by
participants claiming they are targeting species other than finetooth sharks (or other HMS).
Coastal Fisheries Logbook data also indicated the geographic location of where the
majority of finetooth sharks were landed between 1999 and 2004. Gillnets are banned, or
restricted in many states’ waters in the southeast region and the majority of finetooth shark
landings are reported in Statistical Reporting areas immediately adjacent to Florida and South
Carolina’s state waters. Table 4.44 describes the number of trips landing finetooth sharks by
NMFS statistical reporting area. A map of the statistical reporting areas is also provided (Figure
4.18). The majority of the trips landing finetooth sharks take place off Florida and South
Carolina where gillnet gear is banned or limited to 100’ total length, respectively.
Finetooth shark trips by gear and month for the years 1999 - 2004 (total) from the Coastal
Fisheries Logbook are provided in Figure 4.18. This figure depicts the seasonality of when
finetooth sharks are being landed with various gear types. It is interesting to note that the
finetooth sharks landings with gillnet gear seem to spike in the month of November. This could
be attributed to finetooth sharks moving southward from the Carolinas to warmer waters off of
Florida (Castro, 1993) leading to an increase in finetooth shark abundance at this time. Spanish
mackerel also generally move south to Florida in October –November each year. During the
months of April through November, the trip limit for Spanish mackerel is 3,500 lbs/vessel/trip,
whereas between December and March, it is unlimited in Florida’s Atlantic EEZ. The fact that
finetooth shark and Spanish mackerel fisheries may be spatially and/or temporally linked
reiterates the importance of collaborative management measures to address overfishing of
finetooth sharks because finetooth sharks may still be landed by gillnet vessels participating in
other fisheries, despite measures implemented for commercial shark fishing.
NMFS contacted individual states between Texas and North Carolina (the presumed
range of finetooth sharks) and created a table describing applicable fisheries regulations, whether
or not the state allows gillnets to be deployed in state waters, commercial fisheries that may
landing finetooth sharks, and the species code for finetooth sharks (if applicable) (Table 4.45).
Contacts were also made with states responsible for monitoring of trip ticket or general dealer
data to determine whether there were finetooth sharks being landed and reported in state waters
that may not be included in General Canvass (Federal) dealer reports. Some of these state
landings data are more comprehensive in that they can be traced to an individual vessel’s
identification number. NMFS is also awaiting additional trip ticket landings data from other
states who participate in the Gulf of Mexico’s Fisheries Identification Network (FIN) program,
administered by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, which will provide more detailed
landings information for finetooth sharks by state. While NMFS does not have jurisdiction over
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-142

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

state waters, understanding the extent to which state fisheries may be interacting with finetooth
sharks, and how these landings are accounted for, is essential to foster collaborative relationships
between the Federal government and individual states to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks.
The Agency is interested in having finetooth sharks included in any fisheries observer programs
operating in state waters to attain additional catch series data for stock assessments and explore
collaborative management strategies. Attaining more data on state landings of finetooth sharks
and inclusion of finetooth sharks for bycatch sampling in observer programs in state waters
would result in additional landings data; in turn, resulting in positive ecological impacts.
Table 4.46 describes landings data from Florida’s Trip Ticket program which include all
dealers with a state Saltwater Products License. These landings would include all finetooth
sharks landed and sold in the state of Florida between 1999 - 2004 and would include landings in
state waters and/or landings that were not offloaded by a Federally permitted vessel or to a
Federally permitted dealer. The advantage of these landings data compared to the General
Canvass data submitted by Federally permitted shark dealers is that they include landings in state
waters by vessels that may not have a Federal permit and, since 2000, provide the vessel ID of
the vessel that reported landing the fish.
The Florida Trip Ticket landings include a higher proportion of finetooth sharks being
landed in gillnet gears (92.8 percent) compared to the Coastal Fisheries Logbook (81 percent).
Furthermore, they also indicate that finetooth sharks are being landed by several types of gillnet
(runaround, generic, drift) starting in 2003. The majority of the landings occur within Federal
waters (EEZ), however, 44,142 lbs dw (20 mt dw) of finetooth shark were listed as being landed
in Florida, South Carolina, or Georgia’s state waters. Landings included in the Florida Trip
Ticket data may include landings of finetooth sharks that were caught by vessels using gillnet
gear in Federal waters to target kingfish, however, it is difficult to differentiate because these trip
tickets are not set-specific, rather, reflect the total landings sold to individual dealers. Of the
vessels that were associated with these landings, six vessels had only a shark permit, three
vessels had no permit, and eight vessels had both a shark and a Spanish mackerel permit
reiterating the need for potential collaborative management efforts between HMS and the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Since the majority of commercially harvested finetooth
sharks are landed and sold at dealers in Florida, it is critical that the Agency maintain close
relations with personnel at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and continue to receive
updates on landings of finetooth sharks in order to determine the extent of finetooth shark
mortality.
Alternative D4 would also expand data collection efforts by listing finetooth sharks as a
select species with the Shrimp Trawl Fishery Observer Program, meaning that finetooth sharks
will be included in observer sampling of bycatch in this fishery. Shrimp trawl vessels operate in
shallow, inshore waters that are habitat for finetooth sharks. Including finetooth sharks as a
select species would result in subsamples of bycatch, including identification, measurement, and
estimates of interactions in this fishery which may facilitate future management actions to
minimize bycatch of finetooth sharks in this fishery. Furthermore, since there was a lack of
bycatch catch series data for finetooth sharks available for review during the 2002 SCS
assessment, including this data in the future could improve precision of the model outputs for the
next stock assessment and thereby the management recommendations. Increased attention to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-143

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

finetooth sharks on the behalf of the observers may result in inclusion of other HMS as select
species in this observer program in the future, thereby, potentially improving estimates of
interactions between HMS and trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and resulting in positive
ecological impacts.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TXPWD) have informed NMFS that another source of undocumented finetooth shark fishing
mortality occurs as a result of illegal fishing by Mexican gillnet vessels in the U.S. EEZ in the
Gulf of Mexico. Seized catches have included finetooth sharks and NMFS would like to
increase collaborative efforts to reduce this mortality as it may be impacting other species (HMS
and non-HMS) as well.
De Silva et al. (2001) conducted a profile of shark bycatch in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico
menhaden fishery in 1994 and 1995. Their findings indicate that finetooth sharks were landed in
this fishery. They sampled 30 percent of the sets and found ten species of sharks, including six
finetooth sharks. The authors indicate that small slender sharks (SCS and juvenile LCS) were
less likely to be detected and identified in their sampling protocols. Since menhaden are a
primary forage species of finetooth shark (Bethea et al., 2004), it is likely that some proportion
of the small, unidentified bycatch in this fishery are finetooth sharks. This fishery is
predominately located in state waters between Texas and Alabama and is not subject to observer
coverage at this time. If observer coverage or some other means of monitoring bycatch were
implemented in this fishery, it would be helpful to understand the extent to which finetooth
sharks are being landed. However, NMFS does not have jurisdiction over state waters and can
not implement these monitoring programs.
Finetooth sharks are difficult to properly identify; therefore, the shark dealer workshops
preferred in this action (alternative A9) that focus on species identification may facilitate
improved quota monitoring and ensure that data received from shark dealers are more accurate.
Furthermore, since the SCS fishery is generally open year-round, and rarely approaches its
allotted quota, there may be an incentive for shark dealers to intentionally misidentify LCS as
finetooth sharks or other SCS to avoid exceeding regional trimester quotas for LCS. The Agency
anticipates that outreach on the positive identification of sharks would provide shark dealers with
the necessary tools and skills to be able to properly identify what they are purchasing from
vessels, resulting in positive ecological impacts.
Alternative D4 would likely have long-term positive ecological impacts as it would
implement a plan to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks. Short-term ecological impacts
would likely be neutral. Improved coordination between NMFS and Regional Fishery
Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, states, and other management
bodies would result in better collaborative efforts to manage fish that move between
jurisdictional boundaries. Furthermore, since there may be fisheries that are lacking an FMP or
other management measures and incidentally catching finetooth sharks (i.e., the fishery for
kingfish), increased collaboration with other management entities may result in the inclusion of
these fisheries into existing management initiatives, thereby, improving management and
conservation efforts. Without knowing all of the sources of finetooth shark mortality, any action
taken by NMFS may be misdirected and could result in negative ecological impacts if fishing
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-144

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

effort were shifted to other fisheries. The activities detailed within the preferred alternative
would implement an effective plan for preventing overfishing by first identifying sources of
fishing mortality before implementing additional collaborative management measures, as
appropriate, to avoid initiating actions that may be easily circumvented or may simply result in
additional dead discards of finetooth sharks.
Social and Economic Impacts
Alternative D1 would likely not result in any adverse economic or social impacts as the
status quo would not substantially modify or alter commercial or recreational fishing practices
for finetooth sharks or other shark species.
Alternative D2 would implement trip limits, reduce quotas, and/or modify gear and gear
deployment, all of which could have negative social and economic impacts. Implementing trip
limits on directed SCS trips under alternative D2 may impose negative economic and social
impacts on a gillnet vessels that target sharks or land them incidentally when targeting nonHMS. Vessels that possess directed shark permits but are targeting other finfish species may
also experience negative economic and social impacts. However, because they are not targeting
sharks, NMFS assumes that finetooth shark landings would comprise a small proportion of their
landings and their economic and social impacts would be less those of fishermen targeting
sharks. Both fishermen targeting sharks and those targeting other species may need to conduct
additional trips in order to maintain current profits. Thus, these fishermen may have increased
costs such as travel time and fuel. If fishermen do spend more time fishing as a result of the trip
limit, this could have negative social impacts.
Modifying gillnet mesh size may result in negative economic impacts to a small number
of gillnet vessels that target sharks. These vessels would have to replace existing gear in order to
comply with any new mesh size requirements, as there is not currently a mesh size requirement
in place outside of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area. The Agency estimates that shark gillnet
gear may range in cost from $8,000 to $20,000 (2004 dollars). Gillnet vessels not targeting
sharks may be unaffected by new mesh size requirements and might experience a positive
economic effect at the expense of the directed shark vessels, however, this would depend on
whether gear restrictions were linked to possession of a shark permit. Vessels targeting king and
Spanish mackerel already have minimum mesh size restrictions of 4.75 and 3.5 inches (12.1 and
8.9 cm), respectively. ALWTRT regulations define shark gillnet as being a minimum of 5 inches
mesh size. Specifying maximum soak times for gillnet vessels targeting sharks may impose a
negative economic effect as vessels would have to work longer hours and make more sets in
order to maintain their current catch levels. Furthermore, a maximum soak time would also
encourage fishermen to simply re-deploy gear after it has been hauled back if they had not yet
caught enough fish. Fisheries targeting king and Spanish mackerel in Federal waters already
have a one-hour maximum soak time for gillnets. Additional restrictions, coupled with increased
fuel prices, would have negative economic impacts on the fishery.
Finally, alternative D2 would reduce the SCS quota. This may have a negative economic
impact on the fishery depending on the amount of the quota reduction. A small reduction in the
overall SCS quota may have no effect since the SCS quota has never been reached in a single
year. Landings of SCS were 76.4 percent of the SCS quota of 326 mt dw in 2003 and, prior to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-145

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

that, SCS landings were less than 20 percent of the quota. The current SCS quota is 454 mt dw.
The highest landings of SCS occurred in 1999 at 330 mt dw, or approximately 73 percent of the
current quota. Therefore, the SCS quota would have to be reduced by more than 25 percent to
have economic impacts on the shark gillnet fishery, or future landings would have to increase
before a reduced quota would actually inhibit landings of SCS based on historical data.
Furthermore, catch rates and restrictions implemented in other fisheries may also have economic
impacts on the shark gillnet fishery. Reductions in the SCS quota of less than 25 percent would
appear to have no negative impact on the fishery based on the current level of landings.
However, since most finetooth sharks are observed dead or in poor condition at haulback,
increasing the number of dead discards as a result of reducing the quota may have negative
economic and social impacts.
Closing the shark gillnet fishery and removing gillnet gear from the list of authorized
gear types would likely have significant negative economic impacts on the vessels currently
engaged in this fishery but minimal impacts on the shark fishery as a whole. It would likely
cause economic dislocation of at least five individuals or small entities and may put them out of
business if there are not other fisheries from which they can substitute lost revenues as a result of
this closure. However, as mentioned previously, there were 15 vessels that reported landing
finetooth sharks in Federal logbooks in 2003. Furthermore, if gillnet were no longer an
authorized gear for sharks, than presumably vessels that possess a commercial shark permit
would not be able to possess sharks when gillnet gear is on board, even when targeting another
species such as Spanish mackerel. Conversely, participants may sell their shark permits, target
non-HMS, and discard any finetooth sharks that are landed. The economic impacts of closing the
shark gillnet fishery are difficult to estimate as most of the vessels engaged in the directed shark
gillnet fishery possess other permits. Furthermore, they would still be able to harvest sharks with
other authorized gear types. The costs of refitting vessels to fish with BLL or other authorized
gears would be extensive.
The five vessels participating in the directed shark drift gillnet (and/or strikenet) fishery
are concentrated in the Ft. Pierce/Cape Canaveral region of southeast Florida. Therefore, there
might be proportionately greater negative social or economic impacts on these vessels because a
significant portion of their income comes from the harvest of sharks. Furthermore, these vessels
may incur significant costs as they shift to other fisheries in order to maintain financial viability.
Also, regulations in other fisheries may prohibit an increase in fishing effort.
Alternative D3 considers implementing recreational management measures such as a
requirement to use circle hooks when targeting SCS in the recreational fishery. A circle hook
requirement may result in negative economic impacts to the shark recreational fishery and
related industries because a proportion of the fishery would have to switch to circle hooks from
J-hooks. The Agency is not aware of the proportion of the recreational fishery that actually
targets sharks in Federal waters since an HMS Angling permit allows participants to land tunas,
certain species of sharks, swordfish, and billfish. A limited survey of hook prices indicated that
J-hooks of the sizes and styles used by HMS recreational fishermen ranged in price from a low
of $0.50 to a high of $7.50 each, with an average price of $2.70 (2004 dollars). Similarly, circle
hooks of the sizes and styles used by HMS recreational fishermen ranged in price from a low of
$0.30 to a high of $7.00 each, with an average price of $2.24 (2004 dollars). The Agency does
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-146

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

not have information regarding the proportion of the recreational shark fishing community that is
currently using circle hooks. It is assumed that fishing effort for sharks would remain relatively
constant, as mandating circle hook use would not result in prohibitively high costs to remain in
the fishery. Generally, the purchase of hooks represents only a minor capital expenditure relative
to other costs associated with participating in marine fisheries, including the purchasing,
equipping, maintaining, and running of vessels, which can cost thousands of dollars.
Under alternative D3, the Agency would increase the existing recreational size limit for
finetooth sharks, which may have some negative social and economic impacts on near shore
anglers and the supporting recreational industry. The social and economic impacts may vary
depending on the willingness of anglers to release finetooth sharks caught and/or substitute
harvested fish with other similar species. Angler expenditure data attained from MRFSS during
1998 – 2000 indicate that expenditures on excursions targeting small coastal sharks averaged
$83.47/person/day (2004 dollars). NMFS does not believe that a minimum size increase would
have an adverse impact on angler consumer surplus or satisfaction in recreational fisheries
because finetooth sharks only comprise approximately 1.5 percent of the overall SCS
recreational harvest. Encounters are relatively rare and few fishermen would target finetooth
sharks. This alternative would not affect revenues to charterboat owners, captains, and others
who rely on the recreational shark fishery. Tournaments would still be able to offer prize
categories for finetooth sharks provided they are above the minimum size. In the long-term, as
overfishing of finetooth sharks is eliminated, revenues may increase as less time would be
required to catch finetooth sharks and as larger sharks increase in abundance. This alternative
would not jeopardize participant safety, as recreational fishermen already have to determine the
length of finetooth sharks relative to the existing minimum size.
Alternative D4 would not likely have significant social and economic impacts in the
short-term as it primarily expands Agency efforts to discern sources of finetooth fishing
mortality and would not enact additional management measures on fishing activities in
recreational or commercial sectors at this time. The expansion of DSGFOP in 2005 resulted in
an additional 88 sets on 30 trips from eight vessels. As per 50 CFR § Part 635.7, NMFS may
select, for at sea observer coverage, any vessel that has an Atlantic HMS, tunas, shark or
swordfish permit under §§ 635.4 or 635.32. Therefore, a stipulation of maintaining a
commercial HMS shark permit requires that permit holders could be subject to observer
coverage at any time. Selecting additional vessels for this coverage would not impart additional
economic burden that has not already been analyzed. Furthermore, most gillnet trips targeting
sharks or other non-HMS are in smaller vessels that generally do not stay out for extended
periods of time, reducing the costs to individual vessel owners of providing food and
accommodation comparable to their crew members. The number of additional vessels that fish
with gillnet gear, possess a directed shark permit, and are not currently subject to observer
coverage is estimated to be approximately ten vessels. It is difficult to estimate future numbers
of vessels that might be subject to observer coverage as directed or incidental shark permit
holders could deploy gillnet gear and become subject to observer coverage at any time. Vessels
would be expected to attain the proper safety certification decals from the United States Coast
Guard and ensure that there are adequate accommodations on board for observers prior to taking
an observer; however, these requirements are already in place for the commercial shark fishery.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-147

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Efforts to record data on finetooth shark landings on shrimp trawl vessels would not
result in any social or economic impacts because observer coverage would not be expanded.
This observer program already exists and adding finetooth sharks to the select species list would
not significantly impact the time required for observers to complete their sampling of bycatch in
the trawl fishery. Furthermore, coordination with Regional Fishery Management Council,
Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and state agency staff regarding fisheries that may be
contributing to finetooth shark fishing mortality would not result in any negative social or
economic impacts to the public in the short term, and would likely result in long term social and
economic benefits by determining where management measures should be enacted to reduce
finetooth fishing mortality. Furthermore, collaboration with these entities may increase future
collaborative efforts and result in additional landings information for other HMS species and
protected resources that may be harvested in other fisheries.
Conclusion
The preferred alternative implements an effective plan to prevent overfishing by
collecting data and identifying all sources of finetooth shark fishing mortality, expanding
observer coverage in non-HMS fisheries, and creating a foundation for management measures
that will effectively prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks. The majority of finetooth shark
landings occur in commercial fisheries deploying a non-selective gear (gillnets) in a region
(south Atlantic) where other non-HMS fisheries also deploy gillnets. Thus, measures that
prohibit the use of gillnets for landing sharks (alternative D2), if aimed exclusively at the
commercial shark gillnet fishery, would not prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks. Most of the
five vessels that comprise the commercial shark gillnet fishery also possess Spanish mackerel
permits. If gillnets were not allowed for the harvest of sharks the vessels could continue to
deploy gillnets to catch other species, including Spanish mackerel, catch finetooth sharks
incidentally, and then discard dead finetooth sharks. Without cooperative measures vessels may
be able to circumvent any additional regulations that would be enacted for the commercial shark
fishery when pursuing Spanish mackerel. Finetooth sharks are caught in a wide range of gillnet
mesh sizes and are often dead at haulback, rendering trip limits and/or gear modifications
(alternative D2) ineffective at preventing overfishing because dead sharks would continue to be
discarded. Mortality of finetooth sharks in fisheries outside the jurisdiction of HMS (state
waters) or in unregulated fisheries in Federal waters (i.e, kingfish) would also be unaffected.
The preferred alternative will provide additional information on finetooth shark landings to allow
enactment of comprehensive, collaborative measures that effectively reduce finetooth shark
fishing mortality.
NMFS continues to explore which vessels may be engaged in fisheries that may harvest
finetooth sharks and intends to conduct a new SCS stock assessment following the Southeast
Assessment, Data, and Review process starting in 2007. Reducing finetooth shark fishing
mortality via regulations targeting commercial shark permit holders is further confounded by the
fact that finetooth sharks are one of the species in the SCS complex, which is not currently
overfished or experiencing overfishing, and commercial fishermen have only caught, on average,
28.5 percent of the SCS quota between 1999 – 2003. Measures aimed at the recreational fishery
(alternative D3) would only impact a small portion of the overall finetooth shark landings and,
until comparative research on the merits of circle hooks versus J-hooks for reducing post-release
mortality exists for sharks, implementing a circle hook requirement may be ineffective.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-148

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Furthermore, a conservative bag limit of one shark (including finetooth shark) and a minimum
size above the age at first maturity for males and females is already in place.
As described in Table 2.1. and in this section, the plan for preventing overfishing of
finetooth sharks detailed in the preferred alternative would first continue to identify fisheries
contributing to finetooth shark mortality. This information may result in long-term positive
ecological impacts not only on finetooth sharks but also other species. Information gathering
and research have, and will continue to, provide valuable contacts, landings information, and
improved understanding of fisheries that are being conducted in other management jurisdictions
and may be beneficial for future collaborative measures between states, Regional Fishery
Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and NMFS. This plan also
includes expanding observer coverage in the South Atlantic gillnet fisheries that are landing
sharks incidentally and in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery which would provide
substantive information on which fisheries are currently contributing to the majority of finetooth
shark landings and would also provide bycatch data. Furthermore, working directly with the
Regional Fishery Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and states to
identify all fisheries that may be interacting with finetooth sharks is a critical step to discern
appropriate management options. Lastly, since finetooth shark carcasses can be difficult for
shark dealers to positively identify, the workshops on shark identification, which would be
implemented in alternative A9, would provide indirect benefits by improving the ability of shark
dealers to positively identify finetooth sharks to species, and thus improve the accuracy of
General Canvass logbooks received from dealers.
By first identifying sources of finetooth shark fishing mortality, the plan outlined in
alternative D4 would facilitate potential collaborative, informed management measures that can
best meet conservation and management goals while avoiding significant, and potentially
unnecessary, economic and social impacts. Alternatives D2 and/or D3 (commercial and
recreational management measures) may be considered in the future depending on any new
information collected regarding finetooth shark landings, changes in the finetooth sharks status
per the upcoming SCS stock assessment, new data on post-release mortality benefits of using
circle hooks in recreational shark fisheries, or other relevant information that becomes available
or is collected as a result of alternative D4.
As summarized in Appendix D, NMFS received a wide-range of comments from the
public both supporting and opposing the preferred management measures. NMFS believes that
the preferred alternative is a prudent means of developing comprehensive and collaborative
regulations to prevent finetooth shark fishing mortality. NMFS received a range of public
comments indicating support and opposition to alternatives D2-D4, and additional comments,
including, but not limited to: comments on gillnet fisheries in general, the use of VMS, the
results of the 2002 SCS stock assessment, reporting of HMS by dealers, identification of
finetooth sharks, and the accuracy of data attained from MRFSS. All of these comments were
considered prior to selection of the final preferred alternatives for preventing overfishing of
finetooth sharks. Additional measures, possibly the commercial and recreational measures
analyzed in this document, or others, may be necessary to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks
in the future.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-149

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Table 4.40

Finetooth shark landings in lb dw (mt dw) by gear type in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and South Atlantic (SA), 1999-2003, as reported in
the General Canvass (CN) and Coastal Fisheries (CL) Logbooks. Source: Enric Cortes, pers. comm.
Gillnet Gear
GOM

Year

SA
CL
0

2000

CN
2,560
(1.2)
0

2001

0

0

2002

0

0

2003

0

0

Total
(%)

2,560
(100%)

0

1999

Table 4.41

Longline Gear

0

CN
269,685
(122.3)
185,907
(84.3)
296,897
(134.6)
152,507
(69.2)
123,791
(56.1)
1,028,787
(83%)

GOM
CL
17,837
(8.1)
29,241 (13.2)

CN
671
(0.3)
11

50,389 (22.9)

600
(0.27)
894
(0.4)
2,654
(1.20)
4,830
(29%)

70,388 (31.9)
28,717 (13.0)
196,572
(17%)

Other
SA

CL
0
2,820
(1.27)
0
1,704 (0.8)
6,994 (3.2)
11,518
(71%)

CN
12,897
(5.9)
17,678
(8.0)
4,919
(2.2)
7,708
(3.5)
7,449
(3.4)
50,651
(61%)

CL
7,435
(3.4)
5,847
(2.7)
6,392
(2.9)
6,780
(3.1)
5,437
(2.5)
31,891
(59%)

GOM
CN
CL
565 (0.3)
0
0

0

83

0

0

0

0

14

648
(98%)

14
(2%)

SA
CN
3,250
(1.5)
633
(0.3)
889
(0.4)
732
(0.3)
4,181
(1.9)
9,685
(98.5%)

CL
0
0
0
129
14
143
(1.5%)

Summary of Small Coastal Shark quotas and landings in commercial and recreational fisheries between 1999-2005. Sources: Data from
1998-2000,Cortés, pers. comm., data from 2001-2004, Cortés, 2005; Carlson and Baremore, 2001; Carlson and Baremore, 2002; Carlson and
Baremore, 2003; Carlson et al., 2004; NMFS, 2005; Cortés and Neer, 2005; Carlson and Bethea, 2006.

Year

SCS quota,
mt dw

SCS landings,
mt dw

Commercial Finetooth Landings,
mt dw (General Canvass)
General Canvass

Recreational Finetooth Landings,
mt dw; (numbers of fish)
MRFSS and TX Parks and Wildlife

Finetooth Observed Landings,
mt dw*; (numbers of fish) a

1999
2000

1760
1760

330
269

129.4
92.6

0.38 (78)
7.2 (1438)

1.69** (340)
0.83 (168)

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

1760
1760
326
454
454

329
263
241
204
N/A

137.6
73.4
74.1
54.9
N/A

33.4 (6701)
14.7 (2952)
8.85 (1774)
2.68 (38)
9.1 c (1830)

6.5 (1302)
8.05 (1615)
3.09 (621)
0.32 (65)
9.94b (1995)

* Numbers of fish multiplied by 11 lb (4.3 kg) (mean weight of finetooth sharks used in 2002 SCS assessment) then divided by 2204.6 to attain mt dw
** 1998 and 1999 combined
a
Obtained from 100% observer coverage (November 15-April 1) and approximately 30% observer coverage April 2 – November 14, values not extrapolated.
Includes observed strikenet and drift gillnet trips from DSGFOPb 2005 data includes landings observed from vessels using sink net gear to target other non-HMS
species (Menticirrhus spp. and Spanish mackerel)
c
Estimates from MRFSS January-October 2005, are preliminary and subject to change

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-1
4-150
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Table 4.42

Total pounds (lb ww) and percent of total landings by weight of species landed on gillnet trips
that landed finetooth sharks, 1999-2004. Species and landings in bold are those currently
managed by the HMS Management Division. Species with landings under 10 lbs ww were
omitted. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook (CFL).

Species
Barracuda
Blue Runner
Bluefish
Bonito, Atlantic
Butterfish, unclassified
Cero
Cobia
Crevalle
Croaker, Atlantic, unclassified
Dolphinfish
Finfish, unclassified
Flounder, unclassified
Grunt, white
Jacks, unclassified
King Mackerel and Cero
King Whiting/Kingfish
Moonfish, Atlantic
Pompano
Seatrout, Grey, unclassified
Seatrout, spotted
Seatrout, white
Shark, Atlantic Sharpnose
Shark, Bignose
Shark, Blacknose
Shark, Blacktip
Shark, Bonnethead
Shark, Bull
Shark, Finetooth
Shark, Hammerhead
Shark, Sandbar
Shark, unclassified
Shark Fins, unclassified
Shark, Bignose
Snapper, Blackfin
Snapper, Mangrove

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Total Landings
(1999 - 2004)
4,293
16,201
29,292
298
148
1,733
3,459
362
394
32
675
651
2,620
313
5,393
4,551
174
145
146
3,557
63
57,776
797
187,186
183,853
50,137
56
345,210
10,828
2,089
3,098
5
64
447
12

4-1
4-151

Percent of Total Landings
by Weight
0.40
1.51
2.73
0.03
0.01
0.16
0.32
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.24
0.03
0.50
0.42
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.33
0.01
5.39
0.07
17.45
17.14
4.67
0.01
32.18
1.01
0.19
0.29
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.00

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Species
Spanish Mackerel
Tenpounder
Tripletail
Tuna, Blackfin
Tuna, Little Tunny
Wahoo
Total
Total HMS
Total Non-HMS

Table 4.43

Total Landings
(1999 - 2004)
146,211
637
15
536
6,280
84
1,072,551
841,546
231,005

Percent of Total Landings
by Weight
13.63
0.06
0.00
0.05
0.59
0.01
100.0
78.5
21.5

Total pounds (lb ww) and percent of total landings by weight of species landed on bottom
longline trips that landed finetooth sharks, 1999-2004. Species and landings in bold are those
currently managed by the HMS Management Division. Species with landings under 10 lbs ww
were omitted. Source: CFL.

Species

Total Landings

Percent of Total Landings

(1999-2004)

by Weight

Amberjack, Greater

1,059.40

0.14

Cobia

2,714.20

0.35

Dolphinfish

120.00

0.02

Grouper, Black

552.30

0.07

Grpouper, Gag

7,588.40

0.97

Grouper, Red

30,036.00

3.84

Grouper, Snowy

510.90

0.07

Grouper, Warsaw

534.50

0.07

Grouper, Yellowedge

3,317.00

0.42

Hind, Speckled

1,942.20

0.25

Margate

282.90

0.04

Scamp

572.40

0.07

Shark, Atlantic Sharpnose

11,579.70

1.48

Shark, Bignose

93.20

0.01

Shark, Blacknose

81,964.70

10.47

Shark, Blacktip

256,071.80

32.70

Shark, Bonnethead

7,574.30

0.97

Shark, Bull

24,597.70

3.14

Shark, Dusky

4,068.70

0.52

Shark, Finetooth

81,281.70

10.38

Shark, Hammerhead

8,233.10

1.05

Shark, Lemon

41,030.20

5.24

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-152

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Species

Total Landings

Percent of Total Landings

(1999-2004)

by Weight

Shark, Mako

2,649.30

0.34

Shark, Sandbar

194,996.50

24.90

Shark, Sandtiger

517.10

0.07

Shark, Scalloped Hammerhead

47.00

0.01

Shark, Silky

442.10

0.06

Shark, Tiger

1,091.20

0.14

Shark, Fins

901.00

0.12

Snapper, Blackfin

900.20

0.11

Snapper, Mutton

769.20

0.10

Snapper, Silk

103.20

0.01

Tilefish

13,695.50

1.75

Tilefish, Bluefin

198.20

0.03

Tuna, Blackfin

208.80

0.03

Total

782,244.60

100.0

Total HMS
Total Non-HMS

717,139.30
65,105.30

91.7
8.3

Table 4.44

Number of trips with finetooth shark landings (all gears) by NMFS Statistical Reporting reas,
1999 - 2004. A copy of the map indicating the NMFS Statistical Reporting Areas can be found
in Figure 4.18. Bolded areas had more than 20 trips with landings of finetooth sharks. Source:
Coastal Fisheries Logbook.

Area

Number of Trips
Landing Finetooth Sharks, 1999-2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
11
18
2480
2679
2680
2778
2779
2780
2879

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

3
5
23
5
8
2
2
2
8
1
2
4
6
1
23
127
6
4-1
4-153

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

2880
2979
2980
3079
3080
3179
3180
3279
3379
3476
Total

213
6
37
64
8
14
11
1
50
3
635

Figure 4.18 NMFS Statistical Reporting Areas. Areas 3, 23, 2780, 2880, 2980, 3079, and 3379 all had
greater than 20 trips that reported finetooth shark landings in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook
Number of trips with finetooth shark
between 1999-2004 as indicated in Table 4.44
landings (all gears) by NMFS Statistical Reporting reas, 1999 - 2004. A copy of the map
indicating the NMFS Statistical Reporting Areas can be found in 423HFigure 4.18. Bolded
areas had more than 20 trips with landings of finetooth sharks. Source: Coastal Fisheries
Logbook.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-154

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Number of Trips

100
90

E/H

80

GN

70

LL

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Month

Figure 4.19 Finetooth shark trips by month and gear type between 1999-2004. E/H = Electric Reel, Bandit
Gear, Handline; GN = Gillnet; and LL = Longline. Source: Coastal Fisheries Logbook.
Table 4.45

State information on commercial fisheries that may be landing finetooth sharks.

State
(Limit)
NC

SC

Gillnets Allowed in
State Waters?

Commercial
Fisheries/Gear

Yes, 2-6” stretched
mesh depending on
target spp. and time
of year
Yes, up to 100 ft. in
length, recreational
only, shark retention
with gillnet gear
prohibited
No
No

Hook and Line;
trap; trawls; Gillnet

GA
FL (3 nm – Atlantic,
9 nm Gulf of Mexico)
AL

Yes

LA

No

MS
TX (9 nm)

No contact
No

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

General Species
Specific
Information?
Yes

No

Shrimp trawls;
shark Fishery (hook
and line)

Yes

Yes

Shrimp trawls
Traps; hook and
line
Gillnet; shrimp
trawls
Trot line;
commercial shrimp
trawls
N/A
Shrimp trawls

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No
No

No
Yes

4-1
4-155

Finetooth Shark
Specific Information?

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Table 4.46

Finetooth landings reported from the Florida Trip Ticket program 1999-2004 by area and
gear type. All landings in the Exclusive Economic Zone are denoted as EEZ. Source: Steve
Brown, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Trip Ticket Program.

Year
1999

Total
2000

Area
East Florida EEZ
Northwest Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ

Longline
Longline
Hook and
Line

Northeast Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Georgia EEZ
Northeast Florida
Northeast Florida EEZ
Northwest Florida EEZ
South Carolina/Georgia
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ

Trawl
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Mixed
Castnet

East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
South Carolina/Georgia
Southwest Florida EEZ
East Florida

Longline
Longline
Longline
Longline
Hook and
Line
Hook and
Line
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Mixed
Mixed
Castnet
Castnet

East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
South Carolina/Georgia
East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
East Florida
East Florida EEZ
Total
2001

Gear

East Florida EEZ
Georgia EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
Southwest Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Northwest Florida
West Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Northwest Florida EEZ
East Florida

Longline
Longline
Longline
Longline
Hook and
Line
Hook and
Line
Hook and
Line
Gillnet
Gillnet
Mixed
Lampara Net
Castnet

Total
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-156

Pounds (dw)
1,1437
671
3,868

Gear Sum

Gear
Percentage

12,108

4.2

4,433
38

1.5
0.0

267,706
5,298
8
289,591

92.4
1.8
0.0

10,644
1,114
6,432
11

18,201

8.9

595

598

0.3

185,105

90.6

132

0.1

565
38
189,944
25,024
15,813
15,554
2,561
18,810
5,298
8

169,563
14,911
631
57
75
11
182
4,618
204
77
600
799

193
204,229

5,499

1.8

859

0.3

296,891
19
23
90
303,381

97.9
0.0
0.0
0.0

42
18
264,609
32,282
19
23
90

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Year
2002

Area
East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
Southwest Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida
Northeast Florida EEZ
East Florida
East Florida EEZ
East Florida
East Florida

Total
2003

East Florida EEZ
Southwest Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Southwest Florida EEZ
East Florida
East Florida EEZ

Total
2004

East Florida EEZ
Northeast Florida EEZ
Southeast Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
East Florida EEZ
Southwest Florida EEZ
West Florida EEZ

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Gear
Longline
Longline
Longline
Hook and
Line
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Mixed
Mixed
Castnet
Castnet
Longline
Longline
Hook and
Line
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet,
generic
Gillnet,
generic
Gillnet,
runaraound
Gillnet, drift
Hook and
Line
Longline, sfc
Longline,
bottom
Longline,
bottom
Castnet
Castnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet
Gillnet,
generic
Gillnet,
runaround
Hook and
Line
Charterboat
Longline
Longline,
bottom
Longline,
bottom
Longline,

4-1
4-157

Pounds (dw)
7,079
228
893
649
111,810
2,301
38,724
21
72
47
8
3,796
474
21

Gear Sum

Gear
Percentage

8,200
649

5.1
0.4

152,835

94.4

93

0.1

55
161,832

0.0

4,270
21

3.1
0.0

127,581
212

92.4
0.2

5,832

4.2

150
138,066

0.1

65,016

89.0

1,807

2.5

6,216

8.5

12,424
2,922
105,025
1,962
48
5,200
212
237
3,416
2,179
65
85
1,202
42,089
21
21,417
287
149
1,658
4,117
1,026
604
469

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Year

Area

East Florida EEZ

Gear
bottom
Castnet

Total
Total Finetooth
Landings 19992004

Pounds (dw)

22

Gear Sum

22
73,061

Gear
Percentage
0.0

1,170,160 lbs dw
530.8 mt dw

4.2.3 Atlantic Billfish
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for the management of the directed
Atlantic billfish fishery are:
E1

Retain existing regulations regarding recreational billfish fishing, including permit
requirements, minimum size limits, prohibited species, landing form, allowable gear, and
reporting requirements (No Action)
E2 Effective January 1, 2007, limit all participants in Atlantic HMS recreational fisheries to
using only non-offset circle hooks when using natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure
combinations
E3
Effective January 1, 2007, limit all HMS permitted vessels participating in Atlantic
billfish tournaments to deploying only non-offset circle hooks when using natural baits
or natural bait/artificial lure combinations – Preferred Alternative
E4(a) Increase the minimum legal size for Atlantic white marlin to a specific size between 68
and 71 inches LJFL (172 - 180 cm)
E4(b) Increase the minimum size for blue marlin to a specific size between 103 and 106 inches
LJFL (261 – 269 cm)
E5
Implement a recreational bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip
E6
Effective January 1, 2007, Implement ICCAT Recommendations on Recreational Marlin
Landings Limits – Preferred Alternative
E7
Effective January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2011, allow only catch and release fishing for
Atlantic white marlin
E8
Effective January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2011, allow only catch and release fishing for
Atlantic blue marlin
Ecological Impacts
Alternative E1 would maintain the status quo in the domestic recreational billfish fishery.
This alternative would retain all existing regulations regarding recreational billfish fishing in the
Atlantic Ocean, including permit requirements, minimum size limits, prohibited species, catch
and release fishery management program, landing form, allowable gear, and reporting
requirements, unless otherwise modified during this rulemaking. As discussed in additional
detail below, alternative E1 would likely continue to provide minor ecological benefits for
Atlantic billfish populations stemming from mandatory permitting requirements and minimum
legal size limits. However, the No Action alternative would allow for the continued use of Jhooks in all segments in the fishery, which, as discussed in detail below, have been shown to
have higher post-release mortality rates than previously estimated.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-158

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

The two primary domestic sources of Atlantic billfish mortality include the Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery and the directed recreational billfish fishery. Bycatch and discards of
blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish in the pelagic longline fishery show an overall decrease
from 1999 to 2004, as seen in Table 3.20. There is no discernable trend for Atlantic spearfish.
As seen in Figure 4.20 and Table 4.47, data reported to ICCAT for the period 1999 – 2004 shows
a noticeable overall decrease in dead discarded Atlantic blue and white marlin and sailfish in the
domestic pelagic longline fishery, with noticeable inter-year fluctuation for the marlins.
Trends in recreational landings of Atlantic billfish also show an overall decrease for the
period 1999 - 2004, with substantial inter-year fluctuations, as shown in Figure 4.20 and Table
4.47. Landings of blue marlin clearly show an initial downward trend from 1999 - 2001 and a
steady increasing trend from 2001 - 2004. Recreational landings of Atlantic blue marlin
decreased from 1999 – 2001 from 36.9 mt to 16.4 mt. However, while the 2004 landings of
Atlantic blue marlin were still below 1999 landings levels, landings of blue marlin increased
steadily from 16.4 mt in 2001 to 24 mt in 2004.
As shown in Figure 4.20 and Table 4.47, during the period 1999 – 2004, mortality of
Atlantic blue marlin resulting from pelagic longline dead discards exceeded recreational
mortality attributable to recreational landings, in most years. The exception was in 2003 when
pelagic longline dead discards and recreational landings were equivalent. Dead discards of
Atlantic white marlin from pelagic longline fishing substantially exceeded recreational landings
of white marlin each year during this period. Conversely, recreational landings of Atlantic
sailfish substantially exceeded pelagic longline dead discards each year during this period. From
1999 to 2004, the difference between pelagic longline dead discards and recreational landings
has narrowed.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-159

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Metric Tons

U.S. Pelagic Longline Dead Discards and Rod &
Reel Landings of Billfish
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0

BUM PLL DD
BUM R&R
WHM PLL DD
WHM R&R
SAI PLL DD
SAI R&R
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year
Figure 4.20

U.S. Pelagic Longline Dead Discards and Rod & Reel Landings of Atlantic Billfish. Source:
U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004; 2005.

Table 4.47

U.S. Pelagic Longline Dead Discards and Rod & Reel Landings of Atlantic Billfish (MT).
Source: Pelagic U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004; 2005
BUM

WHM

SAI

Year

PLL DD

R&R

PLL DD

R&R

PLL DD

R&R

1999

82.1

36.9

56.7

5.2

71.6

163.0

2000

59.6

24.2

40.8

1.3

45.4

75.7

2001

22.4

16.4

16.5

3.4

10.7

61.7

2002

48.0

17.1

33.0

5.6

7.0

103.0

2003

19.0

19.0

17.0

0.6

5.0

53.0

2004

34.0

24.0

27.0

0.8

7.0

33.0

Domestic recreational Atlantic billfish catch (landing and release) statistics are less
robust than commercial catch statistics. This is due to a number of factors including the sheer
number of recreational vessels (e.g., 25,238 Angling category permits; 4,173 CHB permits), the
widespread and diffuse nature of the fishery, less stringent reporting requirements in the
recreational HMS fishing sector than the commercial sector, a lack of observer coverage on
recreational vessels, and significant non-compliance with recreational non-tournament reporting
requirements. Identifiable gaps in self-reported non-tournament landings data include, but are
not limited to, blue marlin landings in Puerto Rico and swordfish landings in the mid-Atlantic
region. An examination of the Atlantic recreational billfish and swordfish reporting database
shows that non-compliance or limited compliance with reporting requirements is occurring
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-160

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

throughout the recreational swordfish and billfish fishery. For example, in 2004, swordfish
landings were reported in only Florida, Alabama, and Rhode Island. A review of sportfishing
magazines, local newspapers, and internet fishing websites indicates non-reported landings in
many states. Further, NMFS staff are regularly informed by participants in the sportfishing
community that compliance with non-tournament HMS reporting requirements is low. Similar
comments were also received during the public comment period on the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP. As a result, non-tournament recreational billfish statistics are considered minimum
estimates and actual landings may, in fact, be higher. NMFS is working to improve compliance
with reporting requirements through various outreach efforts, including distribution of outreach
materials, participating in national, regional, and local meetings with constituents, and increasing
enforcement of reporting violations.
Minimum size limits are the primary management measure currently in effect to limit
landings and potentially limit total fishing mortality in the directed fishery for Atlantic billfish.
The current minimum size limits can reduce the number of fish that qualify for landing. Current
minimum size limits were implemented to decrease domestic landings in an effort to comply
with ICCAT Recommendation 97-09. In addition to limiting fishing mortality by potentially
reducing the number of fish landed, if set appropriately, minimum sizes can also ensure some
level of reproductive potential remains in the fishery by allowing fish to reach the size at sexual
maturity before recruiting into the fishery, where they are eligible for landing. Current domestic
minimum sizes are set above the size at maturity for Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and
sailfish, and, as such, assure that some level of reproductive potential is maintained in the
fishery. Additional increases in minimum sizes or a shift to catch and release fishing, as per
preferred alternative E6, while potentially increasing the number of released fish would further
assure that some level of reproductive potential is maintained in the fishery. Minimum size
limits do not, in and of themselves, guarantee that landings will remain at any given level or have
a direct impact on post-release mortality of billfish. Billfish that are released in the recreational
fishery are not considered as bycatch because of the catch-and-release fishery management
program that was established in Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish FMP (NMFS, 1999).
Known recreational landings of Atlantic billfish have remained at relatively low levels
since 1999 due to minimum sizes requirements and a strong voluntary adherence to the practice
of catch and release fishing. Recent recreational landings, as reported to ICCAT in metric tons,
can be seen in Table 4.47 above, and as previously noted, reflect a steady increase in estimated
landings of Atlantic blue marlin from 2001 - 2004. The number of recreationally landed Atlantic
blue and white marlin, as reported to ICCAT, since adoption of the annual 250 recreationally
caught marlin landing limit (Recommendation 00-13), can be seen in Table 4.48. In 2002, the
United States exceeded its combined annual limit of 250 recreationally landed blue and white
marlin, but carried forward underharvest from 2001, per ICCAT Recommendation 00-14.
ICCAT Recommendation 00-14 allows for the carryover of underharvest and mandates
carryover of overharvest from a previous fishing year to a subsequent fishing year for any
species under quota or catch limit management. It should be noted that the accounting
methodology upon which the 2003 numbers reported to ICCAT were based differs from the
methodology used to generate the 2002 and 2001 numbers that were reported to ICCAT. The
methodology used to generate the 2001 and 2002 landings shown in Table 4.48 resulted in higher
landings being reported to ICCAT for those years than would have been reported if the 2003
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-161

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

methodology had been applied. For additional information on this methodological issue, please
see Van Voorhees et al., 2004.
Table 4.48

U.S. Landings of Atlantic Blue and White Marlin as Reported to ICCAT in Numbers of Fish.
Source: U.S. National Reports to ICCAT 2003; 2004; 2005; and Erika Carlsen, NMFS Office of
International Affairs, pers. comm.
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total

Table 4.49

BUM
77
191
113
118
499

WHM
116
88
23
31
258

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Annual
Over/Underharvest
57
-29
114
101

Tournament Landings and Releases 1999 - 2004 in Number of Fish. Source: NMFS
Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS) Database
BUM

Year

Total
193
279
136
149
757

Retained
172
117
75
84
96
110

Released
1,527
1,467
1,038
1,132
1,133
1,538

WHM
Live
Release
Rate
0.899
0.926
0.933
0.931
0.922
0.931

Retained
36
8
22
33
20
25

SAI

Released
1,456
975
1,306
2,207
614
1,349

Live
Release
Rate Retained Released
0.976
30
1,907
0.992
18
2,198
0.983
11
3,073
0.985
14
3,117
0.968
24
4,171
0.982
9
4,467

Live
Release
Rate
0.985
0.992
0.996
0.996
0.994
0.998

As previously discussed, recreational billfish data are less robust than commercial data.
There are several sources of recreational data with overlapping samples. Each data source
provides a unique view of billfish fisheries, including both landed and released fish.
Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS) data represent the majority of verifiable domestic Atlantic
billfish landings and can be seen in Table 4.49. The RBS was designed to provide a complete
census of tournament landings, and as such, it is considered to be both accurate and precise in
this regard. However, it is important to note that the RBS represents a subset of total billfish
landings and, as such, includes certain biases. Because the RBS captures only tournament
landings it is, by design, a subset of aggregate U.S. landings. Further, given that tournament
fishermen do not, as a general rule, land a fish that is smaller than one that has already been
landed in a tournament, both the size of tournament reported fish and the release percentages that
can be calculated from RBS data are likely biased high relative to the fishery as a whole.
Another source of recreational billfish data is the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics
Survey (MRFSS). MRFSS includes Atlantic HMS, but was not specifically designed for HMS
fisheries, which are considered rare event fisheries in comparison to inshore fisheries such as red
drum. Further, MRFSS does not cover the State of Texas. For these reasons, the MRFSS data
are not considered to be highly accurate in determining the exact number of landings or releases
of Atlantic HMS, but it does provide useful additional data for purposes of comparison with
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-162

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

other data sets. The Large Pelagics Survey (LPS) is another statistical sampling survey that
includes Atlantic HMS. This survey was designed to intercept BFT and operates only from
Virginia to Maine on the Eastern seaboard from June through October. As such, LPS landings
data are known to be a subset of aggregate U.S. Atlantic landings. Both the MRFSS and LPS
can overlap with the RBS data, which must be accounted for when attempting to quantify
aggregate landings. Finally, the HMS Management Division operates the Atlantic HMS nontournament billfish and swordfish reporting line which is intended to capture non-tournament
landings of all billfish and swordfish. With the exception of billfish or swordfish landed in the
States of North Carolina and Maryland, anglers landing Atlantic billfish or swordfish outside of
tournaments are required to report those landings to NMFS with 24 hours of landing. The States
of North Carolina and Maryland have landing card programs in place and provide their landings
data to NMFS.
The directed billfish fishery is primarily catch and release in nature. Fisher and Ditton
(1992) estimate that between 74 and 99 percent of all billfish are released by billfish anglers in
general. RBS data, as presented in Table 4.49, indicate Atlantic HMS tournament release rates
of 89.9 to 93.3 percent for blue marlin, 96.8 to 99.2 percent for white marlin, and 98.5 to 99.6
percent for sailfish for the period 1999 - 2004. MRFSS data, as presented in Table 4.50, indicate
release rates of 75.8 to 100 percent for blue marlin, 99.6 to 100 percent for white marlin, and
93.5 to 99 percent for sailfish, for this same period. LPS data, as presented in Table 4.51
indicate release rates of 87 to 100 percent for blue marlin, 89.4 to 99.4 percent for white marlin,
and zero to 100 percent for sailfish, for the same period. Obviously, the estimates pertaining to
sailfish (0 to 100 percent) indicate the wide variability in some data sets. Nevertheless, the
preponderance of available data indicate a strong adherence by Atlantic billfish anglers, whose
activities are captured by these data collection systems, to catch and release fishing, both within
and outside of tournaments.
Table 4.50

MRFSS Estimated Aggregate Landings and Releases of Atlantic Billfish 1999-2004 in Number
of Fish (includes Puerto Rico, excludes Texas). Source: NMFS MRFSS Database.
BUM

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Live
Dead
Release
Landings Releases Discards
Landings
Rate
N/A
3,265*
0*
N/A
N/A
0
2,492
0
1.0
26
0
6,525
0
1.0
0
556
6,956
0
0.926
N/A
0
4,344
0
1.0
N/A
1,101
3,447
0
0.758
N/A
* Incomplete data available for these fields

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

WHM

SAI
Live
Dead Release
Dead
Releases Discards Rate Landings Releases Discards
3,475*
58*
0.984
5,238* 75,752*
90*
7,069
0
0.996
1,000
41,905
171
11,255
0
1.0
981*
35,509*
0*
4,633*
N/A
N/A
541
53,474
625
339*
N/A
N/A
2,821
46,105
18
7,060*
N/A
N/A
N/A
42,638*
0*

4-1
4-163

Live
Release
Rate
0.935
0.977
0.973
0.99
0.942
N/A

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Table 4.51

Large Pelagics Survey Estimated Aggregate Landings and Releases of Atlantic Billfish
(Virginia to Maine) 1999-2004 in Number of Fish. Source: NMFS LPS Database.

BUM
Dead
Year Retained Released Discard
3
28
0
1999
0
1,886
0
2000
0
302
0
2001
0
568
0
2002
101
673
84
2003
45
1,112
0
2004

WHM
Live
Release
Rate
0.903
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.870
0.961

SAI

Dead
Retained Released Discard
6
156
0
4
705
0
4
703
0
218
5,616
0
365
3,069
0
78
5,573
0

Live
Live
Release
Dead Release
Rate Retained Released Discard Rate
0.963
0
3
0
1
0.994
6
0
0
0
0.994
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.963
0
60
0
1
0.894
0
68
0
1
0.986
0
27
0
1

Despite the widespread practice of catch and release fishing in the Atlantic billfish
fishery, as discussed above, recent data on post-release mortality rates of recreationally caught
billfish indicate that the adverse ecological impacts of recreational activities on billfish resources
may be greater than previously recognized. Post-release survival of recreationally caught and
released Atlantic billfish was previously estimated to be 90 percent or greater (NMFS, 1999).
Conversely, this means that post-release mortality of recreationally caught and released billfish
was previously estimated to be ten percent or lower. This estimate was derived from a review of
the relevant literature at the time, which consisted primarily of studies examining catch and
release mortality of bluefin tuna and sharks and Gulf of Mexico longline post-release
survivorship. Since that time, there have been a number of pertinent studies examining both Jhook and circle performance and effects on billfishes.
A recent study by Horodysky and Graves (2005) examining the post-release mortality in
the recreational fishery for Atlantic white marlin strongly suggests that mortality levels using
traditional J-hooks may be higher than previously assumed. Horodysky and Graves found that
the mortality rate of white marlin associated with J-hooks was 35 percent. This number was
higher than post-release mortality rates for other billfish species. Horodysky and Graves (2005)
noted post-release mortality rates (from other studies)of 11 percent for blue marlin and 29
percent for striped marlin caught with this hook type. Given sample sizes of the studies
examined, there is no statistical difference between the Horodsyky and Graves 35 percent postrelease mortality rate for Atlantic white marlin and the 29 percent estimate identified for Pacific
striped marlin. As discussed above, previous post-release survival estimates for billfish were
thought to be in excess of 90 percent. The recent white marlin post-release mortality statistics,
when combined with estimates for the number of Atlantic blue and white marlin released by U.S.
anglers, form the basis for NMFS’ conclusion that the mortality contribution of the recreational
billfish fishery is higher than previously estimated.
Table 4.52 presents the estimated number of white marlin mortalities resulting from catch
and release fishing activities based on NMFS’ RBS, MRFSS, and LPS databases. In deriving
these estimates, an assumption was made that all billfish anglers use J-hooks. NMFS
acknowledges that some unquantified portion of billfish anglers currently use circle hooks, and,
as such, this assumption could bias the estimates to higher than actual levels. NMFS currently
does not have an estimate of the proportion of billfish anglers that regularly use circle hooks.
However, uncertainty in billfish landings stemming from under-reporting, as well as additional
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-164

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

uncertainty stemming from landings estimates in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the
U.S.V.I., may result in underestimates of recreational mortality. Mortality estimates were
derived by applying a post-release mortality rate of 0.35 (Horodysky and Graves, 2005) to the
reported number of releases (e.g., 100 releases * 0.35 post-release mortality rate = 35 mortalities). Using this
methodology, estimated release mortalities of Atlantic white marlin range from 215 to 773 based
on RBS data (1999 – 2004), 119 to 3,939 based on MRFSS data (1999 – 2004), and 55 to 1,966
for LPS data (1999 – 2004). For the reasons discussed above, actual post-release mortalities of
white marlin likely fall somewhere between these estimates. As previously discussed, each of
these databases has particular limitations, however, taken in combination, the data provide some
indication of the magnitude of U.S. induced recreational white marlin mortalities.
Table 4.52

Estimated Post-Release Mortality of White Marlin in Numbers of Fish Based on J-hooks and
35 Percent Post-Release Mortality Rate as derived from Data from the RBS, MRFSS, and
LPS. Source: Recreational Billfish Survey; Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey; and
Large Pelagic Survey.
RBS

MRFSS

LPS

Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Post-Release
Post-Release
Post-Release
Year
Live Releases Mortalities Live Releases Mortalities Live Releases Mortalities
1,456
510
3,475*
1,216
156
55
1999
975
341
7,069
2,474
705
247
2000
1,306
457
11,255
3,939
703
246
2001
2,207
773
4,633*
1,622
5,616
1,966
2002
614
215
339*
119
3,069
1,074
2003
1,349
472
7,060
2,471
5,573
1,951
2004
*Incomplete data available for these years for this data set.

Table 4.53 presents the estimated number of Atlantic blue marlin mortalities resulting
from catch and release fishing activities based on the RBS, MRFSS, and LPS databases.
Estimates were derived by applying a post-release mortality rate of 0.11 (Graves 2002) to the
reported number of releases (e.g., 100 releases * 0.11 post-release mortality rate = 11 mortalities). Consistent
with the calculations for white marlin above, NMFS assumed that all billfish anglers use J-hooks.
NMFS acknowledges that some billfish anglers currently use circle hooks, and, as such, this
assumption could bias the estimates to higher than actual levels. NMFS currently does not have
an estimate of the proportion of billfish anglers that regularly use circle hooks. However,
uncertainty in billfish landings stemming from under-reporting, as well as additional uncertainty
stemming from landings estimates in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S.V.I., may
result in underestimates of recreational mortality. Between 1999 and 2004, estimated postrelease mortalities of Atlantic blue marlin range from 114 to 169 fish based on RBS data, and
274 to 765 fish based on MRFSS data. Between 1999 and 2004, estimated post-release
mortalities of Atlantic blue marlin ranged from 3 to 207 fish for LPS data. It is likely that the
true post-release mortalities of blue marlin fall somewhere between these estimates. As
previously discussed, each of these databases has particular limitations, however, taken in
combination, the data indicate that U.S. induced mortalities of Atlantic blue and white marlin are
likely higher than previously assumed in Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (NMFS, 1999).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-165

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Table 4.53

Estimated Post-Release Mortality of Blue Marlin in Numbers of Fish Based on J-hooks and 11
Percent Post-Release Mortality Rate as derived from Data from the RBS, the MRFSS, and
LPS. Source: Recreational Billfish Survey; Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey; and
Large Pelagic Survey.
RBS

MRFSS

Estimated
Estimated
Post-Release
Post-Release
Live
Year
Mortalities
Releases
Mortalities
168
3265*
359*
1999
1,527
161
2,492
274
2000
1,467
114
6,525
718
2001
1,038
125
6,956
765
2002
1,132
125
4,344
478
2003
1,133
1,538
169
3,447
379
2004
*Incomplete data available for these years for this data set.
Live
Releases

LPS

Live
Releases
28
1,886
302
568
673
1,112

Estimated
Post-Release
Mortalities
3
207
33
62
74
122

As previously stated, alternative E1 would likely continue to provide only minor
ecological benefits, given the limited measures (permit requirements and minimum size limits)
currently in place to limit fishing mortality by limiting landings. Nevertheless, the ecological
benefits of alternative E1 would be substantially below those of other billfish alternatives
presented in this document. Minimum sizes alone cannot directly limit landings or mortalities,
but can indirectly limit landings by limiting the available pool of legal sized fish. Continuation
of existing management measures would likely provide a low level of positive ecological
impacts for Atlantic billfish by constraining increases in billfish landings and thereby limiting
mortality to some extent. However, new data on the post-release mortality of white marlin, as
discussed above, indicate a larger contribution by U.S. recreational anglers to Atlantic-wide
white marlin mortality rates than assumed in Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish FMP (NMFS,
1999). Alternative E1 would not likely result in any substantial change in the number of Atlantic
billfish landed, released, or discarded dead, or result in any significant change in the current
levels of post-release mortality in the near future. Under the No Action alternative, landings,
dead discards, and post-release mortality attributable to the directed billfish fishery could
increase or decrease depending on angler behavior, with negative or positive ecological impacts
given that there are no management measures currently in place to directly control landings or
effort. However, no shifts in angler behavior are anticipated under the No Action alternative.
NMFS received limited public comment in support of the No Action alternative, which generally
cited existing domestic regulations as being appropriate and suggested the additional regulation
would be inappropriate. Commenters further suggested that voluntary use of circle hooks could
increase. However, as previously, discussed the No Action alternative would allow for the
continued and restricted use of J-hooks in the recreational fishery, which are associated with
significantly higher post-release mortality rates than previously estimated. Alternative E1 would
likely not reduce or reverse the current United States’ or Atlantic-wide fishing mortality rates for
either blue or white marlin. Further, the No Action alternative cannot, in and of itself, ensure
compliance with the ICCAT marlin landing limit. For these reasons, despite limited public
support for it, NMFS is not preferring the No Action alternative. Alternative E1 is not
anticipated to increase or decrease interactions with protected resources including sea turtles,

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-166

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

seabirds, or marine mammals, or impact non-target species because no changes in fishing effort
or practices would be expected.
Alternative E2 would require the use of non-offset circle hooks in all segments of HMS
recreational fisheries, for all species, whenever natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure
combinations are used, beginning on January 1, 2007. This includes HMS Angling category
permitted vessels, Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when on a for-hire trip or fishing
recreationally, and all General category permitted vessels participating in registered HMS
tournaments. Circle hooks are defined in 50 CFR §635.2 as “a fishing hook originally designed
and manufactured so that the point is turned perpendicularly back to the shank to form a
generally circular, or oval, shape.” Natural bait/artificial lure combinations would include, but
would not be limited to, rigs such as natural baits used in combination with artificial hoods,
heads, and/or skirts. This alternative could reduce the overall mortality rates of Atlantic white
marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, and other species with which HMS fishermen interact by reducing
post-release mortality rates. Alternative E2 would allow the use of J-hooks with artificial lures.
NMFS received public comment during scoping, on the pre-draft document, and on the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP, that fishermen tend to target white marlin and sailfish with natural
baits while either drifting or slow trolling and target blue marlin by trolling at a higher rate of
speed with the fish striking at the lure. Because of these fishing practices and feeding habits, it is
believed that blue marlin have less opportunity to deeply ingest baits, therefore resulting in a
higher proportion of hook-ups in the mouth with less damage to vital tissues and lower rates of
post-release mortality. In a study evaluating pop-up satellite tags for estimating post-release
survival of blue marlin from a recreational fishery, Graves et al., (2001) mouth hooked seven of
nine blue marlin tagged by trolling at high speed using high speed lures or skirted dead baits with
J-hooks. The remaining two fish were foul hooked. Commenters also strongly suggested that
given the feeding habits of blue marlin, mandating circle hooks on artificial lures would
significantly reduce the viability of trolling for blue marlin. Given the relatively low post-release
mortality rate of recreationally released Atlantic blue marlin (approximately 11 percent) and
substantial public comment requesting continued use of J-hooks for targeting Atlantic blue
marlin, NMFS developed alternatives to allow the continued use of J-hooks with artificial lures.
Alternative E2 would likely provide positive ecological benefits for most, if not all HMS
species with which recreational fishermen interact. This alternative would be expected to reduce
mortality in the directed billfish fishery by reducing post-release mortality. There is mounting
evidence that hook choice can significantly impact fishing mortality rates. In a review and
analysis of 43 previous post-release circle hook studies, Cooke and Suski (2004) found that
circle hooks resulted in lower fishing mortality than other types of hooks and that mortality was
consistently higher for J-hook caught fish. Factors identified as affecting mortality of released
fish included hooking depth, anatomical hooking location, bleeding, and ease of hook removal.
Cooke and Suski (2004), Prince et al. (2002), and Horodsky and Graves (2005) found that Jhook caught fish were more likely to be deep hooked than circle hook caught fish, circle hooks
were more likely to result in jaw hooking than J-hooks, and J-hooks were more likely to cause
tissue trauma resulting in bleeding. The reduced occurrence of deep hooking associated with
circle hooks as compared to J-hooks reduces the opportunity for damage to vital organs and
excessive bleeding. Cooke and Suski (2004) found that, in general, hooking mortality rates were
reduced by approximately 50 percent by using circle hooks relative to J-hooks. The authors
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-167

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

attributed the mortality reduction associated with the use of circle hooks to the tendency of circle
hooks to jaw-hook fish, resulting in shallow hooking depths. Cooke and Suski (2004) also
recommend that management agencies implement circle hook requirements only in instances in
which appropriate scientific data for similar species exists. Nevertheless, taken in aggregate, the
available science indicates that hook type can have a significant effect on survival of released
fish.
In another recently released study on circle hooks, J-hooks, and drop-back time, Prince et
al., (2006), evaluated the performance of non-offset circle hooks and a similarly sized J-hook
used in the south Florida recreational live bait fishery for Atlantic sailfish. Sampling a total of
766 sailfish (392 caught on circle hooks; 374 caught on J-hooks), Prince et al. (2006) found that
in terms of catch, hook locations, bleeding, and release condition, the traditionally-shaped circle
hooks had the best performance with respect to conservation benefit for promotion of live
release. Further, Prince et al. (2006) found that traditional circle hooks, those with curvature of
the shank which allows for a generally circular or oval shape, as opposed to J-hooks that simply
have the point of the hook turned back toward the shank and labeled circle hooks, performed
well with drop back times of varying intervals. While the Prince et al. (2006) did not examine
post-release mortality data, the findings of the study reinforce the findings of other studies that
traditionally shaped circle hooks may contribute to reductions in post-release mortality rates of
Atlantic billfish by improving hooking locations, reducing bleeding, and improving release
condition. As stated in Prince et al.(2006); “The general conclusion to be drawn from both
studies [Horodysky and Graves 2005 and Prince et al. 2006] is that non-offset circle hooks
promote live release in dead bait troll fisheries targeting white marlin and sailfish and that Jhooks do not.” The study further found comparable catch rates between circle and J-hooks,
which is key to acceptance of circle hooks among anglers.
Also as previously discussed, Horodysky and Graves (2005) identified a post-release
mortality rate of 35 percent (range 15 – 59 percent) for recreationally caught Atlantic white
marlin when J-hooks were used. During this study, 7 of 20 white marlin caught on J-hooks died,
while none of the 20 white marlin caught on circle hooks died. It is not a reasonable assumption
that all circle hook caught white marlin will survive the catch and release experience, in every
instance. Based on data from the same study, Dr. John Graves (pers. comm.) indicated that the
research team identified a post-release mortality rate of 0 - 12 percent for Atlantic white marlin
caught on circle hooks based on use of a statistical model and 10,000 runs of the data. This
provides an estimated post-release survival rate of 88 - 100 percent. Assuming a worst case
scenario where 12 percent of all Atlantic white marlin caught on circle hooks die, this provides
an overall net mortality benefit to the fishery of approximately 23 percent (35 percent J-hook
post-release mortality estimate - 12 percent circle hook post-release mortality benefit) for circle
hook caught white marlin over J-hook caught marlin. In a relative sense, J-hook mortality versus
circle hook mortality, it provides a 65.7 percent reduction (12 percent circle hook post-release mortality
estimate/35 percent J-hook post release mortality estimate = .343 percent). NMFS received public comments
concerned that the Agency had drawn conclusion regarding the impacts of circle hooks on
billfish based on the limited sample size in some studies, however, the research utilized in this
document represents the best available science, including sample size and accurate replication of
standard billfish angling methods.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-168

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Table 4.54 provides a retroactive estimate of the net mortality benefit for Atlantic white
marlin of switching the entire recreational Atlantic white marlin fishery to circle hooks from Jhooks. In developing these estimates, NMFS applied the median post-release mortality rate of
35 percent (range 15 – 59 percent) for Atlantic white marlin caught recreationally on J-hooks
against the upper bound post-release mortality estimate for Atlantic white marlin caught on circle
hooks of 12 percent, as identified by Horodysky and Graves through modeling. NMFS received
comment that a more statistically appropriate comparison would be to compare “central
tendencies” of the post-release mortality estimates derived for J-hook and circle hook postrelease mortality, e.g. the 35 percent estimate for J-hook mortality and 0 percent for circle hook
mortality. However, for purposes of analysis in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS
believes that comparison of the median or central tendency, 35 percent value and the upper
bounds of the circle hook post-release mortality estimates are appropriate for the reasons
discussed below. NMFS agrees that the median 35 percent estimate developed for J-hook caught
fish is most appropriate to use in developing estimates of post-release mortality of Atlantic white
marlin in the fishery. For circle hooks, the observed rate mortality rate was 0. However, it is not
realistic to assume that every fish will survive the catch and release experience when circle
hooks are used, despite the observed rate of 0 during the study. Through statistical modeling, the
researchers developed an upper estimate of 12 percent post-release mortality. The “central
tendency” estimate generated from the modeling was zero. Given the fact that some fish caught
and released on circle hooks will die, NMFS believes that, for purposes of analysis, it is
appropriate to use the more biologically precautionary 12 percent estimate figure in combination
with the 35 percent estimate for J-hook caught fish. NMFS will continue to refine its mortality
estimates as new data become available.
In applying the circle hook mortality benefit to previous release estimates, the estimated
mortality benefit (fish conserved) for white marlin ranged from 141 to 508 fish using RBS data,
78 to 2,589 fish using MRFSS data, and 36 to 1,292 fish using LPS data. Under alternative E2,
NMFS estimates that approximately 88 percent of future released white marlin would survive as
a result of being caught on circle hooks. Averaging the annual mortality reduction benefits
identified in Table 4.54, NMFS estimates that alternative E2 could result in the annual savings of
approximately 303 (range: 141 – 508) Atlantic white marlin according to RBS data, 1,297
(range: 78 – 2,589) white marlin based on MRFSS data, and 607 (range: 36 – 1,292) white
marlin using LPS data, when compared to continuing use of J-hooks throughout the fishery
(alternative E1). Again, estimates are based on the assumption that all or nearly all white marlin
are currently caught on J-hooks. Presently, NMFS cannot accurately estimate the proportion of
anglers using J-hooks or circle hooks. Given that some unquantified subset of Atlantic white
marlin is currently captured on circle hooks, the actual ecological benefits may be somewhat
below these estimates. However, unquantified non-compliance with landings reporting
requirements may have the opposite effect and the actual ecological benefits may be somewhat
above these estimates. Some limited but unquantified proportion of white marlin may become
tail-wrapped and suffocate, suffer predation from sharks, or be caught on J-hook rigged artificial
lures, which could also reduce post-release benefits. Tail-wrapping and predation occur in
association with J-hook caught fish also.
The ecological benefits ultimately derived from circle hooks are somewhat dependent
upon angler behavior and fishing techniques. Variables include decisions by the angler to retain
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-169

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

a fish caught on a circle hook, off-setting hooks, or allowing circle hooks to be deeply ingested,
all of which can influence mortality benefits associated with circle hooks. The use of offset
hooks appears to be a key variable influencing mortality levels associated with circle hooks.
Prince et al. (2002) found that highly offset (15 degrees or greater) hooks were associated with
deep hooking, whereas minor (four degrees or less) and non-offset hooks were typically
associated with jaw hooking. Overall, Prince et al. (2006) found highly offset hooks were
approximately three times more likely to result in deep hooking for sailfish. Another variable
that likely impacts survival is drop-back time, depending on hook type. When “dropping back”,
an angler free spools the bait, allowing the fish to deeply ingest the hook prior to setting it. As
previously discussed, Prince et al. (2006) found that traditionally shaped circle hooks performed
well (meaning they had a low rate of hooking in undesirable locations) under drop-backs of
differing periods of time. The study showed that J-hooks and non-traditional circle hooks had
elevated rates of undesirable hooking locations associated with drop-back relative to traditionally
shaped circle hooks. Drop-back practice may result in higher rates of deep hooking and likely to
higher rates of damage to internal organs when used with J-hooks and non-traditional circle
hooks.
Table 4.54

White Marlin Estimated Net Circle Hook Mortality Benefit in Numbers of Fish. Source: RBS,
MRFSS, LPS
RBS

MRFSS

Estimated
Estimated Circle
Hook Estimated
J-Hook
PostPost- Net Circle
Live
Live
Hook
Release
Release Release
Year
Mortalities Mortalities Benefit Releases
s

LPS

Estimated
Circle
Estimated
Hook
Circle
Estimated JEstimated JEstimated
PostHook PostHook Post- Hook Post- Estimated
Net Circle
Release
Release
Net Circle
Live
Release
Release
Mortalities Mortalities Hook Benefit Releases Mortalities Mortalities Hook Benefit

1999 1,456

510

175

335

3,475*

1,216

417*

799

156

55

19

36

2000 975

341

117

224

7,069

2,474

848

1,626

705

247

85

162

2001 1,306

457

157

300

11,255

3,939

1,351

2,589

703

246

84

162

2002 2,207

773

265

508

4,633*

1,622

556*

1,066

5,616

1,966

674

1,292

2003 614

215

74

141

339*

119

41*

78

3,069

1,074

368

706

2,471

847

1,624

5,573

1,951

669

1,282

162
310
7,060*
2004 1,349 472
* Partial data available this data field.

As mentioned above, alternative E2 would likely result in positive ecological benefits for
most, if not all, HMS species with which recreational fishermen interact. Cooke and Suski
(2004) found circle hooks to be broadly beneficial in reducing mortality and/or improving
hooking location when compared to J-hooks. As discussed, hooking location is a key variable in
post-release mortality. Additional studies examined during this analysis reinforce these
conclusions, specifically for HMS, including Atlantic white marlin (Horodysky and Graves,
2005), sailfish (Prince et. al., 2002), and bluefin tuna (Skomal et. al., 2002).
NMFS received substantial public comment opposing and supporting circle hook
requirements, as proposed under draft alternatives E2 and E3, for a number of reasons. A
prevalent theme contained in comments opposing mandatory circle hook use, in all or portions of
the HMS and billfish recreational fisheries, was that the recreational sector has a minor impact
on Atlantic billfish populations relative to the commercial pelagic longline fleet. From an
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-170

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

international perspective, data reported to ICCAT indicate that commercial fishing activities are
responsible for the majority of Atlantic billfish mortality (Kerstetter, 2006). However, given the
relatively small size of the U.S. domestic pelagic longline fleet and the considerable size of the
recreational fishing fleet (discussed in detail below), NMFS determined that it was appropriate to
examine the issue of pelagic longline versus recreational mortality contributions from the
domestic perspective.
To further explore this issue, NMFS examined data from the pelagic longline logbook
program and the RBS, MRFSS, and LPS databases. Utilizing new information on recreational
and commercial post-release mortality rates (Horodysky, 2005, and Kerstetter, 2006,
respectively), an examination of the data by NMFS indicates that, in some years, the total
mortality contribution of the domestic recreational billfish fishery may equal or exceed the total
mortality contribution of the domestic pelagic longline fleet with regard to Atlantic white marlin.
As seen in Appendix C, estimates of total annual recreational white marlin mortality, which
combines landings, dead discarded fish, and estimated post-release mortalities of white marlin
released alive, vary greatly by data set and year. MRFSS and LPS databases indicate that for the
period 2001 – 2004, inclusive, the aggregate level of recreational mortality was approximately
three and two times higher, respectively, than the aggregate mortality contribution (dead discards
and estimated post-release mortality) of the domestic pelagic longline fleet with regard to
Atlantic white marlin. Using RBS data, a known subset of recreational effort and landings,
estimated aggregate recreational white marlin mortality appears to be about 71 percent of
estimated total domestic pelagic longline white marlin mortality (based on logbook data) for the
same period. When taken in combination, and allowing for the limitations and uncertainty
associated with each database involved, two conclusions can be drawn; 1) the aggregate
recreational fishing mortality contribution is higher than previously thought with regard to
Atlantic white marlin and 2) there is more parity between the mortality contributions of the
domestic recreational and domestic pelagic longline fleet than previously thought. Cramer
(2005) and Kerstetter (2006) examined this same issue to varying degrees. Both papers support
the same basic finding drawn in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP, that in some years the
domestic recreational billfish fishery may impose equivalent or even greater levels of mortality
on Atlantic white marlin populations than the domestic pelagic longline fishery.
Under initial examination, it appears that this may primarily be the result of the size
differential between the two fisheries. As of February 1, 2006, there were 25,238 HMS Angling
category permit holders and 4,173 HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders able to
legally pursue Atlantic billfish. An additional 4,824 General category permit holders can legally
pursue Atlantic marlin while participating in registered HMS tournaments. Further, NMFS
believes that the number of HMS Angling category permit holders, and perhaps CHB category
permit holders, are lower than the actual number of vessels participating in the fishery (i.e. some
unpermitted vessel may be illegally participating in the fishery). In contrast, as of February 1,
2006, the total number of vessels that could potentially participate in the pelagic longline fishery
for HMS was 277, given the limited access permit system in place. The number of active pelagic
longline vessels participating in HMS fisheries in 2004 was just 116, and fell to 110 in 2005.
NMFS will continue to examine this issue as additional data become available. This data
reinforces NMFS preferred alternative that it is appropriate to implement circle hook

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-171

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

requirements in some segments of the recreational fishery, at this time, to reduce post-release
mortality associated with the directed billfish fishery.
A second important theme in comments opposing mandatory circle hook use under
alternatives E2 and E3 was the need for NMFS to promulgate more detailed specifications for
circle hooks. Current regulations provide a definition of a circle hook: A circle hook means a
fishing hook originally designed and manufactured so that the point of the hook is turned
perpendicularly back toward the shank to form a generally circular or oval shape. Currently,
there are no industry standards with regard to circle hook specifications, including size, degree of
circularity, gap width, wire gauge, or other measurements. As such, NMFS is unable to provide
an index of detailed hook specifications for each size circle hook that could be used in the
recreational billfish fishery, at this time. NMFS is continuing to work on a more refined hook
definition for the future. However, as per preferred alternative E3, NMFS finds that it is
appropriate to require the use of circle hooks in portions of the recreational billfish fishery at this
time in an effort to reduce post-release mortalities in the recreational billfish fishery.
Declines in post-release mortality of any overfished HMS stock would result in positive
ecological benefits. Positive ecological gains (i.e., reducing fishing mortality rates) would be
relevant to considerations in the anticipated 2007 ESA Status Listing Review for Atlantic white
marlin. As shown in Table 4.54, alternative E2 could decrease Atlantic white marlin mortalities
by between 303 to 1,297 fish annually, on average, assuming no significant changes in effort or
angler behavior, and exclusive use of natural bait/circle hook combinations. NMFS does not
expect any significant changes in effort or angler behavior, but acknowledges that not all anglers
will always use circle hooks and natural baits when J-hooks with artificial lures remain an
option. Given these assumptions, the potential ecological benefits could be somewhat below the
numbers stated above. However, given data limitations on recreational catches and releases, the
actual number of releases may be higher than those that are presented in the tables above,
thereby resulting in a larger ecological benefit than identified above. The overall ecological
impact of alternative E2 would be positive, but limited, given the relatively small contribution of
U.S. anglers to total Atlantic-wide mortality. As such, alternative E2 would likely reduce the
current Atlantic-wide fishing mortality rates for both blue or white marlin to some degree, but
would not be capable of decreasing the Atlantic-wide fishing mortality rate to Fmsy. While the
benefits of requiring circle hooks are loosely quantifiable for Atlantic white marlin, the benefits
remain unquantifiable at this time for other species. As mentioned, Skomal et al. (2002) noted
improved hooking location associated with circle hooks, which as discussed, may contribute to a
reduced post-release mortality of bluefin tuna as compared to J-hooks. Still, there are relatively
few data available on the efficacy and impacts of using circle or J-hooks on sharks, other tunas,
and swordfish, which could be used to quantify impacts on these species.
Alterative E2 would likely have limited positive ecological benefits for blue marlin given
fishing techniques for, and feeding behavior of, this species. As previously discussed, blue
marlin are typically targeted by trolling lures or rigged natural baits at high speed. As a result,
blue marlin are often mouth or foul hooked, as they aggressively strike and bat at the lures. As a
result, many anglers would likely make use of an artificial lure rigged with a J-hook when
fishing for blue marlin to improve the odds of success. This would be allowable under
alternative E2. Potential ecological benefits derived from the use of circle hooks stemming from
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-172

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

improved hooking location and reduced tissue damage may be undermined by angler actions
including offsetting hooks, or using non-traditional circle hooks which may lead to higher rates
of deep hooking and internal injury. Furthermore, as previously discussed, while Cooke and
Suski (2004) suggest that overall post-release mortality rates are often lower when using circle
hooks compared to J-hooks they also recommend that management agencies implement circle
hook requirements only in instances in which appropriate scientific data exists for similar
species.
Alternative E2 would not be expected to increase interactions with protected resources.
NMFS has little or no data showing interactions between the directed Atlantic billfish fishery and
protected species. NMFS’ HMS Management Division has received one anecdotal report of
such an interaction since late 2002. Thus, interactions between the directed Atlantic billfish
fishery and protected species appear to be extremely rare. However, this alternative may
contribute to a reduction of interactions as well as the mortality rates associated with any such
interactions that may occur based on the hooking mechanics, improved hooking location, and
decreased damage of vital tissues generally associated with the use of circle hooks.
Alternative E3, a preferred alternative, would require the use of non-offset circle hooks
by anglers fishing from HMS permitted vessels and participating in an Atlantic billfish
tournament whenever natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations are deployed,
effective January 1, 2007. Any tournament as defined under 50 CFR §635.2 that has an award
category, or awards points or prizes for Atlantic billfish is considered a billfish tournament.
Natural bait/artificial lure combinations would include, but are not limited to, rigs such as natural
baits used in combination with artificial hoods, heads, and/or skirts. This alternative would
allow the use of J-hooks with artificial lures in tournaments for the reasons discussed under
alternative E2.
As noted in Chapter 2, NMFS has made a slight technical adjustment to the phrasing of
alternative E3 in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS received public comment
expressing concern that HMS circle hook requirements may apply to all tournament participants,
even non-HMS fishermen participating in large tournaments that may have award categories for
species other than HMS. NMFS appreciates this concern and has refined the phrasing of the
alternative to more accurately reflect the intent of this alternative. NMFS did not intend, nor
mean to imply, that regulations governing 50 CFR part 635 would apply to fisheries under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Councils. It should be noted that NMFS analyzed this alternative
from the perspective of applying circle hook requirements to HMS-permitted vessels in billfish
tournaments, and as such, the change in phrasing of the alternative has no impact on the analyses
conducted herein. To reiterate, circle hook requirements implemented via this rulemaking would
apply to Atlantic HMS permitted vessels, and vessels that should possess HMS permits,
participating in Atlantic billfish tournaments and deploying natural baits or natural bait/artificial
lure combinations.
The ecological impacts of alternative E3 would be similar to those identified under
alternative E2, but would be somewhat reduced in scope. This alternative would reduce
mortality in the directed billfish fishery by reducing post-release mortality. Under alternative
E3, post-release mortality benefits would be primarily realized in the billfish tournament
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-173

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

segment of the recreational fishery, but may also be realized outside of tournaments as anglers
become comfortable and proficient with circle hooks and potentially increase their use
voluntarily outside of tournaments. Voluntary use of circle hooks outside of tournaments may
increase as a result of anglers wanting to maximize fishing experience with circle hooks to
increase their expertise with the type of hooks that would be mandated in tournaments where
they can win money. Further, many tournament anglers are viewed as leaders in the billfishing
community and as they increase their use of circle hooks, non-tournament anglers may follow
suit and increase their use as well. As such, based on RBS release data, this alternative would
likely result in a decrease of white marlin post-release mortalities by approximately 23 percent
over all, resulting in an estimated 303 (range: 141 – 508) fish released alive that would otherwise
be expected to die, on average. There would likely be unquantified positive mortality benefits
(decreased post-release mortality) for sailfish, blue marlin, tunas, sharks, and, to a lesser extent,
swordfish as well other non-HMS species with which billfish tournament anglers interact
(blackfin tuna, mahi-mahi, wahoo, etc.), resulting from improved hooking location and decreased
damage to vital tissues. See alternative E1 and E2 for more complete discussions of the impacts
of J-hooks and circle hooks on target and non-target species. The overall ecological impact of
alternative E3 would be positive, but limited, given the relatively small contribution of U.S.
anglers to total Atlantic-wide mortality. As such, alternative E3 would likely reduce, but not
reverse current trends in Atlantic-wide fishing mortality rates for both blue or white marlin and
possibly other species with which billfish tournament anglers interact. The United States will
continue to encourage other ICCAT nations to implement circle hooks in their commercial and
recreational fleets to reduce post-release mortality of billfish and other HMS. Based on the
expectation that some anglers will continue to use J-hooks when targeting Atlantic blue marlin
while participating in billfish tournaments, for the reasons described under alternative E2, the
positive ecological benefits for blue marlin would likely be less than those anticipated for white
marlin under alternative E3. As discussed under alternative E2, potential ecological benefits
derived from the use of circle hooks may be undermined by angler actions including offsetting
hooks, using non-traditionally shaped circle hooks (i.e. circle hooks in name only), and possibly
increasing drop-back time.
NMFS received substantial comment supporting and opposing implementation of this
preferred alternative. A prevalent theme contained in comments opposing mandatory circle hook
use, in all or portions of the HMS and billfish recreational fisheries, was that the recreational
sector has a minor impact on billfish populations relative to the commercial pelagic longline
fleet. As discussed more fully in the analysis for alternative E2, data reported to ICCAT indicate
that commercial fishing activities are responsible for the majority of Atlantic billfish mortality,
from an international perspective (Kerstetter, 2006). However, from a domestic perspective a
review of the data and two recent studies indicate that, in some years, the total mortality
contribution of the domestic recreational billfish fishery may equal or exceed the total mortality
contribution of the domestic pelagic longline fishery with regard to Atlantic white marlin. Please
see the discussion of this issue under alternative E2 for additional details. These conclusions
reinforce the appropriateness of implementing the preferred alternative to implement certain
circle hook requirements in billfish tournaments to reduce recreationally induced fishing
mortality.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-174

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Other comments opposing alternative E3 included suggestions that circle hook use should
remain voluntary, that NMFS should allow J-hooks to be used for pursuing Atlantic blue marlin,
that mandatory circle hook use in tournaments is not enforceable, and that mandatory circle hook
use in tournaments may have large adverse economic impacts. Circle hook use has always been
voluntary, and yet significant portions of the fishery continue to use J-hooks. Further, NMFS has
actively been encouraging the use of circle hooks in HMS Fisheries since 1999. While there has
been some progress in sectors of the fishery, anecdotal evidence suggests that substantial
portions of the recreational fishery continue using J-hooks as the standard hook. Based on public
comment from scoping and the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, as well as an examination of
post-release mortality data of blue marlin caught on J-hooks, this preferred alternative would
allow anglers on HMS permitted vessels in billfish tournaments to continue to use J-hooks with
artificial lures. This was clearly stated in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS believes
that circle hook requirements in tournaments are enforceable, and public comment received
during this rulemaking supports this. In addition to future agency efforts to enforce circle hooks,
and the increasing use of tournament observers, NMFS believes that the conservation ethic of
billfish anglers and the vested financial interests of billfish tournament participants in ensuring
that all tournament participants compete fairly under the same rules and conditions, would result
in significant self-enforcement of tournament circle hook requirements. NMFS has not seen
evidence that participation in the fishery would decrease as a result of circle hook use or result in
economic losses given that all tournaments would operate under the same set of regulations.
Importantly, circle hooks have been shown to increase catch rates of some billfish species
(Prince et al., 2002), and are, on average, slightly less expensive than J-hooks. Many comments
from both sides of the debate stated that circle hooks are effective at reducing mortality of
Atlantic billfish. With the substantial conservation benefit associated with the use of circle
hooks, recent information suggesting that the post-release mortality rate of Atlantic white marlin
caught recreationally on J-hooks is substantially higher than previous estimates, data indicating
that the mortality contribution of the recreational community toward Atlantic marlin may equal
or exceed that of the domestic pelagic longline fishery in some years (see the discussion of
alternative E2 for additional information), and the fact that circle hook requirements are already
in place in the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS believes that mandatory circle use is an
appropriate management action to implement at this time. Further, this alternative would strike
an appropriate balance between achieving conservation goals and allowing the fishery to
continue with a minimum of impacts or disruption.
Alternative E3 would not be expected to increase interactions with protected resources.
NMFS has little or no data showing interactions between the directed Atlantic billfish fishery and
protected species. NMFS’ HMS Management Division has received one anecdotal report of
such an interaction since late 2002. However, this alternative may contribute to a reduction of
interactions as well potential mortalities associated with any such interactions based on the
hooking mechanics, improved hooking location, and decreased damage of vital tissues generally
associated with the use of circle hooks.
Alternative E4(a) would increase the minimum legal size for Atlantic white marlin to a
specific size between 68 and 71 inches LJFL (172 – 180 cm) to reduce white marlin landings and
the mortalities resulting from such landings. The current minimum size for white marlin is 66
inches LJFL (167 cm) and has been in place since 1998 (63 FR 14030). The aforementioned
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-175

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

range was selected for analysis because, within a relatively small range of minimum sizes,
potentially significant reductions in landings (25 – 82 percent) may be attained (Table 4.55).
The minimum sizes analyzed represent the upper and lower limits of the sizes analyzed and do
not represent a “slot limit” for white marlin. If E4(a) were preferred, a new specific minimum
size would be implemented from within the range analyzed based on public comment, potential
reductions in landings, the need to comply with ICCAT landing limitations, and other relevant
factors. This alternative may also improve the likelihood of consistency with the ICCAT
recreational marlin landings limit. In addition, management measures implemented prior to the
2007 ESA status review for white marlin, such as increasing the minimum size to reduce
landings, would be relevant considerations during the deliberations of the status review team
when they convene.
Alternative E4(b) would increase the minimum size for blue marlin to a specific size
between 103 and 106 inches LJFL (261 – 269 cm) to reduce blue marlin landings and mortalities
resulting from landings. The current minimum size for blue marlin is 99 inches LJFL (251 cm)
and has been in place since 1998 (63 FR 14030). This range was selected for analysis because
within this relatively small range of minimum sizes, significant reductions in landings (16-36
percent) could potentially be achieved (Table 4.55). The minimum sizes analyzed represent the
upper and lower limits of the sizes analyzed and do not represent a “slot limit” for blue marlin.
If E4(b) were to be implemented, a new specific minimum size would be implemented from
within the range analyzed based on public comment, the potential reductions in fishing mortality
given the overfished status of this species, the need to comply with ICCAT landing limitations,
and other relevant factors. This alternative may improve the likelihood of consistency with the
ICCAT recreational marlin landings limit.
Alternatives E4(a) and E4(b) would both likely have limited positive ecological impacts
because increasing the minimum size would be expected to decrease landings by decreasing the
pool of legal sized fish available for landing. The extent of these benefits would be dependent on
fishing effort remaining relatively constant relative to current levels, as well as a continuation of
the widespread practice of catch and release fishing for Atlantic billfish. In addition to
potentially limiting known mortalities via reducing the number of fish landed, increasing the
minimum sizes would also ensure that a larger proportion of the billfish population attain sexual
maturity and that larger, more fecund, individuals retain the opportunity to spawn.
NMFS received public comments indicating both support and opposition to increasing
the minimum size for blue and white marlin based on the rationale of allowing more white and
blue marlin to reach sexual maturity, including, increasing the minimum size will force
fishermen to target larger, more fecund females and that the Agency should consider a slot limit
to protect these larger, more fecund, marlin. Generally speaking, the likelihood of landing a
larger, more fecund female may increase by increasing the minimum size for blue marlin. For
white marlin, however, there does not seem to be as strong of a correlation between length and
age or fecundity as white marlin will first put on length, and then weight. Weight is generally an
indicator of fecundity. However, most billfish fishermen tend to be opportunistic because the
fisheries for blue and white marlin are characterized by extremely low catch per unit effort
(CPUE) rates. These range from between 1.03 and 1.05 fish caught per hundred angler hours for
white and blue marlin, respectively. Furthermore, most billfish caught are released. Tournament
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-176

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

data between 1999 - 2004 indicate that, on average, only 8.1 and 1.8 percent of blue and white
marlin, respectively, were landed. Increasing the minimum size would not likely result in
fishermen targeting larger, more fecund females because of the opportunistic nature of this
fishery and the fact that fishermen do not necessarily apply different techniques or attempt to
“target” large versus small billfish.
NMFS received a comment asking what data were used to determine billfish size limits.
These minimum sizes were selected to reduce the number of billfish that could be landed and to
allow for female billfish to be protected from exploitation until after they have spawned.
Furthermore, for blue and white marlin these minimum sizes were selected to achieve
compliance with an ICCAT recommendation (97-09) adopted in 1997, requiring contracting
parties to reduce billfish landings by at least 25 percent by 1999. Size distributions from Atlantic
billfish tournaments held from 1995-1997 were used to analyze minimum size alternatives
contained in the 1999 HMS FMP and to determine which minimum size corresponded with a 25
percent reduction in landings. NMFS wanted to implement a minimum size that allowed blue
and white marlin to achieve the size and first maturity before potentially being removed from the
population. It is estimated that the sizes at first maturity are approximately 89–90” LJFL for
blue marlin and approximately 52” LJFL for white marlin, which are well below the current
minimum sizes. RBS landings data for the period 1999 – 2004 was used for the size analysis
contained in this document. Increasing the minimum size is not anticipated to have an effect on
post- hooking mortality of released fish because the relationship between the size of a released
fish and mortality is not known.
Table 4.55 shows the number of fish landed and cumulative proportion of total landings,
providing potential landings reductions for each size with the corresponding ranges for blue and
white marlin. Each minimum size within the range would provide unique reductions in landings
and conservation benefits. Positive ecological impacts resulting from decreased landings of blue
and white marlin increase as the minimum size is increased within the range analyzed. The
actual reduction in landings and known mortalities would be dependent on the specific minimum
size selected, and future fishing effort. Figure 4.21 and Figure 4.22 show the overall number of
tournament landings, by size (inches, LJFL), for blue and white marlin for the years 1999 - 2004
combined.
Between 1999 and 2004, RBS data indicate that there were an average of 92 and 21 blue
and white marlin that were landed above the current minimum sizes each year in tournaments,
respectively. Under this alternative, the proposed minimum size increases of 68 - 71” LJFL and
103 - 106” for white and blue marlin, respectively, could potentially reduce landings by 25 - 67
percent for white marlin and 16 - 27 percent for blue marlin relative to current minimum sizes,
based on historical data. This equates to approximately 15 - 25 blue marlin per year, on average,
that might not be landed, should the Agency implement a legal minimum size between 103 106” LJFL. Further, under this alternative, a minimum size of 68 - 71” LJFL for white marlin
could reduce landings by 6 - 14 fish during an average year. Landings in tournaments make up
the majority of landings that are reported to ICCAT in compliance with Recommendation 00-13.
In 2004, all but 3 of the 149 billfish reported to ICCAT were landed in tournaments. Some
tournaments have a minimum size that is greater than the minimum size required by NMFS and

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-177

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

do not allow the landing of billfish under a certain size that has already been landed in that
tournament.
Table 4.55

Length
(inches,
LJFL)
103
104
105
106

Cumulative number of white and blue marlin landed below each minimum size in tournaments
from 1999-2004 between the current minimum size for blue (99”) and white (66”) marlin and
the potential increased minimum sizes indicated. A minimum size would be selected between
68-71 inches for WHM and 103-106 for BUM. Source: NMFS RBS Database.
Blue Marlin
Number of Fish <
LJFL (cumulative
total greater)
88
124
149
203

Cumulative % of
Landings < or =
LJFL
16
22.5
27
36

White Marlin
Number of Fish <
LJFL (cumulative
total number greater)
31
75
82
100

Length
(Inches,
LJFL)
68
69
70
71

Cumulative % of
Landings < or =
LJFL
25
61
67
82

60

Number of Fish

50
40
30
20
10

12
5

12
3

12
1

11
9

11
7

11
5

11
3

11
1

10
9

10
7

10
5

10
3

10
1

99

0

Length (LJFL, inches)

Figure 4.21

Number of blue marlin landed in tournaments between 1999-2004 by size (inches, LJFL).
Source: NMFS RBS database.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-178

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

50
45
Number of Fish

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

0

Length (LJFL, inches)
Figure 4.22

Number of white marlin landed in tournaments between 1999-2004 by length (inches, LJFL).
Source: NMFS RBS Database.

Catch per unit effort (CPUE) data for blue and white marlin indicate that interactions
with these species are a relatively rare event, ranging from 0.5 - 1.7 interactions per 100 hours of
fishing between 1999 and 2004, as shown in Table 4.56. Mean CPUE per 100 hours for blue and
white marlin during this time period were 1.05 and 1.03, respectively. The conservation benefits
of a larger minimum size would be dependent, in part, on fishing effort and practices remaining
relatively constant. If fishing effort were to increase significantly, the number of landings could
also increase, despite increases to the minimum size. Interactions would likely also increase with
increased effort, which would likely increase the number of post-release mortalities of billfish
and other species.
Table 4.56

Catch per unit effort and numbers of blue and white marlin kept and released 1999-2004.
Source: Billfish Tournament Database, Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
Blue Marlin

White Marlin

Sailfish

Yea
r

Kept

Released
Alive

CPUE/
100 hours

Kept

Released
Alive

CPUE/
100 hours

Kept

Released
Alive

CPUE/
100 hours

1999

172

1527

1.4

36

1456

1.3

30

1907

1.6

2000

117

1467

1.1

8

975

0.7

18

2198

1.5

2001

75

1038

0.9

22

1306

1.0

11

3073

2.4

2002

84

1132

0.9

33

2207

1.7

14

3117

2.3

2003

96

1133

0.9

20

614

0.5

24

4171

3.0

2004

110

1538

1.1

25

1349

1.0

9

4467

3.2

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-179

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Alternatives E4a and E4b are aimed at reducing landings and mortalities that result from
landings for billfish, however, fishing mortality of released fish would continue to occur as a
result of physical stress and fatigue, hook induced trauma, and physical damage to the gills,
esophagus, and/or stomach even if a fish is not landed. Mortality reductions associated with
these alternatives would likely be limited, based on the relatively small decrease in the number of
fish landed as a result of an increased minimum size as well as the continuation of post-release
mortalities. As discussed under alternative E1, minimum sizes do not directly impact the level of
post-release mortality. Given the post-release mortality benefits of circle hooks, circle hook
requirements (alternative E2 or E3) in combination with this alternative could increase the
ecological benefits by reducing post-release mortalities and landings. In an attempt to reduce
post hooking mortality of all billfish, NMFS is selecting alternative E3, limiting all HMS
permitted anglers to the use of circle hooks when using live bait and participating in tournaments
that have a prize category for billfish, as a preferred alternative. For a more detailed discussion
of the merits of circle hook use compared to J hooks, see alternatives E1 through E3 above.
While NMFS cannot predict angler behavior, under alternatives E4a and E4b, anglers
may choose to reduce effort if they believe that they would be unable to land a marlin given
increased minimum sizes. This could result in unquantified positive ecological impacts for
Atlantic billfish, other HMS, and non-HMS species with which recreational billfish fishermen
interact. These potential impacts would be dependent upon significant shifts in fishing effort to
other non-billfish species. If billfish effort were shifted to other species, this reaction could have
negative ecological impacts on tunas, swordfish, sailfish, spearfish, sharks, and other species
typically interacted with, or targeted by Atlantic billfish fishermen if effort shifts to other
fisheries. As mentioned, it is not possible to predict angler response to increased minimum sizes,
so the effects are uncertain. This alternative is not anticipated to increase interactions with
protected species.
NMFS received several comments in support of increasing the minimum size for blue
and white marlin for a variety of reasons, including: compliance with the ICCAT 250 fish limit;
reducing the number of billfish that are landed on an annual basis to minimize fishing mortality
on these overfished stocks; and, allowing larger more fecund billfish to spawn again by having a
larger minimum size in place. NMFS acknowledges that, based on the number of marlin
reported as landed to the Agency, the United States is regularly and substantially below the
annual ICCAT marlin landings limit and that allowing more fecund fish (generally older, larger,
and heavier fish) to spawn may benefit the populations. Nevertheless, there is a limited
conservation benefit associated with this alternative given the current small number of landings
that are reported on an annual basis. Furthermore, alternative E6, a preferred alternative, would
implement an increase in the minimum size and possibly implement catch and release marlin
fishing, as necessary, to maintain compliance with the ICCAT landings limit.
NMFS also received numerous comments opposing an increase in the minimum size for
blue and white marlin. General themes contained within these comments included: many
tournaments already have minimum sizes larger than the current legal minimum size; white
marlin weight and length are not closely correlated for fish above 62” LJFL; circle hook
requirements will provide equal or greater ecological benefit than an increased minimum size,

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-180

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

and the fact that the United States is substantially below the ICCAT marlin landings limit on a
regular basis.
These alternatives were not preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, and no new
information has been received to alter the Agency’s previous decision. As such, the Agency
does not prefer alternatives E4(a) and E4(b) in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, at this time.
Other alternatives analyzed in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP would likely achieve the
objectives of the rulemaking, however, the Agency may consider minimum size increases in
future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Alternative E5 would implement a recreational bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per
vessel per trip. No more than one Atlantic billfish would be allowed to be possessed, retained, or
landed on, or by, a vessel regardless of the length of the trip. Alternative E5 would likely have
minimal positive ecological impacts. As discussed in the analysis for alternative E4, billfish
fisheries have some of the lowest CPUE estimates of any recreational fishery. In 2003, there
were 149,412 tournament hours of fishing resulting in 7,926 billfish being caught, or 0.024
billfish caught per angling hour. Fisher and Ditton (1992) found that billfish anglers reported an
average of 13 trips/year, ranging from 8.7 - 17.3 depending on the region. On average, each
angler landed less than one (0.7) billfish per year, or approximately 1 billfish every 1.4 years.
Data collected during the same survey found that only 11 percent of billfish caught during
respondents’ last tournament were landed (Fisher and Ditton, 1992). NMFS is aware that some
anglers continue to land multiple billfish on a single trip, however the Agency has little data on
how frequently this occurs. Anecdotal information suggests that this is a rarity for marlins, and
may occur more frequently with sailfish. In the 2005 calendar year, there were four fishing trips,
as reported to NMFS, that were known to have landed more than a single sailfish. Based on the
overall rarity of catching an Atlantic billfish that meets the minimum size requirements,
implementing a bag limit of one fish per vessel per trip would have minimal ecological benefits.
However, alternative E5 would provide additional protection to these species, which are
considered overfished with overfishing still occurring. As with alternative E4, efforts to reduce
billfish landings should be considered concurrently with other alternatives that may reduce the
post-hooking mortality of billfish via the use of alternatives to J-hooks that reduce the risk of
hooks becoming deeply ingested by billfish (alternatives E2 and E3). If anglers shifted effort to
other non-billfish species as a result of the implementation of a bag limit, it could adversely
impact these species to some unquantifiable extent.
Sailfish are often found closer to shore and travel in schools during winter months.
Therefore, the likelihood of anglers catching multiple fish during excursions, especially in areas
off the Florida Keys and Southeastern Florida, is increased. Trips landing multiple sailfish were
reported to NMFS in 2005, as noted above, however, there are no reports outside of tournaments
of vessels landing multiple Atlantic white or blue marlin during a single trip. Nevertheless,
information obtained from a brief survey of internet websites (2005) indicates that billfish
anglers have retained as many as nine billfish (sailfish) in a single trip. The CPUE for sailfish
landed in tournaments between 1999 - 2004 ranged from 1.5 - 3.2 fish per 100 hours fishing,
significantly greater than for blue or white marlin. Sailfish were determined to be overfished in
1998. The 2001 stock assessment for sailfish did not estimate MSY or the fishing mortality rate,
so it is difficult to discern the exact status of sailfish at this time. Multiple ICCAT resolutions
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-181

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

and recommendations advise that Contracting Parties should consider methods to reduce fishing
mortality rates for Atlantic billfish. Implementation of a bag limit of one billfish per vessel per
trip would be consistent with this objective by potentially reducing landings and mortalities of
Atlantic billfish with attendant positive ecological impacts.
NMFS received comments in support of alternative E5 (bag limit of one
billfish/vessel/day) stating that with strict landing limit under which the United States is
operating (250 Atlantic blue and white marlin combined), that it would be inappropriate to let
one boat come back with more than a single fish on any given day. Given that recent landings of
Atlantic blue and white marlin have been substantially below the 250 marlin limit, this issue has
not been identified as a major problem to date. However, should it become an issue, the Agency
may revisit the issue of bag limits for this or any other appropriate reason. The Agency also
received several comments opposing this alternative for various reasons, including that (in the
words of commenters): it would encourage the culling of fish [thereby possibly increasing dead
discards]; landing a few fish is not the issue; and, a bag limit will not reduce post-release
mortality of billfish unless careful handling and release guidelines are followed.
Overall, implementing a bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip is not
expected to have substantial positive ecological impacts because multi-billfish excursions,
especially for blue and white marlin, are rare events. However, if a multi-fish trip did occur, a
bag limit may prevent excessive landings on these exceptional excursions. Data suggest that
because of the extremely low catch rates that characterize the billfish fishery, implementing a
bag limit may have limited positive ecological impacts. Alternative E5, was not a preferred
alternative in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, and no new information has been received to
alter the Agency’s previous decision. As such, NMFS does not prefer alternative E5 in the Final
Consolidated HMS FMP, at this time. Other alternatives analyzed in the Consolidated HMS
FMP would likely achieve the objectives of the rulemaking, however, the Agency may consider
bag limits in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Alternative E6, a preferred alternative, would allow NMFS to implement ICCAT
recommendations pertaining to recreational marlin landing limits. Alternative E6 would
establish an in-season adjustment framework to implement ICCAT marlin landing limits, allow
for in-season changes to minimum sizes, and provide the Agency with the ability to shift the
billfish fishery to catch and release only for Atlantic marlin, if necessary, to ensure compliance
with ICCAT recommended landing limits. As noted earlier, the United States is currently
limited to landing 250 recreationally caught Atlantic blue and white marlin, combined. This
landing limit may change in the future as a result of future ICCAT recommendations.
As a contracting party to ICCAT, the United States negotiates with other contracting
parties to agree upon binding, conservation and management recommendations. Domestically,
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act authorizes the promulgation of regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to implement binding recommendations adopted by ICCAT. This
preferred alternative would directly implement ICCAT recommendation 00-13 and subsequent
recommendations modifying 00-13.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-182

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

To provide for maximum utilization of the U.S. recreational Atlantic marlin landing limit
without exceeding it, this alternative would allow NMFS to increase the legal minimum size of
blue and/or white marlin, as appropriate. The anticipated effect of an in-season minimum size
increase would be to slow landings, if necessary, and thereby reduce the probability of having to
shift to catch and release fishing only for Atlantic marlins. The ability to increase minimum size
limits in-season is intended to minimize potential disruptions in the fishery, by avoiding more
dramatic regulatory action requiring catch and release only fishing. Under this alternative, the
size range that would be made available to NMFS for in-season management actions is from 117
to 138 inches for Atlantic blue marlin and 70 to 79 inches for Atlantic white marlin. These size
ranges differ substantially from those analyzed under alternatives E4(a) and (b). The size ranges
selected for analysis under this alternative were intended to ensure compliance with the ICCAT
landing limit and would only be implemented if necessary, and once certain thresholds for action
(discussed below) were reached. They were selected to minimize the potential for further inseason disruptions to the fishery, such as a requirement to shift to catch and release only fishing.
The potential legal minimum size ranges under alternatives E4(a) and (b) were analyzed for
general year round implementation as a means to reduce overall landings and mortalities.
The need for action and the specific minimum size temporarily implemented would be
based upon a review of landings, time remaining until conclusion of the current fishing year,
current and historical landings trends, and any other relevant factors. As a backstop to ensure
that U.S. actions remain consistent with the ICCAT landing limit, the fishery would become
catch and release only for the remainder of a fishing year if the landing limit was achieved. If
marlin minimum sizes were increased to slow landings during a given fishing year, they would
revert back to the previous minimum size at the start of the next fishing season.
Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, NMFS would automatically subtract any
overharvest from the subsequent fishing year’s landing limit, and may carry forward
underharvest to the subsequent fishing year. To increase or decrease the annual 250 marlin
landings limit as a result of carrying forward future over or underharvest of Atlantic marlins the
Agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register. To increase or decrease the 250 marlin
recreational landing limit as a result of a new ICCAT recommendation, would require
rulemaking under this preferred alternative. NMFS received comment recommending that the
Agency automatically carry forward any underharvest to the following management period. As
noted above, this alternative allows for carry-forward of underharvest to occur. However, given
the uncertainty surrounding landings of Atlantic marlin in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Caribbean, the United States has made a commitment not to carry forward
underharvest until such time as this uncertainty is resolved.
Alternative E6 would likely have minor positive ecological benefits if implemented on its
own. This conclusion holds true whether examined under the existing June 1 – May 31 fishing
year management scenario or under the preferred alterative (alternative G2) to shift billfish
management to a calendar year management cycle (January 1 – December 31) management
cycle. This alternative could reduce mortalities of Atlantic billfish by reducing the mortality
associated with landings. The U.S. landings (inclusive of dead discards) of Atlantic blue and
white marlin averaged 2.4 percent and 4.5 percent (respectively) of aggregate Atlantic-wide
landings for these species, as reported to ICCAT for the period 1999 - 2004. The total
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-183

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

contribution of the U.S. recreational fleet to aggregate Atlantic-wide marlin mortality has not
been definitively quantified, but may be larger than previously estimated based on new postrelease mortality estimates for white marlin, as discussed under the analyses for alternatives E2
and E3. Since ICCAT adopted the recommendation containing the U.S. recreational limit in
2001, reported U.S. recreational marlin landings have ranged from a high of 279 in 2002 to a low
of 136 in 2003, averaging 189 fish per annum. Details can be seen in Table 4.48.
Based on known landings, the ecological benefits of this alternative are likely limited
given that during the period 2001 through 2004, the United States has averaged 189
recreationally landed marlins, or approximately 75 percent of the landing limit each year, and
that in two of those four years, the United States was more than 100 marlin, or the equivalent of
40 percent, below the U.S. landing limit. However, the relative benefits of this alternative could
increase if recreational landings increased substantially. NMFS received comment on the limited
ecological impact of this alternative that was categorized into two opposing views and which
suggested two different courses of action. Some commenters suggested that the limited
ecological impact was not worth any potential adverse economic impact, even a very limited one,
while other commenters suggested that the United States must implement the 250 marlin limit to
live up to U.S. international obligations and as part of a strategy to implement appropriate
measures to help limit billfish mortality. Implementation of this preferred alternative is
anticipated to allow the United States to continue to successfully pursue international marlin
conservation measures by fully implementing U.S. international obligations and potentially
provide minor ecological impacts.
Alternative E6 may prevent future landings in excess of the ICCAT landing limit, and
therefore may prevent future increases in mortalities associated with known landings. Again,
this statement holds true for either the Fishing Year or Calendar Year management cycle.
However, because a landing limit cannot directly control effort or post-release mortality, this
alternative cannot directly control fishing mortality, which may increase or decrease with
changing effort and fishing practices despite domestic implementation of the ICCAT landing
limit. This alternative is not anticipated to have any impact on interactions with protected
resources or impact other non-billfish species, but cannot prevent such changes if fishing effort
changes to other species. Alternative E6 may result in limited impacts on the landings, discards,
and interactions with other HMS, and other finfish species such as dolphin fish, king mackerel,
and wahoo that are frequently encountered by HMS fishermen. Positive or negative ecological
impacts may occur for these species, and would depend on whether or not the threshold for
management action is achieved and subsequent angler response. However, no impacts are
anticipated in the near future because, based on the current marlin accounting methodology used
for compliance purposes and the widespread practice of catch and release fishing for billfish (75
to 99 percent), it seems unlikely that the threshold for action would be reached. Nevertheless, as
noted above, the likelihood of achieving the threshold for action could change with changes in
effort, compliance with reporting requirements, or improved accuracy of accounting
methodologies.
Under both the Calendar Year or Fishing Year management cycles, alternative E6 may
provide minor positive ecological benefits if minimum size increases or catch and release only
fishing requirements were implemented for Atlantic blue and white marlin as a result of the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-184

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

threshold for management action being achieved under this alternative. Impacts on non-billfish
species, in terms of landings and post-release mortality may remain the same, increase, or
decrease depending on angler response to increased minimum sizes and/or a shift to catch and
release only fishing. Given the widespread practice of catch and release fishing for billfish, as
discussed in detail under alternative E1, it is likely that most billfish anglers would continue to
expend effort fishing for Atlantic marlins, which would result in some level of landings and
continuing post-release mortalities under increased minimum sizes or a shift to a catch and
release only fishery. Assuming no change in effort or angler behavior given current catch and
release rates in the fishery, there would likely be little change in the ecological impacts from the
status quo. Alternatively, anglers may reduce effort if they believe that they would be unable to
land a billfish given a minimum size increase, or would be prohibited from landing a marlin
given a landings prohibition. This could result in unquantifiable ecological benefits for Atlantic
billfish, other HMS, and non-HMS species with which recreational billfish fishermen interact.
Further, it is also possible that anglers may shift effort to other non-marlin species. This
response could increase negative ecological impacts on tunas, swordfish, sailfish, spearfish,
sharks, and other species with which Atlantic billfish fishermen typically interact. In
conjunction with alternative E3, alternative E6 could expand ecological benefits to Atlantic
billfish by reducing post-release mortality and limiting mortalities associated with landings to
levels consistent with ICCAT landing limits. Further, the United States may benefit from
increased negotiating leverage at ICCAT, and thus allow for more rapid development and
implementation of additional international management measures, as deemed appropriate by
ICCAT. Positive ecological benefits, specifically reducing fishing mortality, would be relevant
considerations in the anticipated 2007 ESA Status Listing Review for white marlin.
Alternative E7 was a preferred alternative in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP;
however, it is not preferred in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. This alternative would allow
only catch and release fishing for Atlantic white marlin effective January 1, 2007 through
December 31, 2011. Possession and retention of Atlantic white marlin would be prohibited at all
times and under all circumstances by all U.S. flagged vessels. This provision would expire five
years from the effective date unless specifically extended by NMFS.
The ecological impacts of eliminating recreational landings of white marlin can be
estimated from U.S. landings reported to ICCAT, as well as other domestic fisheries surveys.
Alternative E7 would reduce mortalities of white marlin by eliminating mortalities associated
with landings. The reported U.S. white marlin landings for 2001 - 2004 can be seen in Table
4.48. In 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, there were 116, 88, 23, and 31, respectively, white marlin
reported landed in the U.S. Atlantic billfish fishery. The 2004 billfish landings reported to
ICCAT were based on tournament reports and MRFSS intercepts. Because non-compliance with
many reporting requirements is known to be occuring, NMFS considers all billfish self-reported
statistics to be minimum estimates with an unquantified bias toward low estimates. Fishing
surveys, such as MRFSS and the LPS, discussed above, provide additional data useful for
estimating landings of Atlantic billfish (Table 4.50 and Table 4.51). The MRFSS survey
includes HMS, however, it was not designed for these species, which are considered “rare event”
species as compared to other recreationally caught species. The LPS survey was designed to
intercept HMS fisheries, but because it does not operate in all Atlantic coastal states and operates
for only a portion of the year, it is only a subset of aggregate U.S Atlantic landings. The recent
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-185

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

LPS white marlin landings estimates are in some instances substantially lower, and in other
instances substantially higher, than those tabulated directly from observed landings. This is a
result of extrapolating landings from survey intercepts. A more complete discussion of landings
databases is provided in the analysis of alternative E1. For the years 1999 through 2004, the LPS
estimated landings of white marlin were six, four, four, 218, 365, and 78, respectively.
Additionally, as discussed above, the United States is currently limited to 250 blue and white
marlin landings (combined) annually by ICCAT. This recommendation was adopted in 2000 and
entered into force in 2001.
Alternative E7 would likely provide limited ecological benefits to Atlantic-wide white
marlin stocks by itself, given the limited number of landings. Under this alternative, a large
portion of the fish currently landed would likely be conserved, however estimates vary. Table
4.48 through Table 4.50 provides the potential range of mortality reductions that could be
achieved if alternative E7 was implemented. Impacts on other species with which HMS
fishermen typically interact would depend on angler response to a catch and release fishery for
white marlin. Anglers are likely to respond in three ways: 1) no change in effort or target
species; 2) decreased effort; and, 3) shift target species. If angler behavior does not change to
any appreciable extent, NMFS anticipates that the impacts would be similar to those as discussed
under alternative E1. If anglers respond by decreasing effort, alternative E7 could result in
positive ecological impacts for HMS and other species by potentially reducing landings and
interactions, which could reduce post-release mortality. If anglers respond by shifting effort to
other target species, such as sailfish, blue marlin, dolphin, and wahoo, this alternative may result
in increased landings and interactions with these and other species. NMFS received public
comment indicating that if white marlin landings were prohibited, tournaments and fishermen
would likely increase fishing effort on blue marlin. Data are unavailable to allow quantification
of these impacts, nevertheless, any one or any combination of the aforementioned responses and
their attendant impacts are possible. However, as stated above, the impacts are likely to be
limited given current angler ethics as demonstrated by high levels of participation in catch and
release fishing, as shown in Table 4.49, Table 4.50, and Table 4.51, which range from 75.8 to
99.4 percent.
Alternative E7 cannot, by itself, reduce post-release mortalities of white marlin. As such,
all mortality gains would be expected to occur through the reduction in landings. However, as
discussed in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, alternative E7, if used in conjunction with
alternative E3 (mandatory use of circle hooks in billfish tournaments), could substantially
expand possible ecological benefits by reducing landings to zero and considerably reducing the
post-release mortality of recreationally captured white marlin. If alternatives E7 and E3 were
selected and proven effective, the United States may also benefit from an improved negotiating
position at ICCAT. Positive ecological gains, specifically reducing fishing mortality, would also
be relevant considerations during the anticipated 2007 ESA Status Listing Review for white
marlin.
NMFS received strong public comment opposed to the Atlantic white marlin catch and
release alternative. Based on public comment that indicated more significant concerns over
potential adverse economic impacts to the fishery if catch and release only fishing for Atlantic
white marlin were required, as well as a number of other factors, including but not limited to, the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-186

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

impending receipt of a new stock assessment for Atlantic white marlin and upcoming
international negotiations on Atlantic marlin, NMFS is not preferring to prohibit landings of
Atlantic white marlin at this time. Additionally, the Agency received substantial comment in
support of this measure. The commenters supporting the landings prohibition stated concerns
over white marlin stock status, the ESA listing review, and an interest in maintaining leadership
at the international level. The implementation of circle hook requirements (alternative E3)
would be an important first step in reducing mortality in the directed billfish fishery. NMFS will
consider catch and release only fishing options for Atlantic white marlin as well as other billfish
conservation measures in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Alternative E8 would allow catch and release only fishing for Atlantic blue marlin
effective January 1, 2007. This provision would sunset five years from date of implementation
unless specifically extended by NMFS. This alternative would prohibit the possession, retention,
and landing of Atlantic blue marlin at all times and under all circumstances by all U.S.-flagged
vessels. The ecological benefits of eliminating recreational landings of blue marlin can be
estimated from U.S. landings reported to ICCAT, as well as other domestic fisheries surveys.
The reported U.S. blue marlin landings for 2001 - 2004 can be seen in Table 4.48. In 2001,
2002, 2003, and 2004, there were 77, 191, 113, and 118 respectively, blue marlin reported landed
in the U.S. Atlantic billfish fishery. As discussed above, in 2004, billfish landings reported to
ICCAT were based on tournament reports and MRFSS intercepts. Because non-compliance with
many reporting requirements is known to occur, NMFS considers all billfish self-reported
statistics to be minimum estimates with an unquantified bias toward low estimates. Fishing
surveys, such as MRFSS and the LPS, discussed above, provide additional data useful for
estimating landings of Atlantic billfish (Table 4.50 and Table 4.51). The recent LPS blue marlin
landings estimates are lower than those calculated directly from observed landings. For the years
1999 through 2004, the LPS estimated landings of blue marlin were three, zero, zero, zero, 101,
and 45, respectively. Additionally, as discussed above, the United States is currently limited to
250 blue and white marlin landings (combined) annually by ICCAT.
Alternative E8 would likely provide some ecological benefits to blue marlin stocks,
however, with the ICCAT marlin landings limit and the currently low recreational landings rate
for the species, NMFS believes this alternative would likely provide limited ecological benefits.
Alternative E8 would reduce mortalities of blue marlin by eliminating mortalities associated with
landings. Under this alternative, a large portion of the fish currently landed would likely be
conserved, however estimates vary. Alternative E8 cannot, by itself, reduce post-release
mortalities of Atlantic blue marlin. As such, all mortality gains would likely occur through the
reduction in landings.
As with alternative E7, impacts on other species with which HMS fishermen typically
interact would depend on angler response to a catch and release fishery for blue marlin. Anglers
are likely to respond in three ways: (1) no change in effort or target species; (2) decreased effort;
and, (3) shift target species. If angler behavior does not change to any appreciable extent, NMFS
anticipates that the impacts would be similar to those as discussed under alternative E1. If
anglers respond by decreasing effort, alternative E8 could result in positive ecological impacts
for HMS and other species by potentially reducing landings and interactions, which could reduce
post-release mortality. If anglers respond by shifting effort to other target species, such as
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-187

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

sailfish, white marlin, dolphin, and wahoo, this alternative may result in increased landings and
interactions with these and other species. Data are unavailable to allow quantification of these
impacts, however, any one or any combination of the aforementioned responses and their
attendant impacts are likely. However, as stated above, the impacts are likely to be limited given
current angler ethics as demonstrated by high levels of participation in catch and release fishing,
as shown in Table 4.49, Table 4.50, and Table 4.51, which range from 75.8 to 99.4 percent.
Additionally, as discussed in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, this alternative, if used
in conjunction with alternative E3 (mandatory use of circle hooks in billfish tournaments), could
maximize the ecological benefits by reducing landings to zero and substantially reducing the
post-release mortality of recreationally captured blue marlin. If alternatives E8 and E3 were
selected and proven effective, the United States may benefit from an improved negotiating
position at ICCAT.
This alternative was analyzed but not preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP or
Final Consolidated HMS FMP due to potentially substantial negative social and economic
impacts, public comment, and other reasons. Nevertheless, the Agency may consider catch and
release only options for Atlantic blue marlin as well as other billfish conservation measures in
future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate. The United States will continue its efforts to
reduce billfish mortality both domestically and at the international level. NMFS has preferred an
alternative that would fully implement U.S. international obligations as per ICCAT
Recommendation 00-13 and subsequent amendments to it. Additionally, the Agency has
alternative E3, which would require the use of non-offset circle hooks in Atlantic billfish
tournaments by HMS permitted vessels when deploying natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure
combinations, to reduce post release mortality of billfish stocks.
Social and Economic Impacts
Alternative E1, the No Action alternative would likely have no adverse short-term
economic impacts. Ditton and Stoll (2003) conservatively estimate the aggregate economic
impact of billfish fishing trips in the U.S. Atlantic to be $22.7 million annually, not including
Puerto Rico. Please see Section 3.5.2 for additional discussion of the economic status of the
directed billfish fishery.
As of February 1, 2006, there were 25,238 HMS Angling category permits, 4,173 CHB
category permit holders, and 4,824 General category permits which represent the number of
vessels that are legally authorized to participate in the Atlantic billfish fishery. General category
permit holders are eligible to fish for, retain, or posses, Atlantic billfish only when participating
in a registered HMS tournament. The number of Angling category permit holders, and possibly
the number of CHB category permit holders, is thought to be considerably below the number of
vessels that should be permitted. See Section 3.9 of this document for additional detail regarding
permitting issues. Further, because HMS Angling, CHB, and General category permits are
vessel permits and any given vessel could have multiple anglers on board, the number of vessel
permits underestimates the actual number of fishery participants. Given the multi-species nature
of HMS Angling and CHB permits, and the fact that vessels are permitted rather than individual
anglers, NMFS does not have the ability to identify what subset of these permitted vessels, or
how many anglers, engage in billfishing based on the best scientific information available.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-188

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Ditton and Stoll (2003) estimated that there are 7,915 billfish anglers in the U.S. Atlantic and
1,627 billfish anglers in Puerto Rico.
Alternative E1 would likely result in a continuation of the fishery consistent with current
operating patterns. It would not be expected to alter participation rates of private anglers,
demand for CHB trips, or to impact participation in billfish tournaments. Alternative E1 would
not likely result in any change or redistribution of fishing effort in the short-term or impact hook
manufactures, retailers, or other small businesses associated with the recreational billfish fishery.
Alternative E2 would likely have limited adverse social and economic impacts. As
discussed in Section 3.9.4, there were 25,238 HMS Angling category permits, 4,173 CHB
category permit holders, and 4,824 General category permits as of February 1, 2006. This
represents the universe of vessels that could be impacted by circle hook requirements under
alternative E2. However, given that these are vessel permits, it is not possible to quantify the
number of individual fishermen participating in HMS Fisheries who may be impacted by circle
hook requirements.
Hooks employed by recreational anglers while pursuing HMS typically range in size
from 5/0 to 14/0 for J-hooks and 7/0 to 20/0 for circle hooks. A limited survey of hook prices
(Summer 2005) indicated that J-hooks of the sizes and styles used by HMS recreational
fishermen ranged in price from a low of $0.50 to a high of $7.50 each, with an average price of
$2.70. Similarly, circle hooks of the sizes and styles used by HMS recreational fishermen ranged
in price from a low of $0.30 to a high of $7.00 each, with an average price of $2.24. A
comparison of the two indicates that anglers could, on average, save approximately $0.46 for
every circle hook purchased for use in place of a J-hook, if mandatory circle hook requirements
were implemented in HMS fisheries. As such, initial purchases of circle hooks to comply with
circle hook requirements would represent a minor economic cost, however, over the long-term,
circle hook requirements associated with this alternative may result in a minor economic
benefits, assuming the price differential between circle and J-hooks remains stable.
Nevertheless, the purchase of hooks represents only a minor capital expenditure relative to other
costs associated with participating in this fishery, including purchasing, equipping, maintaining,
and running of vessels, which can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. As
such, any potential economic impacts, either positive or negative, stemming from the purchase
hooks are likely to be de minimus in nature. As previously discussed, NMFS cannot quantify the
number of impacted anglers. Further, the quantity of hooks purchased by individual anglers
varies widely from the occasional angler to those who fish regularly, and as a result of these
factors, NMFS cannot estimate an aggregate economic cost. The delay in implementation of
circle hook requirements, specifically requested by HMS and Billfish Advisory Panel members
and the public, would be anticipated to allow hook manufacturers, retailers, and anglers adequate
time to utilize current inventories and alter production rates of J-hooks, thereby minimizing any
potential adverse economic impacts associated with alternative E2.
Alternative E2 may result in a temporary decrease in angler consumer surplus given
anticipated or real loss of fish as fishermen adjust to and become more proficient with the use of
circle hooks. However, Prince et al. (2002) found that circle hooks were actually 1.83 times
more likely to hook a sailfish than a J-hook, and that once hooked, the catch percentage was
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-189

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

virtually identical for each type of terminal gear. Skomal et al. (2002) reported similar findings
with bluefin tuna, stating that catching success was similar for the two hook types. Skomal et al.
found that 68 percent of recorded J-hook bites and 74 percent of circle hook bites resulted in
landed tuna. Taken in combination, data from these studies suggest that there could potentially
be an increase in angler consumer surplus as a result of increased catches, and that any loss of
angler consumer surplus may be due to a perceived loss of fish, as opposed to a real loss of fish.
However, the true effect of circle hooks on catch rates is not known for other HMS species. Any
reduction of angler consumer surplus could be mitigated to an extent by the ability of anglers to
continue to utilize J-hooks with artificial lures under alternative E2. In addition, the phase-in
period associated with this alternative would allow anglers time to become comfortable and
proficient with circle hook use prior to mandatory implementation, further mitigating any
potential loss of angler consumer surplus. NMFS received public comment voicing concern that
circle hooks may decrease catches of some HMS or non-highly migratory species. The
Northeast Distant Statistical Area (NED) Circle Hooks study shows that deployment of circle
hooks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery can result in a decrease in the number of
swordfish caught under some oceanographic conditions, however, NMFS has only limited data
on the impact of circle hooks in the recreational swordfish fishery or other recreationally caught
non-HMS species and potential socio-economic effects. NMFS is aware of these concerns and
will examine this issue as data becomes available.
Impacts on tournaments would likely be minimal, given the increase in the number of
tournaments that provide special award categories or additional points for billfish captured and
released on circle hooks. However, it is possible that there could be a decrease in tournament
participation and demand for CHB trips, as well as trips taken by individual anglers based on real
or perceived declines in catch under this alternative. NMFS cannot predict angler behavior with
regard to participation in tournaments, demand for CHB trips, or trips taken by individual anglers
in reaction to potential circle hook requirements. As such, if any tournaments are cancelled,
demand for CHB trips decreases, or trips taken by individual anglers decline as a result of circle
hook requirements, there could be some unquantified economic costs depending on the size of
the tournament or the number of CHB trips or individual angling trips that are not taken.
While there may be an initial decrease in angler consumer surplus, alternative E2 may
provide long-term positive benefits with regard to increased angler consumer surplus and
willingness to pay if circle hooks contribute to rebuilding efforts and result in increased
encounter rates. However, given the limited contribution of U.S. fishermen to aggregate
Atlantic-wide catches of billfish, the Atlantic-wide benefits to billfish populations of alternative
E2 may be limited. This alternative may enhance the United States’ negotiating position at
ICCAT by demonstrating the United States’ commitment to the conservation of recreationally
caught HMS at a time when other ICCAT nations are beginning to determine the extent of their
domestic recreational fisheries. Improved negotiating position at ICCAT may allow for the more
rapid implementation of recreational circle hook requirements Atlantic-wide. Alternative E2
may be difficult to enforce given the ability of anglers to possess both circle and J-hooks onboard
at the same time.
The economic and social costs and benefits of alternative E3, a preferred alternative, are
anticipated to be similar to, but reduced from the estimated impacts discussed under alternative
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-190

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

E2. As discussed more fully under the ecological analysis for this alternative, NMFS has made a
slight technical adjustment in the phrasing of alternative E3 in this Final Consolidated HMS
FMP to clarify the universe of affected anglers. NMFS analyzed this alternative from the
perspective of applying non-offset circle hook requirements to HMS-permitted vessels in billfish
tournaments in the Draft and Final Consolidated HMS FMP, and as such the change in phrasing
of the alternative has no impact on the analyses conducted herein.
NMFS also received comment during scoping and the public comment period for the
Draft Consolidated HMS FMP that tournament operators would need advance notice of
impending circle hook regulations to allow for changes in the production of rules and
advertising, and to inform tournament participants of potential circle hook requirements. Given
the severe impacts of the 2005 hurricane season, NMFS substantially extended the public
comment period and delayed the anticipated publication date of the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP. In the meantime, NMFS surveyed a number of tournament operators in the Atlantic, Gulf
of Mexico and Caribbean to better understand various aspects of tournament operations. NMFS
determined that a delayed date of effectiveness of between four and six months would likely
provide adequate time for tournament operators and participants to adjust tournament rules,
formats, and advertising, as necessary, as well as to notify anglers of changes, and allow anglers
to adjust fishing practices and take other steps appropriate to minimize any potential costs
created by a shift to non-offset circle hooks in billfish tournaments. As such, given the
anticipated publication date for the Final Consolidated HMS FMP of July 2006, and the
anticipated publication date for the Final Rule of August 2006, NMFS prefers to maintain the
effective date of January 1, 2007, for preferred alternative E3. This effective date is consistent
with the effective date for preferred alternative E3 as contained in the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP.
Vessels with HMS Angling, CHB, or General category permits that participate in Atlantic
billfish tournaments represent the universe of potentially affected vessels of alternative E3.
However, given the multi-species nature of the HMS permits and the fishery itself, it is not
possible to accurately quantify the subpopulation of billfish anglers. Further, NMFS is not able
to quantify the exact number of anglers or vessels participating in tournaments that may be
impacted. On average, for the period 1999 – 2004, 47 vessels participated per tournament,
however the average varies by month and state from 14 to 131. In 2003 and 2004, there were
244 and 214 registered HMS tournaments, respectively. These figures include all HMS
tournaments, including billfish and non-billfish tournaments. On average for the period 1999 2004, there were approximately 149 U.S. billfish tournaments annually, ranging from a low of
118 to a high of 179, in any given year, based on RBS data. However, combining the number of
tournaments with the average number of vessels per tournaments is not a reliable indicator of
how many individual vessels participated in tournaments because many vessels participate in
multiple tournaments each year. It is possible, but unlikely, that alternative E3 could result in
decreased tournament participation based on real or perceived declines in catches. Tournament
participation would not be expected to decrease given the high rates of participation in catch and
release fishing and the continued availability of fish for landing under this alternative. Further,
as discussed under the analysis of alternative E2, circle hooks have been found to actually
improve the likelihood of catching some HMS, including some species of billfish. Economic
costs to tournaments would likely be minimal, given the increase in the number of all release
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-191

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

tournaments, and tournaments that provide special award categories or additional points for
billfish captured and released on circle hooks. As previously discussed, NMFS cannot predict
angler behavior with regard to participation in tournaments, demand for CHB trips, or trips taken
by individual anglers in reaction to potential circle hook requirements. As such, if any
tournaments are cancelled, demand for CHB trips decreases, or trips taken by individual anglers
decline as a result of circle hook requirements, there could be some unquantified adverse impacts
depending on the size of the tournament or the number of CHB trips that may not be taken.
NMFS received public comment voicing concern that proposed billfish tournament circle
hook requirements may decrease catches of some HMS or other species that are landed for prize
money. The NED circle hook study shows that deployment of circle hooks in the commercial
pelagic longline fishery can result in a decrease in the number of swordfish caught under some
oceanographic conditions, however, NMFS has little data on the impact of circle hooks in the
recreational swordfish fishery or on other recreationally caught non-HMS species and associated
potential socio-economic costs or effects. Importantly, it should be realized that all permitted
billfish tournament anglers would be operating under the same Federal regulations, and thus,
contrary to concerns expressed by some anglers, there should be no competitive disadvantage
relative to one another. Furthermore, the preferred alternative would specifically allow for the
deployment of J-hooks with artificial lures in billfish tournaments, which should mitigate some
concerns regarding a decrease in catches.
The minor initial economic costs associated with compliance costs of circle hook
requirements, and the potential minor long-term positive economic benefit (savings) of
approximately $0.46 per hook purchased by anglers for use in HMS fisheries, as discussed under
the analysis for alternative E2, would only apply to billfish tournament participants under
alternative E3. Billfish tournament participants may be impacted to a slightly greater degree by
this requirement, as tournament participants tend to be regular participants in the billfish fishery,
and are likely to purchase more hooks than the occasional billfish fisher. Again, however, the
purchase of hooks represents only a minor capital expenditure relative to other capital costs in
the fishery, including the purchase, equipping, and maintenance of vessels, and tournament
registration fees, and thus, the costs are considered de minimus.
Impacts of alternative E3 on hook manufactures, retailers, and anglers would likely be
limited given that J-hooks would continue to be permitted outside of tournaments, and when
using artificial lures in tournaments. As discussed under alternative E2, the delay in
implementation of circle hook requirements, specifically requested by HMS and Billfish
Advisory panel members and the public during public comment, should allow hook
manufacturers, retailers, tournament operators, and anglers adequate time to adjust business
practices, become proficient in the use of circle hooks, and utilize current inventories of J-hooks,
thereby reducing any economic costs associated with alternative E2. Alternative E3, consistent
with the analysis of alternative E2, may result in a temporary decrease or increase in angler
consumer surplus, and may result in a long-term increase in angler consumer surplus should this
alternative assist in the recovery of Atlantic marlin. Also similar to alternative E2, alternative E3
may result in improved negotiating position at ICCAT, potentially speeding the implementation
of recreational circle hooks requirements through ICCAT. As with alternative E2, alternative E3
could present enforcement problems, however, NMFS is confident that between Agency efforts
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-192

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

to enforce circle hooks, the increasing use of tournament observers, the conservation ethic of
billfish anglers, and the vested financial self-interests of billfish tournament participants in
ensuring that all tournament participants compete fairly under the same rules and conditions,
high levels of compliance would be expected.
Alternatives E4a and E4b would increase the minimum size for blue and white marlin,
likely reducing the number of legally landed blue and white marlin, respectively. NMFS cannot
predict angler behavior, and so cannot be sure if these measures would or would not affect angler
participation rates. As previously discussed, catch and release rates are already quite high in the
billfish fishery, with anglers often keeping only trophy-sized fish. As such, an increase in
minimum sizes is not anticipated to dissuade any substantial portion of billfish anglers from
pursuing Atlantic marlins. Furthermore, since many tournament organizers already stipulate
higher minimum sizes than current Federal regulations, any potential decrease in angler
participation, and resultant economic impacts, would likely be minor. Further, increased
minimum sizes do not reduce the number of fish available for landing, simply the odds of
landing a fish. As such, anglers could continue to pursue and land marlins, should they choose
to, given that the ICCAT landing limit would not be impacted by alternative E4. Table 4.49
indicates that between 1999 and 2004, 92, 98, and 99.4 percent of blue marlin, white marlin, and
sailfish were released in tournaments, respectively. Fisher and Ditton (1992) conducted a survey
of 1,984 billfish anglers and found that these anglers, on average, released 89 percent of billfish
depending on the region (range = 74-95 percent). Further, Ditton and Oh (2004) found that some
anglers were willing to pay an additional $71 (2004 dollars) to participate in catch and release
fisheries. This reinforces NMFS’ belief that there would not likely be any substantial adverse
socio-economic impacts stemming from an increased minimum legal size limit of the ranges
analyzed under alternatives E4(a) and (b).
High catch and release rates coupled with low CPUE for billfish indicate that an increase
in the minimum size of four to seven inches for blue marlin and three to seven inches for white
marlin would have negligible impacts on angler participation. Fisher and Ditton (1992) also
found that 60 percent of respondents either agree or strongly agree with increased minimum
sizes. Eighty-one percent of anglers interviewed stated that that the minimum size limits
implemented in 1988 had no effect on their billfishing activity. The Agency received comments
during the formulation of Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (NMFS, 1999) indicating that
increasing the minimum size limits would be preferable to implementing bag limits if additional
management action is necessary. If angler participation remains consistent, negative social and
economic effects or costs would likely be minor as a result of increasing the minimum size for
blue or white marlin.
Alternative E5, establishing a bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip, would
likely have minor economic costs. Recreational billfish fisheries have very low CPUE rates,
however, it is believed that participation in these fisheries continues to expand. Because of the
rarity of catching a billfish and the conservative minimum sizes in place, the chances of landing
more than one white or blue marlin on a single trip are low. Sailfish are somewhat of an
exception, in that during certain times of the year at several locales off the coast of Florida,
anglers may have the opportunity to catch and land several sailfish that meet the minimum size
requirements in one trip.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-193

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Fisher and Ditton (1992) indicate that 77 percent of anglers would not change their
fishing behaviour if a bag limit of one billfish were implemented. Based on this and the high
levels of catch and release fishing in the recreational billfish fishery, as the fishery continues to
expand it is reasonable to assume that anglers would maintain current levels of participation
based on the opportunity of catching and possibly landing one trophy billfish. A bag limit of
zero billfish, or implementing catch and release only might affect angler behavior more because
anglers would no longer have that opportunity to catch an exceptionally large billfish, which is
afforded by a one billfish bag limit.
Furthermore, since this is largely a catch and release fishery, both within and outside of
tournaments, NMFS assumes that implementing a bag limit would not deter anglers from
participating in billfish excursions, likely minimizing the negative impacts to CHB operators.
However, it is possible that there would be an unquantifiable decrease in demand for CHB trips
if not all individual anglers on a given trip would have the opportunity to land a billfish. As
such, multi-angler, multi-day trips could be impacted to a greater extent than day trips if
alternative E5 were selected as a preferred alternative.
Tournament participation would not be expected to decrease in a substantial manner as
tournament rules often prohibit participants from entering more than one marlin per day, which
would also likely prevent participants from possessing multiple fish. The high catch and release
ratio indicates that the majority of billfish anglers are more interested in the experience of
“hooking” a billfish rather than landing a billfish. If anglers continue to take marlin trips, as
anticipated, then many of the economic costs associated with the landing limit would be minimal
or non-existent.
Alternative E5 would be anticipated to assist the United States in maintaining compliance
with the 250 fish limit adopted by ICCAT. Eliminating the opportunity for vessels to land
several blue and/or white marlin would decrease the likelihood of overages, closures, or
increases in the minimum size that may occur as a result of achieving the threshold for action
described in alternative E6. However, since multiple landings of blue marlin and white marlin
are rare, a bag limit in and of itself may not guarantee compliance.
Alternative E6, which would implement ICCAT recreational marlin landing limits, is
anticipated to potentially result in minimal to moderate economic costs depending on catch rates,
angler response, and which of the available in-season management actions (no action, minimum
size increase, or catch and release only) become necessary. As discussed under the analysis of
the ecological impacts of this preferred alternative, and consistent with ICCAT
recommendations, NMFS would automatically subtract any overharvest from the subsequent
fishing year’s landing limit, and may carry forward underharvest to the subsequent fishing year.
To increase or decrease the annual 250 marlin landings limit as a result of carrying forward
future over or underharvest of Atlantic marlins the Agency will publish a notice in the Federal
Register. To increase or decrease the 250 marlin recreational landing limit as a result of a new
ICCAT recommendation, would require rulemaking under this preferred alternative.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-194

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Available historical data suggest it is unlikely that the United States will achieve the 250
marlin landing limit in the near future. (See Table 4.48 for historical landings data, as reported
to ICCAT.) As noted under alternative E1, between 2001 and 2004 (inclusive), the United States
remained substantially below the ICCAT landing limit with the exception of 2002, when a postfishing year adjustment to accounting methodologies indicated a small one-time exceedance of
the landing limit. At the 2004 ICCAT meeting, the United States reported landing 131 marlin
(108 blue marlin, 23 white marlin) based on data from the RBS, landings cards from the States of
North Carolina and Maryland, and self-reported non-tournament landed fish. RBS data
represented roughly 88 percent of marlin landings reported to ICCAT in 2004. At the 2005
ICCAT meeting the United States reported 149 blue and white marlin combined (118 blue
marlin; 31 white marlin). However, the likelihood of achieving the 250 fish limit may change
with improved accuracy in quantifying domestic recreational billfish landings. Further, given the
open access nature of the fishery, and relatively low compliance with self-reporting
requirements, it is possible for documented landings to increase if effort increases and/or if
compliance improves with reporting requirements.
There are several unknowns that currently make an assessment of the socio-economic
impacts of alternatives E6 difficult to quantify. These include uncertainty regarding total marlin
landings, uncertainty regarding the number of marlin fishermen and absolute effort, uncertainty
regarding changes in angler behavior when faced with increased minimum sizes or a catch and
release only fishery, and limited socio-economic data. As such, the analysis presented in this
Consolidated Final HMS FMP is based on the best available data, and makes use of proxies in
the discussions of scenarios two and three below, to assist in evaluating the impacts of this
alternative. Socio-economic impacts are discussed for CHBs, tournaments, anglers, and
associated businesses under three potential management action scenarios for both the June 1 –
May 31 fishing year management cycle and the calendar year management cycle: Scenario (1) no
in-season adjustments; Scenario (2) implementation of minimum sizes; and, Scenario (3) shift to
catch and release only fishery for Atlantic marlins. Socio-economic effects and costs of
alternative E6 under scenarios 2 and 3 would vary depending upon the management cycle
finalized for the directed billfish fishery.
Scenario 1:

Threshold For In-Season Management Action Not Achieved

Alternative E6 would not be expected to result in impacts to the recreational marlin
fishery, under either the June 1 – May 31 fishing year or the calendar year management cycle, if
the threshold for action is not reached or projected to be reached. Alternative E6 is intended to
slow landings by increasing the minimum size of Atlantic blue and/or white marlin, if necessary,
thereby allowing landings to continue for the entire duration of the fishing year, in an effort to
prevent a shift to catch and release fishing. If the threshold for action is not achieved or expected
to be achieved, NMFS anticipates no impact on demand for CHB trips, tournament participation,
or participation in the fishery by non-tournament anglers. Under this scenario, NMFS would not
anticipate any adverse socio-economic effects on dependant shoreside businesses, such as tackle
shops or marinas. Thus, under the no in-season action scenario of alternative E6 (where the
threshold for action is not achieved or anticipated to be achieved), NMFS anticipates few or no
positive or negative socio-economic effects, while remaining consistent with ICCAT
recommendations. As stated above, this conclusion applies regardless of whether the fishery is

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-195

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

operating under the June 1 – May 31 fishing year or the calendar year management cycle. As
such, the impacts would be similar to those discussed under alternative E1
Scenario 2:

Threshold For an In-Season Minimum Size Increase Achieved

Alternative E6 would provide NMFS the option of increasing the minimum sizes of
Atlantic blue and white marlin to between 117 and 138 inches and 70 and 79 inches,
respectively, if in-season evaluation of the action criteria indicate that additional management
measures are necessary to ensure consistency with the ICCAT landing limit. As discussed under
the ecological evaluation of alternative E6, the action criteria would include a review of landings,
time remaining until conclusion of the current fishing year, current and historical landings trends,
and any other relevant factors. Based on RBS landings data (1999 - 2004), approximately 14
percent and 18 percent of BUM and WHM landings, respectively, have occurred at or above the
low end of size range available to the Agency for in-season action (117 inches for blue marlin
and 70 inches for white marlin).
For purposes of analysis only, this document assumes that the threshold for action is
reached in a given year when 85 percent of the ICCAT landings limit (213 fish under the current
ICCAT landing limit) has been landed. This threshold for action is for purposes of discussion
only and is in no way intended to indicate that that 85 percent is the actual threshold for action.
The threshold for action would vary by year based on the action criteria identified above. To
determine an approximate date at which the 85 percent threshold might be achieved, the Agency
increased the historical RBS landings distribution of marlins evenly by month for the period
1999 – 2004 until the threshold for action was achieved. The assumptions involved in
determining the action date would include the following, and are made for only purposes of
analysis: (1) the temporal distribution of landings will remain roughly similar to the 1999 – 2004
pattern, as identified from RBS data; (2) landings will increase evenly until at least 85 percent of
the ICCAT landings limit is achieved; (3) the 85 percent threshold will be achieved when
approximately 85 percent of historical landings have occurred; and, (4) that the Agency
benchmark for action is 85 percent of the ICCAT landings limit.
Based on the assumptions identified above, NMFS estimates that the threshold for
implementing an increased minimum size could occur on approximately May 3rd under the June
1 to May 31 fishing year, or approximately August 22nd, under a calendar year management
cycle. This potential action date under the calendar-year management cycle is two days later in
the fishing season from the estimated date identified in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. The
change in date is the result of incorporating 2004 tournament data. Incorporation of the date did
not change the estimated action date under the June 1 – May 31 fishing year management cycle.
The obvious difference in the length of time from the start of the management period until the
action threshold is projected to be achieved (~11 months under the June 1- May 31 fishing year
management cycle vs. ~ eight months under the calendar year management cycle) between the
two management cycles stems from the dearth of marlin landings during the winter months. As
such, because those months with few landings occur during the midst of the June 1 – May 31
fishing year, the time it takes to achieve the threshold for action is lengthened.
In the withdrawn proposed rule (68 FR 54410 September 17, 2003) to implement the
ICCAT 250 marlin limit, the date at which 80 percent of landings were projected to occur was
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-196

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

identified as October 15. The difference in the projected dates at which point management
actions may be required as per this document, under the assumptions identified above and under
the Fishing Year management cycle, as compared to the withdrawn 2003 proposed rule (May 3
vs. Oct 15) is due to three factors: (1) use of six years of landings data (1999 - 2004) in this
analysis versus use of a single year (2002) of landings data in the September 2003 proposed rule;
(2) selection, for purposes of analysis, of the action trigger at 85 percent of the ICCAT landing
limit in this analysis versus an 80 percent action trigger in the September 2003 proposed rule,
given the generally slow pace of landings; and, (3) a dearth of landings during the late fall and
winter. Under the June 1 – May 31 fishing year management cycle, May 3 is later in the fishing
year than October 15. The difference in the projected dates under the assumptions identified
above and under the Calendar Year management cycle, as compared to the withdrawn 2003
(August 22 vs. Oct 15) is due to use of a calendar year fishing year in this document rather than a
June 1 – May 31 fishing year, as well as factors one and two, discussed above.
During the period 1999 - 2004, RBS data indicate that a total of 87 blue marlin 117
inches or larger have been landed in tournaments and 40 white marlin 70 inches or larger have
been reported landed in tournaments. These sizes equate to an average of approximately 15 blue
marlin (14.5) and seven (6.7) white marlin of their respective size classes being landed annually
during this period. Thus, it is anticipated that during an average year the minimum size increase
scenario under alternative E6 action would likely have the effect of maintaining compliance with
the current ICCAT landing limit (213 fish prior to minimum size increase + 15 blue marlin 117 inches or larger + 7 white
marlin 70 inches or larger= 236 landed fish), while allowing the fishery to continuously operate. This
measure would allow for a “buffer” of roughly 14 marlin during an average year, if an in-season
minimum size increase were triggered. Such a buffer would be necessary and appropriate given
that the analysis is based on an average year, and because of this, anglers can be expected to
exceed estimated landings rates in fifty percent of years, and anglers can be expected to fall
below estimated landings estimates in fifty percent of years. The buffer is anticipated to allow
compliance with the ICCAT landings limit even in those years when landings exceed an average
year. The 14 fish would still be available to anglers for landing, however the buffer allows
NMFS a reasonable margin of error in the timing of in-season management actions.
The large minimum size range available to NMFS under alternative E6 would provide
NMFS the flexibility to respond to multiple in-season scenarios with a minimum of disruption to
the fishery. NMFS would have the ability to slow landings and keep the fishery open by
choosing a minimum size limit appropriate to allow maximum utilization of the U.S. landing
limit, but not exceed it. While the proposed temporary minimum size increases for Atlantic blue
and white marlin that could be imposed under alternative E6 would be substantially larger than
current minimum sizes (99” BUM, 66” WHM), NMFS believes that, in most cases, anglers
would continue to pursue Atlantic marlin. In a review of the public comment submitted to
NMFS on this alternative, Agency staff did not find comment on the appropriateness of the
proposed minimum size range. The Agency interprets this lack of comment to mean that there
were no strong objections by the public to the proposed range of minimum sizes available to the
NMFS for in-season action. NMFS did receive a number of comments indicating concern over
the size of potential adverse economic impacts that may stem from implementation of the 250
Atlantic marlin landing limit. NMFS does not believe such minimum size increases would
substantially decrease demand for charter/headboat trips, trips by individual anglers, or
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-197

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

participation in billfish tournaments given the catch and release ethic of billfish anglers (87 to
99.2 percent release rate, see alternative E1) as well as the significant number of fish that would
still likely be available for landing under the above scenario. However, as discussed in more
detail under the ecological benefits of this alternative, there is no way to predict angler behavior.
Angler response may be to maintain current effort for marlin, reduce fishing effort, or shift
fishing effort to other species. Should effort be maintained or shifted to other species, adverse
socio-economic impacts to the fishing community, including CHB operators, tournament
operators, tackle shops, marinas, and others would likely be very limited as anglers would
continue to make expenditures to pursue fish recreationally. If effort were switched to other
species, billfish tournament operators may see a disproportionate adverse impact of the
stakeholders identified above, unless points or prizes were awarded for released billfish or non­
billfish species. To this point, some billfish tournaments already operate under a catch and
release format with most having award categories for non-billfish species. Taken together, these
facts reinforce conclusions that impacts would be limited because anglers would likely continue
to participate in tournaments. If effort were reduced as a result of marlin minimum size
increases, alternative E6 would likely result in small adverse economic impacts for all
stakeholders for the reasons previously identified.
The potential impacts of a minimum size increase for Atlantic marlins under alternative
E6 could be noticeably affected, either constrained or increased, by the date at which a minimum
size increase may occur in a given fishing year. Given the estimated date (May 3) at which a
minimum size increase could occur under the June 1 – May 31 fishing year management cycle
and the assumptions made in this analysis, some sense of regional impacts can be outlined. An
annual average of 25 billfish tournaments occur in the month of May (Table 4.58), and could
potentially be impacted, should the ICCAT limit or threshold be reached during a fishing year.
The majority of these tournaments occur in Florida (5), South Carolina (4), and North Carolina
(4). On average, Louisiana holds three, with Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and the U.S.V.I. each
holding two billfish tournaments in May. Not unexpectedly, the South Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico regions have the highest probabilities of being impacted at this time of year. In addition,
the relative size of billfish tournaments (as estimated by the number of participating vessels,
Table 4.57) in South Carolina, and North Carolina is large, with both averaging greater than the
average size of a billfish tournament (47 vessels). However, as previously stated, the impacts to
tournaments from minimum size increases are anticipated to be minimal for the reasons
discussed above.
Previously stated conclusions that impacts would likely be limited are reinforced by the
facts that only 28 days remain in the fishing year after May 3, a minimum size increase would
still allow fishermen to continue to land marlins, and there would still likely be approximately 15
percent of the ICCAT landing limit available for landing. Late season tournaments occurring in
May, specifically on the Memorial Day weekend, would likely still operate under this scenario
for the reasons discussed above, and given reports suggesting that an increasing percentage of
tournaments are adopting a catch and release format. As such, NMFS estimates that there would
likely be very limited adverse economic impacts for the CHB fleet, individual anglers, or
tournaments resulting from an in-season minimum size increase.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-198

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

In general, under the calendar year management cycle (preferred alternative G2), if
landings of Atlantic marlin increase, recreational billfishing effort and tournaments that occur
early in the calendar year should have sufficient catch available. However, billfishing effort and
tournaments that occur later in the calendar year could be negatively impacted if the management
threshold for action is reached in a given year, in-season restrictions are implemented, and
anglers exhibit a negative behavioral response. As discussed above, NMFS estimates that, under
calendar year management cycle and the previously stated assumptions, in-season action to
increase minimum sizes could be required by August 22 to ensure compliance with the 250 fish
limit. To reiterate, this would only occur if the rate of recreational marlin landings increases
substantially. On average, August has the greatest number of billfish tournaments of any single
month (37). Table 4.58, provides a breakdown of the average number of tournaments by state
and month for the period 1999 – 2004, inclusive. The higher number of tournaments in the
summer months, as identified in Table 4.58, is reflective of the increased in availability of these
fish in more temperate regions such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic bight. Under the
calendar year management cycle scenario, the months remaining in the fishing year have
significantly fewer tournaments, on average: September (14); October (5); November (5); and,
December (5). However, not all of these tournaments would necessarily be adversely impacted
as some may be sailfish specific tournaments. Sailfish specific tournaments could experience
increases in participation, and thus provide limited positive economic impacts to those
communities, if in-season management action for marlin became necessary.
Given the estimated date of August 22nd when a minimum size increase could occur,
under the calendar year management cycle and the assumptions made in this analysis, some
sense of regional impacts can be outlined. Out of these months, impacts in August appear to be
of the most regional concern. This is because during an average year the three billfish
tournaments that may occur in the state of Massachusetts and two of three billfish tournaments
that may occur in the state of Rhode Island occur in August. However, based on 2004 Atlantic
HMS Tournament Registration data, there were a total of 34 tournaments that awarded points or
prizes for Atlantic marlin that could be impacted if marlin minimum sizes were increased on
August 22nd, under the Calendar year management cycle scenario. This includes marlin
tournaments operating during the period August 22 – December 31, inclusive. The majority of
these tournaments occurred in Florida (10). Puerto Rico held six, Louisiana and Maryland each
held four, New Jersey held three, Texas held two, with Alabama, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands each holding one marlin tournament. This
indicates that Florida has the largest probability of being impacted by any potential shift in
minimum sizes, although the impacts may be less acute to the state and/or region given the
higher number of tournaments that occur in this area.
Prior discussions that impacts of an in-season minimum size increase would likely be
limited, under the calendar year management cycle, are reinforced by the facts that a minimum
size increase would allow fishermen to continue to land marlins, and that there would still likely
be approximately 15 percent of the ICCAT landing limit available for landing. Late season
tournaments would likely still operate under this scenario for the reasons previously discussed
(high catch and release rate, fish available for landing, etc.) and because anecdotal reports
suggest that an increasing percentage of tournaments are adopting a catch and release format. As

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-1
4-199

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

such, NMFS estimates that there would likely be limited adverse economic impacts for the CHB
fleet, individual anglers, or tournaments.
Tournament data presented in this document are historical and averaged, except where
explicitly noted, and do not necessarily reflect the exact time periods of past tournaments or
potential future tournaments. Its use as a proxy for interpretation of regional impacts is
extremely limited. In some cases, tournament dates could be adjusted to mitigate or avoid
potential negative impacts of occurring late in the season with an increased risk for management
actions. If, as expected, the potential negative impacts of increasing the size limit is perceived as
minor by tournament participants, then tournaments may not be affected at all.
Table 4.57

State
AL
FL
GA
LA
MA
MD
MS
NC
NJ
NY
PR
RI
SC
TX
VA
VI
Monthly
Ave*

Average Number of Boats per Tournament by Month and State, 1999-2004. Source:
Recreational Billfish Survey

JAN
-34
-39
------46
--10
-6

FEB
-44
--------13
----11

MAR
-34
--------33
----13

APR
-77
14
62
-72
----30
-41
----

MAY
88
66
16
26
---48
--38
-60
11
-11

34

38

28

59

46

Month
JUN
JUL
29
31
54
67
15
7
56
31
34
-23
64
51
18
99
30
18
47
63
-21
52
14
-61
85
18
51
37
35
10
11
45

47

AUG
136
28
9
21
34
274
21
71
104
-84
16
53
52
25
28

SEP
130
26
4
14
-17
-10
27
-49
--17
-10

OCT
-38
--------51
--15
-8

NOV
-39
--------22
----11

DEC
-40
--------28
------

State
Ave*
52
45
14
32
34
136
29
61
56
63
49
16
64
34
31
14

67

27

41

28

38

47

*Monthly and State averages may not match individual cell totals because of rounding and averaging effects.

Table 4.58

Average Number of Billfish Tournaments by Month and State 1999-2004*. Source: Recreational
Billfish Survey
Month

State
AL
FL
GA
LA
MA
MD
MS
NC

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
-12
-1
-----

-4
-------

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

-1
-------

-2
0
0
-0
---

2
5
2
3
---4

2
5
1
4
-1
1
3

2
5
0
5
0
3
1
2

4-2
4-200

2
5
0
3
3
3
1
4

1
3
0
3
-1
-0

-3
-------

-2
-------

-4
-0
-----

Avg. No. of
Tournaments
by State**
8
53
4
18
3
9
2
14

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
R
EBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Month
State

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Avg. No. of
Tournaments
by State**
8
1
15
3
9
19
5
9

-----0
5
2
1
---NJ
------1
-----NY
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
PR
------0
2
----RI
---1
4
3
2
0
----SC
0
---2
4
5
4
2
0
--TX
-----1
1
2
----VA
0
0
1
-2
1
1
2
0
0
1
-VI
Avg. # of
5
2
4
25
28
34
37
14
5
5
5
179
Tournaments 14
By Month**
Cells with a zero had a tournament in at least one year during that month, but the average was less than 0.5.
Cells with a -- had no tournaments in that month at all.
**Totals may not match individual cell totals because of rounding and averaging errors.

Scenario 3:

Threshold for Implementing Catch and Release Only Fishing is Achieved

Under alternative E6, NMFS would be required to shift the entire Atlantic recreational
marlin fishery to catch and release if the ICCAT landing limit for any given year is achieved.
Under these circumstances, NMFS believes that, in a worst-case scenario, marlin anglers may
reduce their demand for charter fishing trips by between 0.4 and 24.2 percent of the available
trips remaining during a given season. The range of 0.4 and 24.2 percent is derived from an
examination of landings and release data (RBS, MRFSS, LPS) which indicate that between 1999
and 2004, anglers released between 75.8 and 100 percent of blue marlin and between 89.4 and
100 percent of white marlin. Clearly, it is not logical to assume that 100 percent of blue or white
marlin are released, given that there have been observed and reported landings during this period.
As such, the release estimate of 99.6 percent is used for purposes of analysis as an upper limit of
the marlin release rate. This was the highest marlin release rate identified below 100 percent.
As such, retention rates of 0.4 percent to 24.2 percent are used as proxies to represent the range
of worst-case scenarios of fishermen who do not practice catch and release marlin fishing and
completely exit the fishery. The low-end release rate estimate of 75.8 percent used in the Final
Consolidated HMS FMP is substantially lower than the 89.4 release rate used in the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP. This is the result of a noticeable drop in the estimated release rate of
blue marlin based on updated 2004 MFRSS data. The high-end release rate of 99.6 percent used
in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP is slightly higher than the 99.4 percent release rate used in
the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. This is the result of a slighter higher estimate of the white
marlin release rate based on updated 2004 MRFSS data.
If the landing limit were achieved earlier in the season, then more trips would logically be
impacted as compared with achieving the landing limit later in the season. The average value of
a CHB trip was $1,053 (2004 dollars). Data are not available to determine the number of CHB
trips targeting marlin in any given month, and, as such, NMFS cannot quantify the impacts of the
estimated decrease in participation on CHB operators. While the number of Angling category
permits is known, as previously mentioned, it is not possible to determine what proportion of
permitted anglers participate in the billfish fishery. As such, it is not possible to quantify an
impact on non-CHB billfish anglers. Based on the rationale stated above, NMFS assumes
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-201

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

participation in the directed billfish fishery by individual anglers would also decline by 0.4 to
24.2 percent if the marlin fishery is shifted to catch and release only under alternative E6.
Under preferred alternative E6, NMFS estimates that between 0.8 and 10.1 percent of
tournaments may cease to operate in a worst-case scenario. This range was derived from the low
and high end billfish tournament release rates (RBS data) of 89.9 and 99.2 percent for use as a
proxy, and represents a worst case scenario. Approximately 150 billfish tournaments operated
annually, on average, for the period 1999 - 2004. If catch and release fishing for Atlantic marlins
was implemented for an entire season, this could equate to between 1 and 15 billfish tournaments
(150 annual billfish tournaments * 0.008 to 0.101 estimated reduction in participation = 1.2 to 15.15 tournaments potentially
not operating) not operating, with a potentially minor to substantial direct local and/or regional
adverse economic impact. This figure represents an increase of approximately one tournament
that may not operate over figures presented in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. This change
stems from incorporation of 2004 data which had the highest number of billfish tournaments
since 1999, and which increased the average number of tournaments per year. The estimated
socio-economic impact of one to 15 tournaments ceasing operations ranges from $1,375,439 to
$20,631,585 (1 tournament stopping operations * $1,375,339 estimated value of a tournament = $1,375,439; 15
tournaments stopping operations * $1,375,339 estimated value of a tournament = $20,631,585. Nevertheless, this
scenario is highly unlikely, given that the ICCAT landing limit must be achieved prior to the
fishery becoming catch and release. The only way this scenario could occur would be if the
previous year’s overage was of sufficient magnitude to completely fill the next season’s landing
allocation (e.g., 500 or more marlin were landed in a single year). Only in 2002 did reported
U.S. marlin landings exceed the 250 fish limit, and, as previously discussed, by only 29 fish.
Additional information regarding the potential impacts to tournaments of achieving the threshold
for implementing catch and release only fishing under alternative E6 are discussed below.
To estimate socio-economic impacts given a scenario where the ICCAT landing limit is
achieved, NMFS has used the 2002 reported landings (279 marlin) as a proxy for determining
when a future switch to catch and release only fishing may occur in the future. The 2002
reported landings are the only available proxy for estimating impacts of achieving the ICCAT
landing limit, as this is the only year the ICCAT limit has been achieved. As such, by examining
the historical distribution of RBS marlin landings by month (1999 - 2004) and distributing 2002
landings proportionally across the fishing year according to the historical landings pattern,
NMFS estimates that, if landings increase evenly during all months to levels that would match
2002 landings, the ICCAT landings limit could be achieved on May 12 based on the current June
1 to May 31 fishing year, and August 25 based on a potential switch to a calendar year
management cycle. Again, based on current landings patterns this is unlikely to occur, but it is
possible for recorded landings to increase as per previously discussed factors. For purposes of
clarity, it should be noted that the close proximity of the dates at which a minimum size increase
could occur (May 3rd under a June – May 31 management cycle; August 22nd under a calendar
year management cycle), under scenario two, and the date at which a shift to catch and release
could occur (May 12th under a June 1 – May 31 management cycle; August 25th under a calendar
year management cycle), under scenario three, is a reflection of the different assumptions made
for purposes of analysis. They also do not include the anticipated impacts of an in-season
minimum size increase that would occur under scenario two. As such, readers should not draw
the conclusion that a minimum size increase would be followed just days later by a shift to catch
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-202

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

and release fishing (under either the June 1 – May 31 management cycle or the calendar year
management cycle).
The economic impacts of switching to a catch and release marlin fishery on May 12
(under the June 1 to May 31 fishing year), under the assumptions made for purposes of this
analysis, would likely be minor. There are only 19 days left in the June 1 - May 31 fishing year
at that point. Using 2004 tournament data for purposes of analysis, there were 16 registered
marlin tournaments in May. Of these, three operated prior to May 12th; the point at which catch
and release only fishing could be required under this analysis. Of the 13 billfish tournaments
occurring after the May 12 “closure” date, it is anticipated that 0.8 to 10.1 percent may cease
operations based on the previously discussed assumptions, which equates to between zero and
one tournaments based on standard rounding practices, (13 tournaments * 0.008 to 0.101 estimated
decrease in participation = 0.1 to 1.3 tournaments stopping operations). However, even these low numbers may be
an over estimate as Ditton and Stoll (2004) suggest that at least some anglers would be willing to
pay as much as $71 (2004 dollars) over current entry fees to participate in catch and release
tournaments (Ditton, 2004). The estimated date for a shift to catch and release fishing under the
June 1 – May 31 management cycle provides a limited ability to identify potential regional
impacts. The 13 marlin tournaments occurring late in the 2004 fishing year were held in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Puerto Rico, and Georgia. Four
occurred in North Carolina, three in Louisiana, and one each in South Carolina, Texas, Alabama,
Puerto Rico, Georgia, and Florida. Most were clustered around the Memorial Day weekend.
Depending on which tournaments may potentially cease operating, the impacts could occur in
different regions. Given the locations of the tournaments, North Carolina would have the highest
probability of being adversely impacted of any single state, followed by Louisiana. The South
Atlantic region would have the greatest probability of being adversely impacted with seven of
the 13 tournaments that could be among those affected. The Gulf region would have a slightly
lower probability of being impacted with five of the 13 tournaments, and Puerto Rico would be
least likely to be adversely impacted. While states with the smallest number of tournaments
would be less likely to be impacted, they would be expected to realize heightened localized
adverse impacts if a tournament were canceled. However, there is no way to accurately predict
exactly which tournaments may continue to operate or cease operating. Using an average value
of $1,339,800 for an average HMS tournament (Ditton and Clark, 1994, converted to 2003
dollars), should one tournament cease operations as a result of alternative E6, this could result in
an estimated adverse economic impact of $1,339,800 dollars to the local community, including
tournament operators, CHB operators, marinas, and others. Loss of a single tournament would
likely result in some small decrease in angler consumer surplus to the vessels participating in that
tournament. Data indicate that on average, approximately 47 vessels participate in Atlantic
billfish tournaments (Table 4.57). Impacts on shoreside businesses would likely be minor, but
could be increased or decreased depending on angler response and when in the season a shift to
catch and release only fishing might occur.
The economic impacts of switching to a catch and release marlin fishery on August 25th,
under the calendar year management cycle and the assumptions made for purposes of this
analysis, would likely be limited. There are, on average, 66 billfish tournaments that occur
between August and December, inclusive. However, for the period 2001 – 2004 (inclusive), 27
of these billfish tournaments, on average, were either sailfish or swordfish tournaments that did
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-203

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

not award points or prizes for Atlantic marlin, or concluded prior to the estimated action date of
August 25th. This leaves a universe of approximately 39 tournaments that award points or prizes
for Atlantic marlin during an average year that could be impacted by a shift to catch and release
fishing on August 25th, if necessary for ICCAT compliance purposes. Of the 39 billfish
tournaments occurring after the August 25th “closure” date, it is anticipated that 0.8 to 10.1
percent may cease operations based on the previously discussed assumptions. This equates to
between zero and four tournaments being impacted based on standard rounding practices (39
tournaments * 0.008 to 0.101 estimated decrease in participation = 0.312 to 3.9 tournaments stopping operations). The
estimated universe of tournaments that may be impacted is smaller in this Final Consolidated
HMS FMP than was estimated than under the calendar year scenario in the Draft Consolidated
HMS FMP. This is the result of further refining the data used in the assessment. In this
document, sailfish or swordfish specific tournaments (billfish tournaments that awarded points or
prizes only for sailfish or swordfish and thus would not be adversely impacted by a shift to catch
and release fishing for marlins) were removed from the universe of potentially affected billfish
tournaments. The result is a more accurate accounting of “marlin” tournaments that may
possibly be impacted by a shift to catch and release only marlin fishing. As such, the number of
tournaments potentially impacted by an inseason shift to catch and release is considered more
accurate.
The distribution of potential regional impacts would be similar to those discussed above
under Calendar year management cycle scenario two (an in-season minimum size increase) given
the proximity of the estimated dates at which a minimum size increase or shift to catch and
release only fishing could occur. While states with the smallest number of tournaments would be
less likely to be impacted, they would be expected to realize heightened localized adverse
impacts if a tournament were canceled. However, there is no way to accurately predict exactly
which tournaments may continue to operate or cease operations. Using an average value of
$1,375,439 for an average HMS tournament (Ditton and Clark, 1994, converted to 2004 dollars),
should zero to four tournaments cease operations as a result of alternative E6, under a worst case
scenario this could result in an estimated adverse economic impact of $0 to $5,501,756 dollars to
the local community, including tournament operators, CHB operators, marinas, and others (0
tournaments stopping operations * $1,375,339 estimated value of a tournament = $0; 4 tournaments stopping operations *
$1,375,339 estimated value of a tournament = $5,501,756). Loss of up to four tournaments would likely
result in some small decrease in angler consumer surplus to the vessels participating in those
tournaments. However, even these low numbers may be an over estimate as Ditton and Stoll
(2004) suggest that at least some anglers would be willing to pay as much as $71 (2003 dollars
converted to 2004 dollars) over current entry fees to participate in catch and release tournaments
(Ditton, 2004). Data indicate that on average, approximately 47 vessels participate in Atlantic
billfish tournaments (see Table 4.57). Impacts on shoreside businesses would likely be minor,
but could be increased or decreased depending on angler response and when in the season a shift
to catch and release only fishing might occur. Further, should a marlin fishery “closure” occur as
a result of alternative E6, this could result in positive economic impacts for operators of sailfish
or swordfish specific tournaments and CHB operators who specifically target these species, if
anglers shift effort to these other billfish species. NMFS is unable to quantify these impacts, as
angler behavior cannot be predicted.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-204

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Under either the June 1 – May 31 management cycle or the calendar year management
cycle, Alternative E6 could have smaller long-term adverse socio-economic impacts than
Alterative E1, the No Action alternative, if landings increase in the future. Alternative E6 would
allow NMFS significant flexibility in determining if and when action should be taken to remain
consistent with international obligations. Alternative E6, would allow the response to be tailored
to the peculiarities of a given fishing year to ensure maximum utilization of the ICCAT landing
limit. This response would likely allow the Agency to avoid disproportionately impacting CHB
operators, tournaments, and anglers who fish for marlin late in the fishing year by providing
anglers the greatest opportunity to land marlin over the entire length of the fishing year.
Alternative E1 would simply result in the shutdown (catch and release fishing only) of the
fishery on an emergency basis if the ICCAT landing limit were achieved. The shift to catch and
release only fishing under the no action alternative would likely occur at an earlier point in the
season than under alternative E6, where landings would first be slowed by increasing the
minimum size, and then prohibited if the landings reached the ICCAT landing limit. Alternative
E6 is anticipated to allow a shutdown of the marlin fishery to be avoided, and at a minimum,
significantly extend the open period of the fishing year prior to a closure, thereby minimizing
negative socio-economic impacts. Alternative E6 may result in a temporary decrease in angler
consumer surplus if increased minimum sizes or catch and release requirements were
implemented for the remainder of a fishing year. The loss of angler consumer surplus should be
mitigated to an extent by the ability of anglers to continue to land fish if the minimum size is
increased, the availability of other billfish species for landing, and given that existing minimum
sizes and the ability to land fish would be restored at the start of the next fishing year.
A number of commenters expressed concern that potential impacts of a shift to catch and
release fishing would have dramatic and substantial adverse economic impacts. NMFS fully
appreciates these concerns, and recognizes that some areas may have heightened localized
impacts. However, this alternative was specifically constructed, in part, to minimize the
potential adverse impacts of implementing a non-discretionary international obligation by
allowing NMFS substantial flexibility in determining when to respond, and how to respond,
should marlin landings approach the international limit. The alternative is designed to allow the
fishing season to continue with a minimum of disruption as long as possible, and then when
action may be required, implementing management measures that would still allow for the
fishery to continue. Between angler’s conservation ethic, as witnessed by the high rate of catch
and release, the current low rate of marlin landings, the availability of other billfish species for
landing, and the flexibility built into this alternative, NMFS anticipates that impacts would be
limited, and any unavoidable impacts would be substantially mitigated.
Alternative E7, a shift to catch and release only fishing for Atlantic white marlin for five
years, could potentially lead to negative social and economic effects, although the magnitude is
difficult to assess. As discussed under alternative E1, the majority of data indicate a strong
adherence by Atlantic billfish anglers to catch and release fishing for white marlin. Based on
RBS, LPS, and MRFSS data, NMFS estimates that between 0.4 percent and 10.6 percent of all
white marlin catches are landed (Table 4.49, Table 4.50, and Table 4.51).
As of February 1, 2006, there were 25,238 Angling, 4,173 CHB, and 4,824 General
category permit holders. See Chapter 3 for additional permit information. Given the multiCONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-205

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

species nature of HMS permits, and the fact that vessels are permitted rather than individual
anglers, NMFS does not have the ability to identify what subset of these permitted vessels, or
how many anglers, participate in the recreational billfish fishery.
It is difficult to estimate the percentage of Angling category fishing trips that would not
be taken if catch and release fishing for white marlin was mandatory, however the Agency
acknowledges that some percentage of total Angling category trips would likely be canceled due
to the inability to land a white marlin. Ditton and Stoll (2003) estimate that there are 7,915
billfish anglers in the U.S. Atlantic and 1,627 billfish anglers in Puerto Rico. Angler
expenditures for marlin targeted trips are estimated to be $704.00 per angler (in 2004 dollars),
based on a limited sample size. In contrast, angler expenditures for other HMS targeted trips are
estimated at $125.00 per angler (in 2004 dollars), based on 621 observations (NMFS, 2001).
Ditton and Stoll (2003) report that a 1990 study estimated average expenditures of $2,105.00
($3,042.00 in 2004 dollars) for Atlantic billfish trips and that a 1994 study estimated a mean
expenditures of $1,052.00 ($1,341.00 in 2004 dollars) for Puerto Rico billfish trips. As reported
by Ditton and Stoll (2003) the aggregate economic impact of billfish fishing trips in the U.S.
Atlantic is conservatively estimated to be $22.7 million annually, not including Puerto Rico.
These data indicate that billfish anglers place a high value on billfish fishing. Under alternative
E7, Angling category fishermen may reduce the number of trips targeting white marlin. Reduced
participation in the billfish fishery would likely result in negative social and economic impacts
for this sector. Considering the overwhelming catch and release ethic of billfish anglers (31
white marlin reported landed in 2004), however, NMFS anticipates that any negative social and
economic impacts under this alternative would be small. The short-term social impacts of not
being able to land trophy or record category fish is difficult to assess, however NMFS anticipates
that this alternative could lead to a decrease in angler consumer surplus. The long-term impacts
of alternative E7 may result in an increase in net benefits as stocks rebuild and recreational
encounters with white marlin become more frequent.
Sutton et al. 1999, estimate that CHB operators each take 109 for-hire trips per year on
average, with approximately 2.6 percent of those trips targeting billfish. Multiplying the average
number of CHB trips by the number of CHB permits (109 avg. CHB trips per year * 4,173 CHB permits =
454,857) and multiplying the product by 0.026 (454,857 total CHB trips * 0.026 percentage of CHB billfish trips
= 11,826) provides a rough estimate of the annual number of billfish trips taken by CHB
operators. Of the 11,826 CHB trips targeting billfish, between 47 and 1,254 trips may be
canceled given the inability to retain white marlin (454,857 CHB trips * 0.026 percent of CHB trips BLF
directed * .004 WHM low retention rate = 47.3) (454,857 CHB trips * 0.026 percent of CHB trips BLF directed * 0.106
WHM high retention rate = 1,253.5). NMFS estimates that the cost of a CHB trip currently averages
$1,053.00 (in 2004 dollars). Given this figure, the Agency estimates that alternative E7 could
result in between $49,491 and $1,320,462 in lost revenues to CHB vessels (47 estimated lost trips *
$1,053.00 avg. cost per trip = $49,491) (1,254 estimated lost trips * $1,053.00 avg. cost per trip=$1,320,462). The
loss of revenues of this magnitude would likely result in minor to moderate negative social and
economic impacts to the CHB sector. While NMFS cannot definitively forecast angler behavior,
given the previously discussed catch and release ethic of billfish anglers (31 white marlin
reported landed in 2004), NMFS anticipates that most anglers would continue to fish for Atlantic
white marlin under catch and release restrictions. As such, NMFS anticipates that negative
impacts under this alternative would be less severe than those estimated above. Further, the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-206

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

continued ability of anglers to pursue and land other Atlantic billfish species, and other nonHMS may further mitigate potential adverse impacts, which may result from this alternative.
General category permit holders are only allowed to fish for, retain, or possess white
marlin in registered HMS tournaments; however the Agency does not possess information
regarding how many General category permit holders participate and land white marlin in
tournaments. Under alternative E7, negative social and economic impacts could occur if General
category vessels that normally participate in HMS tournaments cease operations. Potential
negative impacts would not likely be realized by those General category vessels that already
practice catch and release fishing for white marlin or participate in catch and release
tournaments, because NMFS anticipates that these anglers would continue to pursue Atlantic
white marlin under a catch and release only fishery.
In 2004, there were 129 registered tournaments that awarded points or prizes for white
marlin captures (see Chapter 3). Based on RBS data from 1999 – 2004 (Table 4.49), the
retention rates of white marlin in tournaments range from 0.8 percent to 3.2 percent. For
purposes of analysis only, NMFS assumes that under a worst-case scenario, that this same
percentage (0.8 to 3.2 percent) of tournaments may stop operating. Under these assumptions,
NMFS estimates that alternative E7 may result in between one and four tournaments would not
continue to operate in a catch and release only fishery for white marlin. As previously discussed,
NMFS estimates the average value of an HMS tournament to be $1,375,439 (in 2004 dollars).
Assuming that one to four tournaments cease operations, the Agency estimates that alternative
E7 could result in negative economic impacts ranging from $1,375,439 to $5,501,756. The loss
of revenues of this magnitude would likely result in moderate social and economic impacts for
tournaments, tournament participants, and associated businesses. While NMFS cannot
definitively forecast angler behavior, given the previously discussed catch and release ethic of
billfish anglers, NMFS anticipates that most anglers would likely continue to pursue white
marlin under a catch and release only fishery and most tournaments would continue to operate
under a revised format. As such, adverse impacts under this alternative would likely be of a
lesser magnitude than those estimated above. Additionally, a recent survey based on tournament
anglers in Texas, determined that angler willingness to pay is $71.00 (in 2004 dollars) higher for
participation in catch and release tournaments than it is for participation kill tournaments (Ditton
and Oh, 2004).
Negative social and economic impacts resulting from alternative E7 may be mitigated by
a delayed effective date for implementing a catch and release only requirement for Atlantic white
marlin of January 1, 2007. A delayed effective date would be anticipated to allow tournament
operators limited time to alter tournament rules to provide for a catch and release format and
allow anglers to adjust to new requirements.
Angler consumer surplus would likely remain high, given the currently high release rate
of white marlin, which is reinforced by the low number of verified landings that occurred in
recent years. However, it is possible that angler consumer surplus may decrease given the
inability to land white marlin. Further, under alternative E7, anglers would still have the ability
to land other billfish, including trophy-sized sailfish and blue marlin. To mitigate negative
socio-economic impacts, alternative E7 would delay implementation of catch and release only
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-207

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

fishing requirements to allow the fishery time to adjust to new measures, and would include a
sunset provision five years from implementation of catch and release requirements. Alternative
E7 would likely provide limited benefit for the species and likely result in lesser socio-economic
impacts to the billfish community than alternative E8.
During the public comment period, NMFS received strong comment opposed to the
Atlantic white marlin catch and release alternative. Based on public comment that indicated
more significant concerns over potential adverse economic impacts to the fishery if catch and
release only fishing for Atlantic white marlin were required, as well as a number of other factors,
including but not limited to, the impending receipt of a new stock assessment for Atlantic white
marlin and upcoming international negotiations on Atlantic marlin, the Agency does not prefer to
prohibit landings of Atlantic white marlin, at this time. Additionally, NMFS received substantial
comment in support of this measure. The commenters supporting the white marlin landings
prohibition stated concerns over stock status, the ESA listing review, and an interest in
maintaining leadership at the international level. The implementation of circle hook
requirements would be an important first step in reducing mortality in the directed billfish
fishery. NMFS will consider catch and release only fishing options for white marlin as well as
other billfish conservation measures in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Similar to alternative E7, alternative E8 could potentially lead to negative social and
economic impacts, although the magnitude is difficult to assess. As discussed under alternative
E1, the majority of data indicate a strong adherence by Atlantic billfish anglers to catch and
release fishing for blue marlin. Based on RBS, MRFSS, and LPS data, NMFS estimates that
between 3.9 percent and 24.2 percent of all blue marlin catches are landed (Table 4.49, Table
4.50, and Table 4.51).
As of February 1, 2006, there were 25,238 Angling, 4,173 CHB, and 4,824 General
category permit holders. Given the multi-species nature of HMS permits, and the fact that
vessels are permitted rather than individual anglers, NMFS does not have the ability to identify
what subset of these permitted vessels, or how many anglers, participate in the recreational
billfish fishery. It is difficult to estimate the percentage of Angling category fishing trips that
would not be taken if catch and release fishing for blue marlin was mandatory, however the
Agency acknowledges that some percentage of total Angling category trips would likely be
canceled due to the inability to land a blue marlin.
Under alternative E8, Angling category fishermen may reduce the number of trips
targeting blue marlin. Reduced participation in the billfish fishery would likely result in negative
social and economic effects and costs for this sector, however, considering the catch and release
ethic of billfish anglers (118 blue marlin reported landed in 2004), NMFS anticipates that the
economic costs under this alternative would not be large. The short-term social impacts of not
being able to land trophy or record category fish is difficult to assess, however NMFS anticipates
that this alternative could lead to a decrease in angler consumer surplus. The long-term impacts
of alternative E8 may result in an increase in net benefits as stocks rebuild and recreational
encounters with blue marlin become more frequent.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-208

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Using the same assumptions discussed above, the Agency estimates that of the 454,857
CHB trips occurring yearly, 11,826 of those are billfish directed CHB trips (454,857 * 0.026
Percent of BLF directed CHB trips = 11,826). Of the 11,826 CHB trips targeting billfish, between 461 and
2,862 trips may be canceled given the inability to retain blue marlin (454,857 CHB trips * 0.026
percent of CHB trips BLF directed * 0.039 BUM low retention rate = 461.2) (454,857 CHB trips * 0.026 percent of CHB trips
BLF directed * 0.242 BUM high retention rate = 2,862.0). NMFS estimates that the cost of a CHB trip
currently averages $1,053.00 (in 2004 dollars). Given this figure, the Agency estimates that
alternative E8 would have greater economic costs than alternative E7 and could result in between
$485,433 and $3,013,686 in lost revenues to CHB vessels annually. The loss of revenues of this
magnitude would likely result in moderate negative social and economic impacts to the CHB
sector, however considering the catch and release ethic of billfish anglers, NMFS anticipates that
negative impacts under this alternative would be of a lesser magnitude than those calculated
above.
General category permit holders are only allowed to fish for, retain, or possess blue
marlin in registered HMS tournaments; however the Agency does not possess any information
regarding how many General category permit holders participate and land blue marlin in
tournaments. Under alternative E8, negative social and economic impacts could occur if General
category vessels that normally participate in HMS tournaments cease operations. Potential
negative impacts would not likely be realized by those General category vessels that already
practice catch and release fishing for blue marlin or participate in catch and release tournaments,
because NMFS anticipates that these anglers would continue to pursue blue marlin under a catch
and release only fishery. As such, adverse impacts under this alternative would likely be of a
lesser magnitude than those estimated above.
In 2004, there were 142 registered tournaments that awarded points or prizes for blue
marlin captures (see Chapter 3). Based on RBS data from 1999 – 2004 (Table 4.49), the
retention rates of blue marlin in tournaments range from 6.7 percent to 10.1 percent. For
purposes of analysis only, NMFS assumes that under a worst-case scenario, that this same
percentage (6.7 to 10.1 percent) of tournaments may stop operating. Under these assumptions,
NMFS estimates that under alternative E8 between ten and 14 tournaments would not continue to
operate in a catch and release only fishery for blue marlin. As discussed above, NMFS estimates
the average value of an HMS tournament to be $1,375,439 (in 2004 dollars). Assuming that ten
to 14 (142 tournaments * 0.067 to 0.101 decrease in tournament participation = 9.5 to 14.3 tournaments that may cease
operations) tournaments cease operations, the Agency estimates that alternative E8 could result in
negative economic impacts ranging from $13,754,390 to $19,256,146. The loss of revenues of
this magnitude would likely result in sizeable local negative social and economic impacts for
tournaments, tournament participants, and associated businesses, however, considering the catch
and release ethic of billfish anglers, NMFS anticipates that negative impacts under this
alternative would be of a lesser magnitude than those calculated above. Relative to the fishery as
a whole, these impacts would be minor, however, as stated; the localized impacts may be felt
more acutely. Additionally, a recent survey based on tournament anglers in Texas, determined
that angler willingness to pay is $71.00 (2004 dollars) higher for participation in catch and
release tournaments than it is for participation kill tournaments (Ditton and Oh, 2004).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-209

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Negative social and economic impacts resulting from this alternative may be mitigated by
a delayed effective date of implementing a catch and release only requirement for Atlantic blue
marlin. A delayed effective date is anticipated to allow tournament operators sufficient time to
alter tournament rules to provide for a catch and release format and allow anglers to adjust to
new requirements.
Under alternative E8, angler consumer surplus would likely remain high, given the
currently high release rate of blue marlin, which is reinforced by the low number of verified
landings that occurred in recent year. However, it is possible that angler consumer surplus may
decrease given the inability to land blue marlin. Further, under alternative E8 anglers would still
have the ability to land other billfish, including trophy-sized sailfish and white marlin. To
mitigate negative socio-economic effects and cost, alternative E8 would delay implementation of
catch and release only fishing requirements to allow the fishery time to adjust to new measures,
and would include a sunset provision five years from implementation of catch and release
requirements.
As discussed above, it is appropriate for the Agency to investigate potential options to
reduce domestic mortality rates for blue marlin. This alternative was analyzed but not preferred
in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP or in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP due to potentially
severe negative social and economic impacts, limited conservation benefits, the anticipated
receipt of a new stock assessment in the near future which may provide significant new
information on the fishery, and other reasons. The United States will continue its efforts to
reduce billfish mortality both domestically and at the international level. Additionally, the
Agency may consider catch and release only options for Atlantic blue marlin as well as other
billfish conservation measures in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Conclusion
As described in Chapter 1, the objectives of this document are multifaceted and include,
inter alia, reducing mortalities of Atlantic billfish in directed and non-directed fisheries. This
can be achieved, in part, by addressing known sources of mortality (including landings and postrelease mortalities) in the directed recreational marlin fishery. Preferred alternatives E3 and E6
would strike an appropriate balance between conserving living marine resources and maintaining
robust recreational fisheries while achieving the objectives of Consolidated HMS FMP. The
preferred alternatives would be anticipated to substantially reduce the post-release mortality of
Atlantic white marlin and are likely to provide positive ecological benefits for other species,
including blue marlin, sailfish, tunas, and others with which recreational billfish fishermen
interact, while maintaining consistency with United States’ international obligations. The
delayed date of effectiveness for preferred alternative E3 would be anticipated to mitigate, to the
extent practicable, adverse economic impacts and losses in angler consumer surplus by allowing:
tournament operators adequate time to adjust advertising, rules, business practices, and
tournament formats; existing stockpiles of J-hooks to be used; and, anglers time to become
comfortable and proficient with newly required gear. High levels of adherence to the practice of
catch and release fishing, as well as the ability of anglers to continue to use J-hooks outside of
tournaments, or in tournaments when deploying artificial lures, should also further substantially
mitigate socio-economic impacts. The suite of preferred alternatives would achieve the purpose
and scope of this rulemaking by providing comprehensive and meaningful protection to Atlantic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-210

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REBUILDING AND PREVENTING OVERFISHING

billfish, maintaining a robust directed fishery for billfish, and achieving legal and policy
obligations. Importantly, by providing a successful roadmap for billfish conservation, NMFS
may provide the impetus for other nations to adopt similar management measures, thereby
improving conservation of Atlantic billfish throughout their entire range.
4.3

Management Program Structure
4.3.1 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Management
4.3.1.1 BFT Quota Management in the General and Angling Categories

As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for BFT time-period subquotas in
the General and Angling categories are:
F1

Maintain the time-periods, subquota allocations, and geographic set-asides for the
General and Angling categories as established in the 1999 FMP (No Action)

F2

Establish General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic set-asides annually
via framework actions

F3

Amend the management procedures regarding General category time-periods, subquota,
as well as geographic set-asides to allow for future adjustments to take place via a
regulatory framework action – Preferred Alternative

F3(a) Establish monthly General category time-periods and subquotas (June-Jan; 12.5 percent
each)
F3(b) Revise General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized winter
fishery (June-Aug, 54 percent; Sept, 26.5 percent; Oct-Nov, 9 percent; Dec, 5.2 percent;
and Jan, 5.3 percent)
F3(c) Revise General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized winter
fishery (June-Aug, 50 percent; Sept, 26.5 percent; Oct-Nov, 13 percent; Dec, 5.2 percent;
and Jan, 5.3 percent) – Preferred Alternative
F3(d) Revise General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized winter
fishery (June-Aug, 38.7 percent; Sept, 26.6 percent; Oct-Nov, 13 percent; Dec, 10.8
percent; and Jan, 10.9 percent)
F4

Clarify the procedures for calculating the Angling category school size-class BFT
subquota allocation and maintain the Angling category North/South dividing line –
Preferred Alternative

Ecological Impacts
Minimal, if any, ecological impacts would be expected as a result of adjusting the
General category time-periods and/or associated subquotas and/or amending the school size-class
tolerance calculation because the overall quotas and size-classes of BFT being targeted by each
domestic quota category would not change. In the case of the General category, only the
proportion of the coastwide General category quota assigned to each time-period would be
altered. For example, even though the time-period subquota percentage for December and
January would be increased, the time-period subquota for June through August would be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-211

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

decreased. As a result, there might be increased harvest in the later portions of the General
category BFT season, but there would also be a corresponding decrease in harvest in the earlier
portions of the season. These small orders of change, quantified in either numbers of fish or in
weight (mt), or time and/or location of harvest, compared to overall U.S. harvest levels as
recommended by ICCAT under the 20-year rebuilding program, equate to ecological impacts
that are unlikely to be measurable given the variability in the data used to conduct BFT stock
assessments. Additionally, the numbers of BFT harvested from each different size-class would
remain consistent with the levels of BFT mortality used in the stock assessment. Therefore, only
negligible ecological impacts would be expected from the following alternatives, as they relate to
the ICCAT-recommended rebuilding plan for BFT.
Alternative F1 (No Action), would maintain the General category time-period subquota
allocation scheme and the Angling category size-class subquota allocation procedures, as stated
in the 1999 FMP. The BFT fishery has been managed via these allocations and procedures since
the implementation of the 1999 FMP. These allocations and procedures are consistent with the
ICCAT recommendations; therefore, NMFS does not expect this alternative to result in any
negative ecological impacts beyond those accounted for in the 20-year BFT rebuilding plan.
Alternative F2 would establish General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic
set-asides annually via a framework action, and may have slightly different ecological impacts
from alternative F1, as the time-periods, subquotas, and/or geographic set-asides may shift
temporally and geographically from one year to the next. These ecological impacts would be
expected to be negligible as well. These shifts could decrease or increase protected resource
interactions, discards, and incidental catch of other finfish and would likely need to be analyzed
each year depending on the changes proposed. However, as compared with other commercial
gear types, commercial handgear typically produce relatively low levels of bycatch and bycatch
mortality. Bycatch in the commercial handgear fishery can be monitored via the Large Pelagics
Survey (LPS), but may be unaccounted for if the fishery is prosecuted in those areas outside LPS
coverage or after the LPS sampling season is concluded. The LPS samples private and for-hire
vessels and their landings from offshore fishing trips that target HMS in Virginia through Maine
from June through October. A separate source of bycatch information can be derived from
vessel logbook programs associated with other non-HMS fisheries in which HMS permitted
vessel owner/operators may participate. At this time, there is little information on commercial
handgear bycatch. Anecdotal reports suggest that there may be low level of tuna discards due to
minimum size restrictions. This process of establishing General category time-periods and
associated subquotas annually via a regulatory framework action would not noticeably alter
current fishing methods or effort. Therefore, no noticeable adverse or positive ecological
impacts would be expected from this alternative. For further information/analyses regarding
commercial handgear interactions with protected resources, see Section 3.4.3.
Alternative F3, a preferred alternative, would remove specific General category timeperiod, subquota, and geographic set-aside language from the consolidated HMS FMP. This
alternative would also codify the time-periods and the associated subquota allocations, including
allocation percentages and the corresponding quota tonnage, in the regulatory text implementing
the consolidated FMP and would remove the New York Bight set-aside. The sub-alternatives
F3(a) through F3(d) appear to have similar ecological impacts as those presented in alternatives
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-212

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

F1 and F2, in the sense that the BFT baseline quotas would be consistent from one year to the
next, provided the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC remains consistent. There may be a
slight shift in BFT landings, both temporally (to later in the season) and geographically to the
South. However, the number of BFT harvested from each different size-class would remain
consistent with the levels of BFT mortality used in the stock assessment. These temporal and
spatial shifts in landings may present decreases or increases regarding protected resource
interactions, discards, and incidental catch of other finfish. However, for the same reasons
mentioned in alternative F2, NMFS does not expect any adverse ecological impacts associated
with this alternative. For further information/analyses regarding commercial handgear
interactions with protected resources, see Section 3.4.3.
Alternative F4, a preferred alternative, would clarify the procedures for calculating the
Angling category school size-class BFT subquota allocation. Specifically, the eight percent
school BFT tolerance for the Angling category would be determined prior to removing the NED
Statistical set-aside allocation, resulting in a slight increase (i.e., 0.02 percent) in the school BFT
baseline quota allocation. Public comment supported the procedural change to calculating the
school size subquota. Effort on the school size-class BFT would not be expected to increase as a
result of this alternative, due to the very minor increase in available quota. Therefore, substantial
changes in either current fishing methods or interaction rates with protected resources or other
finfish would not be expected. This alternative has been slightly modified from that proposed in
the draft HMS FMP. This preferred alternative modifies the proposed alternative in the draft
FMP by retaining the North/South Angling category dividing line located at 39º 18 minutes N.
latitude (Great Egg Inlet, NJ) (Table 2.1). As this modification to the alternative would not alter
the Angling category quota or the overall U.S. BFT TAC, nor the effort expended by recreational
participants, NMFS would not expect any adverse ecological impacts associated with this
alternative.
NMFS, based on the best scientific information available, is unaware of any definitive
ecological impacts on protected resources that would be associated with implementation of any
of the alternatives discussed in this section. Limited data are available on the interactions of
commercial and recreational handgear with protected resources, marine mammals, and other
finfish. NMFS will continue to monitor HMS handgear fishery interactions with protected
resources, marine mammals, and non-targeted finfish and will work to resolve any issues that
may arise.
Social and Economic Impacts
Alternative F1 would maintain the historical General category time-period and subquota
allocation scheme as well as the process used to establish it, i.e., specific details would remain in
the 1999 FMP itself. This alternative would require an FMP amendment to adjust these timeperiods, subquota percentages, and/or geographic set-asides. This alternative may have both
positive and negative social and economic impacts. The positive impacts would be attributed to
the General category time-periods and associated subquota allocation percentages remaining
consistent with those of prior years (Table 4.59), as well as maintaining the General category
New York Bight set-aside allocation for those participants operating in that designated area. The
adverse impacts associated with the General category would consist of hindering NMFS' ability
to adapt BFT management measures to account for variations inherent to the fishery from one
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-213

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

year to the next due to the timeframes associated with conducting an FMP amendment. The
positive impacts, in regards to the Angling category would entail maintaining the North/South
dividing line; thereby providing a more equitable geographic and temporal distribution of
recreational fishing opportunities by separating each BFT size-class subquota into two
geographical regions and ensuring reasonable recreational fishing opportunities in all geographic
areas without risking overharvest of the Angling category quota. The adverse impacts associated
with maintaining the North/South dividing line would be the continued perception that the
Agency has the appropriate recreational data in a timely fashion to use this management tool to
adjust daily retention limits thus providing fair and equitable recreational fishing opportunities in
real-time.
This alternative would also have some adverse social and economic impacts on
fishermen, dealers, and the support industries located in the South Atlantic region. Under the No
Action alternative, the General quota allocation is heavily frontloaded in the season and if high
catch rates were to occur, the quota could be harvested in full prior to the BFT arriving off the
coast of South Atlantic states. This uncertainty regarding the amount of BFT quota available late
in the season does not allow for businesses to plan accordingly. For instance it is vital for
fishermen to obtain the appropriate gear and outfit the vessel properly; or as a dealer, to maintain
the appropriate staff and shipping/packing material as well as maintain leases, etc; or in the case
of a support industry like a bait/tackle supplier, to have the appropriate gear pre-ordered so it is
available for purchase. These adverse impacts could be mitigated if South Atlantic General
category participants were to travel north in the early portion of the season. Overall, the adverse
social and economic impacts associated with this alternative would be expected to outweigh the
positive impacts.
The potential gross revenues generated under the No Action alternative were calculated
for each specific time-period by using the status quo time-period subquota allocation
percentages, the whole weight equivalent (in metric tons and pounds), and the average ex-vessel
prices (whole weight) for 1999 through 2004, inclusive.
Table 4.59

Alternative F1: Gross revenues associated with the No Action alternative regarding the
General Category time-period subquota allocation.*

Time-Period

Percentage

Equivalent
in mt*

Approx.
Average
Gross
Equivalent
Ex-Vessel $
Revenues
in lb*
('99-'04)
JUNE - AUG
60.0
413.9
912,483.9
7.71
7,035,250.80
SEPTEMBER
30.0
206.9
456,131.7
7.10
3,238,535.00
OCT - JAN
10.0
69.0
152,117.4
6.85
1,042,004.10
TOTAL
100.0
689.8
1,520,733.0
11,315,789.90
Note: For comparison purposes, this table assumes the New York Bight set-aside is distributed evenly throughout

the fishing year.

*Time-period allocations may differ slightly due to rounding.

Alternative F2 would provide NMFS with more flexibility, in comparison to the other
alternatives, by establishing the General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic setasides annually via a regulatory framework action (i.e., not an FMP amendment). The
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-214

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

administrative burden would increase because the annual BFT specifications, plus the analytical
documents, would be conducted annually. Plus, there would be a heightened importance to
finalize the specifications prior to January 1 of each year, assuming the preferred CY/FY
alternatives contained in Section 2.3.2 are implemented. Under this alternative, the industry
would not have the necessary information to devise a business plan for the upcoming year prior
to the start of the fishery because the time-periods and associated subquotas would be established
each year. For example, each year, permit applicants may choose a quota category in which to
permit their vessel, and this decision is usually based on the amount of quota and the rules and
regulations that pertain to each individual permit category. As the time-periods, associated
subquota allocations, and potential geographic set-asides would be established just prior to the
start of the fishing season, fishermen would only have the overall General category quota
allocation on which to base their decisions. There may also be positive social and economic
impacts attributed to increases in a domestic quota category, time-period subquota, or geographic
set-aside quota in a given year. However, the likelihood of experiencing negative social or
economic impacts due to a decrease in any of these areas is equally the same.
Alternative F3, a preferred alternative, would blend aspects of alternatives F1 and F2
together to optimize the positive social and economic impacts by enhancing NMFS' flexibility to
adapt to the BFT fisheries' inherent variability. This alternative would provide consistent
General category time-periods and subquotas, from one year to the next, as the quota tonnage
derived from the domestic quota allocations percentages and the ICCAT recommended BFT
TAC would be codified in the regulatory text implementing the consolidated HMS FMP. These
baseline quota amounts would change when ICCAT modifies or amends the BFT TAC
recommendation. This alternative would also authorize adjustments to the General category
time-periods, associated subquotas, and geographical set-asides via a regulatory framework
action versus an FMP amendment, if warranted, based on changes to the ICCAT BFT quota
recommendations. This balance between providing consistent baseline quota allocations and
having the flexibility and ability to amend them, if warranted, in a relatively timely fashion
would provide positive social and economic impacts because fishermen would be able to plan
their business activities in advance while the Agency would have the flexibility to adapt to
changing fishery conditions.
This alternative would also adjust the actual General category time-periods and the
associated subquotas to reflect historical General category BFT allocations while incorporating
recent trends in the fishery, both temporally and geographically. For instance, historically, the
General category BFT fishery has been prosecuted in the summer and early fall months primarily
in the waters off of New England. However, in recent years, BFT have been available in large
numbers during the winter months in waters off the South Atlantic states. Therefore, this
alternative would have positive social and economic impacts on the General category as a whole
by providing reasonable fishing opportunities to General category BFT fishery participants over
a broader geographic and temporal range when BFT are available to them, as well as providing
some level of certainty as to the amount of quota that would be available for a given time-period.
Any adverse social and economic impacts that may be associated with this alternative would be
minor and primarily linked to the slight shifts in General category quota allocation as discussed
in further detail under each subalternative.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-215

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Under these sub-alternatives, the potential gross revenues are calculated using 1999
through 2004 average monthly ex-vessel prices per pound (whole weight), the quota tonnage for
each time-period (based on the preferred allocation percentages), the assumption that catch rates
are consistent across time, and that each time-period subquota allocation is harvested in its
designated time frame. NMFS is aware that these assumptions may not account for the
variability inherent in the fishery (i.e., availability of BFT, skill level of fishermen, weather
conditions, etc.); the analyses, however, show the relative impacts of the various alternatives.
All of the following sub-alternatives would allow for the carryover of unharvested
General category quota to the subsequent time-period allocation as stated in the No Action
alternative (F1) or as stated in alternative F4. Under the alternatives, the break in fishing years
would fall in the middle of the current winter fishery, i.e., between December and January.
NMFS discusses how this may affect quota rolling over from one time-period to another in more
detail in Section 2.3.2. These alternatives also formally respond the Petition for Rulemaking
submitted by the NCDMF. The Petition claims that the current General category BFT quota
allocation scheme does not provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest BFT with commercial
handgear off the South Atlantic coast during the winter months, thereby not ensuring fair and
equitable treatment of all General category permit holders.
Subalternative F3(a) would distribute the coastwide General category quota equally, in
12.5 percent shares (Table 4.60), among the eight months that make up the General category
BFT season (June-January). This subalternative would have both positive and negative social
and economic impacts as it would provide some stability to the constituency by establishing a
known amount of quota that would be available at the first of each month. However, if catch
rates are high in the early portion of the month, these quotas could be harvested rapidly and may
lead to derby style fisheries on the first of each month, which is contrary to NMFS' intent. This
subalternative would formalize the General category winter BFT fishery, but would do little to
recognize historical General category BFT allocations, thereby potentially excluding a group of
long-time participants. This subalternative would result in positive social and economic impacts
for those General category participants located in the South Atlantic region due to a 40 percent
increase in available quota, compared to the No Action alternative, during the time frame of
October through January. This increase in quota would equate to approximately $5.5 million in
additional gross revenues for those individuals that participate in the later part of the General
category season. However, those General category participants in the New England area, or
those participants that pursue BFT in the summer months, might experience some adverse social
and economic impacts due to the shift in quota to the later portion of the season. For instance,
under this alternative, the status quo June through August time-period subquota allocation would
be reduced by approximately 22.5 percent and the September time-period subquota by
approximately 17.5 percent. These reductions in allocation would result in decreased gross
revenues of approximately $2.8 and $1.8 million, respectively. This totals $4.6 million in losses
whereas the gain above is $5.5 million. The difference of $0.9 million is derived from the
different average ex-vessel prices at different times of the fishing year. This subalternative
would also reduce the need for specific geographic set-asides because quota allocations would be
made on a monthly basis. This subalternative would assist in distributing the General category
BFT catch, temporally and geographically, which is beneficial for the collection of CPUE data

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-216

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

and may assist in avoiding large scale landings in a constrained time frame, thus reducing market
gluts.
Table 4.60

Alternative F3(a): Gross revenues associated with the even sub-allocation of the General
Category quota between the 8-month fishing season.

Time-Period

Percentage

Approx.
Approx
Equivalent in
Equivalent
mt*
in lb*
JUNE
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
JULY
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
AUGUST
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
SEPTEMBER
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
OCTOBER
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
NOVEMBER
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
DECEMBER
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
JANUARY
12.5
86.23
190,102.65
TOTAL
100.0
689.8
1,521,174.0
*Time-period allocations may differ slightly due to rounding.

Average
Ex-Vessel $
('99-'04)
6.42
8.19
7.56
7.10
6.66
7.01
7.70
7.76

Approx.
Gross Revenues
$ 1,220,459.01
$ 1,556,940.70
$ 1,437,176.03
$ 1,349,728.82
$ 1,266,083.65
$ 1,332,619.58
$ 1,463,790.41
$ 1,475,196.56
$11,101,994.76

Subalternative F3(b) would implement General category time-periods, and associated
subquota allocation percentages similar to those contained in the 1999 FMP, but would separate
the October through January time-period into three distinct time-periods of October through
November, December, and January. This would establish a formal General category winter BFT
fishery on which fishermen, dealers, and supporting industries could depend and plan. The
General category time-period subquota allocation percentages would be adjusted slightly to
incorporate the allocations in the winter months, but would still recognize the historical General
category allocations during the summer and fall months (Table 4.61).
This subalternative would have positive social and economic impacts to those General
category participants located in the South Atlantic region due to a 9.5 percent increase in
available quota, compared to the No Action alternative, during the time frame of October
through January. This increase in quota would equate to approximately $1.1 million in
additional gross revenue for the later part of the General category season. However, those
General category participants in the New England area, or those participants which pursue BFT
in the summer months, may experience roughly equivalent adverse social and economic impacts
due to the shift in quota to the later portion of the season. For instance, under this alternative, the
status quo June through August time-period subquota allocation would be reduced by
approximately six percent and the September time-period allocation by approximately 3.5
percent. These reductions in allocation would result in decreased early season gross revenues of
approximately $0.7 and $0.4 million, respectively. These negative impacts may be mitigated by
individuals traveling to where the BFT are located at any time of the season. However, NMFS
has little specific information at this time regarding the costs that would be incurred due to this
travel.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-217

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Table 4.61

Alternative F3(b): Gross revenues associated with the proposed sub-allocation of the General
Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the South Atlantic

Time-Period

Percentage

Approx
Approx
Equivalent in
Equivalent
mt*
in lb*
JUNE - AUG
54.0
372.5
821,213.5
SEPTEMBER
26.5
182.8
403,000.9
OCT - NOV
9.0
62.2
137,126.1
DECEMBER
5.2
35.9
79,145.1
JANUARY
5.3
36.5
80,467.9
TOTAL
100.0
689.8
1,520,953.5
*Time-period allocations may differ slightly due to rounding.

Average
Ex-Vessel $
('99-'04)
7.71
7.10
6.68
7.70
7.76

Approx.
Gross Revenues
$6,331,556.09
$2,861,306.39
$ 916,002.35
$ 609,417.27
$ 624,430.90
$11,342,713.00

Subalternative F3(c) (preferred) would implement the same time-periods as mentioned in
subalternative F3(b), but would implement slightly different subquota allocation percentages for
the June through August and October through November time-periods (Table 4.62). This
subalternative was designed to redistribute the quota from the early time-periods to provide a
winter General category BFT fishery during the months of December and January. This
subalternative would reduce the allocation to the June through August time-period to a higher
degree than subalternative F3(b) and increase the suballocation to the October through
November time period, thus shifting more of the potentially adverse social and economic impacts
to the earliest portion of the season.
This subalternative would enhance equity among regional General category participants,
given that access to fish can vary considerably both temporally and geographically. Because this
alternative would allocate General category quota based on a balance between historical General
category BFT allocations, recent BFT landing trends, and the NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking,
there would be no significant social or economic impacts to the fishery as a whole, however,
there may be heighten regional or local impacts. Public comments generally support the
preferred alternative to modify the General category time-periods and percentages because it
ensures that fishermen in all the South Atlantic states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida’s East coast) have an opportunity to participate in this fishery. However, this
subalternative would have similar positive and adverse social and economic impacts as outlined
in subalternative F3(b). The adverse social and economic impacts would be shifted to the
earliest portion of the fishery, where the General category subquota allocations have traditionally
been the highest. This subalternative would have positive social and economic impacts to those
General category participants fishing in the later portion of the season due to a 13.5 percent
increase in available quota, compared to the No Action alternative, during the time frame of
October through January. This increase in quota would equate to approximately $1.5 million in
additional gross revenue for the later part of the General category season. However, those
General category participants who pursue BFT in the summer months may experience roughly
equivalent adverse social and economic impacts due to the shift in quota to the later portion of
the season. For instance, under this alternative, the status quo June through August time-period
subquota allocation would be reduced by approximately ten percent and the September timeperiod by approximately 3.5 percent. These reductions in allocation would result in decreased
gross revenues of approximately $1.2 and $0.3 million, respectively, for each of these time
periods.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-218

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Reallocating more quota from the June through August time-period to the later timeperiods would mitigate some of these adverse social and economic impacts because the June
through August subquota has the largest allocation under the status quo and the amount of quota
that would be reallocated would equate to a smaller percentage of the June through August
subquota in comparison to the same amount of quota being reallocated from the other timeperiod subquotas. This subalternative is preferred due to the balance it strikes between providing
all General category BFT fishery participants an equitable opportunity to harvest a portion of the
coastwide General category quota, while still recognizing the historical participation in this
fishery. Any adverse social or economic impacts associated with this alternative would be
minimized and may even be mitigated as fishermen may travel to the geographical location of
where the BFT are located at any give time. However, as stated previously, NMFS has little
specific information at this time regarding the costs that would be incurred due to this travel.
Table 4.62

Alternative F3(c) (preferred): Gross revenues associated with the proposed sub-allocation of
the General Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the South Atlantic.

Time-Period

Percentage

Approx.
Approx.
Equivalent in
Equivalent
mt*
in lb*
JUNE - AUG
50.0
345.0
760,587.0
SEPTEMBER
26.5
182.8
403,000.9
OCT - NOV
13.0
89.7
197,752.6
DECEMBER
5.2
35.9
79,145.1
JANUARY
5.3
36.5
80,467.9
TOTAL
100.0
689.8
1,520,953.5
*Time-period allocations may differ slightly due to rounding.

Average
Ex-Vessel $
('99-'04)
7.71
7.10
6.68
7.70
7.76

Approx.
Gross Revenues
$ 5,864,125.77
$ 2,861,306.39
$ 1,320,987.37
$ 609,417.27
$ 624,430.90
$11,280,267.70

Subalternative F3(d) would implement the same time-periods as described in subalternatives F3(b) and F3(c), but would allocate the General category time-period subquota in
accordance with the NCDMF’s Petition for Rulemaking (i.e., 150 mt total for the months of
December and January or approximately 21.7 percent of the coastwide General category quota
(Table 4.63). This alternative would have a greater positive social and economic impact to
General category participants in the South Atlantic region due to a 24.7 percent increase in
available quota, compared to the No Action alternative, during the time frame of October
through January. This increase in quota would equate to approximately $2.8 million in
additional gross revenue for the later part of the General category season. However, those
General category participants in the New England area, or those participants that pursue BFT in
the summer months, may experience roughly equivalent adverse social and economic impacts
due to the shift in quota to the later portion of the season. For instance, under this alternative, the
status quo June through August time-period subquota allocation would be reduced by
approximately 21.3 percent and the September time-period allocation by approximately 3.4
percent. These reductions in allocation would result in decreased gross revenues of
approximately $2.5 and $0.3 million, respectively. These negative impacts may be mitigated by
individuals traveling to where the BFT are located at any time of the season.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-219

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Table 4.63

Alternative F3(d): Gross revenues associated with the proposed sub-allocation of the General
Category quota, providing a BFT winter fishery in the South Atlantic.

Time-Period

Percentage

Equivalent in
mt*

JUNE - AUG
38.7
267
SEPTEMBER
26.6
183.5
OCT - NOV
13
89.7
DECEMBER
10.8
74.5
JANUARY
10.9
75.2
TOTAL
100
689.9
*Time-period allocations may differ slightly due to rounding.

Equivalent
in lb*
588,628.2
404,544.1
197,752.6
164,252.7
165,785.9
1,520,953.5

Average
Ex-Vessel $
('99-'04)
7.71
7.10
6.68
7.70
7.76

Gross Revenues

$4,538,323.42
$2,872,263.11
$1,320,987.37
$1,264,745.79
$1,286,498.58
$11,282,818.27

Alternative F4 (preferred) would clarify the procedures NMFS uses to calculate the
ICCAT recommendation regarding the eight percent tolerance for BFT under 115 cm (young
school and school BFT). This alternative would have slightly more positive social and economic
impacts than the No Action alternative, as it would slightly increase the school size-class BFT
quota by approximately 2 mt from the status quota allocation. This alternative would implement
the ICCAT recommendation more accurately based on the specific language contained in the
recommendation.
In response to public comment, this alternative has been slightly modified from that
proposed in the draft HMS FMP. This preferred alternative would maintain, rather than remove,
the North/South Angling category dividing line. This alternative may have some positive social
and economic impacts attributed to more finite quota management of the recreational BFT
fishery, such as NMFS being able to implement different BFT recreational retention limits by
geographic area. However, NMFS would require timely BFT landings data from the recreational
sector to use this management tool in real-time. If compliance with the current recreational catch
monitoring programs improves, the effectiveness of this management tool would increase. Also
as recreational catch monitoring programs are improved over time, the effectiveness of this
management tool would also likely increase. In the meantime, public comment indicated that
maintaining the North/South line would preserve the original intent to ensure reasonable
recreational fishing opportunities in all geographic areas without risking overharvest of the
Angling category quota.
Conclusion
Alternative F3, sub-alternative F3(c), and alternative F4 are the preferred alternatives
under the BFT Quota Management issue. Alternative F3, would amend the management
procedures used to establish and adjust the General category time-periods, associated subquotas,
as well as geographic set-asides. More specifically, the detailed information regarding the
management of the General category, as contained in the 1999 FMP, would be crafted to be more
general in nature. The specific details pertaining to management of the General category would
be relocated into the regulatory text implementing the consolidated HMS FMP. By moving the
specific language from the FMP to the implementing regulations, NMFS would be able to
provide consistent time-periods and subquotas, as they would be codified in the regulations,
while also gaining the ability to amend these General category time-periods, subquotas, if
deemed necessary, in a relative shorter time-frame.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-220

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Because ICCAT recommended annual U.S. BFT TACs tend to remain consistent for a
multiple year time frame and as the General category baseline quota (calculated from the ICCAT
TAC), time-periods, and associated subquotas would be codified in the implementing
regulations, the annual BFT specification process would be streamlined as a result of this
alternative. The General category subquota allocation percentages would be codified in whole
weight, as well as in percentages, the regulatory, environmental, social, and economic analyses
conducted for the consolidated HMS FMP would remain relatively consistent and would
constitute the supporting documentation for future annual regulatory framework actions
specifying the upcoming years BFT quotas, provided the ICCAT BFT TAC recommendation
remains consistent. However, if the specific management measures contained in the regulatory
text need to be changed, for instance if ICCAT amends the BFT TAC recommendation, then an
appropriate analytical document (i.e., EA or EIS, RIR, IRFA, etc.) would need to accompany the
proposed and final rule in the regulatory amendment. These analytical documents would replace
those that constitute the supporting documentation for future annual regulatory framework
actions regarding BFT quota allocations. This alternative is preferred due to the balance it
strikes between providing consistent baseline quota allocations and having the flexibility and
ability to amend them, if warranted, in a relatively timely fashion. This alternative would also
provide positive social and economic impacts to fishermen as they would be able to plan their
business activities in advance while the Agency would have the flexibility to adapt to changing
fishery conditions.
Sub-alternative F3(c) would remove the New York Bight set-aside allocation and divide
the coastwide General category season into five distinct time-periods, June through August,
September, October through November, December, and January. The time-periods, and
associated subquotas, of this sub-alternative would allocate fishing privileges to further achieve
optimum yield without excluding traditional participants in the fishery. Thus, this subalternative would establish time-period subquota allocation percentages as follows: 50 percent
(June through August), 26.5 percent (September), 13 percent (October through November), 5.2
percent (December), and 5.3 percent (January). This sub-alternative is preferred because it
would enhance equity among regional General category participants, given that access to fish
varies considerably both temporally and geographically. This sub-alternative is also preferred
because it would allocate General category quota based on striking a balance between historical
General category BFT allocations, recent BFT landing trends, and the requests contained in the
NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking, and there would be no significant social or economic impacts
to the fishery as a whole expected as a result of this sub-alternative.
Alternative F4 would clarify the procedure for calculating the ICCAT-recommended
eight percent tolerance limit on school size-class BFT for the Angling category quota to be more
consistent with the actual language from the ICCAT recommendation and would result in a slight
increase of the school size class BFT quota. This alternative would also maintain the
North/South Angling category dividing line located at 39º 18 minutes N. latitude (Great Egg
Inlet, NJ). This alternative is preferred because it would implement the ICCAT recommendation
more accurately based on the specific language contained in the recommendation and it would
preserve the original intent of the North/South dividing line as it would provide more equitable
geographic and temporal distribution of recreational fishing opportunities by separating each
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-221

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

BFT size-class subquota into two geographical regions, the northern area (allocated 47.2 percent
of the size-class subquotas) and the southern area (52.8 percent of the size-class subquotas).
4.3.1.2 Annual BFT Management Measures
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for amending annual BFT quota
adjustment procedures are:
F5

Maintain the annual BFT quota specification process and the under/overharvest
procedures within individual domestic quota categories and individual vessels in the
Purse seine category (No Action)

F6

Revise the annual BFT quota specification process to refer back to the supporting
analytical documents of the consolidated HMS FMP and include seasonal management
measures in annual framework actions – Preferred Alternative

F7

Eliminate unharvested quota carryover provisions and return unharvested quota to the
resource, while maintaining status quo overharvest provisions

F8

Establish an individual quota category carryover limit of 100 percent of the baseline
allocation (i.e., no more than the annual baseline allocation may be carried forward),
except for the Reserve category, and authorize the transfer of quota exceeding the 100
percent limit to the Reserve or another domestic quota category, while maintaining status
quo overharvest provisions – Preferred Alternative

Ecological Impacts
One of the conservation and management tools recommended by ICCAT is the use of
TAC quotas for a particular species. When the United States accepts an ICCAT
recommendation, ATCA provides the Secretary with the necessary authority to implement these
binding recommendations. However, no regulation promulgated under ATCA may have the
effect of increasing or decreasing any allocation or quota of fish or fishing mortality level to
which the United States agreed pursuant to a recommendation of ICCAT.
Alternative F5 (No Action) would implement regulations as outlined in the 1999 FMP.
NMFS would conduct an annual rulemaking to allocate ICCAT-recommended baseline BFT
quotas, adjust those baseline quotas to account for each domestic quota category’s
under/overharvests that occurred in the previous fishing year, and establish the General category
effort controls for the upcoming fishing year (e.g., an RFD schedule). Under this alternative,
NMFS would also be authorized to allocate any remaining quota from the Reserve to cover
potential overharvests, consistent with the criteria described in Section 4.3.1.3. The total of the
adjusted quotas and the Reserve would need to be consistent with the 20-year ICCAT Rebuilding
Program for BFT. These small orders of change, quantified in either numbers of fish or in
weight (mt), or time and/or location of harvest, compared to overall U.S. harvest levels as
recommended by ICCAT under the 20-year rebuilding program would equate to ecological
impacts that would be unlikely to be measurable given the variability in the data used to conduct
BFT stock assessments. Additionally, the numbers of BFT harvested from each different sizeclass would remain consistent with the levels of BFT mortality used in the stock assessment.
The under/overharvest accounting procedures contained in this alternative may have some minor
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-222

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

adverse ecological impacts. Specifically, under this alternative, a domestic category could
experience excessively slow catch rates in a given fishing year resulting in large amounts of
unharvested quota being carried forward from one fishing year to the next, especially if this were
to occur in multiple successive years. These rollovers could lead to a quota 'stockpiling' situation
in one particular domestic quota category. Stockpiling quota could have implications for the 20­
year ICCAT Rebuilding Plan for BFT, as that could allow for excessive pressure or harvest on a
particularly sensitive year class.
Alternative F6 (preferred) would codify the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC, as
well as the domestic allocation percentages and quota equivalents of that TAC, in the regulations
implementing the consolidated HMS FMP. The ICCAT BFT quota recommendation is based on
the most recent stock assessment of western Atlantic BFT, which in turn incorporates the most
up-to-date scientific information submitted annually by its member nations, and typically covers
multiple years. This alternative would eliminate the need to allocate the baseline quota to each
domestic category every year as the allocation percentages and quota equivalents (in mt) would
be codified in the regulations implementing the consolidated HMS FMP, at least until ICCAT
alters the U.S. BFT TAC recommendation. NMFS would conduct under/overharvest
adjustments annually and may transfer quota among the categories, so long as the results of these
actions are consistent with all pertinent ICCAT recommendations, especially the 20-year ICCAT
Rebuilding Program for BFT. As the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC is based on the most
recent scientific data, as incorporated in the western Atlantic BFT stock assessment, and the
quota allocations are TACs, NMFS does not anticipate any adverse ecological impacts from this
alternative.
This alternative would maintain the default General and Angling category BFT retention
limits (described in alternative F1) and would make adjustments to those limits in the annual
BFT quota specifications, allowing the public an opportunity to comment on such actions. To
provide maximum utilization of the General category quota, NMFS may increase or decrease the
daily retention limit of large medium or giant BFT over a range of zero to a maximum of three
BFT per vessel. To provide maximum utilization of the Angling category quota, NMFS may
increase or decrease the retention limit for any size class BFT or change a vessel trip limit to an
angler trip limit and vice versa. NMFS would base any proposed adjustments on the
determination criteria discussed in Section 4.3.1.3. NMFS would also maintain the ability to
alter the retention limits via an inseason action, if warranted. For further details regarding
inseason actions, please see Section 4.3.1.3. These adjustments would be inextricably linked to
the available BFT quota and would be consistent with all pertinent ICCAT recommendations,
especially the 20-year ICCAT Rebuilding Program for BFT. As the ICCAT-recommended U.S.
BFT TAC is based on the most recent scientific data, as incorporated in the western Atlantic
BFT stock assessment, and the quota allocations are TACs, NMFS does not anticipate any
adverse ecological impacts from adjusting daily retention limits adjustments within the scope
outlined above.
Under alternative F6, NMFS may also propose a schedule of RFDs for the upcoming
fishing season. Such a schedule would accompany the annual BFT specifications and provide
notice of and an opportunity for the public to comment on this type of General category effort
control. The number of RFDs proposed could range from zero RFDs to a large number of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-223

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

consecutive RFDs, blocking out weeks at a time. RFDs, in general, are designed to have positive
economic and social impacts, and have neither positive nor negative ecological impacts since
they only impact when and where BFT mortality occurs, and not the magnitude. The magnitude
of mortality has been dictated by finite quotas established under a 20-year rebuilding plan for
BFT and other recommendations by ICCAT. Regulating effort helps achieve optimum yield
while considering the social and economic interests of the participants. The limited nature of
these effort controls is unlikely to have any differential impacts on the life history or overall
biological distribution of the western Atlantic BFT stock. However, it is possible that if too
many effort controls are implemented, effort may shift to other species or the pace of the fishery
could be slowed to such an extent that the full quota is not attained. This would be contrary to
the consolidated HMS FMP and ATCA and any quota underage would be applied to the
following year so mortality would only be deferred. Alternatively, if too few effort controls are
implemented, it is possible the BFT fisheries would attain their quota rapidly and close
prematurely. Fishermen may then turn to other stocks to target, particularly other HMS species,
with corresponding impacts to other elements of the ecosystem. However, neither of these
scenarios is expected to result from this alternative.
Alternative F7 would have more positive ecological effects, in comparison to the other
alternatives, because any underharvests from one fishing year would not carry forward to the
subsequent fishing year, thus eliminating the ability for any domestic quota category to
‘stockpile’ quota. Therefore, this alternative may accelerate the rebuilding plan for western
Atlantic BFT, but could ultimately result in adverse ecological impacts if the United States does
not fully utilize its ICCAT-allocated TAC. Because the BFT quotas are TACs recommended by
ICCAT, it is possible that any unused portion of the U.S. TAC could be reallocated to another
member nation. Therefore, this alternative could have some potential adverse ecological impacts
in the long-term that would be associated with a reallocation of unutilized U.S. BFT quota to an
ICCAT member nation that does not have comparable conservation measures to those of the
United States. For instance, a portion of the U.S. BFT TAC could be reallocated to a member
nation that has a higher level of interaction with protected resources or has not taken equivalent
steps to minimize bycatch.
Alternative F8 (preferred) may reduce potential adverse ecological impacts as it would
allow the Agency to limit the amount of unharvested quota a category could carry from one
fishing year to the next. This alternative would allow NMFS to curtail excessive amounts of
BFT quota from accumulating in any particular domestic quota category due to multiple
successive years of underharvest and therefore, may curb the likelihood of a ‘stockpiling’
situation. This alternative would authorize NMFS to redistribute quota exceeding the 100
percent rollover cap to the Reserve or to other domestic quota categories, if deemed necessary,
provided the redistributions are consistent with ICCAT recommendations and the criteria in
Section 4.3.1.3. NMFS received public comment concerned about transferring quota from one
category to the Reserve, which eventually may be transferred to yet another category that
harvests BFT within a different size range than the original category. One metric ton of BFT
equals many more fish within the school size range than one metric ton in the giant size class.
Therefore, to avoid any potential adverse ecological impacts that may occur, quota origin may
need to be tracked to ensure the level of mortality is consistent with those accounted for in the
stock assessment. This alternative would provide reasonable fishing opportunities to harvest the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-224

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC as close to the timeframe it was originally intended to be
harvested and may reduce the likelihood of reallocating U.S. BFT quota to another member
nation that does not have comparable conservation measures (see discussion under alternative
F7).
Social and Economic Impacts
Alterative F5 (No Action) would maintain the status quo process used to allocate the
ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC domestically, accounting for annual under/overharvest,
and establishing General category effort controls. This alternative is unlikely to have any
substantial immediate social or economic impacts given that these processes have been in place
since prior to the implementation of the 1999 FMP. However, NMFS received public comment
in the past regarding the timing of annual BFT specification publication and that administrative
or other delays in publishing the annual BFT specifications can have adverse social and
economic impacts due to constituents inability to make informed business decisions. Under this
alternative, the annual BFT quota specifications would establish baseline domestic quota
category allocations, as well as adjust those allocations based on the previous years
under/overharvest. Any delay in publishing the annual BFT quota specifications would prolong
the establishment of a baseline quota in any of the domestic categories.
Alternative F6, a preferred alternative, would have slightly more positive social and
economic impacts, in comparison to alternative F5, as each baseline domestic quota category
allocation, quantified in metric tons (not just the percentage of the U.S. BFT TAC) would be
codified in the regulatory text implementing the consolidated HMS FMP. Therefore, each
established domestic user group would have a quantifiable amount of quota available for harvest
at the start of each fishing year (Table 4.64) and the filing and publication of the final annual
BFT specifications would not be required to establish the baseline quotas. These baseline quotas
would remain consistent from one year to the next, until ICCAT amends the recommendation
regarding western Atlantic BFT TACs. If and when ICCAT amends its recommendation
regarding western Atlantic BFT TACs, NMFS may need to undertake rulemaking to analyze the
impacts associated with the revised recommendation and would codify the results, as they apply
to each domestic quota category allocation, in the regulations. This alternative would still
require NMFS to conduct an annual rulemaking to account for the previous years
under/overharvest, but would provide some level of stability regarding baseline quota availability
for each fishing year. This alternative would also establish General category effort controls and
establish daily retention limits for the Angling and General categories and any associated time
frames in the annual framework action.
This alternative would maintain the default General and Angling category BFT retention
limits and would propose adjustments to those limits in the annual BFT quota specifications to
provide notice of, and an opportunity for the public to comment, on these sort of actions. To
provide maximum utilization of the General category quota, NMFS may increase or decrease the
daily retention limit of large medium or giant BFT over a range of zero to a maximum of three
BFT per vessel. To provide maximum utilization of the Angling category quota, NMFS may
increase or decrease the retention limit for any size class BFT or change a vessel trip limit to an
angler trip limit and vice versa. NMFS would base the proposed adjustments on the
determination criteria discussed under Section 4.3.1.3 and would maintain the ability to alter the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-225

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

retention limits via an inseason action, if warranted. For further details regarding inseason
actions, please see Section 4.3.1.3.
Under this alternative, NMFS may propose a schedule of RFDs that may be implemented
for the upcoming fishing season. Such a schedule would accompany the annual BFT
specifications and provide notice of, and an opportunity for the public to comment on, this type
of General category effort control. The proposed RFD schedule could range from zero RFDs to
a large number of consecutive RFDs, blocking out weeks at a time. In the past, when catch rates
have been high, implementing more RFDs has had positive economic impacts by avoiding
market gluts and providing access to higher quality fish later in the season. Positive social
impacts have also occurred as fishermen have commented that knowing the exact schedule of
RFDs prior to the season facilitates planning and scheduling of trips. However, if catch rates are
slow and a large amount of RFDs hinder the ability to harvest a time-period subquota, waiving
RFDs in mid-season can cause confusion and disrupt fishermen’s activity and, although
information regarding the canceling is widespread over various electronic and paper media, there
may be some negative social impacts as a result. Under this alternative, NMFS would maintain
the authority to add or waive RFDs if deemed necessary.
To streamline the annual rulemaking, NMFS would analyze baseline allocations and the
range of possible under/overharvests that could occur from the previous years fishing activity
(see alternative F8) in the analytical supporting documents of the consolidated HMS FMP. This
alternative would have positive social and economic impacts to the domestic BFT fishery as a
whole by allowing commercial and recreational BFT fishery participants to make informed
decisions on how best to establish a business plan for the upcoming season as well as helping to
achieve optimum yield from the BFT fishery.
Alternative F7 would have the most adverse social and economic impacts of all the
alternatives considered for this issue. Under this alternative, NMFS would not carry forward
unharvested quota from one fishing year to the next. This could result in a perception that
domestic quota categories are being penalized for not harvesting their allocated quota in the time
provided and may lead to derby style fishing, causing vessels to operate in less than optimal
conditions. This alternative could also result in a domestic quota category not receiving a quota
transfer from another domestic quota category with large amounts of underharvest to assist in
covering an overharvest situation, which could result in quota deducted from that category in the
following year. This could result in reduced fishing opportunities, income, and angler consumer
surplus for the commercial and/or recreational fleet, as well as the businesses that support those
BFT fisheries. This alternative would have adverse social and economic impacts attributed to
potential BFT quota reallocations at the ICCAT level, as discussed in the ecological impacts
section of this issue.
Alternative F8, a preferred alternative, would have both slightly positive and negative
social and economic impacts on BFT fishery participants. Under this alternative, each domestic
quota category would be limited in the amount of unharvested quota carried forward from one
fishing year to the next. This limit, or cap, would in turn limit the amount of revenue each
domestic quota category could generate to no more than the value associated with double the
baseline allocation (Table 4.64). These potential adverse economic impacts may be mitigated,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-226

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

overall, by reallocating the tonnage that exceeds the 100 percent cap to the Reserve or to another
domestic quota category using the criteria stipulated in Section 4.3.1.3. In addition, this
alternative would not preclude the NMFS from transferring additional quota from the Reserve
back to a category that has reached the rollover limit via an inseason action, if warranted.
Table 4.64
Category

Alternative F8: Gross revenues associated with the proposed rollover cap of 100 percent of the
baseline quota allocation.
Baseline
quota
allocation *

Roll-over
allotment

Total Potential
Annual Quota
(mt)

Total
Potential
Annual
Quota (lb)
3,041,466
251,765
1,201,066
522,931
6,614
1,272,495

General
689.8
689.8
1,379.6
Harpoon
57.1
57.1
114.2
Purse Seine
272.4
272.4
544.8
Longline
118.6**
118.6**
237.2
Trap
1.5
1.5
3.0
Angling
288.6
288.6
577.2
*Based on current ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC
** Does not include the NED Statistical set-aside annual allocation of 25 mt.
N/A = Not Available

Average
Ex-vessel
price
(99-04)
7.17
7.17
4.99
6.18
N/A
N/A

Total Potential
Gross Revenues

$21,807,311.22
$1,805,155.05
$5,993,319.34
$3,231,713.58
N/A
N/A

Conclusion
Alternatives F6 and F8, are the preferred alternatives because F6 would revise the annual
BFT quota specification process so the supporting analytical documents of the consolidated
HMS FMP would be referred back while F8 would establish the authority to implement an
individual quota category carryover limit of 100 percent of the baseline allocation, except for the
Reserve category, and authorize the transfer of quota exceeding the 100 percent limit to the
Reserve or another domestic quota category, while maintaining status quo overharvest provision.
Under alternative F6, each baseline domestic quota category allocation, quantified in metric tons
(not just the percentage of the U.S. BFT TAC) would be codified in the regulatory text
implementing the consolidated HMS FMP. Therefore, each established domestic user group
would have a quantifiable amount of quota available for harvest at the start of each fishing year
and the filing and publication of the final annual BFT specifications would not be required to
establish the baseline quotas. These baseline quotas would remain consistent from one year to
the next, until ICCAT amends the recommendation regarding western Atlantic BFT TACs, at
which time the impacts to the new recommendation would need to be analyzed. Alternative F8
would allow NMFS to curtail excessive amounts of BFT quota from accumulating in any
particular domestic quota category due to multiple successive years of underharvest and
therefore, may curb the likelihood of a ‘stockpiling’ situation.
These alternatives were preferred because they would provide participants in the BFT
fishery a timely and stable baseline quota allocation from one year to the next, the Agency the
ability to address under/overharvests from the previous year, the ability to establish the General
category effort controls as well as recreational and commercial handgear daily retention limits
for the upcoming season, and streamline the annual rulemaking process. Additionally, they
would provide NMFS the authority to implement a cap on the amount of quota that a category
may carry forward from one fishing year to the next would allow NMFS to manage the harvest
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-227

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

of BFT with more finite precision and minimize the occurrence of 'stockpiling' in any one quota
category.
4.3.1.3 Inseason Actions
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for amending inseason action
procedures are:
F9

Maintain inseason action procedures (No Action)

F10 Revise and consolidate criteria considered prior to performing inseason and some
annual BFT management actions – Preferred Alternative
F11 Eliminate BFT inseason actions
Ecological Impacts
Alternatives F9 and F10 would both authorize NMFS to perform inseason adjustments
which may include, but would not be limited to, quota transfers between categories, adjustments
to daily retention limits, and interim closures of a fishery when deemed necessary. Under these
alternatives, NMFS would consider numerous criteria in making a determination, consistent with
the objectives of the ICCAT recommended 20-year rebuilding plan, Magnuson-Stevens, ATCA,
and the consolidated HMS FMP. As the criteria outlined in this section encompass the
objectives of the consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS anticipates neutral ecological impacts from
these two alternatives. The consolidation of the criteria considered prior to implementing an
inseason adjustment was generally supported by the public comments on the Draft Consolidated
HMS FMP.
Under alternative F11, NMFS would not perform any inseason actions, which could
result in some negative ecological impacts. For instance, NMFS would not curtail daily retention
limits or impose interim closures if BFT catch rates were high, which could lead to premature
closures or overharvests in a particular domestic quota category, thus leading to negative
ecological impacts. Conversely, catch rates may be slow, which could lead to unharvested quota
and excessive quota rollovers from one year to the next, or in the case of General category
subquotas, from one time-period to the next, which could lead to a ‘stockpiling situation and
therefore potential adverse ecological impacts.
Social and Economic Impacts
Under alternatives F9 and F10, NMFS would conduct inseason management actions,
consistent with the determination criteria described in Section 4.3.1.3, which would allow for the
flexibility to better meet the objectives of the consolidated HMS FMP, ICCAT
recommendations, Magnuson-Stevens Act, and ATCA in a more responsive fashion. Both of
these alternatives would allow the Agency to adapt management measures to the inherent
variability in the BFT fishery, and thus provide for maximum utilization of the BFT quota.
NMFS would have the ability to adjust the daily retention limits in the domestic quota categories
with the highest participation rates, namely the Angling and General categories, and to provide
fishery participants an opportunity to harvest a portion of their respective quotas while those fish
are available, thereby providing reasonable fishing opportunities to those participants. These
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-228

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

alternatives would also allow the Agency to curtail effort, if warranted, either by restricting
retention limits or imposing an interim closure to help facilitate reasonable fishing opportunities
for all participants across temporal and geographic differences.
For instance, NMFS may adjust the General category daily retention limit between a
range of zero and three BFT per vessel per day/trip. When catch rates are low, as they have been
in the early portion of the season over the last few years, a liberalized retention limit of two or
three fish may have positive social and economic impacts on a vessel that is able to harvest
multiple fish, due to the limited supply of U.S. fish on the market at that time. Some of the
highest ex-vessel prices have occurred during this time-period when catch rates were slow.
Providing a multiple fish retention limit may also assist in offsetting operating costs when there
is a long steam time to and from the fishing grounds. Fishermen are able to remain on the
fishing grounds longer, and in some cases overnight, instead of running long distances on a daily
basis if they are allowed to retain multiple fish. Having the ability to liberalize the daily
retention limit also has some potential adverse social and economic impacts as well. For
example, if catch rates were to increase dramatically over a short period of time while the
retention limits were set at the upper end of the allowable range, large numbers of BFT could be
landed in a short time period, thus flooding the market and depressing ex-vessel prices, and
harvesting the quota at an accelerated rate. Another potential adverse impact linked to having
the ability to adjust these retention limits is the inability to accurately forecast when and for how
long the adjustments should be effective. Therefore, NMFS must remain diligent in monitoring
the BFT fishery as close to real time as possible.
In regard to the Angling category retention limits, both positive and negative social and
economic impacts could be associated with having the flexibility to adjust them inseason, similar
to the General category. There may be positive impacts associated with liberalizing the daily
retention limits, either by angler, by vessel, or vessel type, due to the enhanced fishing
opportunities that would be associated with the increase in retention limits. In past years, NMFS
has received comments from the HMS CHB sector that increased retention limits provide
additional incentives for individuals to book charters, because the charter party would have the
opportunity to retain more fish for the same amount money spent on the charter itself. For those
privately owned and operated recreational vessels, a liberalized retention limit also provides
some additional incentive to target BFT, due to an increase in Angler Consumer Surplus (ACS)
by increasing the amount of BFT that could be retained in relation to the costs incurred running
offshore (i.e., in terms of fuel, bait, food, etc.). Potential adverse impacts may be associated with
lowering/constraining retention limits or imposing an interim closure to ensure anglers in
different temporal or geographical areas are not precluded from a reasonable opportunity to
harvest a portion of the Angling category quota. Another potential adverse impact related to
having the ability to adjust these retention limits is the inability to accurately predict catch rates
and in turn forecast when and for how long the adjustments should be effective. This is
especially true when charter trips are booked at a time when more liberal retention limits are in
place but are restricted prior to the actual date the trip is taking place. Therefore, NMFS must
remain diligent in monitoring the BFT fishery as close to real time as possible.
Therefore, both alternatives F9 and F10 could have both positive and negative economic
and social impacts on BFT fishery participants due to the ability to adapt regulations inseason to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-229

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

meet the objectives of the consolidated HMS FMP and the inherent inability to foresee when a
change should take place. Alternative F10 would have slightly more positive economic and
social impacts as the criteria NMFS would consider when making an inseason action would be
consolidated and consistent, regardless of what type of inseason action is under consideration.
This consolidation would minimize confusion regarding how NMFS came to a decision, and
thereby provide additional transparency to the management process.
Alternative F11 would constrain NMFS' ability to adjust management actions affecting
the BFT fishery and could impact the ability to fully meet the objectives of the consolidated
HMS FMP, one of which is providing reasonable fishing opportunities. Fishery participants
would experience positive social and economic benefits by knowing that quota allocations and
daily retention limits were to remain stable throughout the entire season, which would aid in
planning fishing activities. However, participants would also experience adverse social and
economic impacts attributed to the limitations imposed on NMFS in providing for maximum
utilization of the BFT quota spread over the longest period of time (i.e., limits would need to be
more restrictive than under alternatives F9 and F10 to ensure quotas were not exceeded).
Conclusion
Western Atlantic BFT are overfished, and one of the main objectives of the consolidated
HMS FMP is to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, while providing reasonable
fishing opportunities to harvest the limited quota that is available under the BFT rebuilding plan.
Consolidating and refining the criteria that NMFS would consider prior to conducting any
inseason, and some annual, actions would assist in meeting the consolidated HMS FMP's
objectives in a consistent manner, providing reasonable fishing opportunities, increasing the
transparency in the decision making process, and balancing the resource's needs with users’
needs. Therefore, alternative F10 is the preferred alternative for this issue.
4.3.2

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries

As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered to change the annual management
timeframe for HMS fisheries are listed below, and depicted in Table 4.65:
G1
G2
G3

Maintain the current fishing year for all HMS (No Action)
Shift the fishing year to January 1 – December 31 for all HMS - Preferred Alternative
Shift the fishing year to June 1 – May 31 for all HMS

Table 4.65

Fishing years by HMS proposed for Alternatives G1-G3.

HMS
Tuna
Sharks
Swordfish
Billfish

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Alternative G1
(No Action)
June 1 – May 31
January 1 – December 31
June 1 – May 31
June 1 – May 31

Fishing Year
Alternative G2
(Preferred)
January 1 – December 31
January 1 – December 31
January 1 – December 31
January 1 – December 31

4-2
4-230

Alternative G3
June 1 – May 31
June 1 – May 31
June 1 – May 31
June 1 – May 31

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Ecological Impacts
The three alternatives for changing the annual management timeframe for HMS fisheries
are given in Table 1. This action would be largely administrative and each alternative considered
would have a minimal ecological impact. From a long-term perspective, the amount of fish
harvested and resultant fishing effort would not be expected to change overall. However, there
could be some short-term, minor ecological impacts.
The migratory nature of HMS stocks results in seasonal availability in different
geographic regions. If a quota is harvested before the end of a fishing year, the geographic area
where the fish would normally be located at the end of the fishing year would be expected to
experience less fishing effort. Thus, if sensitive life stages such as spawning adults or limited
year classes are concentrated in geographic areas that are not fished because a quota is harvested,
in general, the stock could experience a positive impact. The converse could also hold true – if a
sensitive year class or life history stage were concentrated in a geographic area open to fishing at
the beginning of a fishing year, in general, negative impacts to the stock could occur.
HMS stocks that are limited by quotas (BFT, albacore tuna, swordfish, sharks) or subject
to catch limits (white and blue marlin) could potentially be impacted in this way. However, for
each of these fisheries, there are mitigating circumstances that minimize the potential for these
impacts. Neither the albacore tuna nor the swordfish fisheries have been harvesting the entire
available quota, so these fisheries have remained open throughout the season. A change in the
fishing year should have no impact unless there are changes in these fisheries that would increase
landings. BFT, swordfish and sharks are highly regulated with temporal and/or geographic
subquotas, intended in part to spread these fisheries out over the entire fishing year and range of
the fishery. In addition, the sensitive life stage of spawning BFT in the Gulf of Mexico is
already highly regulated.
For blue and white marlin, the ICCAT 250 marlin catch limit proposed to be codified
under preferred Alternative E6 has rarely been reached historically. Thus, barring unanticipated
and significant changes in recreational fishing effort or practices, these fisheries are expected to
continue throughout the year without the need for inseason management actions to increase the
minimum size limit, and/or implement catch-and-release restrictions, as per preferred alternative
E6. In the unlikely event that a threshold for implementation of these management measures is
reached, there is little information available to show that sensitive life stages or year classes of
these species are more or less available in different geographic regions. Thus, NMFS does not
expect any negative or positive impacts to target species from this perspective as a result of any
of the alternatives (G1-G3) considered for this action.
In addition, since this action is largely administrative, few impacts are expected to nontarget species, including finfish and protected species, and no impacts would occur to EFH.
There is a limited potential for some minimal reduction in fishing effort or minimal shift in
fishing effort from targeting marlin to targeting some other species as a result of any of the
Alternatives (G1-G3) in combination with implementing a management measure under
Alternative E6. If an overall reduction in fishing effort occurred, a small positive ecological
impact to non-target species could result under Alternatives G1-G3. This potential minimal
positive ecological impact would be expected to be slightly higher under Alternative G2
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-231

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

(preferred alternative) since the number of days that management measures under Alternative E6
are projected to be in place, and thus the number of days that effort could be reduced, would be
greater (e.g. August 22- December 31 under Scenario 2 or August 25 – December 31 under
Scenario 3) than for Alternatives G1 and G3 (e.g., May 3-31 under Scenario 2 or May 12-31
under Scenario 3). See the discussion of social and economic impacts under Alternative E6 in
Section 4.2.3 for a description of the scenarios and analyses.
Some small negative impacts could result for non-target species from a shift in fishing
effort under each of the Alternatives (G1-G3) in combination with Alternative E6; however, the
species and amount of impacts are currently not quantifiable. Contrary to the previous
discussion, impacts could be slightly higher to non-target species if a shift in effort to non-HMS
species occurred under Alternative G2, since the management measures are expected to be in
effect for a longer duration. However, for both these discussions, it is important to remember
that it is impossible to predetermine fisherman behavior and that overall impacts are not
quantifiable at this time, but are expected to be small.
Alternative G2 would also include implementation of an abbreviated fishing year for BFT
and swordfish, which would provide the entire 2007 quotas for harvest from June-December of
2007 (Table 4.67). This compressed fishing year differs from the compressed fishing year
described in the Draft HMS FMP by the year in which it would occur. Because the comment
period was extended, the compressed fishing year would occur in 2007 rather than 2006 as
described in the Draft HMS FMP. The compressed fishing year would allow the ability to
harvest quota that is usually harvested from January through May during the period June through
December. As noted above, this would be in addition to what is usually harvested from June
through December. Although it may appear that fishing effort would be elevated during this
compressed six month fishing year as compared to a twelve month fishing year, NMFS expects
that this will not be the case. This is illustrated by the average cumulative percentage of BFT
that is usually commercially harvested from January through May, which is only 4.3 percent of
the overall annual commercial landings (in number of fish, Table 4.66). In addition, the annual
quota specification process for both swordfish and BFT allow a roll-over of any unharvested
quota from year to year. There could be some small increase in adverse ecological impacts to
non-target species from the small increase in fishing effort that could accompany the additional
4.3 percent of BFT quota harvested during the last six months of a calendar year, but it is
unlikely that these impacts would vary perceptibly from those that would occur during a twelve
month fishing year. Since swordfish fisheries are currently not harvesting the entire annual
swordfish quota, the availability of additional quota during a certain time-period would only
have minimal effects.
Table 4.66

Average number of commercially harvested BFT by month for 1999-2004. Data source:
NERO BFT landings database.
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

MONTH (1999-2004)
Jun
Jul
Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

No. of Fish

66

26

39

50

41

222

547

1014

1579

1214

126

311

5235

% by Month
% Cum.

1.3
1.3

0.5
1.8

0.7
2.5

1.0
3.5

0.8
4.3

4.2
8.5

10.4
18.9

19.4
38.3

30.2
68.5

23.2
91.7

2.4
94.1

5.9
100

100
100

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-232

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Similarly, Alternative G3 would require a bridge period from January 1, 2008 through
May 31, 2008 for sharks, as the shark management cycle would change to a fishing year under
this non-preferred alternative. The bridge period would require that the 2007 quota for sharks be
stretched to cover an additional six months. This could result in small positive ecological
impacts for sharks on a short-term basis, since the overall harvested quota during calendar year
2007 would be slightly reduced. In addition, Alternative G3 would include consideration of
shark pupping seasons during development of new quota trimesters in order to avoid negative
ecological impacts. A small reduction in directed shark fishing effort could also result in a small
reduction in adverse ecological impacts to non-target species in the form of bycatch, but some
impacts to finfish could increase if fishing effort were shifted to other species.
Social and Economic Impacts
The “No Action” alternative (G1) would maintain the fishing years for all HMS species
that are currently in place (Table 4.65). This alternative is expected to maintain the current level
of compliance with regulations and minimize short-term constituent confusion since nothing
would change. In addition, Alternative G1 would not result in any anticipated disruption to any
of the HMS markets.
Alternative G1 would maintain the current annual shark management cycle, as
established in the first shark FMP (1993). If ICCAT should become more involved in shark
management, Alternative G1 would provide consistent timing for U.S. domestic and
international shark management programs since ICCAT manages on a calendar year cycle.
However, this current management regime may be slightly more arduous for fishermen targeting
more than one HMS in the long term since sharks are managed on a different timeframe than
other HMS, and fishermen would have to be familiar with several administrative calendars
including more than one management cycle.
Alternative G1 would continue to allow approximately six months between the annual
adoption of ICCAT recommendations (typically in November) and initiation of the fishing year
for tuna, swordfish, and billfish on June 1. This six month window was intended to provide time
to implement necessary changes to domestic management measures to comply with international
obligations. It also allowed time for the affected fisheries to anticipate changes to the
management program and adjust fishing activities as needed. However, under this “No Action”
alternative, U.S. domestic fishery reporting occurs on a June 1 – May 31 fishing year basis for
tunas, swordfish, and billfish, while most ICCAT nations report on a calendar year basis. This
situation results in complex U.S. reports to ICCAT, with a confusing structure of analyses in the
U.S. National Report. Due to the complexity in reports to ICCAT, the United States’ negotiating
position during international compliance reviews may be weakened.
As described previously under the ecological impacts section, when a fishery has a finite
quota or catch limit, its start date (as well as other factors) can impact quota availability during
periods of peak market demand and effort, and the availability of quota for fisheries that occur
later in the season. For example, maintaining swordfish management with a June 1 start date
would ensure the availability of ample quota for harvest during the summer market. However,
since the U.S. fishery is not currently harvesting its full quota, ample swordfish quota is expected

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-233

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

to be available year-round. BFT and sharks are highly regulated with subperiods and subquotas
which greatly reduce the potential for negative impacts to fisheries at the tail end of the season.
As described previously, the only quota/catch-limited fishery that could potentially be
impacted by harvesting the quota/reaching a catch limit is the fishery for white and blue marlin
under the ICCAT 250 limit (Alternative E6). Socio-economic impacts to Atlantic billfish
fisheries as a result of moving to a calendar year management cycle (Alternatives G1 and G3)
would vary slightly depending upon the management measures chosen for the directed billfish
fishery (Section 4.2.3). Specifically, each option under Alternative E6, which would codify an
ICCAT-recommended recreational landings limit for white and blue marlin, could result in
minor to moderate negative impacts to billfish fisheries that occur at the tail-end of the
management cycle. Fisheries and tournaments for billfish that occur early in the fishing year
should have sufficient quota available, but tournaments scheduled for later in the fishing year
could be negatively impacted if a management threshold is reached and restrictions are
implemented before the tournaments occur. As discussed under Alternative E6, once activity
within the fishery indicates that more restrictive management measures are necessary (i.e., a
management threshold for action is achieved), a restrictive measure would be triggered which
would impact marlin fishing for the rest of the year (management period). Discussion in Section
4.2.3 under Alternative E6 explains potential impacts to billfish fisheries managed under a
fishing year (i.e., Alternatives G1 and G3) for three scenarios, briefly summarized below. Please
see Section 4.2.3 for the full discussion of this analysis. As discussed in Section 4.2.3, historical
marlin landings rates show that it is unlikely that the 250 marlin limit will be reached, or that any
inseason management actions will be necessary.
Under Scenario 1, when the threshold for inseason management action is not achieved,
there would be no management action and, as a result, no impact. In Scenario 2, the threshold
for an inseason minimum size increase is achieved. During a fishing year management cycle,
inseason size limit increases were projected to potentially occur on May 3. This would leave 28
days of fishing that would operate under an increased size limit for blue and/or white marlin, as
determined by NMFS, and could impact approximately 25 tournaments (see Section 4.2.3 for
more detail). Under Scenario 3 for a fishing year management cycle, a catch and release fishery
was projected to be implemented on May 12, leaving 19 days left in the season and the potential
closure of approximately one tournament (see Section 4.2.3 for more detail).
The preferred alternative (G2) would manage all HMS species on a fishing year cycle
from January 1-December 31 (calendar year). This would maintain the status quo in the shark
management year cycle established in the first shark FMP (1993). Thus, Alternative G2 would
not be anticipated to have any social or economic impact on the shark fishery because it currently
operates on a calendar year basis.
Use of a consistent calendar year across HMS fisheries would create a less complex
management regime for all constituents, and as a result, could potentially increase compliance.
In particular, this alternative would reduce confusion overall for constituents participating in a
combination of HMS fisheries, although initially there could be some short-term confusion as
tuna, swordfish, and billfish quotas and annual Atlantic tunas, HMS CHB, and HMS Angling
vessel permits are adjusted to a calendar year basis.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-234

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

ICCAT recommendations become effective six months after they are adopted. In most
cases, this would be in May of the year following the November ICCAT meeting. Thus,
Alternative G2 may result in some negative social and economic impacts if ICCAT-related
regulations are not in place prior to the start of the fishing year. Since swordfish and billfish
landings are relatively low for the first few months of the calendar year, these fisheries would not
be impacted, but the January BFT fishery may be over before any changes to the regulations as a
result of ICCAT recommendation are implemented. This could negatively impact constituents
participating in the January fishery because any ICCAT recommendations with positive impacts
may not be in place yet. Conversely, ICCAT recommendations with negative impacts may not
be in place, either. Setting annual quotas and other fishery specifications on a multi-year basis,
as preferred for the BFT fishery in Section 2.3.1.2, and re-allocating the BFT subquota timeperiods (Section 2.3.1.1) could mitigate the potential negative impacts.
Alternative G2 would establish consistent management year cycles for U.S. domestic and
international (ICCAT) management programs, which would reduce the complexity of U.S.
reports to ICCAT and create more transparent analyses in the U.S. National Report. Reducing
complexity in reporting to ICCAT would strengthen the United States’ negotiating position
during international compliance review.
An abbreviated 2007 fishing year, from June 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, would
be necessary to transition BFT and swordfish from the current fishing year to a calendar year. A
transition fishing year is not necessary for marlin since a quota/catch limit is not currently
codified, and the calendar year management cycle for marlin would be codified for the first time
on January 1, 2007. The Draft Consolidated HMS FMP stated that the abbreviated fishing year
for BFT and swordfish would occur in 2006; however, since the initial comment period for this
action was substantially extended, it is necessary to shift the abbreviated fishing year from 2006
to 2007 in the final action.
The 1999 FMP switched management of Atlantic tunas and billfish from a calendar year
to a fishing year by stretching the 1998 BFT quota through the entire calendar year of 1998 and
on through to May 31 of 1999 (Table 4.67). Likewise, a 1996 action shifted swordfish from a
calendar year to a fishing year by stretching the 1995 swordfish quota through to May 31, 1996
(61 FR 27304). Thus, NMFS believes it is appropriate to use the full ICCAT 2007 BFT and
swordfish quotas during the 2007 abbreviated fishing year. The quotas for these fisheries would
be established by the specification process in a separate rulemaking action.
Since BFT and swordfish fisheries are already strictly managed with seasons, size limits,
and subquotas, any general impacts as a result of the abbreviated fishing year are expected to be
minor. NMFS anticipates minor positive socio-economic impacts to BFT fisheries specifically
from the abbreviated fishing year. Having access to the full 2007 quota within a seven month
time period could provide a small economic benefit to all BFT fisheries, and may offset any
negative socio-economic impacts that occurred when these fisheries were previously shifted
from a calendar year to a fishing year and annual quotas were stretched to last 18 months (Table
4.67). In addition, as mentioned under the ecological impacts section, the vast majority of the
BFT quota is harvested during June through December (Table 4.66), and any quota that is not
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-235

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

harvested during the abbreviated fishing year can be rolled over into the following year. Impacts
to swordfish fisheries are expected to be less since swordfish fisheries have not been fully
harvesting the entire annual quota in recent years.
Table 4.67

Graphic representation of the distribution of U.S. domestic BFT quota by year.

ICCAT
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
Quota Yr*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
*ICCAT Quota yr. = the year following the annual special meeting of ICCAT (usually held in November).

Overall socio-economic impacts to BFT fisheries from Alternative G2 are anticipated to
be minimal. As discussed earlier, sectors of the BFT fishery are highly regulated, and timeperiod subquota allocations and inseason management measures are used to distribute the quota
throughout the fishing year, based on guidelines established at 50 CFR 635.27 and 635.28.
These guidelines include consideration of the ability of fishery participants in all geographic
areas to participate in the fishery; thus, these regulations minimize any potential negative impacts
to fisheries at the tail-end of the management cycle. Under the current regulations, the suballocation for the winter General category fishery extends between two calendar years from
October to January (see Section 2.3.1.1, Alternative F1), and thus an adjusted time-period
subquota is necessary to work with this alternative. The subalternatives under Alternative F3
(Section 2.3.1.1) for the BFT fishery address this concern by providing separate time period
subquotas for December and January.
During the public comment period, several commentors expressed concern about the
effect of a calendar year management cycle on the availability of General category quota rollover
from the previous calendar year during the January portion of the south Atlantic fishery. Under
changes to the BFT management program included in this Consolidated HMS FMP, the January
subperiod would be provided with a quota of 5.3 percent of the annual ICCAT allocation. The
HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.27 state that NMFS will adjust General category subperiod
quotas based on under- or overharvest during the previous subperiod. However, the concern
relates to the rollover of under- or overharvest from one subperiod to the next between fishing
years. The situation of having an active fishery occurring across the change of quota years did
not occur prior to the 1999 FMP, which originally adjusted the BFT fishery to a fishing year
management cycle. There are several potential scenarios that could occur regarding the
disposition of carryover of any under or overharvest that accrues during the December subperiod.
In the first scenario, any under or overharvest could be fully rolled over into January of the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-236

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

following fishing year in addition to the baseline 5.3 percent. Under this scenario, the entire
underharvest would be added to the January subperiod quota, or the entire overharvest would be
subtracted from the subperiod quota. In another potential scenario, 5.3 percent of the under- or
overharvest would be applied to the January subperiod in addition to the baseline 5.3 percent. In
a third scenario, no under- or overharvest would be applied in addition to the January subperiod
5.3 percent allocation. NMFS will work with the affected constituents through the annual BFT
specification process to determine the most appropriate approach based on constituent needs and
Federal requirements.
Socio-economic impacts to Atlantic billfish fisheries as a result of moving to a calendar
year management cycle (Alternative G2) would vary slightly depending upon the management
measures chosen for the directed billfish fishery, similar to the discussion regarding socio­
economic impacts from the fishing year management cycle addressed previously. These impacts
are addressed in detail in Section 4.2.3, and a brief summary is included here. Each option under
preferred Alternative E6, which would codify an ICCAT-recommended recreational landings
limit for white and blue marlin, could result in minor to moderate negative impacts to billfish
fisheries that occur at the tail-end of the calendar year management cycle, if recreational landings
substantially increase from current levels. Fisheries and tournaments for billfish that occur early
in the calendar year should have sufficient catch available, but tournaments scheduled for later in
the calendar year could be negatively impacted if a management threshold is reached and
restrictions are implemented before the tournaments occur. As indicated in Section 4.2.3,
available historical data indicate that it is unlikely that the United States will achieve the 250
limit, and thus unlikely that any of the potential impacts would occur.
The same three scenarios discussed previously under the fishing year management cycle
were analyzed to estimate impacts during a calendar year management cycle (see Section 4.2.3
for detailed information). Under Scenario 1, when the threshold for inseason management action
is not achieved, no impacts are anticipated. Under Scenario 2, the threshold for an inseason
minimum size increase is projected to occur on August 22 and would be expected to be in place
for the remainder of the calendar year. Since the inseason action would be in place for a longer
period of time under a calendar year management cycle than under a fishing year management
cycle, any adverse impacts would be expected to be larger for a calendar year. Under Scenario
3, catch and release fishing was projected to be reached on August 25. Under the assumptions of
the analysis, this could potentially result in cancellation of a maximum of four tournaments. See
Section 4.2.3 for a full discussion of this analysis.
Alternative G3 would establish a June 1 – May 31 fishing year management cycle for all
HMS species (Table 4.65). As with Alternative G2, Alternative G3 would establish a consistent
management cycle for all HMS fisheries, resulting in a less complex management regime for all
constituents. In particular, this alternative would reduce confusion for constituents participating
in a combination of HMS fisheries. While initially there could potentially be short-term
confusion as the shark quotas, trimesters, and permits are adjusted to a fishing year basis, overall
the HMS management regime would be less complex. A bridge period, from January 1, 2007,
through May 31, 2007, would be established to transition the Atlantic shark fishery from a
calendar year to a fishing year. Establishing consistent management cycles for all HMS fisheries

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-237

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

would simplify the regulations, making them easier to understand and potentially increasing
compliance.
In general, Alternative G3 would have the same impact to the seasonal availability of
quota for tunas, swordfish, or billfish fisheries and tournaments as the No Action alternative,
since there would be no change to the management cycle for these species. In addition,
maintaining the current start dates for the tunas, swordfish, or billfish fisheries would not result
in any anticipated disruption in any of these current markets or fishing activities. Alternative G3
could result in some short-term negative economic impacts as shark wholesale and retail markets
adjust to the potential disruption in catch rates resulting from the shift to a fishing year and new
trimesters.
Under Alternative G3, U.S. domestic fisheries data would be managed on a fishing year
basis while most ICCAT nations report on a calendar year basis. ICCAT may become more
involved in shark management in the future, at which time, if Alternative G3 is selected, the
HMS management cycle for all fisheries would be inconsistent with ICCAT’s calendar year
reporting. The inconsistent management timeframe would make the structure of analyses in the
U.S. National Report confusing and less transparent. The basis for taking assertive action during
the international compliance review may be compromised by the inability to interpret the United
States’ compliance from its own report.
On a fishing year management cycle, approximately six months are available between the
adoption of ICCAT recommendations and initiation of the fishing year. Thus, it is more likely
that NMFS could complete the regulatory implementation process before the start of the
fisheries. As in the current tuna, swordfish and billfish fisheries, NMFS would have six months
to implement necessary changes to domestic management measures to comply with international
obligations, and the fishery would be able to anticipate changes to the management program and
adjust fishing activities as needed.
Conclusion
The preferred alternative is Alternative G2, transferring all HMS fisheries to a calendar
year management cycle. The calendar year would be effective for billfish fisheries on January 1,
2007 and for all species other than sharks on January 1, 2008. This alternative is preferred
because it would simplify the regulatory process for constituents in the long term by managing
all HMS fisheries on a calendar year, and would improve the United States’ basis for negotiation
at international forums. The primary concern regarding this alternative would be potential
impacts to the billfish fishery when examined in combination with the potential implementation
of the ICCAT 250 landings limit (Alternative E6). However, since the ICCAT 250 marlin
landing limit has only been attained once in the last several years, the likelihood of any impact is
low. Although economic estimates of impacts on billfish tournaments appear to be larger and of
greater regional concern under preferred Alternative G2 than other alternatives, the discussion in
Section 4.2.3 notes that the analysis of historical tournament data is fairly limited as an indicator
of potential future impacts. The flexibility provided for implementation of a size limit increase is
anticipated to mitigate impacts since the status of the fishery, and any pending tournaments,
could be taken into account as appropriate. In some instances, tournaments could modify
tournament rules or formats, or potentially be re-scheduled to mitigate or avoid the potential of a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-238

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

tournament occurring after the threshold for a management action may be reached, which could
be more important to more affected regions. However, if several tournaments were rescheduled,
the threshold might be reached earlier.
4.3.3 Authorized Fishing Gear
As described in more detail in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered for authorized
fishing gear are:
H1

Maintain current authorized gears in Atlantic HMS fisheries (No Action)

H2

Authorize speargun fishing gear as a permissible gear type in the recreational Atlantic
BAYS tuna fishery - Preferred Alternative

H3

Authorize speargun fishing gear as a permissible gear type in the commercial tuna
handgear and recreational Atlantic tuna fisheries

H4

Authorize green-stick fishing gear for the commercial harvest of Atlantic BAYS tunas

H5

Authorize buoy gear as a permissible gear type in the commercial swordfish handgear
fishery; limit vessels employing buoy gear to possessing and deploying no more than 35
floatation devices, with each individual gear having no more than two hooks or gangions
attached – Preferred Alternative

H6

Authorize buoy gear as a permissible gear type in the commercial swordfish handgear
fishery; limit vessels employing buoy gear to possessing and deploying no more than 50
floatation devices, with each individual gear having no more than 15 hooks or gangions
attached

H7

Clarify the allowance of hand-held cockpit gears used at boat side for subduing HMS
captured on authorized gears - Preferred Alternative

Ecological Impacts
Alternative H1 would maintain the status quo for authorized gear in all Atlantic HMS
fisheries. The ecological impacts of this alternative can be found in the Description of the
Fisheries section of this document (see Chapter 3). Fishing effort and fishing mortality (F)
would likely not increase as there would be no new authorized gears and/or participants.
Bycatch and discard levels would also not likely increase because there would be no new
authorized gears or changes to existing gears. This alternative is not anticipated to result in
additional interactions with protected resources. However, this alternative could allow for
potential increases in effort in the swordfish handgear fishery, because unlimited numbers of
unattached handlines are currently allowed, and may result in additional bycatch of HMS and
other bycatch species. Should such increases in effort occur, this alternative may allow for
increased interactions with protected resources.
Alternative H2, a preferred alternative, would define and authorize speargun fishing gear
in the recreational Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery (i.e., all regulated HMS tuna species except BFT).
This preferred alternative would slightly modify the alternative proposed in the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP by not allowing BFT to be fished for, landed, or retained by fishermen
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-239

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

using speargun gear. In addition, this revised alternative would not allow the sale of any BAYS
tuna harvested with speargun gear, under any circumstances, including those landed by
fishermen aboard HMS CHB permitted vessels. Fishermen using speargun fishing gear would
be allowed to freedive, use SCUBA, or other underwater breathing devices, and would be
required to be physically in the water when they fire or discharge their speargun. Only freeswimming fish, not those restricted by fishing lines or other means, could be taken. The use of
powerheads, or other explosive devices, would not be allowed to harvest or subdue BAYS tunas.
As of February 1, 2006, there were 25,238 permitted vessels participating in the HMS
Angling category and 4,173 in the HMS CHB category. Based on public comment and
anecdotal information, NMFS anticipates that between 50 and 1,000 individual U.S fishermen
may have an interest in using speargun fishing gear to target BAYS tunas. Relative to the
current number of participants in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery, and taking into account
the estimated low encounter rates for target species, the additional anticipated effort from
spearfishermen would likely result in minimal negative ecological impacts on Atlantic BAYS
tunas.
Under this alternative, only Atlantic BAYS tunas would be allowed to be taken by
speargun fishing gear. This means that other HMS, such as Atlantic BFT, BLF, LCS, and SWO,
could not be taken using speargun fishing gear. Atlantic BFT continue to be overfished and
overfishing is occurring despite seven years of strict management under an international
rebuilding plan with limited annual quotas. The rate of overfishing is not declining and the
number of participants in the recreational HMS fishery continues to increase. Interest and
activity in the small, recreational sized BFT fishery continues to grow. Since the publication of
the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP in August 2005, NMFS received data on the performance of
both the recreational and commercial BFT fishery, which exacerbated concerns over the
ecological health and management of this stock. In the case of the commercial fishery, landings
were low throughout the 2005 fishing season. The 2005 season was also marked by a noticeable
lack of availability of commercial sized BFT throughout their traditional fishing range and, in
particular, BFT were largely absent off southern states during the winter of 2005/2006.
Although there is a high magnitude of available quota in the commercial size classes, scientists
continue to be concerned over the status of this stock, especially the abundance of these larger
fish that represent the potential spawners for future recruitment, particularly in the Gulf of
Mexico. In the recreational fishery on smaller school size class BFT, data were available at the
end of 2005 showing that, due to high landings rates in prior seasons, minimal quota would be
available for a 2006 recreational school fishery. A recent publication providing a comprehensive
and historical summary of BFT population dynamics, ecology, fisheries, and management
concludes that the “current exploitation of BFT has many biological and economic traits that
have led several fish stocks to extreme depletion in the past” (Fromentin and Powers, 2005). An
international stock assessment on the current status, and future prognosis, of BFT is scheduled
this year by the SCRS and new recommendations, if any, by ICCAT would not be available until
November 2006. In light of the above and the uncertainty in the status and recovery of the stock,
the Agency determined that the use of speargun gear for BFT is not appropriate at this time.
BLF, SWO, and LCS are also considered overfished with overfishing occurring. As stock status
improves and other factors change, NMFS may reconsider the use of speargun fishing gear in
these fisheries, if appropriate.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-240

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

The potential increase in landings for Atlantic BAYS tunas would be minimal compared
with the landings by current participants and would likely result in minimal negative ecological
impacts. Public comment supports the Agency’s assessment that there are a limited number of
additional individual fishermen expected to use this gear type. Further, public comment
suggested that few spearfishermen would actually encounter the target species, and that
spearfishermen could go months or years without having an opportunity to spear a BAYS tuna in
the Atlantic.
In the past, there have been concerns that allowing speargun fishing gear in the Atlantic
tunas fisheries could increase discards (fish speared and lost). During scoping, NMFS received
comments indicating that spearfishermen often use detachable spear tips called “slip-tips,” which
are designed to retain speared fish, and use shooting lines, float lines, and floats that are designed
to reduce fish loss. Further, the regulatory discards would likely be non-existent as
spearfishermen can actively select the species and sizes of the targeted fish. Under alternative
H2, NMFS does not anticipate any additional interactions with protected resources or other HMS
due to the selectivity of this gear type.
Alternative H3 would authorize the use of speargun fishing gear in the recreational and
commercial Atlantic tunas handgear fisheries. As stated in alternative H2 above, fishermen
using speargun fishing gear would be allowed to freedive, use SCUBA, or other underwater
breathing devices, and would be required to be physically in the water when they fire their
speargun. Only free-swimming fish, not those restricted by fishing lines or other means, could
be taken. The use of powerheads, or other explosive devices, would not be allowed to harvest or
subdue tunas. Under this alternative, no HMS would be allowed to be taken by speargun fishing
gear, other than Atlantic tunas. The ecological impacts of alternative H3 would likely be similar
to those discussed under alternative H2 above, with the potential for some additional effort from
commercial handgear tuna fishing vessels, as well as the inclusion of BFT as an allowable target
species. Under this alternative, approximately 25,238 Angling, 214 Tunas Longline, 4,824
General, and 4,173 HMS CHB category vessels would be allowed to use this gear type.
However, according to feedback received from HMS AP members, and because of the estimated
low encounter rates, the Agency would not anticipate any substantive changes in effort or
landings by the commercial handgear sector under this alternative.
Alternative H4 would define green-stick gear and authorize its use in the commercial
tuna handgear fishery. This alternative was preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP but is
not preferred in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. This alternative would define green-stick
under the HMS regulations and would authorize commercial tuna permit holders to sell BAYS
tunas but prohibit them from possessing or retaining BFT. The definition of green-stick, and
introduction of the gear to the fishery, would provide for some increase in effort. The gear is
known to increase efficiency beyond that of a standard handline and rod-and-reel gear limited to
two hooks per line as it would allow a green-stick line to have up to ten hooks or gangions.
Until publication of the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, available information indicated
that green-stick gear is primarily used to target YFT and other BAYS tunas. However, during
public comment on the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, considerable comment was received
expressing interest in using the gear to target other species, including BFT. Green-stick gear, or
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-241

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

variations of the gear, has been used and documented in the PLL fishery for several years.
Green-stick gear catches reported in the PLL Logbook Program for 1999 – 2003 can be seen in
Table 4.68. Of the 45,712 sets reported between 1999 and 2003, 54 of these sets were reported
as green-stick gear. Of the 54 green-stick sets reported, 53 of those were reported from the MAB
reporting area and one set was reported from the NEC. Green-stick gear was removed from the
PLL Logbook Program in 2003 and has not been replaced.
On the 54 green-stick sets reported between 1999 and 2003, a total of 4 BFT, 4 BET, 678
YFT, and 54 other BAYS tunas were reported captured. Additionally, 9 swordfish, 11 pelagic
sharks, and 3 LCS were also reported captured. No blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, or
spearfish were reported captured on any of these sets (Table 4.68).
Table 4.68

Reported Atlantic Commercial Green-stick Gear Catch for 1999-2003*, in Numbers of Fish.
Source: PLL Logbook Data

Species

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003*

Total

Swordfish

0

9

0

0

N/A

9

Bluefin tuna

0

2

0

2

N/A

4

Yellowfin tuna

0

344

232

102

N/A

678

Bigeye tuna

0

2

2

0

N/A

4

Other BAYS tunas

0

26

28

0

N/A

54

Blue marlin

0

0

0

0

N/A

0

White marlin

0

0

0

0

N/A

0

Sailfish

0

0

0

0

N/A

0

Spearfish

0

0

0

0

N/A

0

Pelagic sharks

0

1

8

2

N/A

11

Large coastal sharks

0

0

3

0

N/A

3

Dolphin

0

8

2

47

N/A

57

Wahoo

0

0

0

8

N/A

8

Sea turtles

0

0

0

0

N/A

0

* Modified logbook format eliminated green-stick gear data field.

In addition to the above data there is some anecdotal information and record of public
comment on prior HMS rulemaking and HMS AP meetings regarding the pros and cons of
green-stick but little substantial information. There is also no data available for sectors other
than the PLL.
Due to the limited amount of data associated with the use of commercially configured
green-stick gear in the Atlantic HMS fisheries, NMFS expanded its analysis to look at other
available U.S. data regarding the use of commercial green-stick gear, including catch data from
the U.S. Pacific (Table 4.69). NMFS is aware that the following information may not have a
direct correlation to the use of commercially configured green-stick gear in the Atlantic tuna
fisheries; however, to better understand the implications of authorizing this gear, NMFS took this
information into consideration.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-242

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Table 4.69

Reported U.S. Pacific Commercial Green-stick Gear Catch for 2002-2004, in Numbers of Fish
and Weight in Pounds. Source: State of Hawaii, 2006

Species

2002*
No.

2003
Lb.

No

2004
Lb.

No.

Total
Lb.

No.

Lb.

Yellowfin tuna

224

5,285.5

708

48,161.5

453

16,674.5

1385

70,121.50

Skipjack tuna

183

1,503.0

147

873.0

104

906.0

434

3,282.00

Wahoo

13

160.0

13

211.5

4

110.0

30

481.50

Dolphin

7

121.0

26

428.5

3

42.0

36

591.50

Barracuda

1

52.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

52.50

Blue marlin

0

0.0

8

1,217.0

1

500.0

9

1,717.00

Albacore

0

0.0

1

40.0

0

0.0

1

40.00

Striped marlin

0

0.0

2

67.0

0

0.0

2

67.00

Short-nosed
spearfish

0

0.0

1

20.0

0

0.0

1

20.00

Bigeye tuna

0

0.0

12

184.0

2

24.0

14

208.00

Misc. tuna

0

0.0

4

60.0

1

129.0

5

189.00

Mako

0

0.0

1

70.0

0

0.0

1

70.00

Black skipjack

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

20.0

1

20.00

TOTAL
428
* October - December only

7,122.0

923

51,332.5

569

18,405.5

1920

76,860.00

The amount of effort deployed in the U.S. Pacific commercial green-stick fishery to
harvest the catches above is as follows: Calendar Year (CY) 2002 (Oct – Dec only), eight
licensees conducted 59 total trips (367.0 hrs), of which 34 were at fish aggregation devices
(FADs) (176.0 hours). Six of the total trips were “did not catch” trips. In CY 2003, 19 licensees
conducted 188 total trips (1,504.0 hours), of which 35 were at FADs (258.0 hours). Sixteen of
the total trips were “did not catch” trips. In CY 2004, 19 licensees conducted 116 total trips
(801.5 hours), of which 24 were at FADs (151.5 hours). Twenty of the total trips were “did not
catch” trips (Table 4.69).
Data from the Pacific Ocean show that, in addition to tunas, dolphin, and wahoo, the
Pacific green-stick fishery has interacted with blue marlin, striped marlin, and short-nosed
spearfish (Table 4.69). This indicates that, although no billfish have been reported captured on
green-stick gear in the Atlantic commercial HMS fisheries in recent years, interactions with
Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, and spearfish could be possible under this alternative.
Public comment and historical logbook data illustrate that this gear type has been used in the
HMS fisheries for several years and classified by fishermen as either longline or handgear. What
is less clear is whether in fact the green-stick gear was configured in conformance with the
regulations appropriate to the HMS regulatory vessel permit regime and definition of longline
and handgear, (e.g., number hooks, type of hooks, etc.). Also, since these data were collected,
regulatory circumstances have changed regarding longline gear. Vessels with pelagic longline
gear onboard are now required to use specific circle hooks rather than previously used J hooks,
and as the fishing performance of these two hook types varies considerably, it is not possible to
project future effectiveness of green-stick gear equipped with circle hooks based on past data
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-243

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

when the gear was deployed with J hooks. During the public comment period, numerous
comments were received expressing confusion over the current regulatory regime, unease over
the potential impacts and intent of the preferred alternative in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP,
and concern over potential negative impacts of the green-stick gear.
As there is considerable uncertainty in the quality of the data available, a lack of overall
data from established monitoring programs, confusion among the public over what is currently
allowed, and a potential for increases in fishing effort and landings of YFT and other HMS,
NMFS cannot make a determination regarding the ecological impacts of formally introducing
this gear type at this time. Thus, alternative H4 is no longer the preferred alternative; rather, the
preferred course of action is to clarify the current allowable use of this gear-type. Clarification
of the currently authorized configuration of green-stick gear is not expected to have any
ecological consequences beyond those already described generally in Chapter 3, specifically
under sections describing handgear and longline fisheries. Vessels fishing under the General
category (i.e., General category tuna and HMS CHB permit holders) would continue to be
subject to all current General category regulations (e.g., size limits), and vessels with PLL gear
onboard would continue to be subject to all current PLL regulations, including gear restrictions
(e.g., circle hooks) and closed areas. Disseminating information on the various authorized
technical configurations of this gear could result in a modest increase in effort, due to an
increased understanding of the authorized gear and a limited number of fishermen entering the
fishery to use it. However, a minor increase in effort could be offset by a decrease in effort from
fishermen who can no longer use this gear as they either had the incorrect vessel permit or were
using it in an unauthorized configuration. Available data from historical use of this gear show no
reports of sea turtle interactions. Accordingly, the use of this gear in the Atlantic tuna fishery
would not be expected to increase interactions with sea turtles or other protected resources.
Overall, no major changes in effort are expected with corresponding minimal ecological impacts.
Under alternative H5, a preferred alternative, some positive ecological impacts are
anticipated. Current handline restrictions – including requirements that there be no more than
two hooks attached to each gear and that the gear be released and retrieved by hand – would be
included in the definition of buoy gear. In addition, this alternative would limit the number of
floatation devices that would be allowed to be possessed or deployed to 35, thus limiting the
maximum number of buoy gears fishermen may deploy. The Agency received public comment
requesting that commercial vessels be limited to deploying fewer than 35 individual buoy gears.
Additionally, commercial fishermen familiar with this gear type requested that they be allowed
to attach multiple floatation devices to buoy gears to aid in monitoring and retrieval, as well as
allow them to use “bite indicator” floats that will alert them to gears with fish attached. In
response to public comment, NMFS has modified alternative H5 to allow fishermen to attach
more than one floatation device to each buoy gear; however, the alternative maintains the
maximum limit of 35 floatation devices possessed or deployed. For example, under the modified
alternative, fishermen who opt to fish three floatation devices per gear would be limited to
deploying approximately 11 buoy gears and fishermen using four floatation devices per gear
would be limited to deploying approximately eight buoy gears. This modification would
increase the flexibility fishermen have in configuring buoy gear with as many or as few
floatation devices as they prefer, as long as it does not exceed 35. Depending on how the gear is
configured, this flexibility may reduce the number of gears deployed. If the gear is configured
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-244

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

with a bite indicator, this modification could allow fishermen to easily identify which gears have
captured fish and may allow fishermen to release any undersized swordfish or non-target species
more quickly and with a greater probability of survival. Additionally, the modification to allow
multiple floatation devices per gear may minimize lost gear and potential negative ecologic
impacts by making the gears more buoyant and visible.
There are no data indicating how many commercial vessels are currently fishing with
unattached handlines, or how many unattached handlines are deployed. Nevertheless, this
alternative is not expected to significantly restrict commercial handline fishing effort from
current levels, but it does prevent future expansion of effort beyond the maximum of 35 buoy
gears. A limit of 35 floatation devices was selected based on support from public comment, and
because the Agency identified this number as the manageable upper limit for the commercial
sector that would prevent excessive amounts of unattended floating gear from being lost while
allowing vessels to possess spare gear onboard.
If vessels currently possess or deploy more than 35 unattached handlines with more than
two hooks attached, minor ecological benefits may be realized as effort and deployed gear are
curtailed. Relative to the No Action alternative, this modified alternative may provide positive
ecological benefits by limiting the future expansion of this gear sector and allowing fishermen
flexibility in gear configuration, which may result in additional monitoring methods per gear
(bite indicator floats), and reducing bycatch and lost fishing gear. Lost fishing gear may be
reduced by the requirement to affix each individual buoy gear with monitoring equipment, the
flexibility to use more than one floatation device per gear, and by limiting the overall number of
gears a vessel may deploy. If future expansion is limited and the amount of lost gear is reduced,
there may be an unquantifiable future reduction in the bycatch of undersized swordfish, other
HMS species, protected species, and target and non-target catches. However, with regards to
commercial swordfish target catches, the United States has consistently landed less than its
ICCAT quota in recent years, and overfishing is not occurring on North Atlantic swordfish.
Under this alternative, a maximum of 279 limited access permit holders (88 swordfish handgear
and 191 swordfish directed) would be authorized to utilize this gear type to target swordfish.
As mentioned above, there are no data indicating exactly how many commercial vessels
are currently fishing with unattached handlines because the HMS logbook currently does not
differentiate between “attached” and “unattached.” The handline data presented in this
document differs from those published in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. A reexamination
of the HMS logbook database has resulted in modifications to the handline data for 2000 – 2004
and all handline data from 2000 – 2003 being considered confidential. The refined data are
presented in Table 4.70. Although all HMS handline trip data before 2004 are confidential
because few vessels participated in the fishery, the data indicate that the number of commercial
HMS handline fishing trips has increased approximately 10-fold since 2003. According to 2004
logbook data, 64 commercial handline trips were reported from seven vessels, with 404
swordfish reported caught. Of those 404 swordfish captured, 274 fish (67.8 percent) were
retained, 98 fish (24.3 percent) were released alive, and 32 fish (7.9 percent) were discarded
dead. Of the 130 swordfish released by this fishery in 2004, 98 fish (75.4 percent) were reported
as released alive and 32 fish (24.6 percent) were reported as released dead. No Atlantic marlins

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-245

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

were reported captured on this gear from 2000 through 2004. In 2004, one sailfish was reported
caught and released alive. Additionally, no sea turtle interactions were reported for 2000 – 2004.
Table 4.70

Handline catches, in Numbers of Fish, for 2000 – 2004. Source: HMS Logbook. Note that
confidential data cannot be released and are marked by an *.
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Number of trips

*

0

*

*

64

Swordfish kept

0

0

0

*

274

YFT kept

*

0

*

0

4

BET kept

0

0

*

0

1

Other BAYS Kept

*

0

0

0

0

LCS kept

0

0

0

0

1

Pelagic shark kept

*

0

0

0

1

Dolphin kept

0

0

*

0

69

Wahoo kept

0

0

*

0

1

Swordfish discarded alive

0

0

0

*

98

YFT discarded alive

0

0

0

0

3

BET discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

Other BAYS discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

LCS discarded alive

0

0

0

*

18

Pelagic shark discarded alive

0

0

0

0

1

Dolphin discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

Wahoo discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

BUM discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

WHM discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

SAI discarded alive

0

0

0

0

1

SPX discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

Sea Turtles discarded alive

0

0

0

0

0

Swordfish discarded dead

0

0

0

*

32

YFT discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

BET discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

Other BAYS discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

LCS discarded dead

0

0

0

0

3

Pelagic shark discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

Dolphin discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

Wahoo discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

BUM discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

WHM discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

SAI discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

SPX discarded dead

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sea Turtles discarded dead
* Confidential data
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-246

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Under alternative H6, vessels employing buoy gear would be limited to possessing and
deploying up to 50 floatation devices, and attaching up to 15 hooks and/or gangions to each buoy
gear. This alternative has been modified slightly to allow the use of one or more floatation
devices per buoy gear, as discussed above. This alternative would have ecological impacts
similar to alternative H5, with some potential for additional negative ecological impacts as
compared to alternative H5 stemming from an increase in the allowable number of floatation
devices and hooks, and potentially increased soak times. NMFS received substantial public
comment opposed to this alternative. At this time, it is not possible to quantify the impacts this
alternative could have on handline/buoy gear effort or bycatch. If it is assumed that handline
fishermen currently deploy no more than two hooks per gear, then this alternative could increase
effort in the fishery. This could lead to increased catches of target and non-target species, and
has the potential to increase the probability for interactions with protected resources. Alternative
H6 may not increase fishing effort substantially as only seven vessels reported fishing handline
trips in 2004. Further, impacts resulting from potential increases in effort may be limited if some
commercial handline fishermen currently fish with up to 50 gears and utilize more than the
allowed two hooks per gear.
Under alternative H7, the continued use of secondary hand-held cockpit gears may
reduce the loss of fish at boat side and aid anglers in subduing large HMS captured on authorized
primary gear types. However, the use of these gears may also increase bycatch mortality/dead
discards if undersized or non-target species are gaffed or darted and subsequently discarded.
NMFS regulations at 50 CFR § 635.21(a) clearly state that any HMS harvested that is not
retained must be released in a manner to ensure maximum probability of survival. Under this
alternative, NMFS would encourage restraint prior to using a secondary hand-held cockpit gear
on fish that may need to be released. This alternative should not increase bycatch mortality as
HMS fisheries currently utilize secondary hand-held cockpit gears; however, specifying that
secondary gears are allowable may increase their use. The Agency does not expect the use of
secondary handheld cockpit gears in the Atlantic HMS fisheries to increase interactions with
protected resources. The Agency received public comment in support of this measure.
With regards to impacts on EFH, the 1999 FMP and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic
Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupies pelagic oceanic environments. The use of
speargun fishing gear, buoy gear, and handheld cockpit gears will not likely impact bottom
structures or otherwise damage habitat. Under all of the above alternatives, NMFS does not
anticipate any adverse impacts to EFH.
Social and Economic Impacts
Alternative H1 (No Action) would not be expected to have any additional social or
economic impacts because fishermen are already operating under these measures. Similarly,
there are no additional significant safety implications anticipated with this alternative. This
alternative would, however, not allow the use of speargun fishing gear in the recreational
Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery, not allow CHB and General category permit holders to use a
defined configuration of green-stick gear for commercial fishing of BAYS tunas, or allow
swordfish handgear fishermen to use buoy gear. This alternative would also not address
confusion over the allowable use of cockpit gears (e.g., dart harpoon, flying gaff).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-247

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Alternative H2 would have positive social and economic impacts for spearfishermen, and
may result in negative social and economic impacts for rod and reel fishermen. At the 1993
public hearings on the proposed list of authorized gears in the Atlantic tuna fisheries, no
comments were received from spearfishermen and the regulations were finalized without listing
speargun fishing gear as an authorized gear. Since implementation of the final rule, NMFS has
received written requests, comment at public hearings, and has heard presentations at AP
meetings requesting that NMFS authorize the use of speargun fishing gear in the Atlantic tuna
fishery. NMFS has received comment that recreational spearfishermen place a high value on
spearfishing for tunas and are currently traveling outside of the United States for the opportunity
to participate in tuna speargun fisheries.
A range of potential costs for spearfishing gear was estimated by an informal internet
search of spearfishing gear distributor sites. These costs may be incurred by individuals who
wish to participate in this fishery, but obtaining this gear is not required by this action. The
internet search found that new spearguns could be purchased for as little as $65.00 and ranged
upward to approximately $1,600.00. Terminal gear, such as shooting lines and floats, could cost
an additional $50.00 to $500.00. However, most inexpensive spearguns would not be adequate
for targeting large tunas. Anecdotal information suggests that some spearfishermen may
fabricate their own spearguns and equipment, and may not purchase this equipment from
distributors. Additionally, recreational spearfishermen would only be allowed to fish from
vessels having HMS Angling and HMS CHB category permits, currently costing $22.00 per
year.
Allowing speargun fishing gear as an authorized gear type in the recreational Atlantic
BAYS tuna fishery would likely result in minor positive social impacts to new entrants to the
recreational BAYS fishery who wish to have the opportunity to use spearguns to harvest tuna
other than BFT. Not allowing BFT to be taken with speargun fishing gear avoids the possibility
of further exacerbating quota limited situations in the school size fishery and might avoid gear
conflict with other members of the BFT recreational fleet. However, as this activity is not
currently allowed under existing regulations, no additional adverse social or economic impacts
are anticipated for the recreational HMS CHB or Angling sectors from not allowing retention of
BFT.
Prohibiting the sale of tunas harvested with spearfishing gear under an HMS Angling
category permit would have no economic impact, as the sale of tunas is currently not authorized
for this sector of the fleet. Prohibiting the sale of BAYS tuna landed by HMS CHB fishermen
using speargun gear may result in some perceived negative social and economic impacts.
However, this activity is not currently allowed under existing regulations, therefore, no
additional adverse social or economic impacts are anticipated for the HMS CHB sector.
Rod and reel fishermen may experience a decrease in angler consumer surplus if
competition for fishing grounds causes them to travel further and extend their fishing trips.
Spearfishermen would likely experience positive social impacts and an increase in angler
consumer surplus, as they are currently prohibited from taking BAYS tunas with speargun gear
in the Atlantic. Spearfishermen have commented that they currently must travel to the West
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-248

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

coast or out of the United States to target tunas with speargun fishing gear. The HMS CHB
sector may experience positive economic impacts as spearfishermen may increase their use of
for-hire vessels, increasing revenues to those vessels. Additionally, alternative H2 could
increase the club-nature or camaraderie associated with speargun fishing and may result in
positive social impacts. Currently, there are many spearfishing clubs along the Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico coasts, as well as in the Caribbean.
The use of speargun fishing gear was discussed at the March 2005 HMS AP meeting as
well as during past AP meetings. At the 2005 AP meeting, the Predraft alternative to allow the
use of speargun gear in the recreational Atlantic tunas fishery was largely supported. During this
meeting, as well as at past AP meetings, AP panel members expressed concerns about the safety
of divers and rod and reel fishermen fishing together in the same areas on “hot spots” of fish or
over shipwreck sites. There was concern expressed regarding the possibility, in these situations,
that an Angling or HMS CHB permitted vessel with spearfishermen aboard might enter a fleet of
rod and reel vessels and drop a dive-flag in their midst causing the other recreational vessels to
have to leave the area. NMFS has received public comment stating that spearfishermen will
likely not attempt to fish near trolling vessels or vessels actively rod and reel fishing for tunas,
but instead prefer to raise their own fish using submersible flashers (reflective fish decoys) or
other means. Additionally, each spearfisherman tows a series of floats with a dive flag and is
closely monitored by people aboard support vessels that also display dive flags. NMFS has also
received comment that some spearfishermen and rod and reel fishermen have recently fished
together, in close proximity, without incident. This particular commenter also added that
spearfishermen were participating in recreational offshore fisheries for dolphin and wahoo in
many of the same areas that they would be fishing for tunas, as well as chartering vessels which
also cater to the rod and reel sector. This information indicates that gear conflicts are not likely
to be problematic.
The social and economic impacts of alternative H3 would likely be similar to those
discussed under alternative H2, with additional social and economic benefits associated with the
inclusion of BFT as a recreational target species and allowing for the sale of commercially
speared tunas by HMS CHB and General category permitted vessels. Allowing BFT to be taken
with speargun gear under the Angling category quota could marginally reduce the amount of
quota available for rod and reel anglers, which could result in minor negative social impacts for
the recreational rod and reel sector, yet would provide positive social impacts for those
participants using speargun gear. If BFT are taken with speargun gear, the BFT Angling
category season could be shortened with slight potential adverse economic impacts for all
Angling category participants. The HMS CHB sector may experience positive economic impacts
as spearfishermen may increase their use of for-hire vessels, increasing revenues to those vessels,
if BFT were allowed to be targeted recreationally.
Under alternative H3, BAYS tunas taken on HMS CHB vessels with speargun fishing
gear, regardless of whether the vessel is operating in a for-hire or non-for-hire manner, may be
sold provided the applicable retention limits are abided by. General category vessels would also
be allowed to target, land, and sell BAYS commercially with this gear type. In regards to the
sale of BFT harvested with speargun gear, HMS CHB and General category vessels would be
allowed to target, land, and sell BFT of commercial size classes provided the fishery was open
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-249

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

and all applicable size and retention limits were adhered to. This ability may provide for some
negative social impacts attributed to potential gear conflicts that could occur on the water;
however, it is not known if commercial tuna handgear fishermen would participate in a
commercial speargun fishery for tunas. According to feedback received from HMS AP
members, and because of the estimated low encounter rates, the Agency does not anticipate that
many tuna handgear fishermen would participate. NMFS does not anticipate any substantive
changes in impacts for this sector under this alternative.
Positive economic impacts associated with the sale of Atlantic tunas harvested with
speargun gear may also apply to fish houses, gear supply houses, and other associated
businesses. Alternative H3 may also increase administrative burden due to additional monitoring
and enforcement activities stemming from the retention and sale of commercially speared tunas.
Alternative H4 could have positive social and economic benefits for those fishermen who
wish to employ green-stick gear to target Atlantic BAYS tunas commercially in a manner not
currently authorized (i.e., deploy with more than two hooks per line on handgear). This
alternative was preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP but is not preferred in the Final
Consolidated HMS FMP. It is difficult to quantify the actual increase in the number of
commercial vessels that would deploy green-stick gear as a result of this alternative. The vessels
that would be authorized to use green-stick gear under alternative H4 would include all permitted
Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, and HMS CHB (on non for-hire trips) category vessels,
approximately 214, 4,824, and 4,173 vessels, respectively. Based on anecdotal information,
some unknown total number of vessels is believed to be already using this gear in some fashion
in the HMS fisheries. According to the PLL Logbook data, six longline vessels have recently
reported landings under this gear type. These vessels primarily appear to be operating in the
MAB area. However, NMFS is aware from public comment that the number of vessels that use
this gear type likely exceeds those reporting in the PLL Logbook. Other commercial vessels
using this gear type (i.e., General and HMS CHB permit category vessels) likely report landings
under the handgear designation.
A range of potential costs associated with rigging a vessel with green-stick gear was
estimated by an informal inquiry of gear distributors. These costs may be incurred by
individuals who wish to participate in this fishery, but obtaining this gear would not be required
by this action. The inquiry found that new green-sticks, the sticks themselves, could be
purchased for as little as $1,300.00 and ranged upward to approximately $3,300.00. Complete
rigs with a hydraulic spool could cost between $4,000.00 and $6,000.00 depending on the size of
the rig and the need for a hydraulic system on the vessel. Anecdotal information suggests that
some fishermen may fabricate their own setups by running lines from the fly bridge or from the
tuna towers on their vessels. Fishermen would only be allowed to use this type of gear if they
were operating from properly permitted vessels. The current cost of a required Federal vessel
permit is $22.00 per year.
According to Wescott (1996), vessels using green-stick gear have reported tuna landings
of ten to one over traditional fishing techniques. The use of green-stick gear, and a potential
increase in BAYS tuna landings, could provide positive economic benefits to commercial
fishermen as well as positive economic impacts to fish houses, gear supply houses, and other
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-250

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

associated businesses. Additionally, commercial fishermen have found that tuna caught on
green-stick gear offer little resistance, as they are subjected to the pull of the mainline in one
direction, the pull of the decoy in the other, as well as the pull from other hooked fish. Because
tunas caught on green-stick gear may be landed quickly and with minimal fight, the fish may be
less stressed and the meat may be of better quality (Wescott, 1996). Landings of higher quality
tunas could lead to higher prices, and therefore increased revenues for those commercial vessels
deploying this gear type. The magnitude of this benefit, as a result of this alternative and
changes to the regulatory regime, is difficult to determine as it is unclear how this gear has been
configured in the past and how catch harvested by this gear has been reported, as well as how
many new users would deploy the newly defined and authorized gear type (i.e., quantify the
incremental economic increase from an unknown potential new universe of users versus existing
users currently deploying the gear under the status quo).
Clarifying the use of green-stick gear without preferring this alternative or modifying the
regulations would have modest positive social benefits on those fishermen who are confused
about the current regulatory regime. It may also result in minor positive economic benefits to
those fishermen who now enter the fishery using this gear type in a manner allowed under
current regulations but may not have done so previously as they were concerned it may have
been illegal. These positive benefits may be offset by those fishermen who realize that they were
using green-stick gear in the configurations that are not authorized under HMS regulations.
HMS CHB and General category permit holders would be allowed to use various configurations
of green-stick gear (see Section 2.3.3) although limited to two hooks per line under current
handgear definitions. PLL vessels may use either configuration with unlimited hooks but need to
comply to all other existing PLL regulatory requirements, including the use of circle hooks and
avoiding closed areas.
Alternative H5 would allow the commercial swordfish handgear fishery to continue
utilizing unattached handlines, redefined as buoy gear, and would likely continue affording
positive social and economic benefits to current fishery participants. Under this alternative, a
maximum of 279 limited access permit holders (88 swordfish handgear and 191 swordfish
directed) would be authorized to utilize this gear type to target swordfish. HMS logbook data
indicate that HMS handline trips have increased 10-fold since 2003 (Table 4.70). Based on
public comment, the swordfish handgear fishery does not appear to be widespread but instead
appears to operate primarily off the East Coast of Florida. While this alternative would limit the
maximum number of floatation devices possessed or deployed, the Agency selected an upper
limit based on information obtained about the fishery through public comment, and based on
what NMFS has identified as the manageable upper limit for the commercial sector. This
alternative would require that fishermen using this gear type affix gear monitoring equipment to
each individual buoy gear to aid in recovery. NMFS expects that most swordfish handgear
fishermen using unattached handlines already possess and utilize some or all of this gear
monitoring equipment. If not, minimal compliance costs for the least expensive equipment (e.g.,
reflective tape and spotlight) could be incurred. Alternative H5 would also allow fishermen
some flexibility in configuring buoy gear. In response to public comment, NMFS has modified
the preferred alternative to allow fishermen to use more than one floatation device per gear and
configure the gear differently depending on vessel and crew capabilities, or weather and sea

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-251

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

conditions. This increased flexibility may result in improved efficiency in complying with the
float restriction preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP and may increase safety at sea.
If vessels are currently fishing with more than 35 free-floating buoyed handlines, there
could be some unquantifiable adverse economic impacts for these vessels. NMFS expects that
swordfish catches under this alternative would remain large enough for trips to be profitable.
Because this alternative may limit or reduce fishing effort, it could potentially produce adverse
social and economic impacts, including an unpredictable reduction in catches of swordfish.
Based on the limited number of current handline fishery participants, NMFS does not anticipate
that this alternative will substantially reduce U.S. swordfish fishing effort; however, if fishing
effort is reduced, opportunities for the United States to utilize fully its ICCAT swordfish quota
could be slightly reduced.
Alternative I5b, a preferred alternative discussed in the Regulatory Housekeeping Section
4.3.4, would require that all handlines used in HMS fisheries be attached to a vessel. Alternative
H5 would allow commercial swordfish handgear fishermen to continue utilizing unattached
handlines, redefined as buoy gear. Under alternative H5, the ability to utilize buoy gear
represents a positive social and economic opportunity for commercial swordfish handgear and
directed swordfish limited access permit holders. Conversely, this alternative could result in
perceived negative social impacts by recreational fishermen by continuing to allow commercial
swordfishing in areas closed to HMS pelagic longline gear. The Agency received public
comment opposed to allowing fishermen deploying this gear type to continue fishing in areas
closed to pelagic longline fishing. The pelagic longline closed areas were specifically designed
to reduce bycatch and discards attributed to the characteristics of the pelagic longline fishery.
Buoy gear is not pelagic longline gear, as it has no more than two hooks or gangions attached,
and therefore the same impacts cannot be assumed for this gear type in those closed areas.
NMFS believes that the limited scope of this fishery (seven vessels fishing in 2004) does not
warrant prohibiting the use of buoy gear in these closed areas, especially considering that this
management action places significant restrictions on an activity that is currently unrestricted (i.e.,
restricts the allowable number of gears deployed). Additionally, NMFS believes the preferred
alternative strikes an appropriate balance between allowing a limited harvest of swordfish and
preserving the conservation benefits of the pelagic longline closed areas.
Alternative H6 would likely have social and economic benefits similar to those discussed
under alternative H5, with some possible additional positive social and economic benefits
stemming from the ability to increase the number of floatation devices possessed or deployed, as
well as increase the number of hooks attached to each buoy gear. Allowing vessels to possess or
deploy up to 50 individual gears and utilize up to 15 hooks per gear could potentially increase
catch rates of swordfish, resulting in increased revenues for those vessels deploying this gear
type. Due to limited logbook data, NMFS cannot quantify any potential increases in landings at
this time. Similarly to alternative H5, and as discussed above, alternative H6 could result in
perceived negative social impacts by recreational fishermen by continuing to allow commercial
swordfishing in areas closed to HMS pelagic longline gear.
Alternative H7 would likely have positive social benefits for those fishermen who target
HMS and wish to employ these secondary gears to aid in the landing or subduing of HMS at boat
side. This alternative would also likely reduce confusion over their allowable use. The use of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-252

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

these gears may also promote safety at sea for HMS fishermen, by allowing fishermen to utilize
gears specifically designed to gain control of and subdue large fish from safer distances.
Conversely, the use of these gears can be dangerous and may create additional safety hazards for
fishermen. Many of these gears have sharp edges or points that may be hazardous to those
employing them or to others on board a vessel. Some cockpit gears also incorporate trailing
lines that may entangle fishermen and may result in fishermen being pulled overboard,
drowning, or suffering other injuries.
Under alternative H7, fishermen who are permitted to sell HMS may experience positive
economic benefits stemming from anticipated increased retention rates. Anecdotal information
suggests that these gears are currently being used in both recreational and commercial fisheries
for HMS. If these gears are being utilized, the resulting benefits from this alternative would
likely be less than those discussed above. The Agency received public comment in support of
this measure.
Conclusion
Alternative H2 is preferred because it would allow spearfishermen to participate in the
Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery and would likely result in positive social and economic benefits.
This alternative is responsive to specific public comment and requests from constituents.
Although some minimal negative ecological impact is expected on these stocks from authorizing
recreational use of speargun gear, the negative impact would be outweighed by the positive
social and economic benefits of allowing speargun fishermen the opportunity to participate in
this fishery. Alternative H5 is preferred because it would allow the swordfish handgear fishery
to continue to utilize individual unattached buoyed gears, and would limit the maximum number
of gears deployed by a vessel. Alternative H5 would likely result in positive social benefits and
maintain current economic benefits to this sector. This alternative may provide some positive
ecological benefits by limiting future expansion of this gear sector and possibly by reducing the
amount of lost fishing gear. Additionally, the United States has consistently landed less than its
ICCAT swordfish quota in recent years, and although the North Atlantic swordfish stock is
currently overfished, overfishing is not occurring. Alternative H5 could aid in the rebuilding of
North Atlantic swordfish by limiting an unrestricted fishery and is anticipated to maintain current
economic benefits to this sector. Alternative H7 is preferred because it would clarify the
allowable use of secondary cockpit gears and would likely result in positive social benefits. This
alternative should not result in an increase in bycatch mortality, over current levels, as secondary
gears are currently utilized in HMS fisheries. Alternative H7 is also responsive to requests from
fishery participants.
Although NMFS preferred alternative H4 in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, it is not
preferred in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. The Agency chose to proceed with No Action
regarding green-stick gear, and instead chose to clarify the existing regulatory regime and
allowable configurations of green-stick gear in an effort to reduce confusion regarding the
authorized use of green-stick gear, which may result in positive social impacts. As this action
only clarifies the status quo, this alternative would likely not increase landings or landings rates,
or has significant adverse ecological impacts.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-253

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

4.3.4

Regulatory Housekeeping

As described in Section 2.3.4.2, eleven issues are analyzed within this section. These
include: (Issue 1) Definitions of pelagic longline (PLL) and bottom longline (BLL) gear; (Issue
2) Shark identification; (Issue 3) HMS retention limits; (Issue 4) Definition of East Florida Coast
Closed Area; (Issue 5) Definition of handline; (Issue 6) Possession of billfish on vessels issued
commercial permits; (Issue 7) BFT dealer reporting; (Issue 8) “No-fishing”, “cost-earnings”, and
“annual expenditures” reporting forms; (Issue 9) Non-tournament recreational landings
reporting; (Issue 10) Pelagic longline 25 mt incidental BFT allocation; and, (Issue 11) Permit
condition for recreational trips.
Issue 1: Definitions of Pelagic and Bottom Longlines
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered to better differentiate between PLL
and BLL gear include:
I1(a)

Retain current definitions for PLL and BLL gear (No Action)

I1(b)

Establish additional restrictions on longline gear in HMS time/area closures by
specifying a maximum and minimum allowable number of commercial fishing floats to
qualify as a BLL and PLL vessel, respectively

I1(c)

Differentiate between PLL and BLL gear based upon the species composition of the
catch onboard or landed – Preferred Alternative

I1(d)

Require time/depth recorders (TDRs) on all HMS longlines

I1(e)

Base HMS time/area closures on all longlines (PLL and BLL)

Ecological Impacts
Alternative I1(a) would retain the current definitions for PLL and BLL gear (No Action).
In the existing regulations, the longline definitions are based upon the presence of weights/floats
capable of anchoring/supporting the mainline on/in the seafloor/water column. There is no
threshold regarding how many weights or floats are allowed, or which species may be possessed.
Problems have arisen with these definitions because some BLL vessels may possess and utilize
floats on bottom longlines, and some PLL vessels may possess and utilize weights on pelagic
longlines. Therefore, in some instances, it may be difficult to precisely determine compliance
with HMS closed area and VMS regulations, which are specific to either HMS-permitted PLL or
BLL vessels. This may compromise the effectiveness of HMS time/area closures. In the
absence of full compliance with current closed area restrictions, adverse ecological impacts may
occur including increased discards of undersized swordfish, bluefin tuna, dusky sharks, sandbar
sharks, other HMS, other finfish, and protected species.
Alternative I1(b), a preferred alternative in the Draft HMS FMP, would establish
additional restrictions on longline gear in HMS time/area closures. Specifically, under this
alternative, to be considered a BLL vessel in a PLL closed area, the vessel could possess no more
than 70 commercial fishing floats onboard or deployed, combined. To be considered a PLL
vessel in a BLL closed area, the vessel would have to possess at least 71 commercial fishing
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-254

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

floats onboard or deployed, combined. Examples of commercial fishing floats include bullet
floats, poly balls, high flyers, and lobster pot buoys. In the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS specifically
requested public comment on this list to determine if it was accurate and/or complete. Also,
NMFS requested public comment regarding whether or not to include a definition of "fishing
floats" in the regulations, and on potential language for a “float” definition. Several commenters
indicated that the number of floats is not an appropriate gauge to determine the type of fishing
gear that is being deployed, and that the presence of “bullet floats,” anchors, or the type of
mainline would be better indicators. Other commenters stated that a float requirement would be
an unnecessary burden that could diminish the flexibility of vessel operators to participate in
different fishing activities, depending upon the circumstances. Additionally, consultations with
NMFS Law Enforcement indicated that the float requirement in alternative I1(b) would not be
practical. Based on these comments, NMFS has chosen not to prefer alternative I1(b) in the
Final HMS FMP. Although alternative I1(b) was preferred in conjunction with alternative I1(c)
in the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS believes that the objective of this alternative can be effectively
achieved by implementing alternative I1(c) alone, species composition of catch. Nevertheless,
the establishment of quantifiable gear-based criteria to differentiate between PLL and BLL gear
could still help to eliminate ambiguity between gear types, if necessary. NMFS will continue to
assess the need for, and potential effectiveness of, gear-based criteria. If needed, such criteria
could further improve the monitoring of, and compliance with, HMS closed areas. As a result,
the ecological benefits associated with HMS closed areas would remain intact, including
reductions in discards of undersized swordfish, bluefin tuna, dusky sharks, sandbar sharks, other
HMS, and protected species. However, if the number of allowable floats in this alternative were
not sufficient for the gear to operate as intended, it could possibly result in broken sets or lost
fishing gear. The unintended consequence could potentially be an unquantifiable increase in
bycatch and species entanglements. Also, establishing a threshold based solely on the allowable
number of floats onboard or deployed could create an incentive for vessel operators to carry just
enough floats to comply with one of the two definitions, but actually fish in an opposite manner
(pelagic or demersal). This practice could compromise the effectiveness of the closed area
restrictions.
Alternative I1(c), the preferred alternative, would establish a five-percent limit (by
weight) on the allowable amount of pelagic “indicator” species that BLL vessels may possess or
land from PLL closed areas, and establish a five-percent limit (by weight) on the allowable
amount of “indicator” demersal species that PLL vessels may possess or land from BLL closed
areas (as measured relative to the total weight of all “indicator” species). The “indicator” species
are listed in Table 4.71. In the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS specifically requested public comment
regarding the adequacy of the list of pelagic and demersal “indicator” species. On the basis of
public comment, the list of demersal “indicator” species has been modified from the Draft HMS
FMP by removing silky, great hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, and smooth hammerhead
sharks from the list, and by adding tilefish, blueline tilefish, and sand tilefish to the list. NMFS
believes that these changes are appropriate because those shark species can be caught on both
pelagic and bottom longlines, and because the tilefish species are representative of demersal
fishing activity. The establishment of quantifiable species-based criteria to differentiate between
PLL and BLL fishing gear in closed areas should help to eliminate ambiguities, because PLL
gear would logically be expected to capture pelagic species and vice-versa. This alternative
should improve the monitoring and effectiveness of, and compliance with, HMS closed areas.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-255

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

With improved monitoring and compliance, the ecological benefits associated with HMS closed
areas would remain intact, including reductions in discards of undersized swordfish, bluefin tuna,
dusky sharks, sandbar sharks, other HMS, and protected species. However, establishing a
threshold based on the species composition of the catch could potentially result in an increase in
regulatory discards if vessel operators discard species because the threshold is exceeded, either
intentionally or accidentally. Excessive discards could compromise the effectiveness of the
closed area restrictions. NMFS does not expect that significant regulatory discards will occur as
a result of this alternative. A five-percent threshold has been established to account for any
unanticipated bycatch.
Table 4.72 and Table 4.73, respectively, indicate that this threshold (five percent) is
slightly above the average weight of pelagic species that have been reported in the Coastal
logbook in recent years (4.45 percent), and slightly above the average weight of demersal species
that have been reported in recent years in the HMS logbook (4.52 percent). In 2004, however,
on a fishery-wide basis, the five-percent threshold would have been exceeded. NMFS believes
that, if longline vessels are fishing in an appropriate manner, either demersally in the PLL closed
areas or pelagically in the BLL closed area, this threshold should adequately account for any
unintentional bycatch in the closed areas. If necessary, the five-percent threshold and the list of
indicator species could be modified in the future based upon a review of historic and current
landings and the effectiveness of the regulation. Although alternative I1(c) was preferred in
conjunction with alternative I1(b) in the Draft HMS FMP, the objective of providing a
quantifiable method to differentiate between pelagic and bottom longline fishing activity can
effectively be achieved by implementing alternative I1(c) alone, species composition of catch.
Alternative I1(d) would require time/depth recorders (TDRs), or data loggers, at pre­
specified intervals on all HMS longlines. The TDRs must be operational, and able to accurately
record the maximum and minimum fishing depths of HMS longline gear using an onboard TDR
reader. Pelagic longline gear would be required to remain within the upper two-thirds of the
water column while fishing, and bottom longline gear would be required to remain within the
bottom third of the water column while fishing. This alternative, in combination with
information indicating a vessel’s fishing location and water depth information from charts or
sounders, could indicate how deep the longline gear was fishing and whether it was fishing
pelagically or demersally. This would improve the monitoring and effectiveness of, and
compliance with, HMS closed areas. With improved monitoring and compliance, the ecological
benefits associated with HMS closed areas would remain intact, including reductions in discards
of undersized swordfish, bluefin tuna, dusky sharks, sandbar sharks, other HMS, and protected
species. Conversely, depending upon the amount of time that it takes to remove TDRs from the
mainline or gangions, and any other reduced efficiencies associated with using them, this
alternative could cause an increase in the mortality of discarded fish.
Alternative I1(e) would implement longline time/area closures that would be effective for
both HMS-permitted PLL and BLL vessels. As mentioned above, the existing time/area closures
are specific to either HMS-permitted PLL or BLL vessels, but not both. This alternative would
effectively eliminate any uncertainties in differentiating between the two gear types by
prohibiting both in all of the closed areas. This would improve the monitoring and effectiveness
of, and compliance with, time/area closures. With improved monitoring and compliance, the
ecological benefits associated with HMS closed areas would remain intact, including reductions
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-256

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

in discards of undersized swordfish, bluefin tuna, dusky sharks, sandbar sharks, other HMS, and
protected species. By implementing non-gear-specific closed areas, alternative I1(e) could also
provide additional conservation benefits for many other species. Because HMS-permitted BLL
vessels would be prohibited from fishing year-round in the Desoto Canyon and East Florida
Coast closed areas, and seasonally in the Charleston Bump and Northeastern U.S. closed areas,
additional conservation benefits for many species of sharks and other demersal finfish could
occur. These are areas of significant BLL fishing activity. For the three-year period (2001 –
2003), 140 BLL sets were reported in these areas in the HMS logbook compared to 363 BLL sets
in open areas. Similarly, because HMS-permitted PLL vessels would be prohibited from fishing
seasonally in the Mid-Atlantic Shark closed area, pelagic species and some sharks that are caught
as bycatch on PLL gear could potentially be conserved. This alternative could also provide
additional conservation of protected species, including threatened and endangered sea turtles and
marine mammals.
None of the alternatives considered above are likely to have any adverse impacts on
protected species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Alternative I1(a) (No Action) would likely produce the fewest additional adverse social
and economic impacts on commercial fishing vessels. However, the No Action alternative does
have some associated negative socio-economic costs. Because it may be difficult to precisely
differentiate between PLL and BLL gear, commercial fishing activities on vessels boarded at sea
may be interrupted for longer periods of time while compliance with closed area regulations is
determined. Valuable economic and administrative resources might be required on behalf of
both industry and government to resolve these gear definition issues. Also, negative social
impacts could occur under the No Action alternative for law-abiding vessels if the protective
benefits of the closed areas are compromised because other commercial fishing vessels are
deploying gear that is allegedly BLL gear but catching pelagic species in PLL closed areas, or
deploying gear that is allegedly PLL gear but catching demersal species in BLL closed areas.
Alternative I1(b), a preferred alternative in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, would
establish additional restrictions on longline gear in HMS time/area closures by requiring that
BLL vessels in PLL closed areas possess no more than 70 commercial fishing floats, and that
PLL vessels in BLL closed areas possess at least 71 commercial fishing floats. A threshold of 70
floats was chosen to differentiate between PLL and BLL gear based upon data obtained from the
HMS logbook. In 2002 and 2003, a total of 233 sets were reported as using BLL gear. Of these,
23 BLL sets (10 percent) deployed 40 or more floats. Only 12 BLL sets (5 percent) reportedly
deployed 180 or more floats. The reported median was 15 floats on BLL gear. For the same
time period, a total of 19,441 sets were reported as using PLL gear. Of these, 17,496 sets (90
percent) deployed 87 or more floats, and 18,469 sets (95 percent) deployed 72 floats or more.
Thus, at least 90 percent of all reported BLL sets in 2002 and 2003 possessed less than 70 floats,
and approximately 95 percent of all reported PLL sets in 2002 and 2003 possessed more than 70
floats. In terms of vessels, five vessels reported using more than 70 floats on bottom longline
gear for at least one set in either year. Most of these vessels reported homeports in North
Carolina and northward. Eighty-seven vessels reported using less than 70 floats on pelagic

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-257

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

longline gear for at least one set in either year. Most of these vessels reported homeports in
Florida, although some reported homeports in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana.
Overall, alternative I1(b) would not be expected to produce significant adverse social or
economic effects. Based on the data presented above, this alternative would potentially impact
less than five percent of all PLL sets, and less than ten percent of all BLL sets. The actual
percent is likely to be smaller than this, because the alternative would only apply to the few
vessels that are actually fishing with PLL gear in BLL closed areas, or fishing with BLL gear in
PLL closed areas. Based on the homeports of the vessels that reported using BLL gear and more
than 70 floats for at least one set, few of those vessels are based next to a PLL closed area. They
are generally based next to a BLL closed area. Similarly, based on the homeports of the vessels
that reported using PLL gear and fewer than 70 floats, few of those vessels are based next to a
BLL closed area and are actually based next to several PLL closed areas. Thus, this alternative
would not be expected have large impacts on fishermen fishing with BLL gear in PLL closed
areas, or fishing with PLL gear in BLL closed areas. However, it could, appropriately, impact a
small number of PLL vessels fishing near PLL closed areas, and a small number of BLL vessels
fishing near BLL closed areas. To comply with this alternative, BLL vessel operators fishing in
a PLL closed area could choose to reduce the overall length of their BLL gear or change the
configuration of their gear. This could potentially increase the number of sets that would need to
be deployed to maintain the same catch level, and could increase some associated variable costs
including fuel, ice and food. Also, if the number of allowable floats were not sufficient for the
gear to operate as intended, it could potentially result in broken sets or lost fishing gear. Positive
social and economic benefits are anticipated for both industry and government with this
alternative if it is successful at providing a quick method to reliably differentiate between PLL
and BLL gear. This alternative would not be expected to compromise safety at sea, as it should
not significantly alter current fishing practices.
As mentioned above, NMFS did receive public comment on alternative I1(b). Some
commenters indicated that a float requirement would be an unnecessary burden that could
diminish the flexibility of vessel operators to participate in different fishing activities, depending
upon the circumstances. Based upon these comments, and on consultations with NMFS Law
Enforcement indicating that this alternative was not practical, alternative I1(b) is no longer
preferred. NMFS believes that the objective of this alternative can be effectively achieved by
implementing alternative I1(c) alone, species composition of catch. By not preferring alternative
I1(b), any potential adverse economic impacts associated with restricting the allowable number
of floats, such as reduced operational flexibility, should be mitigated.
Alternative I1(c), the preferred alternative, would differentiate between PLL and BLL
gear based upon the species composition of the catch onboard or landed. It would establish a
five-percent limit (by weight) on the allowable amount of “indicator” pelagic species that BLL
vessels may possess or land when fishing in PLL closed areas, and establish a five-percent limit
(by weight) on the allowable amount of “indicator” demersal species that PLL vessels may
possess or land when fishing in BLL closed areas (as measured relative to the total weight of all
“indicator” species). The “indicator” species are listed in Table 4.71. As mentioned above,
NMFS specifically sought and received comment on the lists of “indicator” species. The
demersal “indicator” species list has been slightly modified by removing silky and hammerhead
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-258

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

sharks, and by adding tilefish, blueline tilefish, and sand tilefish. These modifications were
made because the aforementioned shark species can be caught on both pelagic and bottom
longlines, and because the tilefish species are indicative of demersal fishing activity. The
“indicator” species were chosen because they constitute the primary target species in the pelagic
and bottom longline fisheries. If necessary, the list of “indicator” species could be changed in
the future based upon a review of historic and current landings and the effectiveness of the
regulation. The percent of pelagic and demersal “indicator” species is measured relative to the
total weight of all “indicator” species onboard or landed. The five-percent incidental allowance
was established based upon historical landings of species, as reported from 2000 – 2004 in the
Coastal logbook (Table 4.72) and the HMS logbook (Table 4.73).
Table 4.42 indicates that the percent of “indicator” pelagic species landed by vessels
reporting in the Coastal logbook ranged from 3.33 percent in 2003 to 6.74 percent in 2004, with
a five-year average of 4.45 percent. Table 4.73 shows that the percent of “indicator” demersal
species landed by vessels reporting in the HMS logbook ranged from 1.17 percent in 2002 to
10.95 percent in 2004, with a five-year average of 4.52 percent. Although the five-percent
threshold would have been exceeded in 2004 on a fishery-wide basis, NMFS believes that
longline vessels fishing in HMS protected areas and using due diligence should be able to remain
within the five-percent threshold that has been established to account for unintentional bycatch.
If necessary, the five-percent threshold and the list of indicator species could be changed in the
future based upon a review of historic and current landings, and the effectiveness of the
regulation.
NMFS received comments indicating that alternative I1(c) could adversely impact
longline vessels that fish, at least part of a trip, in HMS closed areas and catch both demersal and
pelagic species on those trips. Similar to the comments received regarding alternative I1(b),
there were concerns that, by establishing a species threshold when fishing in HMS closed areas,
this alternative would restrict the flexibility of longline vessel operators to participate in different
fishing activities depending upon the circumstances. Also, economic costs could result if vessel
operators are unable to retain a portion of their catch that otherwise would have been retained on
mixed fishing trips in the closed areas, or if they must necessarily choose to fish outside of the
closed areas. NMFS received other comments indicating that there could be additional costs on
vessels if they are boarded at sea by enforcement, and it was necessary to retrieve or observe fish
in the hold in order to calculate the percentages of demersal and pelagic species possessed
onboard. The time required to do this could create an economic burden in terms of opportunity
costs associated with lost time and, possibly, reduced net revenues associated with re-icing the
fish and reduced quality of the catch.
NMFS acknowledges that this alternative would likely require vessel operators to decide,
prior to the start of a fishing trip, whether to target demersal or pelagic species if they are fishing,
at least part of that trip, in an HMS closed area. However, alternative I1(c) should not
significantly restrict operational flexibility or cause other significant adverse social or economic
impacts. The HMS longline closed areas were implemented to provide important protection for
a variety of HMS and other protected species. It is not unreasonable, or unduly burdensome, for
longline vessels to adhere to the intent of the closed areas and to actively avoid pelagic or
demersal species when legally fishing in those areas with BLL or PLL gear, respectively. The
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-259

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

five-percent “indicator” species threshold was specifically selected because it is higher than the
five-year average percent of pelagic species caught when fishing for demersal species, based on
Coastal logbook data, and higher than the five-year average percent of demersal species caught
when fishing for pelagic species, based on HMS logbook data. This threshold should
accommodate the majority of fishing trips, even those outside of closed areas. However, NMFS
recognizes that the five-percent threshold would have been exceeded in 2004, based on this same
data. If necessary, both the list of “indicator” species and the five-percent threshold could be
changed in the future based upon a review of historic and current landings and the effectiveness
of the regulation. The actual number of vessels impacted by this alternative is likely to be small,
as it would only affect vessels that otherwise would exceed the threshold when fishing with PLL
gear in BLL closed areas, or when fishing with BLL gear in PLL closed areas.
While NMFS did not receive any comments on the subject, the Agency is aware that
several vessels have attempted to fish with PLL for sharks in the BLL closed area. Under this
alternative, the practice would likely be eliminated because the species being caught are species
found on the demersal “indicator” list. These are also the species that were intended to be
protected by the closed area. To the extent that some of these vessels do not have the permits
that allow them to land pelagic species such as swordfish or tunas, stopping this practice could
have positive ecological benefits. However, stopping this practice may also have negative
economic impacts on fishermen who were trying to find methods of adjusting their fishing
practice to the BLL closed area. Alternative I1(c) would not prevent PLL fishermen with the
appropriate permits from fishing for swordfish, tunas, and other pelagic species in the BLL
closed area.
Additional costs could occur if a vessel was boarded at sea and it was necessary to
retrieve or observe fish in the hold to calculate the percent of demersal and pelagic species. If
difficulties arise in determining whether a vessel is fishing with PLL or BLL gear in a closed
area, using the existing definitions in the regulations, the species composition of catch
methodology described in this alternative provides a quantifiable method to verify fishing
technique. The potential costs would be reduced if this alternative were enforced dockside, as
offloaded fish would only need to be identified and weighed before being sold to the dealer.
Positive social and economic benefits would be realized with this alternative if the species
composition of the catch can quickly be determined with minimal disruption to commercial
fishing and law enforcement activities. This alternative is not expected to compromise safety at
sea, as it should not significantly alter current fishing practices.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-260

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Table 4.71

List of “Indicator” Species to Determine Composition of Catch.
PELAGIC SPECIES

DEMERSAL SPECIES

DOLPHINFISH

GROUPER, BLACK

SHARK, BLUE

GROUPER, GAG

SHARK, OCEANIC WHITETIP

GROUPER, MARBLED

SHARK, PORBEAGLE

GROUPER, MISTY

SHARK, SHORTFIN MAKO

GROUPER, RED

SHARK, THRESHER

GROUPER, SNOWY

SWORDFISH

GROUPER, WARSAW

TUNA, ALBACORE

GROUPER, YELLOWEDGE

TUNA, BLUEFIN

GROUPER, YELLOWFIN

TUNA, BIGEYE

HIND, RED

TUNA, SKIPJACK

HIND, ROCK

TUNA, YELLOWFIN

HIND, SPECKLED

WAHOO

SHARK, ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE
SHARK, BLACKNOSE
SHARK, BLACKTIP
SHARK, BONNETHEAD
SHARK, BULL
SHARK, FINETOOTH
SHARK, LEMON
SHARK, NURSE
SHARK, SANDBAR
SHARK, SPINNER
SHARK, TIGER
SNAPPER, BLACKFIN
SNAPPER, CUBERA
SNAPPER, DOG
SNAPPER, LANE
SNAPPER, MANGROVE
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, QUEEN
SNAPPER, RED
SNAPPER, SCHOOLMASTER
SNAPPER, SILK
SNAPPER, VERMILION
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
TILEFISH
TILEFISH, BLUELINE
TILEFISH, SAND

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-261

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Table 4.72

Historical Per Trip Average Catch Composition of “Indicator” Species. Source: NMFS Coastal
Logbook

2000
2001

Demersal (lb)

Pelagic (%)

Demersal (%)

507 lb

14,560 lb

3.36 %

96.64 %

636 lb

13,347 lb

4.55 %

95.45 %

2002

1

457 lb

13,177 lb

3.35 %

96.65 %

2003

1

485 lb

14,092 lb

3.33 %

96.67 %

1,354 lb

18,743 lb

6.74 %

93.26 %

2004
1

Pelagic (lb)

Average
688 lb
14,784 lb
4.45 %
95.55 %
Data for years 2002 and 2003 were inadvertently reversed in the Draft HMS FMP.

Table 4.73

Historical Per Trip Average Catch Composition of “Indicator” Species. Source: Pelagic
Longline Logbook
Pelagic (lb) 1

Demersal (lb)

Pelagic (%)

Demersal (%)

1

1

2000

5,803 lb

78 lb

98.67 %

1.33 %

2001

5,220 lb

99 lb

98.14 %

1.86 %

2002

5,926 lb

70 lb

98.83 %

1.17 %

2003

5,708 lb

88 lb

98.48 %

1.52 %

2004

9,767 lb

1,201 lb

89.05 %

10.95 %

Average
6,485 lb
307 lb
95.48 %
4.52 %
Data from HMS logbook was converted from numbers of fish to lbs. using average weight of species.

Alternative I1(d) would require time/depth recorders (TDRs), or data depth loggers, at
pre-specified intervals on all HMS longlines. PLL gear would be required to remain within the
upper two-thirds of the water column while fishing, and BLL gear would be required to remain
within the bottom third of the water column while fishing. This alternative would result in direct
economic costs associated with the purchase of TDRs and data readers (communications
hardware). Relatively few companies currently manufacture these devices for commercial use,
and prices vary widely. Most current applications involve academic research projects, so prices
would be expected to decrease if their use became more widespread as a result of implementing
this alternative on the commercial fishery. Based upon telephone inquiries to two manufacturers
conducted in the summer of 2005, the costs for one TDR and a reader range from approximately
$680.00 – $1,300.00. Individual TDRs (without a reader) are available from one manufacturer
for approximately $180.00. Therefore, assuming that a minimum of five TDRs and one reader
per vessel would be required, the direct costs would range from $1400.00 ($180.00 X 5 +
$500.00) to $6,500.00 ($1,300.00 X 5). These costs may be higher if vessel operators purchase
extra TDRs to replace lost or damaged equipment. The lead-time for processing orders currently
ranges from six to ten weeks. Aside from these direct costs, there could be some indirect costs
associated with a loss in efficiency due to attaching TDRs to longlines, and downloading and
recording the information. Conversely, positive social and economic benefits could be realized
with this alternative if the TDR data could be quickly downloaded and interpreted by law
enforcement with minimal disruption to normal commercial fishing and law enforcement

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-262

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

activities. This alternative would not be expected to compromise safety at sea, but there is a
possibility that attaching and detaching TDRs could alter some current fishing practices.
Alternative I1(e) would implement HMS longline time/area closures that are effective for
both pelagic and bottom longline HMS-permitted vessels. If selected, this alternative would
prohibit HMS-permitted BLL vessels from fishing year-round in the DeSoto Canyon and East
Florida Coast closed areas, seasonally in the Charleston Bump closed area from February 1
through April 30 each year, and seasonally in the Northeastern U.S. closed area from June 1
through June 30 each year. It would also prohibit HMS-permitted PLL vessels from fishing
seasonally in the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area from January 1 through July 31 each year. Of
all the alternatives analyzed for this issue, alternative I1(e) would likely produce the most
significant adverse economic impacts, primarily upon HMS-permitted BLL vessels that would be
prohibited from fishing year-round in the DeSoto Canyon and East Florida Coast closed areas,
seasonally in the Charleston Bump closed area from February 1 through April 30 each year, and
seasonally in the Northeastern U.S. closed area from June 1 through June 30 each year. For
HMS-permitted BLL vessels, the DeSoto Canyon area would eliminate approximately 32,860
nm2 miles of ocean; the East Florida Coast closed area would eliminate approximately 50,720
nm2 of ocean; the Charleston Bump closed area would seasonally eliminate approximately
49,090 nm2 of ocean; and, the Northeastern U.S. closed area would seasonally eliminate
approximately 21,600 nm2 of ocean. These are areas of intensive bottom longline fishing
activity and, especially in the case of the East Florida Coast closed area, comprise major fishing
areas for BLL vessels. For the three-year period (2001 – 2003), 140 BLL sets were reported in
these PLL closed areas in the HMS logbook as compared to 363 BLL sets in the open areas.
Also, some former BLL vessels may recently have switched to PLL fishing in BLL closed areas
to mitigate adverse impacts. This alternative would prohibit both types of HMS longline fishing
activity in the closed areas. This alternative would also impact PLL vessels, as an area off of
Cape Hatteras that is frequently fished by PLL vessels would be closed from January through
July under this alternative.
NMFS received contrasting comments regarding alternative I1(e). Comments in
opposition to this alternative confirmed the conclusion presented in the Draft HMS FMP that this
alternative would produce the most significant adverse economic impacts upon vessels, and that
it was unnecessary because PLL and BLL gears can be effectively differentiated. Comments in
support of this alternative stated that it would be the easiest to enforce, and was the only way to
achieve a meaningful reduction in bycatch because billfish and other HMS are found throughout
the water column. NMFS agrees that this alternative would be the easiest to enforce, but
believes that preferred alternative I1(c), which implements limits on bycatch, can be effective at
preserving the conservation benefits associated with the closed areas while simultaneously
mitigating adverse economic impacts on longline vessels fishing in the areas.
Conclusion
Alternative I1(c), which would differentiate between gears based upon the species
composition of the catch onboard or offloaded, is preferred because it is expected to
accommodate the majority of commercial fishing operations, yet still provide a quantifiable
method to differentiate between PLL and BLL vessels. The 5-percent species threshold to
determine the composition of catch in alternative I1(c) is higher than the five-year average
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-263

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

percent of pelagic species caught when fishing for demersal species based on Coastal logbook
data, and higher than the five-year average percent of demersal species caught when fishing for
pelagic species, based on HMS logbook data. Moreover, the actual percent of affected vessels is
likely to be small, as this alternative would apply only to the few vessels that are actually fishing
with PLL gear in BLL closed areas, or fishing with BLL gear in PLL closed areas. Vessels that
were fishing mixed trips outside the closed areas could still transit the closed area provided the
signals from their VMS unit indicate that the vessel is transiting and not fishing. If necessary,
both the list of “indicator” species and the five-percent threshold could be modified in the future,
based upon a review of historic and current landings and the effectiveness of the regulation. This
alternative is not expected to create significant adverse economic and social impacts. There may,
however, be some minor adverse economic costs on vessels that fish for both pelagic and
demersal species on the same trip in closed areas. Those situations (i.e., “mixed” trips in the
HMS longline closed areas) are expected to be rare occurrences, based upon HMS logbook
information. Alternative I1(c) effectively addresses the crux of this issue, in that it should
further discourage catches of pelagic species in PLL closed areas (and vice verse) without
imposing additional gear restrictions which would be impractical to enforce and could reduce the
flexibility of fishermen from pursuing different fishing activities, depending upon the
circumstances. NMFS anticipates that HMS longline vessels will continue to be prudent,
especially when fishing in the HMS closed areas by catching predominantly pelagic species in
BLL closed areas, and demersal species in PLL closed areas.
Overall, preferred alternative I1(c) is expected to improve the monitoring of, and
compliance with, HMS closed area regulations. As a result, the ecological benefits associated
with HMS closed areas are expected to remain intact, including reductions in discards of
undersized swordfish, bluefin tuna, dusky sharks, sandbar sharks, other HMS, other finfish, and
protected species. Alternative I1(b) is no longer preferred based upon public comment regarding
impacts to vessel’s operational flexibility, difficulties with terminology, and impracticalities in
enforcing the alternative. Alternative I1(d) would impose a much larger negative social and
economic burden than the preferred alternative on HMS longline vessels, because of the
requirement to purchase TDRs, and the need to provide precise documentation regarding fishing
location and water depth in order to determine compliance. Alternative I1(e) would provide the
largest ecological benefits, but would also impose the most significant adverse social and
economic costs on HMS longline vessels.
Issue 2: Shark Identification
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered to aid in shark identification
include:
I2(a) Retain current regulations regarding shark landing requirements (No Action)
I2(b) Require that the 2nd dorsal fin and the anal fin remain on all sharks through landing –
Preferred Alternative
I2(c) Require that the 2nd dorsal fin and the anal fin remain on all sharks through landing,
except for lemon and nurse sharks
I2(d) Require that all fins remain on all sharks through landing
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-264

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Ecological Impacts
Under alternative I2(a), current regulations would remain in place, which allow
fishermen to remove all shark fins from carcass, as long as the total weight of the shark fins does
not exceed five percent of the total weight of the dressed carcasses. Additionally, all fins must
be offloaded at the first point of landing. These regulations were first put in place in the 1993
Atlantic Shark FMP (April 26, 1993, 58 FR 21931) and were later implemented nationally
through the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (February 11, 2002, 67 FR 6194). The 1993 Shark
Fishery Management Plan noted that prohibiting the finning of sharks (removing the fins and
throwing the rest of the shark overboard) would reduce fishing mortality of sharks by reducing
the incentive to target sharks, as fishermen would want to save freezer space for more valuable
carcasses, such as swordfish and tuna. While this statement is generally correct, NMFS has
found that by allowing all the fins to be removed from the carcass, the ability to identify sharks
at the dock has been hampered. This could affect the accuracy of dealer reporting of sharks
landed by species, and consequently have implications for stock assessments and quota
monitoring. Additionally, NMFS has found that while many fishermen follow the regulations,
some fishermen illegally keep fins from species that are different from those they land and,
correspondingly, discard a number of unwanted shark carcasses and lower value fins overboard
in order to maintain the five percent ratio. In other words, some fishermen mix and match fins
and carcasses in order to maintain the highest profit while still complying with the five percent
ratio. Thus, while the current regulations have ultimately reduced shark fishing mortality from
the level it was at in 1993, it may not have reduced shark fishing mortality to the extent
anticipated.
Under the preferred alternative I2(b), shark fishermen could still remove the more
valuable fins from a shark while at sea (e.g., the dorsal, caudal, and/or pectoral), but the smaller
second dorsal and anal fins would need to remain attached to the shark while the vessel was at
sea. Once landed, those fins could be removed either by the fisherman or the dealer. While
shark “logs”- carcasses with fins removed- retaining only the second dorsal and anal fin could
still be misidentified by the dealer, requiring these fins to remain on the shark until the first point
of landing would likely improve dock-side identification of the shark “log.” While this
alternative would not help in identifying fins separated from the carcass, landings with many
high-grade fins from species that normally produce lower grade fins may be more obvious,
resulting in increased enforcement and DNA analyses of the fins and carcasses. NMFS received
various comments supporting the preferred alternative, as well as comments confirming that
retention of second dorsal and anal fins through landing could improve shark identification and
species-specific landing data. NMFS also received comments indicating that this alternative
would do little to improve shark identification. Additionally, under alternative A8 (see Section
2.1.1), NMFS would require shark dealers to attend identification workshops. Those workshops,
in combination with this alternative, should help to improve the accuracy of dealer reports as
well as quota monitoring and stock assessments.
Alternative I2(c) is similar to I2 (b), however, fishermen would be allowed to remove all
the fins from lemon and nurse sharks. This alternative was considered due to the larger size of
the second dorsal on these species, and the possible economic impacts resulting from requiring
that these large fins remain on the shark. NMFS received comment that although these species
have valuable fins, retaining them until landing was acceptable. Furthermore, in recent years,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-265

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

lemon and nurse shark landings have accounted for one percent or less of the total large coastal
shark commercial landings (see Section 3.4.5.2). If the identification of sharks is improved by
requiring that some of the fins remain on the shark, then allowing all the fins to be removed from
lemon and nurse sharks should not hinder quota monitoring. Enforcing this alternative, however,
may prove to be more difficult. It is possible that under this alternative, fishermen may decide to
remove the second dorsal and anal fin of sharks other than lemon or nurse sharks in order to
receive as high an ex-vessel price as possible for the shark. This type of action would be in
violation of this alternative, and could increase the reported landings of lemon and nurse sharks.
Depending upon the species actually being landed, such an activity could have impacts on quota
monitoring (e.g., if small coastal sharks are being landed, they would be counted as a lemon or
nurse shark both of which are large coastal sharks), would compromise data collection for use in
stock assessments, and would not actively prevent illegal discards and mixing of shark fins.
Under alternative I2(d), all shark fins would be required to remain on the shark until the
first port of landing. The fins could then be removed either by the fisherman or the dealer. The
shark could still be headed, gutted, and bled. To ensure the sharks are stored in a manner that
would maximize the value and quality of the sharks, the fins could be sliced as long as they are
not removed completely from the shark (i.e., they could remain attached to the shark via a small
amount of uncut skin). Under this alternative, there would be less of a chance of misidentifying
the shark or the fin, particularly if the person were trained to identify shark species (see Section
2.1.1). Thus, species-specific reporting should improve and, correspondingly, stock assessments
should be more accurate. Additionally, because fishermen would no longer be able to bypass the
regulations by keeping the fins of sharks that are not landed, fishing mortality of sharks overall
could be reduced. This would improve the status of sharks, particularly large coastal sharks, and
improve the chances of rebuilding sharks according to the rebuilding plan.
None of the alternatives considered above are likely to have any impacts on protected
species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Shark fins are the most valuable part of the shark. While fishermen can also sell the
meat, teeth, and skin, shark fins comprises the majority of the profit due to the large demand for
shark fin soup from Asian countries. While the ex-vessel price of shark meat ranges from $0.25
per pound in 1996 for small coastal sharks to $1.11 per pound in 2001 for pelagic sharks, the exvessel price of shark fins range from $6.01 per pound in 1996 to $16.25 per pound in 2004 (see
Table 3.65 in Section 3.5.1.2). Fin price depends on the length of the cartilage and the quality of
the fin. Large, dry fins are worth more than small, wet fins. Fins are generally bought and sold
in three "grades" or quality levels. Through anecdotal information, NMFS knows that the dorsal
fin of a large sandbar shark or hammerhead shark can bring top price. According to a discussion
on the Elasmo-L listserve, primary fins from a sandbar shark have a larger ex-vessel price than
primary fins from a bull shark, while fins from a small shark, such as Atlantic sharpnose, bring in
a much lower price.
Under alternative I2(a), there would be no short-term economic or social effects.
Fishermen and communities would continue operating as they have since implementation of the
regulations in 1993. To the extent that some fishermen are finning sharks illegally, there may be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-266

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

fishing mortality that is not being accounted for in the quota monitoring or the stock assessment.
In the long-term, this additional fishing mortality could extend the amount of time required to
rebuild large coastal sharks and could increase the chances of pelagic or small coastal sharks
becoming overfished. Illegal finning, coupled with errors in landing data could reduce the quota
available for fishermen and, thus, reduce the overall potential revenues for the fishery.
Under alternative I2(b), fishermen could experience, in the short-term, some adverse
economic costs associated with keeping the second dorsal and anal fins on the sharks. Due to
their small size and fiber content, the second dorsal and anal fins of a shark are usually sold at
the lowest quality grade and are often referred to as “chips.” Thus, even under the current
regulations, these fins are not going to result in a large percentage of the value of the shark.
Under this alternative, these fins will remain frozen and will not begin to dry, unlike the other
fins. At the dock, the owner/operator of the vessel will need to determine if the value of these
small, wet fins offsets the cost of having crew remove them after the fish have been offloaded
from the vessel. This decision will likely rely, in part, on the decision of the dealer regarding (a)
whether or not to pay for the fins attached to the shark carcass and (b) whether or not to process
the fins while completing the processing of the shark itself. Thus, it is possible that the
fishermen will not experience any significant adverse economic costs from this alternative and
may experience some benefits if the crew can spend less time processing and packing the sharks
at sea and the dealers continue to give them full price for the smaller fins on the carcass. It is
equally possible that the fishermen may lose a small portion of their revenue by failing to remove
the fins and that the dealers gain by processing the fins after buying the carcass. The Agency
received a comment opposing this alternative due to additional time and revenue losses that may
result from removing the smaller/secondary fins after docking. While initial adjustments may
have to be made to the offloading and processing procedures, in the long-term, improved quota
monitoring and stock assessment data as a result of this alternative could result in a larger quota
and therefore larger net revenues for both the fishermen and the dealer.
Under alternative I2(c), shark fishermen would be allowed to remove all the fins of
lemon and nurse sharks only. This would allow the second dorsal and anal fins of these species,
which are larger and likely worth more than those of other sharks, to begin to dry, thus allowing
fishermen to maintain their current profit margins. However, because currently fishermen land
so few lemon and nurse sharks (approximately one percent in total; all nurse sharks are currently
released although they can be landed (Burgess and Morgan, 2005)), NMFS believes that any
economic benefit gained would be marginal.
Alternative I2(d) would have the largest economic burden of any of the alternatives. In
the short-term, this alternative could change the foundation of the U.S. Atlantic shark fin market.
At this time and since the fishery began in the 1980s, most shark fins sold in the United States
are landed separately from the shark. In 1993, shark fins were required to be removed from the
vessel at the first port of landing. This prevented fishermen from drying shark fins onboard their
vessel over time in order to increase the value of the fin. Under this alternative, shark fishermen
would not be allowed to remove the fins from the shark until the sharks are landed. Costa Rica
has implemented a similar regulation that allows fishermen to cut the fins mostly off the shark,
as long as a small piece of skin keeps the fin attached to the shark until landing. According to a
discussion on the Elasmo-L listserve, this practice has allowed fishermen to receive the expected
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-267

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

revenues for both the fin and the meat because the fin can be fully removed from the shark at the
dock without thawing the shark. As with the preferred alternative I2(b), the vessel
owner/operator would need to decide whether the benefit of selling the fins separate from the
shark outweighs the cost of having the crew remove the fins during offloading. While the fin
would likely still be of high quality once dry, it is unlikely that the ex-vessel price of fins packed
in ice with the rest of the shark would be as high as fins that had begun drying. Additionally, if
the shark cannot be packed in ice properly due to maintaining the fins on the shark, the quality of
the meat, and therefore its value, could also decrease.
The overall social impact of any of these alternatives, with the possible exception of
alternative I2(d), is likely to be minimal in the long-term. In all cases, shark fins would still be
entering the market. For alternatives I2(b) and (c), the economic cost on the fishermen, even if
they do not receive as high an ex-vessel price for the wet small fins as they do currently, should
be minimal. Therefore, NMFS would not expect any social impacts. However, under alternative
I2(d), it is possible that there could be numerous social impacts, particularly in the short-term, as
the market adjusts itself to accepting all wet fins. This could be significant for the fishery and its
related communities and support system that has had numerous reductions in quotas and profits
since 1993.
Conclusion
NMFS prefers alternative I2(b), requiring the second dorsal and anal fins to remain on all
sharks through the first port of landing. While this alternative could have some minor economic
and social impacts, this alterative is expected to generate ecological benefits by enhancing and
improving species identification and data collection, thereby leading to improved management
and increased shark populations. Alternative I2(c) would have similar economic and social
impacts but could confuse the issue of identification and might have adverse ecological impacts
compared to either the No Action or the preferred alternative. Alternative I2(d) would have the
largest ecological benefits but could also have fairly large adverse economic and social impacts.
Issue 3: HMS Retention Limits
Currently, compliance with many of the HMS retention limits is less effective than
intended because the regulations are specific to “persons aboard a vessel” (i.e., vessel owners
and operators). As described in Chapter 2, NMFS is considering the following alternatives to
address the purchase and sale of HMS by dealers in excess of the retention limits:
I3(a) Retain current regulations regarding retention limits, with no new prohibitions (No
Action)
I3(b) Add new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(48) making it illegal for any person to, “Purchase
any HMS that was offloaded from an individual vessel in excess of the retention limits
specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24” – Preferred Alternative
I3(c) Add new prohibition at § 635.71(a)(49) making it illegal for any person to, “Sell any
HMS that was offloaded from an individual vessel in excess of the retention limits
specified in §§ 635.23 and 635.24” – Preferred Alternative
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-268

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Ecological Impacts
Under alternative I3(a), the No Action alternative, there may be slight negative ecological
impacts on vessel operators that may be illegally landing and selling HMS in excess of the
commercial retention limits, thus circumventing the conservation benefits derived from those
limits. Also under this alternative, dealers have not been prohibited from purchasing more than
the commercial daily or trip-based HMS retention limits from one particular vessel. As the
possession of HMS in excess of the commercial retention limit is already illegal under other
sections of the regulation implementing the 1999 FMP, there is little data available to accurately
assess the magnitude of this issue.
Under alternatives I3(b) and I3(c), the preferred alternatives, the addition of clear
prohibitions regarding the purchase (by dealers) and sale (by vessels) of illegal landings in
excess of the retention limits could provide an additional deterrent, and therefore have slightly
more positive ecological benefits than the No Action alternative.
None of the alternatives considered above are likely to have any impacts on protected
species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Under alternative I3(a), individual vessel owner/operators, and/or dealers, may be
experiencing some positive economic benefits from the sale, or purchase, of HMS exceeding the
current commercial retention limits. However, there may also be negative social and economic
impacts associated with those activities attributed to violating the vessel trip limits and potential
enforcement actions. There could also be negative social impacts associated with the perception
of circumventing the intent of the current rules and regulations by law-abiding vessels,
owner/operators, and dealers.
Under alternative I3(b), the overall net social and economic benefit would be slightly
more positive than under the No Action alternative, because it would explicitly hold HMS
dealers accountable for knowing and not purchasing any more fish from an individual vessel than
the commercial retention limits specified for a particular species. Thus, this alternative may
further deter illegal activities of this nature.
Under alternative I3(c), the net social and economic benefits would be very similar to
alternative I3(b) because it would explicitly prohibit sales from an individual vessel in excess of
commercial retention limits, thereby strengthening existing regulations regarding the possession,
retention or landing of HMS. Both alternatives I3(b) and I3(c) would aid in the enforcement of
HMS regulations.
Conclusion
NMFS prefers alternatives I3(b) and I3(c). The addition of clear prohibitions regarding
the purchase and sale of illegal landings in excess of commercial retention limits may act as an
additional deterrent to discourage this practice. Therefore, these alternatives will have slightly
more positive ecological benefits than the No Action alternative. Although some fishery
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-269

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

participants may benefit economically from the illegal sale, or purchase, of HMS exceeding the
current commercial retention limits, social benefits will be obtained as a result of strengthening
the regulations on behalf of law-abiding vessel operators and dealers. NMFS believes that these
social benefits will outweigh any short-term economic benefit gained as a result of illegally
selling catches in excess of the commercial retention limits.
Issue 4: Definition of East Florida Coast Closed Area
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives that are being considered to better define the
East Florida Coast closed area are:
I4(a)

Retain current coordinates for the East Florida Coast closed area (No Action)

I4(b)

Amend the second coordinate of the East Florida Coast closed area to 28° 17’ 10” N.
lat., 79° 11’ 24” W. long., so that it corresponds with the EEZ – Preferred Alternative

Ecological Impacts
Alternative I4(a) would retain the current coordinates for the East Florida Coast PLL
closed area (No Action). As such, there would be no additional ecological impacts, either
positive or negative. However, because a current coordinate of the closed area inadvertently
does not extend seaward to the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ, as originally described in the
FSEIS prepared pursuant to the closure (NMFS, June 14, 2000), the No Action alternative is not
defined as originally intended in the June 14, 2000, action. Therefore, the definition of the
closed area is confusing.
Alternative I4(b) would amend the second coordinate of the East Florida Coast closed
area by extending it seaward 1.02 km (0.55 nmi), so that it corresponds with the EEZ. Because
the closed area would be enlarged, it could provide a greater reduction in the bycatch of
undersized swordfish, sailfish, and other HMS than the No Action alternative. However, this
reduction in bycatch and discards is not likely to be substantial, as the outer coordinate being
considered in this alternative is only 1.02 km (0.55 nmi) seaward (eastward) of the current
coordinate. Neither alternative is likely to have any impacts on protected species or essential fish
habitat.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-270

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Figure 4.23

Map of the East Florida Coast closed area (solid shaded area) and the boundary of the U.S.
EEZ (thin line wrapping around the coast). The inset is a close-up of the closed area depicting
both the old and proposed (new) boundary coordinates. The small grey dots represent
locations of longline sets from the year 2000 through the first half of 2004.

Social and Economic Impacts
Alternative I4(a) would retain the current coordinates for the East Florida Coast PLL
closed area (No Action). As such, there would be no additional social or economic costs or
benefits.
Alternative I4(b) would amend the second coordinate of the East Florida Coast closed
area by extending it seaward 1.02 km (0.55 nmi) to 28° 17’ 10” N. Lat., 79° 11’ 24” W. Long.
NMFS received a comment against this alternative. Because the PLL closed area would be
enlarged, there would be less area available for PLL fishing activity. This alternative could,
therefore, potentially reduce HMS catches and associated landings revenues. However, NMFS
does not expect a reduction in HMS catches associated with alternative because the geographic
size increase is very small and, according to the HMS logbook data, there have not been any
recent catches or PLL sets in this area (Figure 4.23). This could indicate that fishing vessels
have already been following the EEZ as a boundary for the East Florida Coast closed area,
because the rest of the closed area corresponds with the EEZ. Nevertheless, fishing effort that
would have occurred in this area would likely relocate to nearby open areas with similar catch
rates. Therefore, overall fishing effort is not expected to significantly change under this
alternative, and any potential reduction in catches or revenues would be minimal or nonexistent.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-271

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

A potential benefit to this alternative is less confusion over the definition because the coordinates
would correspond to the U.S. EEZ, as originally intended. This alternative is not expected to
compromise safety at sea, as it is not likely to significantly alter current fishing practices.
Conclusion
NMFS prefers alternative I4(b). This alternative would amend the area of the East
Florida Coast closed area by extending one of its coordinates 1.02 km (0.55 nmi) seaward so that
it corresponds with the outer boundary of the EEZ. This alternative is not expected to create
significant adverse economic costs or adverse social impacts. Any fishing effort that would have
occurred in this area will likely relocate to nearby open areas with similar catch rates. Because
the East Florida Coast closed area would be enlarged under this alternative, it could provide a
greater reduction in the bycatch of undersized swordfish, sailfish, and other HMS as compared
with the No Action alternative, but this reduction is expected to be very minimal.
Issue 5: Definition of Handline
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives for defining handline are:
I5(a) Retain the current definition of “handline” at § 635.2 (No Action)
I5(b) Amend the definition of “handline” at § 635.2 by requiring that they be attached to, or in
contact with, a vessel – Preferred Alternative
I5(c) Require that handlines remain attached to a vessel when fishing recreationally and allow
unattached handlines when fishing commercially
Ecological Impacts
Alternative I5(a) would retain the current definition of “handline” at § 635.2 (No Action).
This definition does not specify that handlines must remain attached to a vessel, and there is no
limit on the amount of unattached handlines that could be deployed. There would be no
additional ecological impacts, either positive or negative, associated with this alternative.
However, it has been brought to the Agency’s attention through public comment that some
vessel operators, both commercial and recreational, may be deploying numerous handlines that
are not attached to their vessel in areas that are closed to pelagic longlines and elsewhere. While
these vessel operators may be technically compliant with current regulations, the No Action
alternative may be inconsistent with the traditional concept that handline gear is relatively benign
with minimal ecological impacts. Uncontrolled expansion of this gear sector, especially in areas
that are closed to pelagic longlines to reduce bycatch, could potentially diminish NMFS’ ability
to accomplish this objective.
Under the current handline definition, most HMS commercial permit holders may legally
deploy an unrestricted number of unattached handlines. As of February 1, 2006, the number of
permit holders that could potentially participate in this activity include: Atlantic Tunas General
(4,824 permittees); Shark Directed (240 permittees); Shark Incidental (312 permittees);
Swordfish Directed (191 permittees); Swordfish Incidental (86 permittees); Swordfish Handgear
(88 permittees); and Charter/Headboat (except when fishing for billfish where rod and reel is the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-272

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

only authorized gear) (4,173 permittees). Also, except when fishing for billfish, all HMS
Angling category permit holders (25,238 permittees) could deploy an unlimited number of
unattached handlines. Because vessel owners may possess more than one permit, the actual
number of affected entities is less than the sum of the permittees enumerated above.
Nevertheless, a large proportion of HMS permit holders could potentially deploy unattached
handlines. Based upon public comment, this practice does not appear to be widespread, but it
may be growing among a small number of vessel operators, principally those targeting swordfish
in the East Florida Coast closed area.
There are no data indicating exactly how many vessels are fishing with unattached
handlines because the HMS logbook does not differentiate between “attached” and “unattached”
handlines, and recreational data are limited. Table 4.74 indicates that the number of commercial
fishing trips that reported using handline gear decreased quite significantly in 2003, but returned
to more historical levels in 2004. Notably, however, those trips that were reported as using
“handline-only” (i.e., no other gears reported) showed a very large increase from 2003 to 2004.
The primary target species in 2004 for commercial “handline-only” trips was swordfish, with
lesser amounts of YFT and BET kept. This is probably due to greater swordfish abundance, but
could also indicate more effective handline fishing techniques, including the use of unattached
handlines. It is likely a combination of both of these factors. Although it is not possible to
conclusively state that the commercial HMS handline fishery is becoming more efficient through
the use of unattached handlines, the increased number of commercial “handline-only” trips in
2004, and the higher numbers of swordfish landed, suggests that this may be occurring. The No
Action alternative could continue the trend of increased numbers of “handline-only” trips and
swordfish handline landings. Historically the HMS commercial handline fishery has had
relatively few discards, although there was an increase in both dead and live discards in 2004,
which could be the result of an increased number of “handline-only” trips. It is possible that
discards of undersized swordfish, billfish, tunas, sharks, and other species could increase if
overall effort in the commercial and recreational handline fishery were to increase. Also, if more
unattached handlines were deployed, there is a greater likelihood that more gear could get lost
with unknown consequences on fish mortality. NMFS received a comment in reference to
alternative I5(a), asking whether floating handlines were being used to catch undersized
swordfish in the East Florida Coast closed area. As mentioned above, the HMS logbook does
not differentiate between “attached” and “unattached” handlines, and recreational data are
limited. Given these limitations, it is not possible to determine conclusively if floating handlines
are being used to catch juvenile swordfish in the East Florida Coast closed area. However, given
that the legal minimum size is below the size of maturity, the average size of swordfish caught
across all fisheries is below the size of maturity, and because the area off the east coast of Florida
is a known nursery ground for swordfish, it is likely that any fishing gear, including rod and reel
or handlines, used to catch swordfish off the east coast of Florida catches juvenile swordfish.
The data provided in Table 4.70 in the Authorized Fishing Gear section indicate that the
“handline-only” fishery grew significantly in 2004, and provides information on catches and
discards of swordfish.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-273

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Table 4.74

Numbers of Trips Reported as Using Handline Gear in the HMS Logbook and Numbers of
Those Trips that were “Handline-Only.” Source: HMS Logbook. Note that confidential data
cannot be released and are marked by an *.
2000

Number of trips using handline
Number of “handline-only” trips

2001

2002

2004

2003

115

83

81

19

73

*

0

*

*

64

* Confidential data

Alternative I5(b), a preferred alternative, would amend the definition of “handline” by
requiring that handlines remain attached to all vessels. However, preferred alternative H5 would
define unattached handlines as “buoy gear,” and authorize their use only in the commercial
swordfish handgear fishery with a more refined definition and additional restrictions. Therefore,
in conjunction with preferred alternative H5, this alternative (I5(b)) would primarily impact
recreational HMS fishery participants, and those commercial permittees that do not possess a
swordfish handgear permit. By itself (i.e., not in conjunction with alternative H5), this
alternative could restrict or limit fishing effort, although there are no data indicating exactly how
many vessel operators are fishing with unattached handlines, or how many handlines they are
deploying. Depending upon the size of the vessel and the number of passengers onboard, the
number of attached handlines that could be fished could range from one to, possibly, as many as
fifty. In contrast, under the No Action alternative, a vessel could potentially fish with more than
fifty unattached handlines and cover a much larger geographic area. Public comment suggests
that, among active fishery participants, a requirement for handlines to remain attached to all
vessels would reduce the number of handlines that could be fished or deployed. Operationally, it
may also be less efficient to fish with several attached handlines as they may be more prone to
entanglement. Because this alternative could restrict or limit fishing effort, it is projected to
produce unquantifiable positive ecological impacts, including a reduction in the bycatch of
undersized swordfish, other undersized species, protected species, and target species catches.
However, catches of target species are not expected to significantly decrease, as they are largely
governed by possession limits, quotas, and minimum size limits. Positive ecological benefits
could also be realized by a reduction in the amount of gear that could get lost.
Alternative I5(c) would require that handlines remain attached to all vessels possessing
an HMS Angling category permit, an HMS Charter/headboat permit when fishing on a for-hire
trip, or an Atlantic Tunas General category permit when fishing in a registered HMS tournament.
Under alternative I5(c), commercial permit holders that are currently authorized to fish with
handlines would be allowed to fish with unattached handlines. The effect of this alternative
could be to restrict or limit recreational fishing effort, although there are no data indicating
exactly how many recreational vessels are fishing with unattached handlines, or how many
unattached handlines these vessels are deploying. As of February 1, 2006, there were 25,238
HMS Angling category permit holders. If few recreational vessels are currently fishing with
unattached handlines, then any ecological benefits associated with this alternative, including a
reduction in discards or target species catch, would be minimal. Conversely, if fishing with
unattached handlines is a common recreational practice, the ecological benefits associated with
this alternative would be greater. Because this alternative could restrict or limit recreational
fishing effort, it is projected to produce unquantifiable positive ecological impacts, including a
reduction in the bycatch of undersized swordfish, other undersized species, and protected
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-274

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

species. Catches of target species are not expected to significantly decrease however, as they are
largely governed by bag limits and minimum size limits. Positive ecological benefits could also
be realized by a reduction in amount of gear that could get lost.
None of the alternatives considered above are likely to have any adverse impact on
protected species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Alternative I5(a) would retain the current definition of “handline” at § 635.2 (No Action).
This definition does not require that handlines remain attached to a vessel, and there is no upper
limit on the number that may be deployed. There would be no additional social or economic
benefits or costs associated with this alternative. Under the current definition, most HMS
commercial permit holders may legally deploy unattached handlines, as described under the
ecological impacts section above. Based upon public comment the practice does not appear to be
widespread, but it may be growing among a small number of vessel operators primarily targeting
swordfish in the East Florida Coast closed area. Under the No Action alternative, the ability to
deploy numerous unattached handlines represents a positive social and/or economic opportunity
for commercial and recreational fishery participants who choose to, or may want to, fish in this
manner. Conversely, commercial and recreational fishery participants who do not participate in
this activity may feel that the No Action alternative diminishes the quality of fishing by
increasing the amount of deployed gear, particularly in areas that are closed to pelagic longlines.
As noted above, preferred alternative I5(b) (requiring attached handlines), if implemented
in conjunction with preferred alternative H5 (authorize buoy gear in the swordfish handgear
fishery), could impact all recreational HMS permit holders and those HMS commercial
permittees that do not possess a swordfish handgear permit. By itself (i.e., not in conjunction
with alternative H5), alternative I5(b) could impact all HMS recreational permit holders and all
commercial permit holders that are currently authorized to fish with handline gear. However,
based upon public comment, this practice does not appear to be widespread, but may be growing
among a small number of vessel operators. The effect of this alternative could be to restrict or
limit such fishing effort. Depending upon the size of the vessel and the number of passengers
onboard, under alternative I5(b), the approximate number of attached handlines that could be
fished from a vessel could range from one to as many as fifty. In contrast, under the No Action
alternative, a vessel could potentially fish with over fifty unattached handlines and cover a much
larger geographic area. Operationally, it may also be less efficient to fish with attached
handlines as they may be more prone to entanglement. Therefore, this alternative could result in
an unquantifiable reduction in the number of handlines that could be fished. Because this
alternative could restrict or limit fishing effort, it could potentially produce adverse social and
economic costs, including an unquantifiable reduction in catches of target species for vessels that
participate in this fishery. During the scoping process, some commenters indicated that a
requirement to attach handlines to vessels would render the commercial handline fishery
unprofitable. This could reduce opportunities for the United States to fully utilize its ICCAT
swordfish quota, which has had consistent underharvests in recent years. Authorizing buoy gear
in the swordfish handgear fishery under alternative H5 would mitigate this impact, however.
Recreational catches of target species could be impacted, but are not expected to significantly
decrease as the recreational sector is largely governed by bag limits, quotas, and minimum size
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-275

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

limits. If few recreational vessels currently fish with unattached handlines, then any social or
economic impacts associated with this alternative would be minimal. Conversely, if fishing with
unattached handlines is a common recreational practice, any social and economic burden
associated with this alternative, including impacts on charter/headboat operators and gear
suppliers, would be greater. Commercial and recreational fishery participants who do not
participate in this activity, and do not intend to, may feel that the alternative I5(b) would improve
the quality of fishing by reducing the amount of deployed gear. NMFS received a comment
indicating that if a fishing line is attached to a vessel it is a handline, if it is not it is a longline. In
general, by preferring alternative I5(b), NMFS concurs with this comment. Only a very narrow
exception would be created by preferring Alternative H5, whereby commercial swordfish
handgear permit holders would be permitted to deploy a limited amount of specially marked
buoy gear. These measures will prevent the uncontrolled future expansion of the buoy gear
sector, while simultaneously providing a reasonable opportunity for the U.S. to harvest its
ICCAT swordfish quota.
Alternative I5(c) would require that handlines remain attached to all vessels that possess
an HMS Angling category permit, an HMS Charter/headboat permit when fishing on a for-hire
trip, or an Atlantic Tunas General category permit when fishing in a registered HMS tournament.
Commercial HMS permit holders who are currently authorized to fish with handlines would
continue to be allowed to fish with unattached handlines. The effect of this alternative could be
to restrict or limit recreational fishing effort, although there are no data indicating exactly how
many recreational vessels are fishing with unattached handlines, or how many they are
deploying. Because this alternative could restrict or limit recreational fishing effort, it is
projected to produce unquantifiable adverse social and economic impacts on affected
recreational HMS fishing vessels, including a potential reduction in target species catches if
operational efficiency is reduced. However, recreational catches of target species would not be
expected to significantly decrease under this alternative, as the recreational sector is largely
governed by bag limits, quotas, and minimum size limits. According to public comment,
recreational swordfish catches would most likely be affected, as that is the primary target
species. If few recreational vessels are currently fishing with unattached handlines, then any
social or economic impacts associated with this alternative would be minimal. Conversely, if
fishing with unattached handlines is a common recreational practice, any social and economic
costs associated with this alternative would be greater for those vessel operators who participate
in this activity. Similar to alternative I5(b), commercial and recreational fishery participants who
do not participate in this activity, and do not intend to, may feel that the alternative I5(c) would
improve the quality of fishing by reducing the amount of deployed gear.
Conclusion
NMFS prefers alternative I5(b). This alternative would require that handlines remain
attached to all vessels. However, preferred alternative H5 would define unattached handlines as
“buoy gear” and authorize their use only in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery with
additional restrictions. Therefore, in conjunction with preferred alternative H5, alternative I5(b)
would primarily impact recreational fishery participants and commercial permittees that do not
possess a swordfish handgear permit. This alternative is not expected to create a significant
adverse social or economic burden on fishery participants. Catches of target species could be
impacted, but they are not expected to significantly decrease as catches are largely governed by
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-276

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

bag limits, trip limits, closed areas, gear restrictions, quotas, and minimum size limits. Relative
to the No Action alternative, alternative I5(b) is expected to provide some minor positive
ecological benefits by limiting the potential future expansion of the handline sector, and possibly
reducing the amount of lost gear. If this were to occur, there may be an unquantifiable future
reduction in the bycatch of undersized swordfish, other HMS species, protected species, and
target catches. Alternative I5(c) would impose similar social, economic, and ecological impacts
as the combination of preferred alternatives H5 and I5(b).
Issue 6: Possession of Billfish on Vessels Issued Commercial Permits
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered to improve consistency in HMS
regulations and to clarify the recreational nature of the billfish fishery are:
I6(a)

Retain current regulations regarding the possession of Atlantic billfish (No Action)

I6(b) Prohibit vessels issued commercial permits and operating outside of a tournament from
possessing, retaining, or taking Atlantic billfish from the management unit – Preferred
Alternative
Ecological Impacts
Under alternative I6(a), HMS fishermen on a commercial vessel with pelagic longline
gear onboard may not retain billfish, regardless of the gear used, but other commercial fishermen
may retain billfish caught on rod and reel. Thus, General Category fishermen, who are
commercial fishermen that use rod and reel to catch BFT, could keep Atlantic billfish. Similarly,
fishermen using bottom longline gear, who happen to catch a billfish on rod and reel, could
potentially keep the Atlantic billfish. These billfish could not be sold. Both white and blue
marlin are overfished, and white marlin is a candidate for listing under ESA. Under an ICCAT
recommendation, as noted by preferred alternative E6 in Section 2.2.3, the United States is
limited to 250 recreational billfish landings per year. Additionally, the billfish fishery is
considered to be a recreational fishery, and no fish may be sold. NMFS is not aware of any
billfish that have been retained by commercial fishermen for personal or other use. However,
allowing some HMS commercial fishermen to keep billfish but not other HMS commercial
fishermen is internally inconsistent, and gives the impression that billfish are more than a
recreational-only fishery. Depending upon how many fish are harvested by HMS commercial
fishermen, this could have an adverse impact on the number of billfish that could be landed by
recreational fishermen under the ICCAT-recommended 250-fish limit.
Under the preferred alternative, I6(b), only fishermen issued either an angling or
charter/headboat permit could take or possess Atlantic billfish. Additionally, General category
fishermen fishing in a registered tournament could take and possess Atlantic billfish. Other
HMS permit holders, and General category fishermen outside of a registered tournament, could
not take or possess a billfish. Fishermen who have both the recreational and commercial permits
(e.g., a commercial shark limited access permit and an HMS Charter/Headboat permit) could
take or possess billfish if the other HMS onboard do not exceed the HMS recreational retention
limits. This alternative is consistent with current regulations in regard to PLL gear. To the
extent that this regulation may reduce Atlantic billfish mortality by requiring HMS commercial
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-277

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

permit holders to release any billfish caught, this alternative could have slight positive ecological
benefits.
The HMS Charter/Headboat permit is both a recreational and commercial permit. Such
permit holders are allowed to sell their tunas. However, such permit holders cannot sell their
swordfish or sharks unless they also hold the appropriate commercial permit. When on a for-hire
trip, HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders can still take and retain large coastal sharks under
the recreational trip limit even when the fishing season is closed. NMFS did not limit the take of
billfish to HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders on a for-hire trip because NMFS felt these
permit holders were more likely to engage in recreational-type activities when on a non-for hire
trip than typical HMS commercial permit holders. For instance, HMS Charter/Headboat permit
holders often participate in tournaments for themselves, rather than for paying customers. As
such, under the preferred alternative, HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders have the same
benefits as an HMS Angling permit holder. Depending upon public comment and other actions,
NMFS may reconsider this decision in the future.
Neither alternative would have any impact on fishermen who hold non-HMS commercial
permits. Those permit holders would still need to hold the appropriate HMS permits in order to
possess or take billfish. Additionally, neither alternative would be likely to have impacts on
protected species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Neither alternative should have a significant economic or social burden. These
alternatives could affect approximately 5,000 commercial permit holders and most of those are
General Category fishermen who would be able to land billfish if they are fishing in a registered
HMS tournament. Currently, Atlantic billfish cannot be bought or sold by any permit holder.
Thus, limiting the number of billfish landed by commercial fishermen should not reduce profits
and should not result in any impacts on communities. To some extent, because this alternative
clarifies the recreational nature of the billfish fishery, the preferred alternative could have some
positive economic and/or social impacts to the recreational fishing community if it results in
enhanced fishing opportunities for recreational fishermen. There could, however, also be some
very minor social impacts, as would be expected from any additional limitations on commercial
fishermen. For example, commercial fishermen would not be able to retain any billfish for
personal use unless they also hold either an HMS Angling or HMS Charter/Heatboat permit, and
do not exceed any of the HMS recreational retention limits.
Conclusion
Alternative I6(b) is the preferred alternative because it may have minimal ecological
benefits, would have no adverse economic impacts, and would clarify the regulations regarding
the retention of billfish by HMS permit holders.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-278

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Issue 7: BFT Dealer Reporting
To provide additional flexibility for electronic BFT dealer reporting, it would be
necessary to amend the HMS regulations to specify that BFT dealers may submit these reports
over the Internet. NMFS is considering the following alternatives:
I7(a) Retain the current regulations regarding BFT dealer reporting (No Action)
I7(b) Amend the HMS regulations to provide an option for Atlantic tunas dealers to submit
required BFT reports using the Internet – Preferred Alternative
I7(c) Amend the HMS BFT dealer reporting regulations to require that Atlantic tuna dealers
submit BFT reports electronically, with specific exceptions
Ecological Impacts
All of the alternatives for BFT dealer reporting are administrative in nature. Therefore,
none of them have any significant ecological impacts. Some minor positive ecological impacts
however, are anticipated with improved data collection under alternatives I7(b) and I7(c). If
using the Internet improves the quality or timeliness of dealer reporting, this could improve
quota monitoring, stock assessments, and compliance with ICCAT requirements. None of the
alternatives are likely to have any impacts on protected species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Under alternative I7(a), the No Action alternative, dealers are required to submit the
reports in the mail or via fax, the Agency personnel enter the data into a database. In some cases
dealers are required to enter the same or similar data on several different forms, and the data are
then re-entered by agency staff, imposing time costs on both industry and government.
Alternative I7(b), the preferred alternative, may reduce the amount of paperwork for the
dealers by providing them with an option to submit required reports via the Internet once a data
entry system is developed. This alternative may also reduce the dealer burden by reducing the
number of times the same data is submitted; however, there may be some initial burden
associated with learning the new software. The government’s burden may also change from data
entry to quality control and oversight of the provided data. This alternative would provide
dealers with the flexibility to use electronic reporting, but would not require them to do so. As
such, it is not possible to accurately quantify specific changes in paperwork burdens without
knowing which dealers may choose to use this option.
Alternative I7(c) may further reduce burdens in the long-term by requiring most dealers,
with some limited exceptions, to use electronic reporting. However, this alternative may impose
initial economic costs to dealers who do not already have electronic access to the Internet,
although some of the exceptions being considered may alleviate these costs (i.e. dealers of
limited size and/or magnitude of reporting). Some social costs may be incurred by dealers who
would have to learn and adapt to electronic reporting under alternative I7(c), although most
dealers are expected to have already transitioned to similar electronic data systems as a part of
modern business practice.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-279

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Conclusion
NMFS prefers alternative I7(b), and has received public comment supporting this
alternative. The preferred alternative would provide an option for BFT dealers to submit certain
reports electronically over the Internet once such a system is developed, but would not require it.
Although unquantifiable, this alternative is expected to produce positive social and economic
impacts for both industry and government, as a result of timesavings incurred when such a
system is developed. None of the alternatives are expected to have any significant adverse
ecological impacts, as reporting is primarily administrative in nature.
Issue 8: “No Fishing”, “Cost-Earnings”, and “Annual Expenditures” Reporting Forms
I8(a)

Maintain the existing regulations regarding submission of logbooks (No Action)

I8(b) Require submission of “No Fishing” reporting forms for selected vessels if no fishing
trips occurred during the preceding month, postmarked no later than seven days after the
end of the month – Preferred Alternative
I8(c)

Require submission of the trip "Cost-Earnings” reporting form for selected vessels 30
days after a trip and the “Annual Expenditures” report form by the date specified on the
form – Preferred Alternative

Ecological Impacts
Under all of the alternatives, fishermen would continue to submit logbooks consistent
with the current regulations. None of the alternatives would have any ecological impact, unless
the fishermen submitted false reports. Therefore, none of the alternatives are likely to have any
impacts on protected species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Under all of the alternatives, fishermen would continue to submit logbooks consistent
with the current regulations. None of the alternatives would have any economic costs, unless the
fishermen submitted false reports and were subject to penalties.
There could be some social impacts as a result of all the alternatives. Under the No
Action alternative I8(a), numerous fishermen have been confused regarding the deadlines for
submitting certain reports, which has caused delays in permit renewal. Under preferred
alternative I8(b), the timeframe for submitting “no fishing” reports would be clarified in the
regulations, resulting in fewer permit renewal delays. There could be an increased reporting
burden for some fishermen who currently submit all of their “no fishing” reports only once a
year, when renewing their permits. However, the Agency received comment supporting monthly
submission of “no fishing” reports under alternative I8 (b). Preferred alternative I8(c) would
specify that the trip "cost-earnings” reporting form for selected vessels would be due 30 days
after a trip, and the “annual expenditures“ report form would be due by the date specified on the
form (presently January 31st). Under both of the preferred alternatives, failure to report or
falsifying reports could result in penalties, fines, and/or permit sanctions including the loss of a
permit.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-280

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Conclusion
Alternatives I8(b) and I8(c) are preferred because they would clarify HMS logbook
reporting regulations and would have no ecological or economic impacts.
Issue 9: Non-Tournament Recreational Landings Reporting
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives to remove regulatory inconsistencies and to
clarify NMFS’ intent that the vessel owner, rather than the angler, be responsible for reporting
non-tournament recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and swordfish are:
I9(a) Retain existing regulations at § 635.5(c)(2) requiring anglers to report non-tournament
recreational landings of North Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic billfish (No Action)
I9(b) Require vessel owners (or their designee) to report non-tournament recreational landings
of North Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic billfish – Preferred Alternative
Ecological Impacts
Alternative I9(a) (No Action) would retain the current regulatory language at §
635.5(c)(2), which specifies that anglers, rather than vessel owners, are required to report all
non-tournament landings of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, Atlantic sailfish, and
North Atlantic swordfish by calling NMFS. There are no direct ecological impacts associated
with this alternative, because HMS recreational reporting is primarily an enforcement and
administrative function involving a toll-free call to NMFS when a billfish or swordfish is landed.
Thus, there would be no change in fishing effort as a result of retaining the status quo. However,
compliance with non-tournament recreational reporting requirements and data collection could
be compromised under the No Action alternative, because individual anglers, especially on
charter boats, may be less familiar with the regulations and less inclined to report. Furthermore,
punitive permit sanctions issued on behalf of NMFS for a failure to report non-tournament
landings are more difficult to impose because HMS fishing permits are issued to vessel owners,
not to individual anglers. For this reason, the collection of non-tournament recreational HMS
landings data may be less complete under the No Action alternative. This information is vital for
HMS stock assessments, quota monitoring, and determining compliance with ICCAT
recommendations.
Alternative I9(b) would amend the current regulatory language at § 635.5(c)(2), by
specifying that vessel owners (or designee) must report all non-tournament landings of Atlantic
blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, Atlantic sailfish, and North Atlantic swordfish by calling
NMFS. The vessel owner would be responsible for reporting, but the owner’s designee could
fulfill the requirement. For the same reasons discussed above, there would be no direct
ecological impacts or change in fishing effort associated with this alternative. There would,
however, be some positive ecological impacts associated with increased compliance and
improved non-tournament recreational data collection by linking non-reporting to permit
sanctions. Compliance and recreational HMS data collection could be further enhanced because
permitted vessel owners, or their designee, are more likely to be familiar with the regulations
governing their fishery than non-permitted anglers are. Improved non-tournament recreational
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-281

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
M
ANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

HMS reporting information is vital for stock assessments, quota monitoring, and determining
compliance with ICCAT recommendations.
Neither alternative is likely to have any impacts on protected species or essential fish
habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Under alternative I9(a), the current reporting process involves anglers placing a toll-free
call to NMFS and a follow-up telephone call from NMFS to issue a confirmation number. As
such, there are no significant social or economic costs associated with this alternative. However,
there are some minor adverse social effects and compliance issues associated with the current
regulations because they are inconsistent with regulations for BFT, which specify that vessel
owners are required to report recreational landings regulated under the HMS Angling category.
This inconsistency may cause confusion regarding reporting responsibilities for both vessel
owners and anglers. Furthermore, since vessel owners are the permit holders, they are more
likely to be familiar with the regulations governing their fishery than non-permitted anglers who
may be onboard, possibly for just a day on a charter trip. Because permits are issued to vessel
owners, not anglers, the recreational non-tournament reporting requirement should logically, and
for compliance purposes, be the responsibility of vessel owners. Also, if several fish were
landed on a vessel by different anglers, the current regulations require each angler to report their
fish, as opposed to only the vessel owner reporting all of the fish. Finally, the current regulations
are inconsistent with the original intent of the requirement. Previously, in response to a
comment on the proposed rule implementing the original requirement (January 7, 2003, 68 FR
711), NMFS stated that, “Owners of HMS Angling permitted vessels and Charter/Headboat
operators are responsible for reporting all non-tournament billfish/swordfish landings because
not all CHB vessels are selected to submit logbooks as specified under 50 CFR 635(a).”
Alternative I9(b), the preferred alternative, would amend the current regulations at §
635.5(c)(2) by specifying that vessel owners (or their designees) must report all non-tournament
landings of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, Atlantic sailfish, and North Atlantic
swordfish by calling NMFS at a toll-free number. Based upon public comment, this preferred
alternative has been modified slightly from the Draft HMS FMP by specifying that a vessel
owner’s designee may also report landings, in lieu of the owner. The vessel owner would be
responsible for reporting, but the owner’s designee could fulfill the requirement. As of February
1, 2006, 25,238 HMS Angling category permits and 4,173 HMS CHB permits were issued. All
of these permit holders could potentially be affected by this alternative if they land HMS.
However, there would be no significant adverse social or economic costs or burden associated
with this alternative, because non-tournament HMS recreational reporting simply involves
placing a toll-free call to NMFS when a billfish or swordfish is landed and a follow-up call from
NMFS. Requiring vessel owners (or their designees) to report would only minimally increase
administrative costs. For the 2004 fishing year (the last complete year), 363 non-tournament
recreational landings of HMS were reported, of which 302 came from Florida. Approximately
95 percent of these were from the vessel operator, based on an informal analysis of the call-in
line, so this alternative is not expected to dramatically alter current reporting practices. NMFS
received comment indicating that this alternative could potentially disadvantage, or impose an
additional burden on, absentee vessel owners. In consideration of this comment, NMFS has
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-282

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

modified the preferred alternative to allow an owner’s designee to report. The vessel owner
would be responsible for reporting, but the owner’s designee could fulfill the requirement. There
could be some minor positive social impacts because recreational reporting responsibilities
would be more consistent. Also, because permits are issued to vessel owners, linking nonreporting to permit sanctions would enhance enforcement and compliance. Compliance could be
further enhanced because permitted vessel owners, or their designees, are much more likely to be
familiar with the regulations governing their fishery than occasional anglers are. Enhanced
compliance resulting from this alternative is expected to improve recreational non-tournament
data collection, which would improve the analysis and development of recreational HMS
management measures. It is possible that this alternative could also reduce the number of
reporting calls to be made if, for example, several fish are landed on a vessel by several different
anglers.
Conclusion
NMFS prefers alternative I9(b). This alternative would amend the current regulations at
§ 635.5(c)(2) by specifying that vessel owners (or their designees), rather than anglers, must
report all non-tournament recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and North Atlantic swordfish.
The vessel owner would be responsible for reporting, but the owner’s designee could fulfill the
requirement. This alternative is not expected to create significant adverse social or economic
impacts. Compared to the No Action alternative, alternative I9(b) would achieve better
consistency among HMS recreational reporting requirements, improve compliance with the nontournament recreational HMS reporting requirements, and improve non-tournament recreational
HMS data collection. This could enhance HMS stock assessments, quota monitoring, and the
determination of compliance with ICCAT recommendations. Any negative social or economic
impacts associated with the preferred alternative are expected to be minimal, primarily because
vessel owners already submit the majority of non-tournament HMS landing reports, and because
this alternative would allow the designee of a vessel owner to report.
Issue 10: Pelagic Longline 25 mt NED Incidental BFT Allocation
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives being considered to clarify the amount of
available incidental BFT quota for PLL fishing activity in the vicinity of the NED are:
I10(a) Retain the current regulations specifically referring to 25 mt (ww) (No Action)
I10(b) Modify the HMS regulations to state that “In addition, each year, 25 mt (ww) will be
allocated for incidental catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the NED”
I10(c) Conduct additional discussions at ICCAT regarding quota rollovers and adjust quotas
allocated to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the vicinity of the
management area boundary accordingly (Preferred Alternative)
Ecological Impacts
Consistent with the 2002 ICCAT BFT quota recommendation, alternative I10(a) would
continue to allocate a 25 mt (ww) set-aside quota of BFT to account for the incidental catch of
BFT by longline fisheries directed on other species "in the vicinity of the management boundary
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-283

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

area” for the eastern and western BFT stocks (i.e., the NED). Under this alternative, NMFS
would allocate 25 mt (ww) on an annual basis and would apply carry-over provisions to this setaside. Therefore, if the previous year’s longline activity has not resulted in harvesting this setaside in full, NMFS would carry forward the un-utilized quota and add it to the subsequent
fishing year’s 25 mt (ww) allocation. Conversely, if the previous year’s longline activity has
exceeded the incidental set-aside quota, NMFS would deduct the overharvest from the
subsequent fishing year’s 25 mt (ww) allocation. As the mortality of BFT caught and landed
under this set-aside is accounted for in BFT stock assessments under the ICCAT-recommended
20-year rebuilding program, NMFS anticipates there would be no additional mortality that has
not already been analyzed pursuant to the BFT stock from any of the alternatives. However,
I10(a) may have some potentially adverse ecological impacts. Specifically, if the NED set-aside
is not attained in multiple successive years, this set-aside quota could increase quite dramatically
and, as the wording in the ICCAT recommendation specifically allocates this quota to the
longline sector of the U.S. fleet, NMFS would not have the flexibility to transfer this quota to the
Reserve or to another domestic user group to avoid a 'stockpiling' situation from occurring. An
unconstrained build-up of the incidental NED set-aside quota may eventually undermine the
intent of the set-aside itself by leading to additional effort being deployed in the NED, and could
potentially provide incentives to direct effort on BFT. For example, this set-aside could increase
to a level that makes it more attractive for pelagic longline vessels to target BFT, versus
encountering them incidentally, which could possibly result in negative impacts to BFT stocks.
Alternative I10(b) would revise the regulatory text to read that "each year" 25 mt (ww)
would be allocated for the incidental harvest of BFT in the NED, thus interpreting the ICCAT
recommendation as if it was intended to establish a baseline allocation of 25 mt (ww) each year,
and establish that the overall allotment of this set-aside quota could differ from the baseline 25
mt (ww) amount. Under this alternative, incidental BFT landings from the NED Statistical area
would be accounted for by deducting landings from this specific set-aside quota and any
under/overharvest of the set-aside quota would be carried forward into, or deducted from, the
following year’s baseline quota allocation of 25 mt (ww). This alternative would have similar
potentially adverse ecological impacts as alternative I10(a) associated with applying carry-over
provisions to this specific set-aside allocation. This alternative was originally preferred in the
Draft HMS FMP, but after subsequent analysis of the recommendation and in response to
comments seeking clarification, the Agency has determined the ICCAT recommendation
provides the flexibility to avoid these potential negative consequences.
The preferred alternative I10(c) would conduct additional discussions at the annual
ICCAT meeting regarding the long-term implications of allowing unused BFT quota from the
previous year being added to the subsequent year’s allocation that can be retained. Depending
on the results of any additional discussions at ICCAT, the regulations and operational procedures
that account for BFT bycatch related to directed longline fisheries in the vicinity of the
management area boundary would be further amended. In the interim, NMFS would maintain
the current regulatory text implementing this ICCAT recommendation, but would amend the
current practice of allowing carryover provisions from applying to this set-aside allocation.
Positive ecological impacts would be expected from this alternative, as it would support further
discussion to take place at ICCAT regarding the long-term implications of carrying unharvested
BFT quota forward, as well as limit this specific set-aside to 25 mt (ww). Not allowing set-aside
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-284

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

quota to be carried forward to the subsequent fishing year, in the interim, would maintain PLL
fishing effort at current levels and would still allow for incidentally caught BFT in the NED to be
accounted for. It is anticipated that there would be no additional impacts to other species, as this
alternative would not be expected to alter existing fishing patterns or effort of PLL vessels.
None of the alternatives considered above are likely to have any impacts on protected
species or essential fish habitat.
Social and Economic Impacts
Under alternative I10(a), the current regulatory text would remain in place and the current
practice of applying carryover provisions to this set-aside would also be maintained. The NED
set-aside quota would be allocated 25 mt (ww) annually. Therefore, any unharvested NED setaside quota from the prior fishing year would be carried forward to the subsequent one. If
incidental landings of BFT by PLL vessels operating in the NED exceed the 25 mt (ww) annual
set-aside, the necessary quota adjustments would be accounted for in the subsequent year’s setaside allocation. This alternative may have some positive economic impacts, as the potential
economic gain attributed to quota being carried forward from the preceding fishing year would
remain be available. However, there may be some positive and negative social impacts
associated with this alternative. The positive social impacts would be associated with the
positive economic impacts discussed above, yet the negative social impacts would be attributed
to this alternative not specifically clarifying the applicability of quota carry-over provisions to
this set-aside quota and would potentially allow for implementing practices to not fully reflect
the original intent of the recommendation.
Under alternative I10(b), the regulatory text would be adjusted to clarify the practice of
applying carryover procedures to this set-aside and, therefore, unharvested quota from the NED
set-aside would be rolled over into, or overharvests deducted from, the subsequent fishing year’s
baseline allocation. This alternative would provide similar positive economic impacts as
described in alternative I10(a). However, excessive rollovers may also provide an incentive for
PLL vessel operators to increase effort in this area, or to possibly target BFT in the NED, even
though the intent of the recommendation and the regulations have been developed to avoid such
a scenario. Slight positive social and economic benefits may result from this alternative as well
for those PLL vessels and their homeports, or offloading ports, as a result of allowing quota from
the previous year to be carried forward and landed in a subsequent year. Finally, under
alternative I10(b), the NED set-aside and any rollover from this set-aside could not be transferred
to other domestic quota categories as per the wording of the ICCAT recommendation. Thus,
there may be a perceived negative social and economic impact among other fishery sectors if
they were closed after achieving their allocated quota and were unable to access available quota
from the NED set-aside via an inseason transfers.
The preferred alternative I10(c), would promote additional discussions at the annual
ICCAT meeting regarding the long-term implications of allowing unused BFT quota from the
previous year being added to the subsequent year’s allocation that can be retained, and the how
these discussions may affect this specific recommendation. This alternative would maintain the
current regulatory text implementing this ICCAT recommendation, and amend the current
practice of allowing carryover provisions from applying to this set-aside allocation. This
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-285

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

alternative would be expected to have some negative economic impacts as it would not allow for
the potential economic gain attributed to quota being carried forward from the preceding fishing
year. There would be both negative and positive social impacts associated with this alternative.
The negative social impacts would be associated with PLL vessels and their homeports, or
offloading ports, not being allowed to profit from unharvested quota carried over from the
previous year. The positive social impacts would be associated with preventing excessive
rollovers from occurring, thereby eliminating an incentive for PLL vessel operators to increase
effort, or even possibly directing their effort, on BFT in this area. Accumulation of incidental
quota, and possibly providing an incentive to target BFT with longline gear would not fully
reflect the intent of the recommendation.
Conclusion
NMFS prefers alternative I10(c), which would support the United States conducting
additional discussions at the annual ICCAT meeting regarding the long-term implications of
allowing unused BFT quota from the previous year being added to the subsequent year’s
allocation that can be retained. Depending on the results of any additional discussions at
ICCAT, the specific regulations and practices that account for BFT bycatch related to pelagic
longline fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary may need to be further
amended in the future. In the interim, NMFS would maintain the current regulatory text
implementing the ICCAT recommendation indicating that 25 mt (ww) shall be allocated for
incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the NED, but would amend the
current practice of allowing under/overharvest of this set-aside allocation to be rolled into, or
deducted from, the subsequent fishing year’s set-aside allocation. Therefore, regardless of the
amount of the set-aside harvested or unused in a given year, the balance would return to 25 mt
(ww) at the start of each fishing year. If landings were to exceed the 25 mt (ww) allotment, they
would be accounted for via Longline category quota that applies to the entire Western Atlantic
management area. This alternative is preferred because it would meet the objective of clarifying
the applicability of carry-over provisions to this incidental set-aside quota, would still provide 25
mt (ww) to account for incidental BFT catch in the NED, would prevent the ‘stockpiling’ of
incidental quota which may provide an incentive to target BFT in the NED, and would support
the discussion of long-term implications of BFT quota roll-overs, in general, as the outcome
from these discussions would directly affect the implementation of this specific ICCAT
recommendation.
Issue 11: Permit Condition for Recreational Trips
As described in Chapter 2, the alternatives considered to reduce confusion regarding state
and Federal recreational regulations include:
I11(a) No permit condition for recreational trips (No Action)
I11(b) Require recreational vessels with a Federal permit to abide by Federal regulations,
regardless of where they are fishing, unless a state has more restrictive regulations Preferred Alternative

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-286

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Ecological Impacts
Under the status quo, recreational anglers fishing for HMS must comply with state
regulations when fishing in state waters, or comply with Federal regulations when fishing in
Federal waters. This has caused some confusion on behalf of anglers when there are differences
between state and Federal regulations (e.g., Florida and Georgia). Additionally, some state
regulations are consistent with Federal regulations for some HMS, but different for other HMS
(e.g., Alabama and South Carolina). In other instances, states do not have regulations for
Atlantic HMS (e.g., Connecticut and Rhode Island), so under the status quo Federal fishermen
could fish without bag or size limits in these state’s waters. The regulations for each state are
outlined in Table 3.1 (Section 3.1).
These differences between state and Federal regulations also raise concerns regarding
enforcement. If the state bag or size limit is higher than the Federal bag or size limit,
maintaining the status quo could have negative ecological impacts because more fish, or smaller
fish, could be landed than what is allowed for under Federal regulations, including those
negotiated internationally. Additionally, if fishermen land HMS caught in Federal waters in a
state with less restrictive regulations, they may be able to illegally land fish above the Federal
bag or size limit due to ambiguities between state and Federal regulations. In some cases,
enforcement officers may elect not to take action if it is unclear where the fish was caught (state
or Federal waters) and which regulations apply.
In cases where the state regulations are more restrictive than Federal regulations, the
status quo, and the preferred alternative, could have positive ecological benefits. In cases where
the state regulations are less restrictive than Federal regulations, the status quo could have
negative ecological benefits. For example, the State of Georgia has a number of regulations
regarding shark bag and size limits that are different from the one shark per vessel per day and
54 inch minimum size for Federal waters. This inconsistency (and inconsistencies in other
states) could hinder the rebuilding of large coastal sharks and could hinder enforcement efforts
regarding shark regulations. However, the State of Georgia also bans the possession of billfish,
except for catch-and-release. Thus, under the status quo, the rebuilding of billfish is aided.
Under the preferred alternative, anglers fishing for HMS with an HMS permit would need
to abide by Federal regulations even if they were fishing in state waters, unless the state had
more restrictive regulations. This alternative would have positive ecological benefits. For
instance, under this alternative, in Georgia state waters, anglers fishing for sharks who have a
Federal HMS permit would need to abide by Federal regulations and could be prosecuted if they
are caught with the Georgia state limit onboard. This would enhance the rebuilding plan for
large coastal sharks. Similarly, fishermen possessing a Federal HMS permit and fishing in
Georgia state waters for billfish would need to catch-and-release any billfish. While this goes
beyond the Federal regulations, it would enhance the rebuilding of Atlantic billfish. If a Federal
permit holder caught a billfish in Federal waters, it would be necessary to document that it was
caught in Federal waters if they intended to land that fish in a state with more restrictive
regulations. Depending on the state regulations, it is possible that they would not be allowed to
land the billfish. For states that do not have regulations for HMS, such as Connecticut, the
preferred alternative would have positive ecological benefits by limiting fishermen with an HMS
permit to the Federal regulations.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-287

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

The preferred alternative would also have positive enforcement benefits because
enforcement could decide to take action based on the more restrictive regulations. Which
regulation applies would be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, it is likely that the
regulations would be enforced individually rather than comprehensively as a suite. For instance,
if a state has a larger bag limit and larger minimum size than the Federal regulations, the
fishermen could be limited by both the Federal bag limit and the state minimum size.
Neither alternative would affect fishermen who do not hold a Federal HMS permit. Such
fishermen are limited to fishing in state waters under state regulations and may not fish in
Federal waters for HMS. Similarly, neither alternative restricts states from setting their own
regulations. During the comment period, NMFS received comments from several states that felt
that NMFS was exceeding their authority with the permit condition. NMFS believes that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act does provide the authority to manage HMS species throughout their
range (16 U.S.C. 1812 Section 102). NMFS could opt to pre-empt state’s authority either
through the Magnuson-Stevens Act or through ATCA. However, NMFS prefers to work with
states and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions towards consistent
regulations that meet both international and domestic goals because each state is different and the
fishermen in each state prefer to fish for different HMS (e.g., fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico
may fish for Atlantic sharpnose sharks while fishermen in New Jersey would not) and use
different gears. Additionally, the preferred alternative only applies to those fishermen who
obtain a Federal permit and who, presumably, fish in Federal waters at least some of the time.
The permit condition does not change state regulations. Thus, states still have the opportunity to
establish their own regulations for fishermen who fish in their waters and not in Federal waters.
Fishermen still have the opportunity not to obtain a Federal permit and to abide only by state
regulations.
NMFS also received comments stating that the preferred alternative would mean that
different regulations could apply to Federally permitted fisherman fishing in state waters next to
a state-only permitted fisherman. NMFS does not believe that this should be an issue since the
more restrictive regulation would apply. It may appear to be unfair to the Federally permitted
fisherman if the Federal regulations for that species are more restrictive than the state regulations
for that species. However, Federally permitted fishermen also have the opportunity to fish for
HMS outside of state waters. If Federally permitted fishermen decide that the opportunity is not
worth the additional restrictions, then they could decide not to obtain the permit. If the state
regulations were more restrictive, then both fishermen would be limited by the state regulations.
Neither alternative is expected to have any impact on EFH or protected species.
Social and Economic Impacts
The social and economic burden associated with both the No Action and the preferred
alternative would be minimal. In either case, recreational fishermen would be able to continue
fishing and would continue to use the existing infrastructure (e.g., hotels, supply shops) to do so.
Additionally, states would be able to continue to implement their own regulations and regulate
fishermen who fish in state waters only. Under the status quo, states would continue to regulate
Federally permitted fishermen who are fishing for HMS in their waters at that time. Under the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-2
4-288

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

preferred alternative, states would lose their ability to regulate Federally permitted fishermen,
unless their state regulations are more restrictive. This may be problematic for states that require
fishermen to have a Federal recreational permit, but have regulations that are different from
Federal regulations. However, at this time, NMFS is not aware of any state that fits this
situation.
Both the State of Georgia and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council have
requested that NMFS implement this type of regulation to facilitate enforcement of Georgia’s
billfish catch-and-release only regulation; however, they requested different language that would
allow more restrictive state regulations to apply in adjacent Federal waters. However, in many
cases, the regulations are established based on ICCAT recommendations (e.g., the billfish size
limits) and, under ATCA, the United States is bound to implement the ICCAT recommendation.
Extending a more restrictive state regulation into Federal waters in those cases would be
inconsistent with ATCA. Similarly, if the more restrictive regulation is not part of or consistent
with the HMS FMP, the regulations may also be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
To the extent that the preferred alternative clarifies regulations for Federally permitted
vessels, there may be some social and economic benefits because fishermen would be at less risk
in determining which regulation to follow, and when.
Conclusion
Alternative I11(b) is the preferred alternative. This alternative is expected to achieve
increased consistency between state and Federal regulations for Federally permitted HMS
recreational fishermen, and result in less confusion on behalf of fishermen and improved
compliance. Compared with the No Action alternative, the preferred alternative would produce
greater ecological benefits with few resulting adverse social and economic impacts.
4.4

Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to evaluate the potential adverse effects of
fishing activities on EFH. If NMFS determines that fishing gears are having an adverse affect on
HMS EFH, or other species’ EFH, then NMFS must include management measures that
minimize adverse effects to the extent practicable. At this time, there is no evidence to suggest
that any of the preferred alternatives or proposed management measures in this FMP is adversely
affecting EFH to the extent that detrimental effects can be identified on the habitat or fisheries.
As described in detail in Chapter 10, no HMS gear other than potentially bottom longline gear is
considered to have an adverse affect on EFH. New information presented in the Gulf of Mexico
and Caribbean Fishery Management Council EFH FEIS’s (2004) suggest that bottom longline
gear may have an adverse affect on coral reef habitat, which serves as EFH for certain reef
fishes. As a result, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that bottom longline gear may
have an adverse affect on EFH for other Federally-managed species. An assessment of whether
HMS bottom longline gear used primarily to target LCS is fished in coral reef areas, and if so,
the intensity, extent, and frequency of such impacts, including any measures to minimize
potential impacts, will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-289

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTS ON ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

The following measures considered in this FMP are not expected to adversely impact
HMS EFH, or EFH from other Federal or non-Federally managed species, for the reasons
described below.
4.4.1

Workshops

The preferred alternatives to implement workshops on safe release, disentanglement, and
identification of protected resources are not expected to have any impacts on EFH. Furthermore,
workshops on shark identification are also not expected to have any impacts on EFH. These
workshops do not modify or expand the authorized gears permitted for harvest of HMS. In
addition, these workshops will not result in an increase, or a redistribution of fishing effort.
These workshops are being held to maintain compliance with the October 2003 and June 2004
Biological Opinions and to improve identification skills and shark dealer reporting.
4.4.2

Time/Area Closures

The preferred alternatives to establish complementary HMS regulations in the MadisonSwanson, Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserve, and criteria and a framework mechanism for
implementation or modification of future time/area closures are not expected to have any
negative impacts on EFH. Analysis of HMS observer and logbook data indicate that there has
been minimal HMS fishing effort in the reserve in recent years, and closing the area to HMS
gears should result in very little redistribution of fishing effort, and minimal or no associated
impacts to EFH. From 1997 to 2003, only one pelagic longline set and two bottom longline sets
were reported in the HMS logbook in these areas. Criteria for establishing new or modifying
existing closures are designed to improve transparency in the decision-making process and allow
fishermen more ability to plan for future changes. The criteria themselves would not be expected
to have any impact on EFH.
4.4.3

Northern Atlantic Albacore Tuna

The preferred alternative to establish the foundation for development of an international
rebuilding plan for Northern Atlantic albacore tuna is not expected to have any adverse effect on
EFH as it does not modify or expand the authorized gears already permitted for harvest of
albacore. Furthermore, this measure should not result in an increase or a redistribution of fishing
effort. A rebuilding plan would not be implemented until after the next ICCAT stock assessment
in 2007.
4.4.4

Finetooth Sharks

The preferred alternative to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth sharks is not expected to
have any impacts on EFH as it does not modify or expand the authorized gears already permitted
for harvest of finetooth sharks. Furthermore, this measure should not result in an increase or a
redistribution of fishing effort. Eighty percent of finetooth shark landed in the commercial
fishery are harvested with gillnet gear that does not touch the bottom. Recreational fisheries
(i.e., rod and reel gear) for finetooth sharks also do not have any deleterious effects on EFH for
HMS or non-HMS fish species.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-290

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTS ON ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

4.4.5

Atlantic Billfish Management Measures

The preferred alternatives for billfish management measures consider additional
restrictions on recreational fishing gears, including tournaments, to reduce bycatch of blue and
white marlin. The primary gear used in recreational billfish fishing is rod and reel, which is not
considered to have a negative impact on EFH. As such, none of the preferred management
measures are expected to have an adverse effect on EFH.
4.4.6

Bluefin Tuna Management Measures

Management measures that consider modification to bluefin tuna seasonal allocations of
quota among user groups are not expected to adversely affect EFH to the extent that detrimental
effects can be identified on the habitat or fisheries. The preferred alternatives would not alter
fishing gears or practices and it is anticipated that this action would not have any adverse impacts
on EFH.
4.4.7

Calendar Year/ Fishing Year

The preferred alternative to adjust the annual management year for HMS to a calendar
year from the current fishing year is designed to provide consistency in timing of domestic and
international management programs which would help to reduce complexity of U.S. reports to
ICCAT, and is not expected to alter fishing practices or result in redistribution of fishing effort.
Thus, this change is not expected to have any impact on EFH.
4.4.8

Authorized Fishing Gears

The preferred alternatives to authorize certain fishing gears are not expected to have
negative impacts on EFH. With regard to impacts on EFH, the 1999 FMP and Amendment 1 to
the Atlantic Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupies pelagic oceanic environments. The
use of speargun fishing gear, buoy gear, and handheld cockpit gears are not expected to impact
bottom structures or otherwise damage habitat. Under all of the above alternatives, NMFS does
not anticipate any adverse impacts to EFH.
4.4.9

Regulatory Housekeeping

A number of regulatory housekeeping measures are being considered to clarify and
improve the enforcement of HMS regulations. The preferred alternatives in Section 4.3.4
Regulatory Housekeeping) would have no direct impact on EFH. Most of the preferred
alternatives are administrative in nature, including corrections, clarifications, and technical
changes. Other preferred alternatives would strengthen or reinforce existing regulations. The
remaining preferred alternatives that would implement new regulations are expected to have only
minor ecological impacts.
4.5

Impacts on Protected Resources

NMFS does not believe that any of the preferred alternatives would trigger reinitiation of
consultation under 50 C.F.R. 402.16. The preferred alternatives to implement workshops on the
safe release, disentanglement, and identification of protected resources, and shark identification
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-291

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTS ON PROTECTED RESOURCES

are not expected to increase interactions with protected resources. In fact, the protected species
workshops are being held to maintain compliance with October 2003 and June 2004 BiOps.
These workshops are intended to help further reduce the mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth
sawfish, and other protected resources captured incidentally in the HMS PLL, BLL, and gillnet
fisheries. The purpose of HMS identification workshops is to train Federally permitted shark
dealers to improve their species specific shark identification skills. Accurate species
identification is important for compliance with HMS fishery regulations, including the avoidance
of prohibited species and maintaining quota limits, and for accurate data collection. These
workshops are not expected to alter existing fishing effort or practices, and therefore, should not
result in increased interactions with protected resources. To the extent that interactions cannot
be avoided, the safe handling and release workshops should result in increased survival rates of
protected resources hooked or entangled by HMS fishing gears.
The primary goal of establishing complementary HMS regulations for the MadisonSwanson and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves is to provide consistency between the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council and HMS regulations. Thus, prohibiting all HMS gears,
other than trolling gear from May through October, in the existing reserve should not result in
increased interactions with protected resources. Analysis of HMS observer and logbook data
indicate that there has been minimal HMS fishing effort in the reserve in recent years, and
closing the area to HMS gears should not have a major impact on redistribution of fishing effort,
increased effort in other areas, or additional impacts on protected resources. Trolling gear is not
anticipated to increase interactions with protected resources.
Regarding northern albacore tuna, the preferred alternative would not cause an increase in
interactions with protected species. Any impact on protected species would be in the future and
would depend upon any shift in fishing practices as a result of ICCAT’s conservation and
management measures developed under an international rebuilding plan. Because of low
albacore tuna catch and landings in both of the current U.S. commercial and recreational
fisheries, it is unlikely that any recommendations by ICCAT would result in a change in
domestic fishing practices.
Regarding the finetooth shark preferred management measures, protected resources, such
as marine mammals, sea turtles, and smalltooth sawfish, can be of concern in gillnet fisheries,
which is the primary gear for finetooth sharks. However, the preferred management measure
would not modify or increase existing fishing effort. Expanded observer coverage would
improve the accuracy of extrapolated take estimates and increase knowledge of interactions
between protected resources and gillnet fisheries that target both HMS and non-HMS. Adding
finetooth sharks to the select species list for bycatch sampling would improve information
collected on the interactions between HMS, protected resources, and the Shrimp Trawl Fishery
in the Gulf of Mexico. Contacting the relevant Regional Fishery Management Councils, the Gulf
and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, and states regarding potential collaborative
management measures affecting gillnet fishermen that possess multiple permits, or initiating
management of species that are currently not regulated under any management scheme, may lead
to increased understanding of protected resource interactions in gillnet fisheries. Any future
rulemaking implementing additional measures to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks would
include analyses of the impacts on protected species.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-292

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTS ON PROTECTED RESOURCES

Some of the preferred alternatives pertaining to Atlantic billfish, including mandatory use
of circle hooks with natural baits in recreational billfish tournaments, may have a minor positive
ecological impact on protected resources, such as Atlantic sea turtles, by potentially reducing
interactions and possibly decreasing post-release mortality of any interactions that may occur.
Further, implementation of the ICCAT recreationally caught marlin landing limit may have a
minor positive impact on protected resources in the future. If in-season billfish management
measures become necessary in the future, as a result of increased marlin landings,
implementation of such management measures could lead to a decrease in recreational effort
targeting Atlantic billfish, thereby potentially reducing the number of interactions between
recreational fishermen and protected resources.
The preferred alternatives pertaining to BFT inseason management and annual
specifications processes are procedural and administrative in nature and are expected to have
negligible ecological impacts. The specific preferred alternatives that would adjust the General
category allocation scheme to provide for a formal winter BFT fishery would not alter current
impacts on threatened or endangered species, as they conform to current BFT quota
recommendations and the gear used in the General category generally has a low interaction rate
with protected species.
There may be slight positive impacts to protected species under the preferred alternative
for changing the fishing year back to a calendar year when considered in combination with the
preferred alternative for directed billfish regarding the 250-marlin landings. In combination,
there is a small potential that if a management threshold was reached to reduce or halt marlin
landings, it would occur earlier in the season than under the other alternatives considered for
fishing year. This could slightly reduce fishing effort and any resultant bycatch. These potential
positive impacts are expected to be small because the likelihood of a management action under
the 250-marlin landings limit is projected to be low based on prior year’s landings data, and the
interaction rates of protected species with rod and reel are minimal.
The alternatives to authorize speargun, buoy gear, and secondary cockpit gears are not
anticipated to result in increased interactions with protected resources. It is unlikely that a
speargun fisherman would mistake a sea turtle or other protected species for a BAYS tuna.
Thus, NMFS does not expect that gear type to increase protected species or marine mammal
interactions. Further, buoy gear has been in use in HMS fisheries. In the case of buoy gear, this
action would essentially rename an existing gear type (handline) for the commercial swordfish
fishery and would limit the number of floatation devices that are allowed to be possessed or
deployed by a vessel. Buoy gear, as it is currently used, is not likely to have many interactions
with protected species. Limiting its use, as is preferred, would further reduce any interactions.
Furthermore, as described in the regulatory housekeeping sections, NMFS is preferring to require
handlines to be attached to the vessel. While this may not reduce interactions with protected
species (interactions in the handline fishery currently are minimal), it would reduce any mortality
because the fishermen would know immediately if an animal were caught on the gear.
Some of the preferred regulatory housekeeping actions, including a requirement that
handlines remain attached to vessels, may have a minor positive ecological impact on protected
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-293

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTS ON PROTECTED RESOURCES

resources by potentially limiting interactions and reducing the amount of gear that could get lost.
Other actions would strengthen, reinforce, or clarify existing regulations, including prohibitions
on the sale or purchase of HMS in excess of retention limits, a minor modification of the East
Florida Coast closed area, a prohibition on all commercial vessels (except HMS CHB permit
holders or General Category permit holders during a registered HMS tournament) from
possessing billfish, facilitation of electronic submittal of BFT dealer reports, clarification of
reporting requirements, clarification of procedures for annual allocation of a 25 mt BFT
incidental allowance for PLL vessels in the vicinity of the NED, and a requirement for HMSpermitted recreational vessels to abide by Federal regulations, regardless of where fishing, unless
a state has more restrictive regulations. The remaining issues are either administrative or would
not appreciably change fishing effort.
In addition to the impacts of the preferred alternatives in this document, NMFS continues
to monitor impacts to protected species from the ongoing operation of HMS fisheries through
various logbook and observer programs as described in Sections 3.4 and 3.8. For example,
extrapolated annual take estimates of sea turtles and marine mammals for 2005 recently became
available for the pelagic longline fishery in addition to data on observed interactions for the first
quarter of 2006 (January through March). NMFS monitors observed interactions with marine
mammals and sea turtles in the pelagic longline fishery on a quarterly basis and reviews the data
in conjunction with extrapolated annual take estimates for appropriate action, if any, as
necessary. Should additional management measures be deemed necessary to reduce bycatch or
bycatch mortality of protected species in the pelagic longline or other HMS fisheries, NMFS
would take appropriate action in a separate rulemaking.
4.6

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires agencies to identify and address disproportionately high
and adverse environmental effects of its regulations on the activities of minority and low-income
populations. To determine whether environmental justice concerns exist, the demographics of
the affected area should be examined to ascertain whether minority populations and low-income
populations are present. If so, a determination must be made as to whether implementation of
the alternatives may cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on these populations.
The communities of Dulac, Louisiana and Fort Pierce, Florida have significant
populations of Native Americans and Black-Americans, respectively. The 2000 Census data
indicates that Native Americans made up 39 percent of the Dulac population, specifically the
Houma Indians, which is not Federally recognized tribe. About 30 percent of the Dulac
population was living below poverty level in 2000. In 2000, Black-Americans were about 41
percent of the Fort Pierce, Florida population with about 30 percent of the entire Fort Pierce
population living below the poverty line. These two communities also have significant
populations of low-income residents. In addition to Dulac and Fort Pierce, there is a diffuse
Vietnamese-American population in Louisiana, actively participating in the pelagic longline
fishery, and commuting to fishing ports, but not living in “fishing communities” as defined by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in Chapter 9 of this document. In reviewing the social
impacts of the preferred alternatives of the Consolidated HMS FMP, none are expected to have a
disproportionate impact on these minority and low-income populations. Greater information
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-294

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

about potential social impacts of each preferred alternative is briefly described below with
detailed information provided in earlier this Chapter. Demographic data indicate that coastal
counties with fishing communities are variable in terms of social indicators like income,
employment, and race and ethnic composition.
The preferred alternatives for Finetooth Sharks, Authorized Gear, Northern Albacore
Tuna, and Regulatory Housekeeping are not anticipated to have any significant negative social or
economic impacts on HMS-related communities and are not anticipated to have an impact on
minority or low-income populations because they are largely administrative in nature or the
impact a small diffuse group of people. The following alternatives could have negative social or
economic impacts on various communities involved with HMS fisheries, but none of the
preferred alternatives in this document are anticipated to have high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on any of the HMS-related communities. In addition, most of the potential
negative impacts can be mitigated or are not likely to occur.
The preferred alternatives for workshops (see Section 2.1.1) are not expected to
negatively impact the HMS-related communities identified as having a significant minority and
low-income population; Dulac, Louisiana and Fort Pierce, Florida. The preferred workshop
alternatives would apply to longline and shark gillnet permit holders and the operators of these
vessels, as well as shark dealer permit holders. There are a relatively low number of longline,
gillnet, and HMS dealer permit holders residing in Dulac and Fort Pierce. NMFS does not
maintain information about the residence of vessel operators if they do not possess an HMS
permit, so it is difficult to evaluate the impact of the workshop alternatives on the vessel
operators. The workshops would be held in areas where there is a high concentration of permit
holders according to the addresses provided when applying for an HMS permit. NMFS intends
to provide the workshop schedules in advance so that fishermen can attend the most convenient
workshop. The workshop alternatives are not anticipated to have a negative socio-economic
impact on any HMS-related community.
The preferred alternatives to establish complementary HMS regulations in the MadisonSwanson, Steamboat Lumps marine reserve, and to establish criteria for a regulatory framework
adjustments to implement new or modify an existing time/area closures are not expected to have
a disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations. Analyses of HMS observer
and logbook data indicate that there has been minimal HMS fishing effort in the MadisonSwanson and Steamboat Lumps marine reserve in recent years, and closing the area to HMS
gears, other than trolling gear from May through October, should not have a major impact on
fishing effort or gross revenues for the fishery. In particular, it is not expected to have a negative
impact on minority or low-income populations. Establishing criteria to implement or modify
future time/area closures is intended to provide greater transparency in the decision-making
process for implementing new or modifying existing time/area closures. As such, the criteria are
not expected to have any social or economic impacts.
The BFT tuna permit holders in Venice, Louisiana; Dulac, Louisiana; and Fort Pierce,
Florida possess less than one percent of the commercial tuna, angling, CHB, and tuna dealer
permits; therefore, the selected BFT alternatives are not anticipated to have a high or adverse
environmental or social impact on these communities. The redistribution of the BFT General
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-295

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

category time period subquota allocation could result in a slight adverse economic and
social impact on the northern BFT fisheries; however, NMFS does not anticipate that these
effects will fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations. Some of the negative
impacts may be minimized if fishermen are willing and able to fish during the winter quota
periods where the tuna are available.
Shifting all HMS species to a calendar year management cycle is not anticipated to have
a disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations. The calendar year preferred
alternative would not change the management cycle for the shark fishery, but would shift the
management cycle for tunas, billfish, and swordfish from a fishing year to a calendar year. No
impact on the swordfish and tuna fisheries is expected to result from this alternative because the
tuna fishery is managed on a finite scale, whereas the swordfish fishery has not harvested the
entire annual quota for several years. The recreational billfish fishery is not anticipated to be
impacted by a shift to a calendar year management cycle in the foreseeable future because the
threshold for in-season management action is unlikely to be reached without substantial changes
in angler effort or practices. There is the potential for some billfish tournaments to be negatively
impacted by the calendar year management cycle when taken in combination with the preferred
in-season management triggers and ICCAT billfish landing limits, if substantial changes in
angler effort or practices do occur in the future. The impacts associated with these management
measures are anticipated to be substantially mitigated by allowing for in-season adjustment of
the minimum legal size which is expected to slow marlin landings and thereby allow the fishery
to continue uninterrupted for the entire duration of the fishing year. Impacts could be further
mitigated by, in some instances, changing tournament dates to occur earlier in the fishing year
when the billfish landing limit has not been caught, shifting tournament formats to catch and
release, if necessary, and by a shifting effort to other available billfish species, such as sailfish.
In addition to mitigating any potential negative impacts, billfish tournaments are typically not
held in low-income or minority communities.
Generally, the preferred alternatives are intended to improve compliance with ICCAT
recommendations, data quality and collection, information dissemination, and NMFS’ efficiency
in enforcing and implementing specifications and management measures. See Chapter 2 for a
more detailed description of the alternatives, Chapter 4 for additional discussion of the impacts
related to the alternatives, and Chapter 9 for further description of communities involved in HMS
fisheries.
4.7

Coastal Zone Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA, 1972, reauthorized 1996) requires that
Federal actions be consistent, to the extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of all state
coastal zone management programs. NMFS has determined that the suite of preferred
alternatives for all issues would be implemented in a manner consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of the coastal states in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean that have Federally approved coastal zone management programs. In August 2005,
NMFS provided all states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands copies of the proposed rule
and draft HMS FMP. Under 15 C.F.R. § 930.41, states have 60 days to respond after receipt of
the consistency determination and supporting materials. States can request an extension of 15
days. If a response is not received within those time limits, NMFS can presume concurrence (15
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-296

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

C.F.R. § 930.41(a)). Eleven states replied, within the 60–day response period, that the proposed
regulations were consistent, to the extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of their
coastal zone management programs. The State of Georgia replied on March 1, 2006, that the
proposed rule was not consistent with the enforceable policies of GA’s coastal zone management
program. NMFS notified the State of Georgia that because their response was after the 60-day
response period, NMFS presumed concurrence after the end of the CZMA review period and
would consider their comment as part of the public comments received on the proposed rule and
draft HMS FMP. NMFS has presumed concurrence with the states that did not respond. NMFS
will continue to work with the states to ensure consistency between state and Federal regulations.
4.8

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time (40 CFR § 1508.7). A cumulative impact includes the total effect on
a natural resource, ecosystem, or human community due to past, present, and future activities or
actions of Federal, non–Federal, public, and private entities. Cumulative impacts may also
include the effects of natural processes and events, depending on the specific resource in
question. Cumulative impacts include the total of all impacts to a particular resource that have
occurred, are occurring, and will likely occur as a result of any action or influence, including the
direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a Federal activity. The goal of this section
is to describe the cumulative ecological, economic and social impacts of past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future actions with regard to the management measures presented in this
document. Table 4.75 describes the overall impacts anticipated from each of the alternatives
considered.
4.8.1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

As discussed in Section 3.1, NMFS has taken a number of actions in the past in order to,
among other things, rebuild overfished and prevent overfishing of HMS. These actions have
included FMPs, FMP amendments, and framework actions. The goals and objectives of these
past rules are summarized in Section 3.1. NMFS is preferring to take similar actions in this
document, and can reasonably expect to implement additional regulations in the future to address
the management and conservation of Atlantic HMS. The need and objectives of this document
are described in earlier sections, particularly Chapter 1, and are not repeated here.
In general, the preferred alternatives for workshops would implement a series of
protected species and shark identification workshops to be held at various locations along the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts. PLL, BLL, and gillnet vessel owners and operators, as well as
Federally permitted shark dealers, would be required to recertify every three years prior to
renewing their HMS permit. Recertification would allow the Agency to incorporate new
information and technology into its training curriculum and allow fishery participants to stay
apprised of the techniques for enhanced protected species safe handling and release as well as
species identification over time. The preferred alternatives for time/area closures, finetooth
sharks, and northern albacore tuna should help NMFS prevent overfishing and reduce bycatch.
The preferred alternatives for billfish are intended to decrease recreational mortalities of Atlantic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-297

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

billfish, given their current stock status, and limit landings, as appropriate, to ensure consistency
with international obligations. The preferred alternatives for BFT are intended primarily to
streamline and simplify the administrative process governing BFT annual and inseason
management and ensure consistency with international obligations. The preferred alternative for
fishing year management cycle is administrative in nature and should aid NMFS in meeting
international reporting obligations and clarifying how they were met. The preferred alternatives
for authorized fishing gear are designed to meet the changing needs of the fisheries. The
regulatory housekeeping actions would facilitate and improve the HMS management regime.
The public, law enforcement, port agents, and others often bring these types of management
measures to the Agency’s attention. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict reasonably
foreseeable regulatory housekeeping measures that NMFS may consider in the future improving
HMS administration, facilitating enforcement, or clarifying regulations.
In Chapter 1, NMFS describes some actions that could happen in the reasonable future
including: changes to BFT size limits and tolerances; modifications to the current shark,
swordfish, and tunas quotas; changes to the ICCAT recommended billfish landings limit; HMS
permit reform; changes to time/area closures; modifications to EFH descriptions; and
modifications to recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting regulations (e.g., VMS). Additional
future actions could include annual specifications for all fisheries with quotas; establishing shark
fishing season opening and closing dates; actions taken to improve coordination with Caribbean
fisheries; and actions taken to reduce protected species interactions in HMS fisheries,
particularly the pelagic longline fishery (e.g., implementation of the PLTRP).
4.8.2

Cumulative Ecological Impacts

The cumulative long–term ecological impacts of the preferred alternatives for workshops
(A2, A3, A5, A6, A9, and A16) are anticipated to be positive. Workshops for PLL, BLL, and
gillnet vessel owners and operators could result in positive ecological impacts by reducing the
mortality of protected resources. These workshops are essential for complying with BiOps and
should reduce the post–hooking mortality of sea turtles and other protected resources. PLL,
BLL, and gillnet vessel owners would be required to attend the Protected Species Workshops to
link the requirement to the owner’s ability to renew the vessels’ permit, ensuring that workshops
are well attended. Operators would be required to attend the workshops to ensure that at least
one person on board the vessel during fishing activities is adept at the safe handling and release
protocols, thereby increasing the likelihood of post–release survival. Mandatory HMS
identification workshops, required for all Federally permitted shark dealers, would likely
improve the accuracy of dealer reports and reduce the number of sharks listed as unclassified,
which would likely improve stock assessments, quota monitoring, and stock rebuilding efforts.
In general, the cumulative impact of implementing a number of time/area closures since
1999, in addition to other measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality, has been positive
ecologically, but negative socially and economically, particularly for the pelagic longline
industry. As described under the ecological impacts of the time/area closure no–action
alternative to maintain existing closures, when comparing pre– and post–time/area closure data
from the pelagic longline logbook, the existing time/area closures have resulted in a substantial
reduction in the bycatch of all non–target HMS and protected species. In addition to time/area
closures, other actions have been taken to reduce the bycatch of protected species in HMS
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-298

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

fisheries including requirements to post safe handling and release guidelines for incidentally
captured sea turtles and marine mammals, new gear requirements to reduce sea turtle bycatch
and bycatch mortality (e.g., circle hooks and bait), requiring non–stainless steel corrodible
hooks, line cutters, dipnets, and dehooking devices to mitigate impacts on incidentally caught sea
turtles. Measures have also been taken to reduce interactions with endangered right whales
during calving season by requiring 100 percent observer coverage for boats with gillnet gear.
However, with all of the new regulations designed to reduce bycatch, there has also been a
substantial decline in the landings of targeted HMS. A number of potential causes for the
decline in landings were discussed in the preceding section on economic impacts of time/area
closures. In general, additional restrictions have caused an overall decline in fishing effort
(number of hooks set) across nearly every region except the Gulf of Mexico.
With regards to future closures, and especially closures in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS
may consider potential closures in the future to reduce bycatch and discards of target non–HMS
and protected resources. In particular, NMFS is considering alternatives to reduce bycatch in the
Gulf of Mexico, especially for BFT. For instance, more research is needed to further understand
the complex BFT life history, particularly with regards to age structure and determining
sustainable fishing pressure associated with different age classes. In addition, NMFS is
considering developing incentives that would dissuade fishermen from keeping incidentally
caught BFT, particularly spawning BFT in the Gulf of Mexico. This could involve an
experimental fishery to research how changes in fishing practices may help reduce bycatch of
non–target species as well as the tracking of discards (dead and alive) by all gear types or better
understanding the oceanographic factors that influence their distribution of BFT in the Gulf of
Mexico.
While time/area closures play an important part in resource management, a number of
time/area closures have been implemented since 2000. NMFS is beginning to see the benefits of
those closures; however, NMFS is still assessing the effect of additional management measures
that have been implemented since 2000, such as circle hooks. Because circle hooks likely have a
significantly different catch rate than J–hooks, further investigations are required to determine
the potential impact of any new time/area closures. Thus, NMFS does not prefer to implement
new closures as this time, except for Madison–Swanson and Steamboat Lumps, until the effect of
current management measures (and potential unanticipated consequences of those management
measures can be better understood). NMFS anticipates that 2005 PLL final data will become
available in the summer of 2006. The Agency will continue to monitor and analyze the effect of
circle hooks on catch rates and bycatch reduction as well as assess the cumulative affect of
current time/area closures and circle hooks. In addition, NMFS is awaiting additional
information regarding the status of the PLL fleet after the devastating hurricanes in the Gulf of
Mexico during the fall of 2005. A majority of the PLL fleet was thought to be severely damaged
or destroyed during the 2005 hurricane season. The amount of PLL fishing effort, especially
within the Gulf of Mexico, will be assessed in the summer of 2006 when 2005 PLL final data
becomes available. Until NMFS can better estimate the current fishing effort and potential
recovery of the PLL fleet, it may be premature to implement any new time/area closures specific
to that gear type at the present time. Finally, a number of stock assessments will be conducted
during 2006 (LCS, blue marlin, white marlin, north and south swordfish, and eastern and western
BFT). NMFS is waiting on the results of these stock assessments to determine domestic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-299

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

measures with regard to management of these species, especially for LCS, north swordfish, white
marlin, and western BFT.
Given that the preferred alternative to establish complementary HMS regulations in the
Madison–Swanson, Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserve would impact a small area and a very
small proportion of the total number of vessels permitted to fish for HMS that have actually
fished in the area, NMFS considers the cumulative impact of adding this new closure to the
existing closures to be minor. Furthermore, trolling would still be allowed from May through
October for HMS and other species managed by the GOMFMC. The other preferred alternative
to establish criteria for regulatory framework adjustments to implement new closures or modify
existing time/area closures is not expected to have any ecological or economic impacts, even
when considered in the context of other closures implemented in recent years. This is because
the criteria are designed to enhance the transparency of the decision–making process with regard
to new or modifications to existing time/area closures. If, in the future, NMFS decides to
implement new closures or modify existing closures, NMFS would need to evaluate the
ecological, economic, and cumulative impacts of the specific action being considered at that
time.
For northern albacore tuna, past actions that NMFS has taken include maintaining
compliance with U.S. TAC allocations and limiting vessel capacity, consistent with ICCAT
recommendations, advocating international TAC levels less than current replacement yield at
ICCAT meetings, and working to establish the foundation with ICCAT for developing an
international rebuilding program. Due to the fact that the United States has not taken its entire
adjusted quotas and that U.S. landings are minor compared to other ICCAT countries,
cumulative actions to date have had little ecological impact. However, if ICCAT implements a
rebuilding plan with target stock levels, a time table, and reference points, the long–term
cumulative impacts should be positive as northern albacore tuna stocks rebuild. If NMFS took
unilateral action, there could be adverse economic impact on U.S. fishermen without any
noticeable ecological benefit for northern albacore tuna.
The cumulative long–term impacts of the selected measures for finetooth sharks are
expected to be positive. In 2002, it was determined that finetooth sharks were experiencing
overfishing, however, the biomass was still above the level at which it would be considered
overfished. Since that time, NMFS has launched efforts to determine what Federal and state
fisheries may be interacting with finetooth sharks by informal and formal consultations with
other management bodies. NMFS has also started a pilot program to expand the DSGFOP
coverage to include vessels fishing with gillnets who may be catching finetooth sharks
incidentally or deploying a slightly different gillnet. The preferred measure would continue to
gather information on other sources of finetooth shark fishing mortality via expanded observer
coverage. These data can be employed to increase the catch series available for the upcoming
SCS assessment and concurrently implement effective management measures targeting those
fisheries responsible for the majority of finetooth shark fishing mortality. Contacting the
relevant Regional Fishery Management Councils, the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commissions, and states regarding finetooth shark landings and potential collaborative
management measures affecting gillnet fishermen that possess multiple permits, or initiating
management of species that are currently not regulated under any management scheme, may lead
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-300

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

to increased understanding of the ecological impacts of gillnet fisheries. The next SCS stock
assessment is anticipated to begin in 2007, by which time NMFS will have a better
understanding as to what measures would effectively reduce fishing mortality, if it is determined
that overfishing continues to occur on finetooth sharks and/or they are deemed overfished.
Past management actions pertaining to Atlantic billfish, as described above and in
Chapter 3 of this document, have had some positive ecological benefits for Atlantic billfish by
limiting mortalities attributable to U.S. fishermen. However, given overall U.S. catches and
landings of billfish relative to aggregate international catches, the impacts of these benefits on
Atlantic–wide populations are likely limited. The preferred alternatives identified in this
document are anticipated to provide additional positive ecological benefits for overfished
Atlantic billfish populations by reducing mortalities associated with live releases in the U.S.
recreational billfish fishery; however, for the same reasons noted above, their effect on the status
of Atlantic–wide populations would likely be limited. Actions NMFS may consider in the future
for both the recreational and commercial sectors include additional measures to reduce or
mitigate billfish landings and mortalities, such as additional changes in legal minimum sizes,
landings prohibitions, landing limits, possession limits, tagging and landing requirements, gear
and/or bait restrictions, time/area closures, handling and release requirements, effort restrictions,
seasonal closures, regional or seasonal allocations, or others as appropriate. These measures, if
considered, would be designed to address specific needs of the fishery, and, as such, would be
intended to have positive ecological impacts. Presently, there are no known third party actions
that may affect target species, however, ICCAT is scheduled to meet and take action, if
necessary, on Atlantic billfish in November 2006. Further, NMFS anticipates initiating and
completing an ESA Listing Status review for Atlantic white marlin by the close of 2007.
Pending the outcome of the ICCAT stock assessment and meeting as well as the ESA Listing
review, additional management measures may be warranted.
Since 1999, management actions pertaining to Atlantic BFT have had minor positive
ecological impacts by continuing to limit BFT mortality by U.S. fishermen in accordance with
the strict quota limits set by ICCAT and established under the approved 20–year rebuilding plan.
Currently, BFT are overfished. ICCAT is conducting a stock assessment in June 2006 that
should provide additional information regarding the status of BFT and the current rebuilding
plan. It is likely that later this year, ICCAT will finalize the stock assessment and recommend
management actions for BFT. Depending on ICCAT recommendation(s) and the status of BFT,
it is possible that NMFS could include additional issues within an ICCAT implementation rule.
However, NMFS will need to prioritize issues to ensure that international obligations are met and
the rebuilding plan is progressing. The preferred BFT alternatives are primarily administrative in
nature and are anticipated to provide negligible or minor additional positive ecological benefits
for overfished Atlantic BFT. Actions NMFS may consider in the future for both the recreational
and commercial sectors include additional measures to rationalize BFT fishing effort, adjustment
of size tolerance limits, discard reduction, landing limits, possession limits, tagging
requirements, gear and/or bait restrictions, time/area closures, handling and release requirements,
effort restrictions, seasonal closures, regional or seasonal allocations, or others as appropriate.
Additionally, the time/area closure preferred alternative to implement criteria for the
consideration of additional or modified closures for any gear type may be used to protect BFT, if
needed. For example, NMFS could consider closing an area of the Gulf of Mexico and opening
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-301

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

it as an experimental fishery to test for ways of reducing bycatch of spawning bluefin tuna
through such things as hook and bait combinations, environmental conditions, and/or temporal
and spatial associations among different species. These measures, if considered, would be
designed to address specific needs of the resource, and as such, would be intended to have
positive ecological impacts.
When considering this action in the context of past actions, most of the impacts of the
preferred alternative for fishing year, both positive and negative, would be fully mitigated. Since
both the swordfish and BFT fisheries and quotas were initially managed on a calendar year and
were switched to a fishing year within the last decade, any ecological impacts as a result of this
preferred alternative should be mitigated by the impacts that occurred when they were switched
to a fishing year (e.g., the impacts of a compressed 6 month fishing year under this preferred
alternative would be mitigated by the impacts of a fishing year that was stretched to cover 18
months during the previous action). For billfish, the cumulative ecological impacts attributed to
the implementation of a calendar year management program in combination with a 250–marlin
landings limit preferred alternative would be neutral to slightly positive. Marlin landings will be
monitored and appropriate actions taken as necessary to maintain compliance with the ICCAT–
recommended landings limit regardless of whether the fishery is managed on a fishing year or a
calendar year. However, there is a small potential, that if a management threshold was reached
to reduce or halt marlin landings, it would occur earlier in the season than under the other
alternatives considered for fishing year, which could slightly reduce fishing effort and potentially
have positive ecological impacts. The cumulative impacts of these two alternatives in
combination are discussed in detail in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.2. Cumulative impacts of the
calendar year preferred alternative in combination with the specifications processes for BFT and
swordfish are also expected to be neutral because BFT fisheries are tightly monitored and
controlled under quotas and current regulations afford protections for sensitive size classes and
swordfish fisheries have not landed the full quota in recent years.
The revised list of authorized fisheries (LOF) and associated fishing gears became
effective December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67511). The LOF is updated periodically and can be found
at 50 CFR § 600.725. Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP specified that only rod and reel and
handline gears be allowed in the recreational shark fishery. In this document, the preferred
alternatives for authorized fishing gear are not anticipated to dramatically increase effort and
therefore would likely not result in significant increases in landings or landings rates of HMS or
other finfish, protected, or threatened species with which HMS fishermen interact. NMFS does
not expect the use of these gears to increase interactions with protected resources. As described
in Section 4.3.3, other alternatives analyzed could have had potentially fewer or greater
ecological impacts because authorizing different gears in different segments of the HMS
fisheries could result in varying degrees of increases in target catches, as well as interactions
with other HMS and other species. Authorizing speargun fishing gear would allow
spearfishermen to target BAYS tunas; the number of spearfishermen in this fishery is not
expected to be high. Due to stock status concerns, these fishermen would not be allowed to fish
for other HMS at this time. The preferred alternative to authorize buoy gear would have positive
ecological impacts because it would limit the amount of gear that is in the water and would only
allow commercial swordfish fishermen to target swordfish. Current regulations do not limit the

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-302

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

gear or the fishermen. The preferred alternative to authorize secondary fishing gear is not
expected to have minimal, if any, ecological impacts.
The suite of preferred alternatives in Section 4.3.4, entitled Regulatory Housekeeping,
include alternatives I1(c), I2(b), I3(b), I3(c), I4(b), I5(b), I6(b), I7(b), I8(b), I8(c), I9(b), I10(c),
and I11(b). All of these alternatives are projected to have minor positive conservation benefits
for HMS, bycatch species, and protected resources consistent with the Magnuson–Stevens Act,
ESA, and other applicable law. Several of these alternatives, including I7(b), I8(b), I8(c), and
I9(b) are predominantly administrative in nature. As such, any positive ecological benefits
derived from these preferred alternatives would be realized primarily through improvements in
data collection. Many other alternatives, including I1(c), I2(b), I3(b), I3(c), I6(b), and I11(b) are
intended to facilitate enforcement. Therefore, any positive ecological benefits derived from
these preferred alternatives would be realized through improved compliance with HMS
regulations. Alternative I4(b), which would modify the East Florida Coast closed area, would
likely relocate effort; however, the cumulative impacts are expected to be negligible because the
area affected is so small and catches and catch rates in adjacent areas are similar. Alternative
I5(b), which would require that handlines remain attached to vessels, could reduce fishing effort,
but that is not expected to be likely. Rather, alternative I5(b) would prevent the potential future
expansion of effort. Alternative I10(c) is in regard to the ICCAT 25 mt NED BFT allocation.
As such, it would support additional discussion at ICCAT regarding quota rollovers and would
clarify how this set–aside would be allocated, and is expected to limit fishing effort to current
levels. Actions that NMFS may consider in the future that would improve administration of the
existing HMS management regime, facilitate enforcement, and/or clarify regulations would
similarly be expected to produce minor positive ecological impacts.
Besides this rulemaking, NMFS is currently accepting comments on a proposed rule that
would require vessel operators with HMS permits and BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain,
and utilize additional equipment, protocols, and or guidelines for the safe handling, release, and
disentanglement of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other non–target species (March 29,
2006, 71 FR 15680). These requirements are consistent, and are based upon, requirements for
the PLL fishery that were implemented on July 6, 2004 (69 FR 40734), and effective on August
5, 2004. These requirements represent the most current, and best available information
available for maximizing gear removal efficiency and reducing post–hooking mortality of sea
turtles, smalltooth sawfish, or other non–target species. It is expected that the preferred
workshop alternatives in the Final HMS FMP would enhance participants’ ability to use the
additional equipment and follow required protocols implemented in the proposed rule on
handling and release equipment. Additionally, NMFS expects to conduct rulemaking in the near
future as a result of the dusky shark assessment (May 25, 2006, 71 FR 30123) and the ongoing
LCS stock assessment. Any action based on those stock assessments would be expected to have
positive ecological benefits.
The cumulative ecological impacts on HMS stocks and fisheries due to potential actions
under consideration by Regional Fishery Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries
Commissions, or other management bodies may be slightly positive. The Caribbean Fishery
Management Council recently implemented area closures that could have minor positive benefits
for Atlantic HMS. NMFS is currently proposing, in the same rule that proposes handling and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-303

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

release equipment in the shark bottom longline fishery, an alternative to implement
complementary closures (March 29, 2006, 71 FR 15680). The South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council is considering management measures including time/area closures for
bottom longline gear to protect grouper species that may have some impacts on HMS fisheries,
particularly the shark fishery. Under this rule, charter/headboat fishermen would also need to
comply with the dehooking requirements. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
recently proposed regulations that would implement similar dehooking requirements to those
required in the HMS pelagic longline fishery and to those proposed for the HMS bottom longline
fishery. HMS Advisory Panel members have raised concerns about the impacts of herring
management on BFT stocks and the New England Fishery Management Council is considering a
ban on midwater and pair trawling for herring in upcoming rulemaking to address concerns about
impacts on BFT, cod, and whales. To the extent that herring trawl fisheries may be impacting
BFT stocks, such a ban would likely have positive ecological impacts. Regarding shark
management, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is developing an interstate shark
fishery management plan, which would likely have positive ecological impacts because many
shark nursery areas are located in state waters.
For a discussion of non–fishing impacts to HMS EFH, see Section 10.5.
4.8.3

Cumulative Economic and Social Impacts

The cumulative long–term economic and social impacts of the preferred alternatives for
workshops are not expected to be excessive as these workshops would be held in areas where be
held in areas were they are high concentrations of HMS permit holders. The workshop training
would be valuable to fishermen and could offset some unquantifiable portion of the estimated
opportunity costs associated with attending the workshops and not fishing. Most trades and
professions require practitioners to obtain licenses demonstrating competence; however, there is
still an economic opportunity cost associated with any required activity that would not otherwise
be taken voluntarily. To minimize those costs, the workshops would be held in areas where there
is a high concentration of permit holders according to the addresses provided when applying for
an HMS permit. NMFS intends to provide the workshop schedule in advance so that fishermen
can attend the most convenient workshop, minimizing travel, lost fishing time, and time spent
away from their place of business and family. The requirement to attend the workshops has been
delayed until December 31, 2007, for shark dealers, and until the PLL, BLL, and gillnet vessel
permit expires in 2007 for owners and operators. The delayed effectiveness allows individuals to
plan ahead for the workshop and work around peak fishing times. Over the long–term,
alternatives to in–person workshops (i.e., internet–based, web–cast, DVD–based) may be
considered to mitigate or reduce some of the anticipated social and economic impacts associated
with the preferred alternatives for workshops.
As described above, the implementation of time/area closures has had cumulative
economic and social impacts including putting fishermen out of business and causing some
vessels to change fishing areas. The swordfish fishery, which is primarily a pelagic longline
fishery, is no longer taking the full U.S. quota allocated by ICCAT. NMFS recently adjusted the
2005 North Atlantic fishing quota by adding 3,398.5 mt dw underharvests to the base quota of
2,937.6 mt dw. If the fishery were to catch the entire adjusted quota, it would be worth
approximately $23.5 M. The large underharvests in this fishery could have an impact on
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-304

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

negotiations at the 2006 ICCAT meeting, depending on the status of swordfish. The current
preferred alternatives in this action are not expected to have large economic or social impacts,
and, to the extent that the criteria give NMFS the flexibility to do so, could, in the future, help
relieve some of the economic stress by reopening or modifying existing closures.
The preferred alternatives for northern albacore tuna and finetooth sharks are not
expected to have any significant economic or social impacts in the near future. The measures
that may be needed when ICCAT implements a rebuilding plan for northern albacore tuna or
when NMFS has collected additional data to target appropriate management measures to prevent
overfishing of finetooth sharks could have economic or social impacts, and would be analyzed at
that time.
For billfish, the cumulative economic and social impacts of actions taken since 1978 have
been to eliminate domestic commercial fisheries for those species, resulting in negative
economic and social impacts for the commercial sector. In eliminating commercial retention and
sale of Atlantic billfish, the domestic pelagic longline fishery was forced to adapt to the loss of
an increasing portion of their income in the late 1980s. However, it is likely that in doing so,
previous billfish regulations have allowed for larger overall social and economic benefits to the
nation given the substantial number of recreational fishermen who participate in Atlantic billfish
fisheries. Thousands of recreational billfish trips are taken each year, each worth hundreds of
dollars, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.5.2 and Chapter 4 of this document.
As discussed in Chapter 4 of this document, the preferred alternatives for billfish are
anticipated to have generally minor adverse socio–economic impacts in the short–term as a result
of a potential decrease in the availability of fish for landing, should the ICCAT recreational
marlin landing limit be achieved, and as a result of the costs associated with purchasing new
hooks. Adverse socio–economic impacts associated with the preferred alternatives are
anticipated to be greatly constrained given high participation rates in catch and release fishing for
Atlantic marlin, the fact that recent landings have rarely reached the ICCAT recommended 250–
fish limit, and other factors discussed in Section 4.2.3. Localized impacts on communities where
individual tournaments may cease operating as a result of potential in–season management action
could be heightened; however, the aggregate impacts on the fishery as a whole are anticipated to
be limited and may be slightly higher under a calendar year management cycle. Hooks represent
a minor capital cost in relation to other expenditures related to recreational billfish fishing,
including the purchase, outfitting, maintenance, and running of vessels. Healthy Atlantic billfish
populations could lead to increased angler satisfaction, participation, and expenditures if the
possibility of interacting with a billfish improves as a result of the measures identified in this
rulemaking. As a result, the preferred alternatives pertaining to directed Atlantic billfish fishing
could result in positive long–term cumulative socio–economic benefits if they assist in reversing
declines in billfish populations.
Since the 1999 FMP, the majority of regulatory actions regarding BFT have been
designed to improve BFT management and provide positive social and economic impacts to the
fishery. For example, past adjustments to the target catch tolerance limits in both the harpoon
and purse seine BFT fisheries and changes to the pelagic longline BFT incidental catch
allowance provided marginal increases in social and economic impacts and responded to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-305

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

changing conditions in the environment and market place. Annual management measures and
inseason actions are analyzed and implemented to fully maximize the utilization of available
quota and fishing opportunities for all fishery sectors.
As discussed in Chapter 4 of this document, the preferred alternatives are anticipated to
continue to improve domestic BFT management by streamlining and simplifying the
administrative processes governing BFT rulemaking and inseason actions. The preferred
alternatives are expected to have positive socio–economic impacts in the short and long–term by
responding to changed fishery conditions and needs within the BFT General category and
increasing the ability of the Agency to affect timely annual rulemaking and respond to inseason
management issues. In the future, it is expected that the Agency will continue to explore ways to
improve domestic management including, for example, further streamlining and rationalization
of the commercial permit program.
As described above, the change to a calendar year is mainly administrative and is not
expected to have significant economic or social impacts. Any short–term confusion on the part
of fishery participants due to the change to a calendar year would be offset by increased
transparency in monitoring and compliance with international obligations. To the extent that
switching back to a calendar year would offset any impacts from the original switch to a fishing
year, this alternative could also provide some positive benefits.
The preferred alternatives for authorized fishing gear (H2, H5, and H7) could potentially
increase the number of fishery participants. As discussed in Section 4.3.3, the preferred
alternatives may have both positive and negative socio–economic impacts, with impacts varying
by sector. This preferred action is expected to result in positive social and economic impacts for
spearfishermen (ability to fish with a previously unauthorized gear type), commercial swordfish
handgear fishermen (clarification on use of gear type), and all HMS fishermen choosing to
utilize handheld cockpit gears (clarification on allowable use of secondary gears and reduced
confusion on regulations). Some negative social and economic impacts may occur if competition
for fishing grounds causes gear conflicts, however, public comments indicate that this is unlikely
due to recent experiences where spearfishermen have fished in close proximity to rod and reel
fishermen without incident. The preferred alternative not to modify the definition of green–stick
gear but rather to clarify its current use could have some social and economic impacts.
Clarifying the use of green–stick gear without preferring this alternative or modifying the
regulations would have modest positive social benefits on those fishermen who are confused
about the current regulatory regime. It may also result in minor positive economic benefits to
those fishermen who now enter the fishery using this gear type in a manner allowed under
current regulations but may not have done so previously as they were concerned it may have
been illegal. These positive benefits may be offset by those fishermen who realize that they were
using green–stick gear in the configurations that are not authorized under HMS regulations.
HMS CHB and General category permit holders would be allowed to use various configurations
of green–stick gear (see Section 2.3.3) although limited to two hooks per line under current
handgear definitions. PLL vessels may use either configuration with unlimited hooks but need to
comply with all other existing PLL regulatory requirements, including the use of circle hooks
and avoiding closed areas.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-306

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The suite of preferred regulatory housekeeping alternatives in Section 4.3.4 is projected
to have minimal social or economic impacts on HMS fishery participants. Several of the
alternatives are predominantly administrative in nature. As such, any additional costs would be
minor. Other alternatives to facilitate enforcement would impose no additional costs on vessels
that are currently compliant with HMS regulations. Alternative I1(c), which would limit species
composition of the catch, could potentially increase short–term social and economic impacts for
those bottom or pelagic longline fishermen that fish in pelagic or bottom longline closed areas.
However, NMFS expects that any cumulative impacts would be minor because the preferred
alternatives accommodate the vast majority of commercial fishing operations, based on logbook
data, and would only affect a small proportion of longline fishermen. Alternative I4(b), which
would modify the East Florida Coast closed area, and alternatives I5(b), which would require
that handlines remain attached to vessels, could reduce fishing effort, but that is not expected to
be likely. Rather, fishery participants are expected to either move to nearby areas with similar
catch rates (I4(b)), or to fish with attached handlines (I5(b)). AlternativeI10(c) clarifies how the
NED BFT set–aside would be allocated, and is not expected to alter fishing effort. Actions of
this nature that NMFS may consider in the future that would improve the administration of the
existing HMS management regime, facilitate enforcement, or clarify regulations would similarly
be expected to have minimal economic impacts.
As described previously, besides this rulemaking, NMFS is currently accepting
comments on a proposed rule that would require vessel operators with HMS permits and BLL
gear onboard to purchase and/or construct additional equipment for the safe handling, release,
and disentanglement of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other non–target species. To the
extent possible, the Agency has attempted to minimize initial costs to fishery participants by
enabling them to construct equipment themselves. Furthermore, it is assumed that some
participants are already in possession of the required equipment as vessels often fish with BLL
and PLL gear; PLL participants are already required to possess the full suite of equipment.
Attendance at workshops that are described above, and may be a requirement of the draft
Consolidated HMS FMP, would result in some lost fishing and travel time, which would result in
increased cumulative economic impacts. These economic and social impacts were fully
analyzed in that document. While this action may result in minor negative socio–economic
impacts, it is expected to ensure the long–term sustainability and continued economic viability of
the BLL fishery by maintaining compliance with the October 2003 BiOp. NMFS also expects to
issue proposed rules that would adjust the shark management measures based on recent or
ongoing stock assessments. These upcoming rulemakings could have social economic impacts.
The cumulative social and economic impacts on HMS stocks and fisheries due to
potential actions under consideration by Regional Fishery Management Councils, Interstate
Marine Fisheries Commissions, or other management bodies may be slightly positive. The
Caribbean Fishery Management Council recently implemented some area closures that could
have minor positive benefits for Atlantic HMS. The HMS Management Division is currently
proposing to implement complementary closures, and expects that any social or economic
impacts would be minor due to the small size and amount of HMS fishing effort in the areas
under consideration. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is considering
management measures including time/area closures for bottom longline gear to protect grouper
species that may have some impacts on HMS fisheries, particularly the shark fishery. Depending
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-307

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

on the size, these closures could have economic and/or social impacts on HMS fishermen. The
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council recently proposed regulations that would
implement similar dehooking requirements to those required in the HMS pelagic longline fishery
and to those proposed for the HMS bottom longline fishery. Because of the similarities, this
proposed rule should not have any additional economic impact on HMS fishermen except for
charter/headboat fishermen who also hold permits for fisheries managed by the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council. HMS Advisory Panel members have raised concerns about the
impacts of herring management on BFT stocks and the New England Fishery Management
Council is considering a ban on midwater and pair trawling for herring in upcoming rulemaking
to address concerns about impacts on BFT, cod, and whales. To the extent that herring trawl
fisheries may be impacting BFT stocks, such a ban would likely have positive social and
economic impacts for HMS fishermen, especially in New England areas where herring trawl
fisheries operate. Regarding shark management, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission is also developing an interstate shark fishery management plan, which may have
positive social and economic impacts if state measures aid in achieving OY for the shark fishery.
Table 4.75

Impacts of alternatives considered. The symbols +, –, and 0 refer to positive, negative, and zero
impacts respectively. The expected impacts should be compared to other alternatives within
that issue, not to the impacts between issues. See preceding section for details of impacts of
each alternative.

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative A1

Voluntary protected
species safe handling,
release, and identification
workshops for HMS
longline fishermen (No
Action)
Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and
identification workshops
and certification for all
HMS pelagic or bottom
longline vessel owners –
Preferred Alternative
Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and
identification workshops
and certification for
vessel operators actively
participating in HMS
pelagic and bottom
longline fisheries –
Preferred Alternative

Alternative A2

Alternative A3

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Ecological
Impacts
Workshops

4-308

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

–

0

0

+

–/+

–

++

–/+

––

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative A4

Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and identification
workshops and
certification for all HMS
longline vessel owners,
operators, and crew
Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and
identification workshops
and certification for
shark gillnet vessel
owners and operators –
Preferred Alternative
Protected species safe
handling, release, and
identification
certification renewal
every 3-years – Preferred
Alternative
No HMS identification
workshops (No Action)
Voluntary HMS
identification workshops
for dealers, all
commercial vessel
owners and operators,
and recreational
fishermen
Mandatory shark
identification workshops
for all shark dealers –
Preferred Alternative
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops
for all swordfish, shark,
and/or tuna dealers
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops
for all commercial
longline vessel owners
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops
for all commercial
longline vessel operators
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops
for all commercial vessel
owners (longline, CHB,
General category, and
handgear/harpoon)

Alternative A5

Alternative A6

Alternative A7
Alternative A8

Alternative A9

Alternative A10

Alternative A11

Alternative A12

Alternative A13

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-309

Ecological
Impacts

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

+++

–/+

–––

++

–/+

––

++

–/+

–

0

0

0

+

0

0

++

–/+

–

+++

–/+

––

++

–/+

–

++

–/+

–

++

–/+

––

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative A14

Mandatory HMS
identification workshops
for all commercial vessel
operators (longline,
CHB, General category,
and handgear/harpoon)
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops
for all HMS Angling
permit holders
HMS identification
certification renewal
every 3–years –
Preferred Alternative

Alternative A15

Alternative A16

Ecological
Impacts

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

++

–/+

––

++

–/+

–––

++

–/+

–

+

0

0

Prohibit the use of
pelagic longline gear in
HMS fisheries in the
central portion of the
Gulf of Mexico year–
round

+/–

–

–

Prohibit the use of
pelagic longline gear in
HMS fisheries in an area
of the Northeast during
the month of June (1
month)

+/–

–

–

Prohibit the use of
pelagic longline gear in
HMS fisheries in the
Gulf of Mexico from
April through June (3
months)

+/–

–

–

Prohibit the use of
pelagic longline gear in
HMS fisheries in the
Gulf of Mexico west of
86 degrees west
longitude year–round

+/–

––

––

Time/Area Closures
Alternative B1

Alternative B2(a)

Alternative B2(b)

Alternative B2(c)

Alternative B2(d)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Maintain existing
closures; no new closures
(No Action)

4-310

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative B2(e)

Alternative B3(a)

Alternative B3(b)

Alternative B4

Alternative B5

Alternative B6

Alternative B7

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Ecological
Impacts

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

Prohibit the use of
pelagic longline gear in
HMS fisheries in an area
of the Northeast to
reduce sea turtle
interactions

+/–

–

–

Modify the existing
Charleston Bump
time/area closure to
allow the use of pelagic
longline gear in all areas
seaward of the axis of the
Gulf Stream

0/–

+/–

+

Modify the existing
Northeastern U.S.
time/area closure to
allow the use of pelagic
longline gear in areas
west of 72º 47’ west
longitude during the
month of June

0

+/–

+

Implement
complementary HMS
management measures in
Madison–Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps
Marine Reserves from
November through April
(6 months) – Preferred
Alternative

+

0

0/–

Establish criteria to
consider when
implementing new
time/area closures or
making modifications to
existing time/area
closures – Preferred
Alternative

0

0

0

Prohibit the use of
bottom longline gear in
an area southwest of Key
West to protect
endangered smalltooth
sawfish

+

0

–

Prohibit the use of
pelagic longline gear in
HMS fisheries in all
areas

++

–––

–––

4-311

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative C1

Maintain compliance
with the current ICCAT
recommendation (No
Action)

Alternative C2

Unilateral proportional
reduction of United
States northern albacore
fishing mortality

Alternative C3

Establish the foundation
0/+
with ICCAT for
developing an
international rebuilding
program – Preferred
Alternative
Finetooth Sharks
Maintain current
–
regulations for
recreational and
commercial fisheries (No
Action)
Implement commercial
–/+
management measures to
reduce fishing mortality
of finetooth sharks
Implement recreational
–/+
management measures to
reduce fishing mortality
of finetooth sharks
Identify sources of
0/+
finetooth shark fishing
mortality to target
appropriate management
actions – Preferred
Alternative
Directed Billfish Fishery
Retain existing
+
regulations regarding
recreational billfish
fishing, including permit
requirements, minimum
size limits, prohibited
species, landing form,
allowable gear, and
reporting requirements
(No Action)

Alternative D1

Alternative D2

Alternative D3

Alternative D4

Alternative E1

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Ecological
Impacts
Northern Albacore Tuna

4-312

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

0

0

0

+

–

––

0

0

0

0

–

–

–

–

0

0

0

0

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative E2

Effective January 1, 2007,
limit all participants in
Atlantic HMS recreational
fisheries to using only non–
offset circle hooks when
using natural baits or natural
bait/artificial lure
combinations

Alternative E3

Alternative E4 (a)

Alternative E4 (b)

Alternative E5
Alternative E6

Alternative E7

Alternative E8

Ecological
Impacts
++

Social Impacts
–

Economic
Impacts
–

Effective January 1,
2007, limit all HMS
permitted vessels
participating in Atlantic
billfish tournaments to
deploying only non–
offset circle hooks when
using natural baits or
natural bait/artificial
lure combinations –
Preferred Alternative

+

–

–

Increase the minimum size
limit for Atlantic white
marlin to a specific size
between 68 and 71’’ LJFL
Increase the minimum size
limit for Atlantic blue
marlin to a specific size
between 103 and 106’’
LJFL
Implement a recreational
bag limit of one Atlantic
billfish per vessel per trip
Effective January 1, 2007,
implement ICCAT
Recommendations on
Recreational Marlin
Landings Limits – Preferred
Alternative
Effective January 1, 2007 –
December 31, 2011, allow
only catch and release
fishing for Atlantic white
marlin
Effective January 1, 2007 –
December 31, 2011, allow
only catch and release
fishing for Atlantic blue
marlin

+

–

–

+

–

–

+

–

–

+

–

–

+

––

––

++

––

––

Atlantic BFT
BFT Subquota Management in the General and Angling Categories

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-313

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative F1

Alternative F2

Alternative F3

Alternative F3 (a)

Alternative F3 (b)

Alternative F3 (c)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Ecological
Impacts

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

Maintain the time–
periods, subquota
allocations, and
geographic set asides for
the General and Angling
categories as established
in the 1999 FMP (No
Action)

0

+/–

+/–

Establish General
category time–periods,
subquotas, and
geographic set asides
annually via framework
actions

0

+/–

+/–

Amend the management
procedures regarding
General category time–
periods, subquota, as
well as geographic set–
asides to allow for future
adjustments to take place
via a regulatory
framework action –
Preferred Alternative

0

++

++

Establish monthly
General category time–
periods and subquotas
(June–Jan, 12.5% each)

0

+/–

+/–

Revise General category
time–periods and
subquotas to allow for a
formalized winter fishery
(June–Aug, 54%; Sept,
26.5%; Oct–Nov, 9%;
Dec, 5.2%; and Jan,
5.3%)

0

+/–

+/–

Revise General category
time–periods and
subquotas to allow for a
formalized winter fishery
(June–Aug, 50%; Sept,
26.5%; Oct–Nov, 13%;
Dec, 5.2% and Jan,
5.3%)

0

+/–

+/–

4-314

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative F3 (d)

Alternative F4

Ecological
Impacts

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

Revise General category
time–periods and
subquotas to allow for a
formalized winter fishery
(June–Aug, 38.7%; Sept,
26.6%; Oct –Nov, 13%;
Dec, 10.8%; and Jan,
10.9%)

0

+/–

+/–

Clarify the procedures
for calculating the
Angling category school
size–class BFT subquota
allocation and maintain
the Angling category
north/south dividing line
– Preferred Alternative

0

+

+

Annual BFT Quota Adjustments
Alternative F5

Alternative F6

Alternative F7

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Maintain full annual BFT
specification process
regardless of change in
the U.S. BFT TAC and
maintain
under/overharvest
procedures within
individual domestic
quota categories and
individual vessels in the
Purse seine category (No
Action)

–

0/–

0/–

Revise the annual BFT
specification process, to
refer back to the analyses
conducted in the DEIS of
the consolidated HMS
FMP and include
seasonal management
measures – Preferred
Alternative

0

+

+

Eliminate unharvested
quota carryover
provisions and return
unharvested quota to the
resource, while
maintaining status quo
overharvest provisions

+/–

–––

–––

4-315

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative F8

Establish an individual
quota category carry–
over limit of 100 percent
of the baseline allocation
(i.e., no more than the
annual baseline
allocation may be
carried forward), except
for the Reserve category,
and authorize the
transfer of quota
exceeding the 100
percent limit to the
Reserve or another
domestic quota category,
while maintaining status
quo overharvest
provisions – Preferred
Alternative

Ecological
Impacts

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts

+

+/–

+/–

BFT Inseason Actions
Alternative F9

Maintain inseason action
procedures (No Action)

0

+/–

+/–

Alternative F10

Revise and consolidate
criteria considered prior
to performing inseason
and some annual BFT
management actions –
Preferred Alternative

0

+/–

+/–

Eliminate BFT inseason
actions

––

+/– –

+/– –

Alternative F11

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
Alternative G1

Alternative G2

Alternative G3

Maintain the current
fishing year for all HMS
(No Action)

0

–

–

Shift the fishing year to
January 1 – December
31 for all HMS –
Preferred Alternative

0

++

+/–

Shift the fishing year to
June 1–May 31 for all
HMS

0

+

–

Authorized Fishing Gear

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-316

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative H1

Maintain current
authorized gears in
Atlantic HMS fisheries
(No Action)
Authorize speargun
fishing gear as a
permissible gear type in
the recreational Atlantic
BAYS tuna fishery –
Preferred Alternative
Authorize speargun
fishing gear as a
permissible gear type in
the commercial tuna
handgear and
recreational tuna
fisheries
Authorize green–stick
fishing gear for the
commercial harvest of
Atlantic BAYS tunas
Authorize buoy gear as a
permissible gear type in
the commercial
swordfish handgear
fishery; limit vessels
employing buoy gear to
possessing and deploying
no more than 35
floatation devices, with
each individual gear
having no more than two
hooks or gangions
attached – Preferred
Alternative
Authorize buoy gear as a
permissible gear type in
the commercial
swordfish handgear
fishery; limit vessels
employing buoy gear to
possessing and deploying
no more than 50
floatation devices, with
each individual gear
having no more than 15
hooks or gangions
attached

Alternative H2

Alternative H3

Alternative H4

Alternative H5

Alternative H6

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-317

Ecological
Impacts
0

Social Impacts
–

Economic
Impacts
0

–

+

+

––

++

+

–

+

+

+

+

+

–

–

+

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative H7

Clarify the allowance of
+
hand–held cockpit gears
used at boat side for
subduing HMS captured
on authorized gears –
Preferred Alternative
Regulatory Housekeeping
Issue 1 – Definitions of Pelagic and Bottom Longlines
Retain current definitions
–
–
for PLL and BLL gear
(No Action)
Establish additional
+
0
restrictions on longline
gear in HMS time/area
closures by specifying a
maximum and minimum
allowable number of
commercial fishing floats
to qualify as a BLL and
PLL vessel, respectively
Differentiate between
+
0
PLL and BLL gear based
upon the species
composition of the catch
onboard or landed –
Preferred Alternative
Require time/depth
+
–
recorders (TDRs) on all
HMS longlines
Base HMS time/area
++
––
closures on all longlines
(PLL & BLL)
Issue 2 – Shark Identification
Retain current
–
0
regulations regarding
shark landing
requirements (No
Action)
Require that the 2nd
+
–
dorsal fin and the anal
fin remain on all sharks
through landing –
Preferred Alternative
Require that the 2nd
+
–
dorsal fin and the anal fin
remain on all sharks
through landing, except
for lemon and nurse
sharks

Alternative I1(a)

Alternative I1(b)

Alternative I1(c)

Alternative I1(d)

Alternative I1(e)

Alternative I2(a)

Alternative I2(b)

Alternative I2(c)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-318

Ecological
Impacts
0

Social Impacts

Economic
Impacts
+

0

0

0

–

––

0

–

–

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative I2(d)

Require all fins remain
on all sharks through
landing
Issue 3 – HMS Retention Limits
Retain current
–
regulations regarding
retention limits, with no
new prohibitions (No
Action)
Add new prohibition at §
+
635.71(a)(48) making it
illegal for any person to,
“Purchase any HMS that
was offloaded from an
individual vessel in
excess of the retention
limits specified in §§
635.23 and 635.24” –
Preferred Alternative
Add new prohibition at §
+
635.71(a)(49) making it
illegal for any person to,
“Sell any HMS that was
offloaded from an
individual vessel in
excess of the retention
limits specified in §§
635.23 and 635.24” –
Preferred Alternative
Issue 4 – Definition of East Florida Coast Closed Area
Retain current
–
coordinates for the East
Florida Coast closed area
(No Action)
Amend the second
+
coordinate of the East
Florida Coast closed
area to 28° 17’ 10” N.
lat., 79° 11’ 24” W.
long., so that it
corresponds with the
EEZ – Preferred
Alternative
Issue 5 – Definition of Handline
Retain the current
–
definition of “handline”
at § 635.2 (No Action)

Alternative I3(a)

Alternative I3(b)

Alternative I3(c)

Alternative I4(a)

Alternative I4(b)

Alternative I5(a)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-319

Ecological
Impacts
++

Social Impacts
––

Economic
Impacts
––

0

0

+

0/–

+

0/–

0

0

–

–

0

0

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number
Alternative I5(b)

Alternative I5(c)

Alternative I6(a)

Alternative I6(b)

Alternative I7(a)

Alternative I7(b)

Alternative I7(c)

Alternative I8(a)

Alternative Description

Ecological
Impacts
+

Social Impacts

Amend the definition of
–
“handline” at § 635.2 by
requiring that they be
attached to, or in contact
with, all vessels –
Preferred Alternative
Require that handlines
+
–
remain attached to all
vessels when fishing
recreationally and allow
unattached handlines
when fishing
commercially
Issue 6 – Possession of Billfish on Vessels Issued Commercial Permits
Retain current
–
0
regulations regarding the
possession of Atlantic
billfish (No Action)
Prohibit vessels issued
+
–
HMS commercial permits
and operating outside of
a tournament from
possessing, retaining, or
taking Atlantic billfish
from the management
unit – Preferred
Alternative
Issue 7 – BFT Dealer Reporting
Retain the current
0/–
–
regulations regarding
BFT dealer reporting (No
Action)
Amend the HMS
+/0
+
regulations to provide an
option for Atlantic tunas
dealers to submit
required BFT reports
using the Internet –
Preferred Alternative
+/0
+
Amend the HMS BFT
dealer reporting
regulations to require
that Atlantic tunas
dealers submit BFT
reports electronically,
with specific exceptions
Issue 8 – “No–Fishing” and Cost–Earnings” Reporting Forms
Maintain the existing
0
–
regulations regarding
submission of logbooks
(No Action)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-320

Economic
Impacts
–

–

0

0

–

+

+

0

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number
Alternative I8(b)

Alternative I8(c)

Alternative I9(a)

Alternative I9(b)

Alternative I10(a)

Alternative I10(b)

Alternative Description

Ecological
Impacts
0

Social Impacts

Require submission of
+/–
“No Fishing” reporting
forms for selected vessels
if no fishing trips
occurred during the
preceding month,
postmarked no later than
seven days after the end
of the month – Preferred
Alternative
Require submission of
0
+/–
the trip “cost-earnings”
reporting form for
selected vessels 30 days
after a trip, and the
“annual expenditures”
report form by the date
specified on the form –
Preferred Alternative
Issue 9 – Non–Tournament Recreational Landings Reporting
Retain existing
–
–
regulations at §
635.5(c)(2) requiring
anglers to report non–
tournament recreational
landings of North
Atlantic swordfish and
Atlantic billfish (No
Action)
Require vessel owners
+
+
(or their designees) to
report non–tournament
recreational landings of
North Atlantic swordfish
and Atlantic billfish –
Preferred Alternative
Issue 10 – Pelagic Longline 25 mt NED Incidental BFT Allocation
Retain the current
0
+
regulations specifically
referring to 25 mt (ww)
(No Action)
Modify the HMS
0
+
regulations to state that
“In addition, each year,
25 mt (ww) will be
allocated for incidental
catch by pelagic
longlines” in the NED

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-321

Economic
Impacts
0

0

0

0

+

+

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Alternative Number

Alternative Description

Alternative I10(c)

Conduct additional
discussions at ICCAT
regarding quota
rollovers and adjust
quotas allocated to
account for bycatch
related to pelagic
longline fisheries in the
vicinity of the
management area
boundary accordingly –
Preferred Alternative
Issue 11 – Permit Condition for Recreational Trips
No permit condition for
–
recreational trips (No
Action)
Require recreational
+
vessels with a Federal
permit to abide by
Federal regulations,
regardless of where they
are fishing, unless a state
has more restrictive
regulations – Preferred
Alternative

Alternative I11(a)

Alternative I11(b)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-322

Ecological
Impacts
+

Social Impacts
–/+

Economic
Impacts
–

–

0

+/–

0

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES
References for Section 4.1.1
Carlson, J.K. and D.W. Lee. 1999. Catch and bycatch in the shark drift gillnet fishery off east
Florida during the critical right whale season, 1999. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center,
Miami, FL. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution No. SFD-98/99-60.
Carlson, J.K. 2000. Progress report on the directed shark gillnet fishery: right whale season,
2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution No. SFD-99/00-90. 12 pp.
Carlson, J. and I. Baremore. 2001. The directed shark gillnet fishery: non-right whale season,
2000 and 2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. SFD
Contribution PCB-01/02-002. 8pp.
Carlson, J.K. and I. Baremore. 2002a. The directed shark gillnet fishery: non-right whale season,
2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution PCB-02/12. 10pp.
Carlson, J.K. and I. Baremore. 2002b. The directed shark gillnet fishery: right whale season,
2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution PCB-02/13. 8pp.
Carlson, J.K. and I. Baremore. 2003. The directed shark gillnet fishery: catch and bycatch, 2003.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries Division
Contribution PCB-03/07. 8pp.
Carlson, J.K., D.M. Bethea, and I.E. Baremore. 2004. The Directed Gillnet Fishery: Catch and
Bycatch 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable
Fisheries Division Contribution PCB-05-1. 7pp.
Cramer, J. 2000. Pelagic Longline Catch. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 51(6):1895-1929.
Garrison, L.P. 2003. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet during 2001 - 2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-515. 52 pp.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-323

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REFERENCES

Garrison, L.P. and P.M. Richards. 2004. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the
U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2003. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-527. 57 pp.
Garrison, L.P. 2005. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet during 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-531. 52 pp.
NMFS. 2003a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation: Biological Opinion on the
continued operation of Atlantic shark fisheries (commercial shark bottom longline and
drift gillnet fisheries and recreational shark fisheries) under the Fishery Management Plan
for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP) and the proposed Rule for Draft
Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP, July 2003. NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, Protected
Resources Division, I.D. No. F/SER/2003/00953. 65 pp. + apps.
NMFS. 2003b. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks, and Highly Migratory. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public
Document.
NMFS. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Reduction of Sea
Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly
Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document.
NMFS. 2005. Pre-Draft of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Plan Including
the 2005 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Public Document. 373 pp.
Sea Grant Rhode Island and NMFS. 2003. Guide to Sharks, Tunas, & Billfishes of the U.S.
Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver
Spring, MD; Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI; and
Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Apex Predators Program, Narragansett, RI. 118 pp.
Yeung, C. 2001. Estimates of Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Fleet in 1999-2000. U.S. DOC. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOAA-TM­
SEFSC-467. 42pp.
References for Section 4.1.2
Blue Ocean Institute, Monterrey Bay Aquarium, National Coalition for Marine Conservation,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana Inc., 2005. Petition for Immediate
Rulemaking to Protect Spawning Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. Submitted
to Secretary of Commerce on June 8, 2005. 13 p.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-324

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REFERENCES

Block, B.A., S.L.H. Teo, A. Walli, A. Boustany, M.J.W. Stokesbury, C.J. Farwell, K.C. Weng,
H. Dewar, T.D. Williams 2005. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic
bluefin tuna. Nature. Vol. 434. April 2005. 1121-1127.
Burgess, G.H. and A. Morgan. 2003. Commercial shark fishery observer program: Support for
an observer program monitoring directed commercial shark fishery in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Final report to the Highly Migratory Species Division,
NMFS, Award No. NA 06FM0194. 87 pp.
Curtis, R.E. and K.E. McConnell. 2004. Incorporating information and expectations in
fishermen’s spatial decisions. Marine Resource Economics 19(1):131-143.
NEFMC, 2003. Final Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
New England Fishery Management Council. 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA
01950. 1983 p.
NMFS, 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Regulatory Amendment 1
to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks Fishery Management Plans. Reduction of
Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline
Fishery. National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management
Division. 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 137 p.
NMFS, 2001. Reconsideration of the Scope of Vessel Monitoring System Requirements in the
Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery. National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory
Species Management Division. 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 44
pp.
NMFS, 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Reduction of Sea Turtle
Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division. 1315 East West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 137 pp.
NMFS, 2005 Pre-Draft of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan,
Including the 2005 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for the
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
373 pp.
GMFMC. 2003. Amendment 21 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council. Tampa, FL. Public Document.
SCRS/2005/011. Report of the 2005 ICCAT Planning Meeting for Bluefin Tuna Research.
Strand, I. 2004. Spatial Variation in Risk Preferences Among Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline Fishermen. Marine Resource Economics 19(1):145-160.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-325

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REFERENCES

Wilson, D., B.J. McCay, D. Estler, M. Perex-Lugo, J. LaMarque, S. Seminski, and A. Tomczuk.
1998. Social and Cultural Impact Assessment of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan and the Amendment to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan.
Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University. Department of Human Ecology. NOAA-NMFS­
HMS contract report.
Reference for Section 4.2.1
ICCAT SCRS. 2004. Report of the 2004 Meeting of the Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics, Madrid, Spain, PLE-025/2004. October, 2004.
Reference for Section 4.2.2
Babcock, E.A. and E.K. Pikitch. 2002. The effectiveness of bag limits in the U.S. Atlantic
recreational fishery. 2002 Shark Evaluation Workshop SB-02-2.
Bethea, D.M., J.A. Buckel, and J.K. Carlson. 2004. Foraging ecology of the early life stages of
four sympatric shark species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 268:245-264.
Carlson, J. and I. Baremore. 2001. The directed shark gillnet fishery: non-right whale season,
2000 and 2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. SFD
Contribution PCB-01/02-002. 8pp.
Carlson, J. K. and I. Baremore. 2003. The directed shark gillnet fishery: non-right whale season,
2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution PCB-02/12. 10pp.
Carlson, J.K. and I. Baremore. 2004. The directed shark gillnet fishery: catch and bycatch, 2003.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries Division
Contribution PCB-03/07. 8pp.
Carlson, J.K., D. M. Bethea, and I.E. Baremore. 2005. The directed gillnet fishery: catch and
bycatch 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable
Fisheries Division Contribution PCB-05-1. 7pp.
Carlson, J.K. and D. M. Bethea. 2006. The directed shark gillnet fishery: catch and bycatch,
2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Panama City Laboratory
Contribution 06-01. 12pp.
Carlson, J.K. and E. Cortes. 2003. Gillnet selectivity of small coastal sharks off the southeastern
United States. Fisheries Research 60:405-414.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-326

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REFERENCES

Castro, J. 1993. The biology of finetooth sharks, Carcharhinus isodon. Environmental Biology of
Fishes. 36:219-232.
Cortes, E. 2002. Stock Assessment of Small Coastal Sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama
City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-01/02-152.
Cooke, S.J. and C.D. Suski. 2004. Are circle hooks an effective tool for conserving marine and
freshwater catch-and-release fisheries? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 14:1-28.
DeSilva, J.A., R.E. Condrey, and B.A. Thompson. 2001. Profile of shark bycatch in the U.S Gulf
of Mexico menhaden fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:111­
124.
Fisher, M.R. and R.B. Ditton. 1992. Characteristics of billfish anglers in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean.
Marine Fisheries Review 54(1):1-6.
Gurshin, C.W.D. and S.T. Szedlmayer. 2004. Short-term survival and movements of Atlantic
sharpnose sharks captured by hook-and-line in the north-east Gulf of Mexico. Journal of
Fish Biology 65: 973-986.
NMFS. 2003. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks, and Highly Migratory. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public
Document.
NMFS. 2005. Pre-Draft of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Plan Including
the 2005 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Public Document. 373 pp.
References for Section 4.2.3
Cramer, J.. 2005. Life after catch and release. Marine Fisheries Review. July 2005.
Cooke, S.J., C.D. Suski. 2004. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. In
Press.
Ditton, R.B. and J.R. Stoll. 2003. Social and Economic Perspective of Recreational Billfish
Fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 1-10.
Ditton, R.B. and C.O. Oh. 2004. A Stated Preference Discrete Choice Approach to
Understanding Angler Preferences for Tournament Policies and Characteristics. A Report
Prepared for the Coastal Fisheries Division , Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department through a Research contract with Texas A & M University.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-327

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REFERENCES

Fisher, M.R., R. Ditton. 1992. Characteristics of Billfish Anglers in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean.
Marine Fisheries Review. 54(1).
Horodysky, A.Z., J.E. Graves. 2005. Application of Pop-Up Satellite Archival Tag Technology
to Estimate Post-release Survival of White Marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) Caught on Circle
and Straight-Shank (“J”) Hooks in the Western North Atlantic Recreational Fishery. Fish.
Bull., 103:84-96.
Graves, J.E., B.E. Luckhurst, E.D. Prince. 2002. An evaluation of pop-up satellite tags for
estimating post-release survival of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) from a recreational
fishery Fish. Bull., 100:134-142.
Goodyear, C.P. and E. Prince. 2003. U.S. recreational harvest of white marlin. International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Coll. Vol. Sci. Pap. 55:624-632.
Kerstetter, D.W., J.E. Graves. (2006). Survival of white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) released
from commercial pelagic longline gear in the western North Atlantic, Fish. Bull., In-Press
Prince, Eric D., M. Ortiz, and A. Venizelos. 2002. A comparison of circle hook and J-hook
performance in recreational catch-and-release fisheries for billfish, American Fisheries
Society Symposium, 30:66 – 79.
Prince, E.D., D.G. Snodgrass, E.S. Orbesen, J.E. Serafy. 2006. Circle hooks, “J” hooks, and
“drop-back” time: a hook performance study of the South Florida recreational live bait
fishery for sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), Journal of Fisheries Management and
Ecology, In Press.
Skomal, G.B., B.C. Chase, E.D. Prince. 2002. A Comparison of Circle Hook and Straight Hook
Performance in Recreational Fisheries for Juvenile Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, American
Fisheries Society Symposium, 30:57 – 65.
NMFS, 1999. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland.
NMFS, 2003. Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for a Proposed Rule to Implement Management Measures in the
Recreational Atlantic Billfish Fishery Consistent With ICCAT Recommendations and to
Clarify Recreational Non-Tournament Reporting Requirements. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland. September 2003.
Van Voorhees, D.A., C. W. Rogers, G.P. Scott, M. Terceiro, C.A. Brown, E.D. Prince, J.C.
Defosse, and W.R. Andrews. 2004. Ad Hoc Committee Review of 2002-2003 U.S.
Recreational Fishery Landings Estimates for White Marlin, Blue Marlin, and Bluefin
Tuna. Public Document. National Marine Fisheries Service.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-328

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REFERENCES

References for Section 4.3.3
Fromentin, J. and J.E. Powers. 2005. Atlantic bluefin tuna: population dynamics, ecology,
fisheries and management. Fish and Fisheries Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 281-306.
State of Hawaii. 2006. Commercial Marine Landings, Division of Aquatic Resources,
Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Wescott, W. 1996. The Wanchese Green Stick Tuna Rig. North Carolina Sea Grant. UNC-SG­
96-04.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4-329

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
REFERENCES

CHAPTER 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 5 Table of Contents......................................................................................................5-i

5.0 Mitigation and Unavoidable Impacts............................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................................................................................ 5-7

5.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .............................................. 5-8

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-i

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

5.0

MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

None of the preferred alternatives in this final HMS FMP are likely to have significant
adverse ecological impacts. The alternatives for workshops were designed to reduce mortality of
sea turtles and other protected species. The alternatives for time/area closures were chosen to
help protect spawning aggregations of gag grouper and to provide greater transparency to the
affected public regarding the use of time/area closures to reduce bycatch.
The preferred alternative for northern albacore tuna would not have any ecological
impact until ICCAT implements a rebuilding plan. To reduce mortality of northern albacore
tuna, such a plan could include size limits, bag limits, or reductions in overall quotas. If such a
plan were implemented, it could result in some regulatory discards because fishermen may
continue to target other species and have to discard albacore bycatch. The current fishery
averages about 25 percent below the existing allocation. Thus, the reduction in allocation as part
of the rebuilding program would have to be greater than 25 percent per year on average before
U.S. fishermen would begin to discard northern albacore.
The preferred alternative for finetooth sharks, which would implement a plan to identify
sources of finetooth shark fishing mortality to target appropriate management actions, may not
reduce fishing mortality on finetooth sharks in the short-term. Nevertheless, it is necessary to
understand fully the extent and contribution that all fisheries may be contributing to finetooth
shark fishing mortality. At that point, NMFS will consider initiating effective management
measures to prevent overfishing. The majority of commercially landed finetooth sharks are
harvested with gillnet gear by vessels that possess both HMS and non-HMS permits, or
participate in fisheries that are not currently managed. Expanded observer coverage has shown
that fisheries targeting non-HMS using sinknets and under the jurisdiction of other management
entities are also responsible for finetooth landings. Management measures aimed solely at gillnet
vessels targeting sharks might not be effective at preventing overfishing of finetooth sharks as
these measures could be circumvented or may result in additional dead discards of finetooth
sharks because these fishermen would continue to target non-HMS with gillnets and land
finetooth sharks incidentally. A number of sources of finetooth shark mortality remain unclear.
The Agency remains committed to obtaining more comprehensive information on finetooth
shark landings from observers and other management entities. This information will be used to
implement effective management measures that prevent overfishing for finetooth shark stocks,
while minimizing dead discards and mitigating any associated economic and social impacts.
None of the preferred alternatives for reducing Atlantic billfish mortality from directed
fishing are anticipated to have adverse ecological impacts. No significant changes in angler
behavior are expected given the current high levels of participation in catch-and-release activities
by Atlantic billfish fishermen. However, NMFS cannot predict angler behavior. Adverse
ecological impacts to other species could occur if: 1) anglers shift their effort to other species, or
2) change their behavior significantly in reaction to the required use of circle hooks in billfish
tournaments (on HMS permitted vessels when deploying natural bait or natural/artificial bait
combinations) or potential in-season changes to minimum sizes or retention limits that could be
enacted should the 250 marlin landing limit be approached or achieved. These shifts or changes
could potentially result in increasing discards and retention of those species.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-1

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

The preferred BFT management measures are not expected to have significant adverse
ecological impacts. The General category time-period subquotas would not alter overall levels
of mortality, but could likely shift where and when it occurs. Effort may increase in some areas
and decrease in others, but overall effort should remain consistent because the amount of
harvestable BFT quota is finite, and is not being changed. Interaction rates with protected
species and other marine life may shift with localized effort shifts, but these interactions are
difficult to quantify due to data limitations. The General category is only allowed to use
handgear (rod and reel, handline, and harpoon) to harvest BFT and handgears typically have low
interactions rates with protected resources in comparison to other gears, therefore any increases
in interaction rates are expected to be minimal. Clarifying the procedures for calculating the
Angling category school size-class BFT subquota allocation would result in a slight increase
(0.02 percent or 2 mt) in the school BFT baseline quota allocation; however, any increase in
effort or changes in fishing practices attributed to this slight quota increase are anticipated to be
small. The slight increase in mortality is covered under ICCAT quota recommendations as well
as the 20-year rebuilding plan established for BFT. The small orders of change associated with
the preferred alternatives, quantified in either numbers of fish or in weight (mt), or time and/or
location of harvest, compared to overall U.S. harvest levels, as recommended by ICCAT, equate
to ecological impacts that are unlikely to be measurable in terms of variability in the data used to
conduct stock assessments. Changes in inseason actions and specifying the season are
administrative in nature and should not have any adverse ecological impacts.
Changing to a calendar-based fishing year is administrative in nature and should have no
adverse ecological impacts. As described earlier, there is a small potential for negative economic
and social impacts to billfish fisheries/tournaments at the end of a calendar year if the ICCAT
250-marlin limit threshold for catch-and-release fishing is reached.
The preferred alternatives for authorized fishing gear are not anticipated to dramatically
increase effort, and therefore would likely not result in significant increases in landings or
landings rates of HMS or other species with which HMS fishermen interact. The Agency does
not expect the use of these gears to increase interactions with protected resources but will
monitor the use of these gears, as appropriate.
The preferred alternatives in the regulatory housekeeping section, as a suite of
management measures, are projected to have minor positive conservation benefits for HMS,
bycatch species, and protected resources with minimal social or economic impacts on HMS
fishery participants.
5.1

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures are measures that avoid, reduce, or minimize the effects of the
preferred alternatives. According to the Council for Environmental Quality regulations at 40
CFR § 1508.20, mitigation measures may include the following types of actions: (a) avoiding the
impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by
limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact
by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the
impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and,
(e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-2

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

No mitigation measures were considered for the preferred alternatives of the time/area
closures, northern albacore tuna, finetooth sharks, or authorized gear sections. NMFS would
monitor the impacts of the preferred alternatives for these issues and would consider mitigation
measures in the future as necessary.
The preferred workshop alternatives are likely to result in some negative economic
impacts as a result of participants having to attend workshops, incurring travel costs and lost
fishing time. To mitigate this potential impact, the Agency intends to host a number of
workshops in regional fishing hubs and to provide a delay in effective date to give participants a
chance to attend the workshop most convenient for them. Additionally, the Agency would strive
to coordinate these workshops in order to reduce the time required to be away from fishing, work,
and family responsibilities. The Agency is also allowing shark dealers to designate proxies for
the mandatory HMS identification workshops. In the future, NMFS may consider ways to
reduce travel time by expanding workshops to include Internet or video-based training
opportunities.
As described in Chapter 4, the adverse socio-economic impacts of the preferred
alternatives for Atlantic billfish would likely be minor, with possibly heightened local impacts in
some instances. Consistent with public comment, to mitigate potential adverse impacts, NMFS
is preferring to delay the effective date of new management measures. The delayed effective
dates should allow anglers, tournament operators, tackle dealers, and hook manufacturers to
adjust for new regulations prior to implementation. Anglers and charter headboat operators
would have the opportunity to become comfortable and proficient in the use of new gears, as
well as adjust fishing or business practices to prepare for the possibility of in-season changes to
size limits and or retention limits, if triggered under the 250-marlin limit. Tournament operators
would have time to adjust tournament rules and formats to accommodate new regulations in
ways that could minimize confusion over gear requirements and mitigate potential decreases in
participation. Shoreside businesses would also have time to reduce existing stockpiles of Jhooks. Further, allowing continued use of J-hooks outside of tournaments, and within
tournaments on artificial lures, minimizes and substantially mitigates any potential minor adverse
impacts from tournament circle hook requirements by allowing anglers to continue using existing
quantities of J-hooks; tackle dealers to reduce existing inventories and adjust purchasing patterns,
if necessary; and, hook manufacturers to adjust production, as appropriate. The preferred circle
hook alternative may create short-term decreases in angler consumer surplus resulting from a
perceived or real loss of fish as anglers adapt and become proficient with circle hooks. However,
available studies on circle hooks show that catch rates on circle hooks are equal to or greater than
for with J-hooks for some HMS. Therefore, as anglers become proficient in the use of circle
hooks, the alternative may increase angler consumer surplus in the long-term. Further, this
alternative should assist in rebuilding Atlantic billfish populations and could result in increased
angler consumer surplus through elevated interactions. Also, while anglers will have initial
capital expenditures to acquire circle hooks, they are generally somewhat less expense than Jhooks. Thus, the preferred alternative may result in negligible long-term economic benefits. It is
also important to note that participation in billfish tournaments is voluntary on the part of HMS
anglers. As such, any costs associated with circle hook requirements under the preferred
alternative would be incurred by choice and could be avoided by choosing not to fish in billfish
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-3

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

tournaments. The alternative implementing the ICCAT landing limit was specifically crafted to
minimize disruption and adverse impacts in the billfish fishery by allowing the Agency to slow
landings (via an in-season minimum size increase) and thereby potentially preventing a more
disruptive closure of the directed marlin fishery.
No specific mitigating measures were considered for any of the preferred alternatives for
BFT management. While shifting the General category time-periods may result in less quota
during some months, the regulations do not constrain fishermen to fishing in any one particular
month. Provided they have the capability and the fishery remains open, fishermen may travel to
where the fish are available regardless of the time of the year.
Changing to a calendar-based fishing year would require a transition period. Currently,
NMFS prefers allowing for a seven-month transition where vessels participating in the tuna and
swordfish fisheries could catch an entire year’s worth of quota in seven months. The actual
impacts of such a transition would be analyzed in a future rulemaking.
As described earlier in this document, many of the changes contained in the Regulatory
Housekeeping section would have no effect either individually or cumulatively upon the human
environment, and are consistent with the intent of previously analyzed and approved
management actions. Therefore, alternatives have not been developed or analyzed for these
measures. For the 11 more substantive measures, alternatives have been developed and analyzed.
However, several of these would not implement new regulatory requirements. The preferred
alternatives would either clarify or reinforce existing regulations, or facilitate modernized
reporting procedures. For six issues, the preferred alternatives are expected to produce minor
ecological benefits with few social or economic costs, and no mitigating measures are necessary.
Similarly, the impacts associated with the preferred alternatives for the five, more substantive,
issues in the Regulatory Housekeeping section are expected to be minor.
The preferred alternative to differentiate between pelagic and bottom longline gear in
HMS closed areas, I1(c), would retain the existing definitions for these gears, but limit the
amount of pelagic species that bottom longline vessels may possess or land when fishing in
pelagic longline closed areas, and limit the amount of demersal species that pelagic longline
vessels may possess or land when fishing in bottom longline closed areas. A five-percent
threshold for the species composition of catch was chosen because it is consistent with the vast
majority of commercial fishing operations, which have, on average, remained below the
threshold. However, logbook data indicates that the threshold would have been exceeded on a
fishery-wide basis in 2004. It is, therefore, possible that implementing a five-percent threshold
to account for unavoidable bycatch in HMS closed areas could potentially lead to regulatory
discards. NMFS is aware of this possibility and will continue to monitor the PLL and BLL
fisheries to determine if the 2004 exceedance was anomalous, or part of a continuing trend. A
preferred alternative in the Draft HMS FMP to restrict the number of floats is no longer preferred,
based on public comment concerning difficulties with defining floats and concerns with
enforceability of the measure. The list of demersal “indicator” species was modified from the
proposed rule due to public comment by removing silky sharks and three species of hammerhead
sharks, because these species could potentially be caught on both pelagic and bottom longlines.
Also, three species of tilefish are added to the list of demersal “indicator” species, because these
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-4

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

species are indicative of bottom longline fishing activity, and based on public comment. If
necessary, both the five-percent threshold and the list of “indicator” species could be further
revised in the future to mitigate any adverse impacts, based upon a review of historic and current
landings, and the effectiveness of the regulation. NMFS intends to continue to assess the need
for, and potential effectiveness of, gear-based criteria to differentiate between PLL and BLL gear.
If needed, such criteria could be developed in consultation with the fishing industry to further
improve the monitoring of, and compliance with, HMS closed areas. NMFS anticipates that
HMS longline vessels will continue to be prudent, especially when fishing in the HMS closed
areas by catching predominantly pelagic species in BLL closed areas, and demersal species in
PLL closed areas.
The preferred alternative, I2(b), that would require the second dorsal and anal fins to
remain on all sharks through landing, is expected to produce ecological benefits and, in the longterm, aid in rebuilding large coastal sharks. Any adverse ecological impacts associated this
alternative, in comparison to the alternative that would require all fins to remain on all sharks
through landing, should be mitigated by other requirements in the final rule that would require
shark dealers to attend species identification workshops. These workshops, in combination with
the preferred alternative, should help to improve the accuracy of dealer reports as well as quota
monitoring and stock assessments. Fishermen could experience, in the short-term, some adverse
economic costs associated with the preferred alternative. While initial adjustments may have to
be made to the offloading and processing procedures, in the long-term, improved quota
monitoring and stock assessment data as a result of this alternative could result in an increased
quota and, therefore, mitigate any short-term economic costs for both fishermen and dealers.
Prohibiting the sale and purchase of HMS in excess of retention limits (Issue 3 in the
regulatory housekeeping section) should reinforce existing possession limits and prohibitions,
thus further discouraging this illegal activity. Extending the East Florida Coast closed area to the
EEZ (Issue 4 in the regulatory housekeeping section) is not expected to reduce fishing effort, as
vessels would likely relocate to nearby areas with similar catch rates, but would better comply
with the original intent of the closure.
Preferred alternative I5(b), which would require that all handlines remain attached to, or
in contact with, all vessels is expected to produce minor positive ecological benefits by
preventing future uncontrolled expansion of this gear sector. Positive ecological benefits could
also be realized by a reduction in the amount of gear that could get lost at sea. However, because
this alternative could restrict or limit fishing effort, it could potentially produce social and
economic costs, including an unquantifiable reduction in catches of target species for vessels that
participate in this fishery. This could reduce opportunities for the United States to fully utilize
its ICCAT swordfish quota, which has had consistent underharvests in recent years. Authorizing
buoy gear in the swordfish handgear fishery under alternative H5 should mitigate this impact.
A prohibition on the possession of billfish on HMS–permitted commercial vessels (Issue
6 in the regulatory housekeeping section) provides clarity and consistency with other HMS
regulations, but is not expected to impose any economic costs as the sale of billfish is already
prohibited.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-5

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

The alternatives to facilitate reporting and improve administration would provide clarity
and eliminate ambiguities in current regulations and practices (Issues 7, 8, and 9 in the regulatory
housekeeping section). In the case of regulatory housekeeping Issue 7, NMFS would facilitate
the electronic submittal of BFT dealer reports, while still maintaining current methodologies.
Requiring the submission of negative reports (Issue 8 in the regulatory housekeeping section)
would eliminate ambiguities by implementing a standard practice in most regions and a
requirement that is already approved under the current PRA submission. Based upon public
comment to provide additional flexibility for absentee vessel owners, NMFS has modified the
preferred alternative in Issue 9 to allow vessel owners or their designee to report non-tournament
recreational landings of swordfish and billfish.
Under preferred alternative I10(c), NMFS would conduct additional discussions during
the annual ICCAT meeting regarding the long-term implications of allowing unused BFT quota
from the previous year to be added to the subsequent year’s allocation. This alternative is not
expected to produce adverse ecological impacts. Depending upon the results of the ICCAT
discussions, the regulations and operational procedures that account for BFT bycatch related to
pelagic longline fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary may need to be
further amended in the future. In the interim, NMFS would maintain the current regulatory text
implementing the ICCAT recommendation, but would amend the practice of allowing
under/overharvest of this set-aside allocation to be rolled into, or deducted from, the subsequent
fishing year’s set-aside allocation. Not allowing set-aside quota to be carried forward to the
subsequent fishing year will maintain PLL fishing effort at current levels and still allow for
incidentally caught BFT in the NED to be accounted for. However, this alternative may have
some negative economic impacts, as it will not allow for the potential economic gain attributed
to quota being carried forward from the preceding fishing year. This alternative is preferred
because it meets the objective of clarifying the applicability of carry-over provisions to this
incidental set-aside quota, still provides 25 mt (ww) to account for incidental BFT catch in the
NED, prevents the ‘stockpiling’ of incidental quota which may provide an incentive to target
BFT in the NED, and supports the discussion of long-term implications of BFT quota roll-overs.
The outcome of these discussions will directly affect, and possibly mitigate, the implementation
of this specific ICCAT recommendation.
Preferred alternative I11(b) would implement a permit condition requiring recreational
vessels with a Federal permit to abide by Federal regulations, regardless of where they are
fishing, unless a state has more restrictive regulations. This alternative is expected to achieve
increased consistency between state and Federal regulations for Federally permitted HMS
recreational fishermen, result in less confusion on behalf of fishermen, and improve enforcement
and compliance. Compared with the no action alternative, the preferred alternative is expected to
produce greater ecological benefits with few resulting social and economic s costs. This could
mean, however, that different regulations will apply to Federally permitted fisherman fishing in
state waters next to a state-only permitted fisherman. While it may appear to be unfair to the
Federally permitted fisherman if the Federal regulations for that species are more restrictive than
the state regulations for that species, Federally permitted fishermen also have the opportunity to
fish for HMS outside of state waters. If Federally permitted fishermen decide that the
opportunity is not worth the additional restrictions, they could decide not to obtain a Federal
permit in order to mitigate any adverse impacts.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-6

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

5.2

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

In general, there are no unavoidable adverse impacts as a result of the preferred
alternatives for the finetooth shark, northern albacore, BFT management, and fishing year issues.
NMFS would continue to monitor the impact of the preferred alternatives of all issues and would
propose additional management measures, as necessary, to avoid any unanticipated adverse
impacts.
The preferred alternatives identified for workshops are necessary to meet the
requirements of the October 2003 and June 2004 BiOps, thereby minimizing the impacts on
protected resources, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ESA, and MMPA. The
preferred workshop alternatives are expected to have positive conservation benefits for sharks
and protected resources with minimal social and economic impacts on longline and gillnet vessel
owners and operators, as well as Federal shark dealer permit holders. The resulting economic or
social costs of attending the workshops are unavoidable.
The preferred alternatives for time/area closures would not, at this time, implement any
additional closures to reduce bycatch, including bycatch of Atlantic billfish, BFT, or sea turtles,
except for establishing complementary measures for the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps Marine Reserves. Existing closures would remain unchanged. Part of the reason that
NMFS is not adding new closures (other than the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps
Marine Reserves) or modifying existing closures is because none of the alternatives considered
would reduce bycatch of all of the species considered and many of the closures would result in
only minimal impacts on one or more of those species while also having large social and
economic impacts. In addition, all of the analyses on bycatch were based on J-hook data. NMFS
currently has only analyzed six months of data with circle hooks (required in the pelagic longline
fishery since July 2004). NMFS is also unsure of the current fishing effort as a result of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Fall 2005. NMFS expects that 2005 logbook data will be fully
quality controlled and available for use in late Spring/Summer 2006. Once these data are
available, NMFS should be better able to analyze circle hook data and the impacts of the
hurricanes on the fleet. NMFS would continue to monitor bycatch and fishing effort and would
consider these and other closures to reduce bycatch, to the extent practicable, as necessary.
As previously discussed, the preferred alternatives for billfish are not anticipated to have
adverse ecological impacts on target species, non-target species, or protected resources, but some
may have minor socio-economic impacts, which could be heightened at a local level in some
instances. Furthermore, while the preferred alternatives are not anticipated to have adverse
ecological impacts, NMFS cannot predict angler behavior. If implementation of the preferred
alternatives results in substantial changes in angler effort or behavior, then there could be minor
adverse ecological impacts for species with which billfish anglers interact by possibly increasing
discards and/or retention of those species. In considering the alternatives, NMFS preferred
alternatives that would minimize the adverse impacts while maximizing the positive impacts.
Thus, any resulting economic or social impacts are unavoidable.
Under the preferred alternatives for authorized fishing gear, the potential exists for
increased landings of BAYS tunas and swordfish. Alternatives H2 and H7, respectively,
authorize the use of spearguns to target BAYS tunas recreationally and buoy gear to target
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-7

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

swordfish commercially. Any potential increase in landings would likely be minor. In the case
of swordfish, U.S. fishermen are not fully harvesting the current ICCAT recommended quota.
As described above, in aggregate, the preferred alternatives in the regulatory
housekeeping section are expected to have minor positive conservation benefits for HMS,
bycatch species, and protected resources with minimal social or economic impacts on HMS
fishery participants. This is because the preferred alternatives were specifically selected to
mitigate any potential adverse impacts, yet still accomplish the objectives of this rulemaking.
Any resulting economic or social impacts, beyond those described above, are unavoidable.
5.3

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

The preferred alternatives identified for all the issues in this final HMS FMP are not
expected to result in any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

5-8

CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

CHAPTER 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 6 Table of Contents......................................................................................................6-i

Chapter 6 List of Tables ............................................................................................................6-ii

6.0 Economic Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1
Number of Fishing and Dealer Permit Holders ...................................................... 6-1

6.1.1
HMS Commercial Fishing Permits...................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2
Dealer Permits...................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.3
HMS Recreational Permits .................................................................................. 6-1

6.2
Gross Revenues of Fishermen................................................................................... 6-2

6.3
Variable Costs and Net Revenues............................................................................. 6-3

6.4
Expected Economic Impacts of the Alternatives..................................................... 6-4

6.4.1
Bycatch Reduction ............................................................................................... 6-4
6.4.1.1 Workshops ....................................................................................................... 6-4
6.4.1.2 Time/Area Closures ......................................................................................... 6-8
6.4.2
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing............................................................. 6-11

6.4.2.1 Northern Albacore ......................................................................................... 6-11
6.4.2.2 Finetooth Sharks ............................................................................................ 6-11
6.4.2.3 Atlantic Billfish.............................................................................................. 6-13
6.4.3
Management Program Structure ........................................................................ 6-16

6.4.3.1 Bluefin Tuna Quota Management.................................................................. 6-16

6.4.3.2 Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ................................ 6-21

6.4.3.3 Authorized Gears ........................................................................................... 6-21
6.4.3.4 Regulatory Housekeeping.............................................................................. 6-22
Chapter 6 References............................................................................................................... 6-27

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-i

CHAPTER 6
ECONOMIC EVALUATION

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1

Estimates of the total ex-vessel annual revenues of Atlantic HMS fisheries.
Sources: NMFS 2005a; Cortes, 2005; and bluefin tuna dealer reports from the
Northeast Regional Office. .................................................................................. 6-2

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-ii

CHAPTER 6
E
CONOMIC EVALUATION

6.0

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

This section assesses the economic impacts of the alternatives presented in this
document. Additional economic and social considerations and information are discussed in
Chapters 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of this document.
6.1

Number of Fishing and Dealer Permit Holders

In order to examine the baseline universe of entities potentially affected by the preferred
alternatives, NMFS analyzed the number of permits that were issued as of February 2006 in
conjunction with HMS fishing activities. This analysis of the permits issued is detailed further in
Section 3.9 and summarized here.
6.1.1

HMS Commercial Fishing Permits

The program implemented in the 1999 Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP set up six
different limited access permit types: 1) directed swordfish, 2) incidental swordfish, 3) swordfish
handgear, 4) directed shark, 5) incidental shark, and 6) tuna longline. These permits were
designed so that the swordfish directed and incidental permits are valid only if the permit holder
also holds both a tuna longline and a shark permit. Similarly, the tuna longline permit is valid
only if the permit holder also holds both a limited access swordfish (directed or incidental, not
handgear) and a shark permit. Swordfish handgear and shark permits are valid without another
limited access permit. As of February 2006, there were 1,131 total HMS commercial fishing
permits (191 directed swordfish, 86 incidental swordfish, 88 handgear, 240 directed shark, 312
incidental shark, and 214 tuna longline). However, there are only a total of 604 permit holders,
since permit holders may have more than one type of permit. A detailed break down of the
shark, swordfish, and tuna longline limited access permits by category and state is provided in
Table 3.92. In addition to the 214 tuna longline permits, there are also 40 harpoon, seven trap,
4,824 general, and five purse seine Atlantic tuna permit holders as of February 2006. The HMS
CHB permits, which are commercial permits for Atlantic tunas, are discussed below in the
recreational permit section.
6.1.2

Dealer Permits

Dealer permits are required for any person that receives, purchases, trades for, or barters
Atlantic tuna, swordfish, and sharks, from a fishing vessel of the United States or, in the case of
tunas and swordfish, imports or exports regardless of ocean of origin. There were 285 Atlantic
swordfish, 336 Atlantic shark, and 416 Atlantic tunas dealer permit holders as of February 2006.
The geographic distribution of these dealer permit holders is detailed in Table 3.95.
6.1.3

HMS Recreational Permits

There are two types of permits issued with activities associated with HMS recreational
fishing activity. The HMS Angling category permit is required for any angler that is fishing for
Atlantic HMS; fish caught using this permit cannot be sold. As of February 2006, there were
25,238 HMS Angling category permit holders. The HMS CHB permit allows for the sale of
Atlantic tunas and allows CHB vessels to catch and land sharks, swordfish, and billfish pursuant
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-1

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
NUMBER OF FISHING & DEALER PERMIT HOLDERS

to the recreational regulations (i.e., no sale of fish). The CHB permit holder may also holds a
swordfish handgear and/or shark limited access permit that allows for the sale of those species
under the regulations for those permits. As of February 2006, there were 4,173 HMS CHB
permit holders.
Since 1999, Federal regulations have required that each HMS tournament operator
register their tournaments with the NMFS at least four weeks prior to the commencement of
tournament fishing activities. In 2005, 256 HMS tournaments registered where as in 2004 just
215 tournaments registered. Tournament operations are variable from year to year. Section 3.9
provides more detailed information on HMS tournaments including a detailed geographic
breakdown of registered HMS tournaments.
6.2

Gross Revenues of Fishermen

Table 6.1 summarizes the 2004 average annual revenues of the Atlantic HMS fisheries
based on average ex-vessel prices and the weight reported landed as per the United States
National Report (NMFS, 2005), information given to ICCAT (Cortes, 2005), and price and
weight information reported to the NMFS Northeast Regional Office by Atlantic bluefin tuna
dealers. Section 3.5 provides further detail regarding annual revenues, including historical
numbers. The overall gross revenues generated from the HMS fishery totaled $43.9 million in
2004. The largest portion came from swordfish, generating $15.4 million in gross revenues (35
percent).
The highest average ex-vessel price per lb dw across all regions in the Atlantic HMS
fishery was $7.86 for bluefin tuna. In addition, average ex-vessel price for shark fins, all grades
combined, was approximately $16.25 per lb in 2004.
Table 6.1

Estimates of the total ex-vessel annual revenues of Atlantic HMS fisheries. Sources: NMFS 2005a;
Cortes, 2005; and bluefin tuna dealer reports from the Northeast Regional Office.
Species

2004
Ex-Vessel Price ($/lb dw)

Weight (lb dw)

Revenue

Bigeye tuna

$4.10

551,503

$2,258,404

Bluefin tuna

$7.86

885,720

$6,961,760

Yellowfin tuna

$2.48

4,832,483

$11,972,477

Other tunas*

$0.74

287,127

$211,756

Swordfish**

$3.57

4,317,369

$15,391,422

Large coastal sharks

$0.86

3,206,377

$2,757,484

Pelagic sharks

$1.12

450,833

$504,933

Small coastal sharks

$0.50

677,305

$338,653

$16.25

216,726

$3,521,793

15,425,443

$43,918,682

Shark fins (weight = 5% of
all sharks landed)
Total HMS

Note: Average ex-vessel prices may have some weighting errors, except for bluefin tuna which is based on a fleet-wide average.
*
Other tunas include skipjack and albacore.
** Swordfish weight estimates do not include dead discards.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-2

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
NUMBER OF FISHING & DEALER PERMIT HOLDERS

6.3

Variable Costs and Net Revenues

In 2003, NMFS initiated mandatory cost-earnings reporting for selected vessels to
improve the economic data available for all HMS fisheries. In the past, most of the studies
regarding pelagic longline variable costs and net revenues available to NMFS analyzed dated
data from 1996 and 1997. An analysis of the 2004 cost-earnings data is incorporated below.
Where noted, NMFS has converted 1996 and 1997 dollars to 2004 dollars using the consumer
price index provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Larkin et al. (2000) examined 1996 logbooks and the 1996 voluntary economic forms
and found that net returns to a vessel owner varied substantially depending on the vessel size and
the fishing behavior (i.e., sets per trip, fishing location, season, target species). They found that
out of 3,255 pelagic longline trips reported in 1996, 642 pelagic longline trips provided the
voluntary economic information. Larkin et al. (2000) suggest using median values (half of the
fleet is less than this value and half is above) instead of mean values (the average of all vessels)
given the high degree of skewness to the data. For example, the mean owner’s share of a trip is
$4,412, while the median is $2,242. Larkin et al. (2000) suggest that the median values identify
the characteristics of the majority of the fleet better than the mean, which can be influenced by
outliers (a few vessels that may not be similar to the rest of the fleet). The mean supply costs per
trip for the vessels sampled was $5,959 and median was $3,666. This changed depending on
area fished, with the median ranging from $1,928 in the area between North Carolina and the
east coast of Florida (FEC to MAB) and $10,100 in the Caribbean. Vessels in the NED area
(Maine to Virginia region in Larkin et al. (2000)) had a median supply cost per trip of $2,831 or
$3,408 in 2004 dollars. For the entire fleet, Larkin et al. (2000) found that the average net
revenues per vessel per trip was $7,354 ($8,854 in 2004 dollars). Vessels fishing in the
Caribbean and Maine to Virginia areas had the largest average net returns to the vessel owner per
trip at $12,188 and $6,672, respectively ($14,674 and $8,033, respectively, in 2004 dollars).
Generally, Larkin et al. (2000) found that vessels between 46 and 64 feet in length that had
between 10 and 21 sets per trip, fished in the second quarter, fished in the Caribbean, or had
more than 75 percent of their gross revenues from swordfish had the highest net return to the
owner (ranging from $3,187 to $13,097 per trip) while vessels less than 45 feet in length that had
between one and three sets per trip, fished in the first quarter, fished between North Carolina and
Miami, Florida, or had between 25 and 50 percent of their gross revenues from swordfish had the
lowest net return to the owner (ranging from $642 to $1,885 per trip).
Porter et al. (2001) conducted a survey of 147 vessels along the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico (110 surveys were completed) in 1998 regarding 1997 operations. Survey information
was combined with trip tickets and logbook data. They found that on average, vessels received
approximately $250,000 annual gross revenues, annual variable costs were approximately
$190,000, and annual fixed costs were approximately $50,000. Thus, vessels were left with
approximately $8,000 to cover depreciation on the vessel and the vessel owner lost
approximately $3,500 per year. On a per trip level, gross revenues averaged $22,000 and trip
expenses, including labor, were $16,000. Labor cost the owner the most (43 percent), followed
by gear. Generally, trip returns were divided so the vessel owner received 43 percent and the
captain and crew 57 percent. Porter et al. (2001) noted that 1997 was probably a financially poor
year due to a reduction in swordfish quota and a subsequent closure of the fishery (this fishery
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-3

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
VARIABLE COSTS & NET REVENUES

has not been closed since). Similar to Larkin et al. (2000), Porter et al. (2001) noted differences
between region, vessel size, and target species. While all vessels had an average net return per
trip of $5,556 ($6,539 in 2004 dollars), vessels that fished in the New England or Caribbean
regions had much higher net returns per trip at $20,772 and $18,940, respectively ($24,448 and
$22,291, respectively in 2004 dollars).
In general, both Larkin et al. (2000) and Porter et al. (2001) found that the average net
return to a vessel is fairly low after all variable costs including labor were accounted for. This
was true even of vessels fishing in the northeast region or Caribbean (i.e., regions with relatively
high gross revenues). This corresponds with the results of Ward and Hanson (1999) who found
that fifty percent of the fleet earns $10,000 or less annually and that, each year, 20 percent of the
fleet actually has a loss. Additionally, as suggested by Larkin et al. (2000) in their discussion of
mean versus median values, Ward and Hanson (1999) found there were a number of vessels that
earned much higher net revenues than the average vessel with 19 percent of the fleet earning
$50,000 or more annually and seven percent earning more than $100,000 annually.
An analysis of the 2004 HMS logbook cost-earnings data provides updated information
regarding the costs and revenue of a cross section of vessels operating in the HMS fisheries. The
data contains a total of 579 trips taken by 51 different vessels. For reasons mentioned above,
median values are reported. Median gross revenues per trip for 2004 were approximately
$12,112. Median total costs per trip were $4,345 (compared to $3,320 in the Larkin et al. (2000)
study), with fuel costs making up $567 (13 percent) of those costs. Median net revenue in this
sample was $6,728 per trip (compared to $8,624 in the Larkin et al. (2000) study). The typical
trip was nine days long and involved six sets. The median number of crew was three and the
average share paid to crew was 11 percent of net revenue ($740 per trip). The captain share of
net revenue was 20 percent ($1,346) and the owner share was reported to be 50 percent ($3,364).
The 2004 cost earnings information is similar to the findings of the 1996 study, but gross
revenues appear to be lower than the Porter et al. (2001) study of 1997 operations.
6.4

Expected Economic Impacts of the Alternatives
6.4.1
6.4.1.1

Bycatch Reduction
Workshops

NMFS considered six alternatives (A1-A6) for workshops focusing on protected species
release, disentanglement, and identification workshops for pelagic longline, bottom longline, and
gillnet fishermen. In addition, ten alternatives (A7-A16) were considered for HMS species
identification workshops.
The economic impacts of the various workshop alternatives primarily focuses on the
opportunity costs associated with fishermen attending workshops. Opportunity cost is the cost of
passing up the next best choice when making a decision. In this document, NMFS assumes that
for fishermen who may have to attend workshops, the next best choice of using their time in
terms of a business activity would likely be fishing or fishing related activities (e.g., ensuring
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-4

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
VARIABLE COSTS & NET REVENUES

vessel and equipment are in working order, completing logbook requirements, preparation for the
next fishing trip, etc.). Other opportunities exist (e.g., attending family events or other jobs);
however, NMFS feels this assumption is reasonable given that fishing is often the most valuable
activity engaged in by most fishermen. In order to estimate the value of their opportunity cost,
NMFS assumed that fishermen would lose a day of fishing rather than a day of fishing related
activities, and conducted an analysis of HMS logbook cost-earnings data to estimate daily
earnings per day at sea for individual HMS fishery participants.
These estimates of opportunity cost per day at sea, along with additional estimates that
follow, are likely to be high since they do not take into consideration the time the owners,
operators (i.e., captains), and crew spend on fishing related activities, such as preparing for a trip
at the dock and the time it takes to offload and other activities that occur at the dock, that require
labor time. Therefore, the estimates provided are likely to overestimate opportunity costs since
crew share per day is estimated here by dividing a fisherman’s share per trip by the number of
days at sea, and not by the total number of days worked to earn their share since the Agency
lacks this information. For example, if crew members earn $740 per trip and each trip is 9 days
long at sea, the result would be an average of $82 per day in earnings. However, it is likely the
crew actually worked for three days before the trip and one day after the trip preparing and
offloading so their actual earnings per day worked would only be $62 per day.
Also, note that owners incur costs outside of costs directly associated with a trip, such as
capital costs, that reduce their earnings/profit. The revenue share to owner per day at sea might
not accurately reflect an owner's true opportunity cost and is likely to be overestimated. For
example, insurance costs and capital equipment costs are not reflected in the estimated revenue
share for owners, but if they were true earnings would be lower. This is even more evident when
owners own multiple vessels. In addition, an owner’s participation in a workshop may not
disrupt their vessel’s ability to go out fishing depending on the owner’s roll in vessel operations.
Alternative A1 considers continuing voluntary workshops for longline fishermen. This
alternative may result in some negative short-term economic impacts related to workshop travel
costs and lost fishing time that may be incurred by fishery participants who choose to attend.
Poor attendance at voluntary workshops due to competing demands for fishermen’s time,
however, may result in insufficient improvements in post-release mortality of threatened and
endangered species. This may result in the fishery not achieving the post release mortality
targets required under the June 2004 BiOp for the pelagic longline fishery, and thus, may result
in future closures that would result in extensive long-term negative economic impacts to the
pelagic longline fisheries.
Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, considers mandatory workshops and
certification for all HMS pelagic and bottom longline vessel owners. This alternative will likely
result in some short-term negative economic impacts, as a result of the cost of traveling to
workshops and the opportunity cost of earnings foregone for the lost fishing and business time
that may be incurred by participants that would be required to attend these mandatory
workshops. It is estimated that 549 vessel owners permitted to fish for HMS with longline gear
would participate in these workshops. Based on 2004 HMS logbook data, it is estimated that an
owner’s share of their vessel’s revenue for bottom and pelagic longline vessel owners is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-5

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

approximately $281 and $448 per day, respectively. The total opportunity cost for this
alternative is thus estimated to be between $154,269 and $258,048 in the first year for all vessel
owners combined. After the first year, the subsequent costs will depend on how any people enter
the fishery. In addition, travel costs would be incurred that would be specific for each workshop
location and distance traveled.
Alternative A3, a preferred alternative, considers mandatory workshops and certification
for vessel operators actively participating in the HMS pelagic and bottom longline fisheries.
This alternative would have similar economic impacts to alternative A2, except this alternative
would impact operators, not vessel owners. It is estimated that 1,098 operators, assuming two
operators per vessel, would participate in workshops under this alternative. Based on 2004 HMS
logbook data, it is estimated that an operator’s share for bottom and pelagic longline vessel
operators is $345 and $149 per day at sea, respectively. The total opportunity cost for this
alternative is thus estimated to be between $163,602 and $378,810 in the first year for all vessel
operators combined. In addition, travel costs would be incurred.
Alternative A4 considers mandatory workshops and certification for all HMS longline
vessel owners, operators, and crew. NMFS estimates that this alternative would result in 3,843
participants attending the workshops. Of this amount, 2,196 participants are estimated to be
crewmembers. Based on 2004 HMS logbook data, it is estimated that a crewmember’s share for
bottom and pelagic longline vessel crewmembers is $90 and $109 per day at sea, respectively.
Combining the total crewmember opportunity cost with the total owner and operator opportunity
costs discussed above for alternatives A2 and A3, the total opportunity cost for this alternative is
estimated to be between $515,511 and $876,222 in the first year. In addition, travel costs would
be incurred that would be specific for each workshop location and distance traveled.
Alternative A5, a preferred alternative, considers mandatory workshops and certification
for shark gillnet vessel owners and operators in the safe handling and release of protected
resources, including sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and marine mammals. Individual
opportunity costs are not available for gillnet vessel owners and operators due to confidentiality
concerns, however the median opportunity cost for vessel owners and operators of all gear types
combined, including gillnets, to participate in a one-day workshop would be $578 ($424 owner’s
share plus $154 captain’s share). The costs incurred by the vessel owners and operators would
be related to travel and the opportunity costs of time to attend the workshop.
Alternative A6 prefers a renewal timeline for workshop certifications. NMFS considered
three different recertification timelines: every two years, three years, and five years.
Recertification every two years would likely have the greatest economic impacts on participants
and five years would result in the least negative economic impacts to the fishing community,
because it would result in the most infrequent recertification schedule. Using the range
opportunity costs estimated for preferred alternatives A2 and A3, the estimated net present value
(using the Office of Management and Budget’s recommend seven percent discount rate) of the
opportunity costs associated with recertification ten years after initial certification would be
between $1.4 and $2.1 million for recertification every two years, $1.0 and $1.5 million for
recertification every three years, and $0.6 and $0.9 million for recertification every five years. A
recertification frequency of three years appears to be an appropriate compromise of ecological
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-6

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

and economic impacts. This period would allow for sufficient retraining to maintain proficiency
and update fishermen on new research and development related to the subject matter while not
placing an excessive economic burden on the participants due to lost fishing time and travel
resulting from attending a recertification workshop in person. The extent of the impacts would
depend on the mechanism for recertification. In addition, the Agency is also considering
alternative media for recertification in order to reduce costs. If an owner or operator is unable to
attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS will consider granting one-on-one training at the expense of
the permit holder. These one-on-one training sessions would accommodate the replacement of a
captain whose employment was terminated on short notice or a change in ownership of a vessel,
but, again, these sessions would be at the expense of the permit holder.
In addition to the workshops focusing on protected species release, disentanglement, and
identification workshops for pelagic longline, bottom longline, and gillnet fishermen, NMFS
considered several alternatives for HMS identification workshops. The No Action alternative
(A7) is not anticipated to result in any change, either positive or negative, in economic impacts,
primarily because current activities related to the dissemination of information to assist in
identifying HMS would remain the same.
Voluntary workshops (A8) are not anticipated to result in any substantial economic
changes, either positive or negative, primarily because attendance would be voluntary and at the
discretion of the participants. Any associated travel costs may be considered a minimal
economic impact, as it is not likely that participants would go to substantial expense and trouble
for this type of voluntary training. In the long-term, misidentification could result in
unquantifiable economic costs if sharks do not rebuild as a result of stock assessment data not
being accurate.
Under alternatives A9 through A15, social and economic impacts on each individual
would be similar in nature since each of the alternatives involve one day workshops that result in
opportunity costs and travel costs. The main difference between alternatives is that the number
of attendees and the associated overall total costs, taking all individuals into consideration, vary
by alternative. Under alternative A9, the preferred alternative, mandatory workshops and
certification for federally permitted shark dealers, it is estimated that there would be over 336
workshop participants. Under alternative A10, mandatory workshops for all shark, swordfish,
and tuna dealers, it is estimated that there would be over 1,037 participants. Information
regarding HMS dealer earnings is not available therefore the expected opportunity costs of
alternatives A9 and A10 are unquantified at this time. Nevertheless, given the number of dealers
involved, NMFS would expect alternative A9 to have less of an economic impact than
alternative A10.
Under alternative A11, mandatory workshops and certification would include all
commercial longline vessel owners, which currently total 549. Alternative A11 would result in
opportunity costs equivalent to alternative A2 of between $154,269 and $245,952 for the first
year. Under alternative A12, mandatory identification workshops would include all commercial
longline vessel operators, which would include approximately 1,098 participants. Alternative
A12 would result in opportunity costs equivalent to alternative A3 of between $154,269 and
$378,810 for the first year. Under alternative A13, mandatory workshops and training
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-7

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

certification for all commercial vessel owners (longline, CHB, General category, and
handgear/harpoon), which includes approximately 9,636 participants. Under alternative A14,
mandatory workshops and certification would be required for all commercial vessel operators
(approximately 10,374). Under alternative A15, mandatory workshops and certifications would
be required for all HMS angling permit holders, total approximately 25,238. Thus, alternative
A15 would have the greatest economic impact of the alternatives considered for species
identification workshops.
On an individual basis, the only costs anticipated to be incurred by fishermen or dealers
would be those related to travel and time to attend the workshops. The opportunity cost to all
commercial vessel owners is estimated to be $424 per day in net revenue for all gear types based
on HMS logbook cost earnings data for 2004. The opportunity cost to all commercial operators
is estimated to be $154 per day for all gear types and $97 per day for crewmembers. Using these
estimates of opportunity cost, alternative A13 would result in a total of approximate $4,085,664
in opportunity costs in the first year. The total opportunity cost for alternative A14 is estimated
to be $1,597,596 in the first year. Daily opportunity cost estimates for dealers, anglers, and CHB
owners and operators are not currently known. The administrative costs to NMFS for the
workshops is high, but may be exceeded by the benefits associated with the possible impacts
from increased education, as well as, the benefit of avoiding future management actions if BiOp
takes are exceeded.
Under alternative A16, social and economic impacts would vary depending on the
frequency of recertification workshop attendance required – every two, three, or five years.
Furthermore, economic impacts would be dependent on the type of recertification selected by the
agency. Hands-on, in-person recertification workshops would result in additional travel costs
and lost fishing time. However, the Agency may consider alternative media for recertification,
including: DVDs, printed materials, and/or web-based recertification. Negative economic
impacts would be greater for shorter recertification frequencies due to more frequent travel costs
and potential down time from fishing, although NMFS intends to schedule recertification
workshops so as to minimize these factors, to the extent possible. In an effort to reduce
economic impacts to shark dealers, the schedule for HMS Identification Workshops would be
available in advance to allow dealers to select workshops close to them and most convenient to
their schedule. If a dealer and/or proxy is unable to attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS will
consider granting one-on-one training at the expense of the dealer. These one-on-one training
sessions would accommodate the replacement of a proxy whose employment was terminated on
short notice, but, again, these sessions would be at the expense of the permit holder. If dealer
employee turnover is high and the renewals are scheduled every five-years, a dealer may pay for
a greater number of one-on-one training sessions than with a three-year timetable.
6.4.1.2

Time/Area Closures

Alternative B1, the no action alternative to maintain existing closures has, and would
likely continue to have, negative economic impacts on the pelagic longline industry. Existing
closures may have contributed to the reported 15 percent decline in fishing effort, a 10 percent
decline in the number of directed and incidental permits, and a decline from 199 to 130 active
pelagic longline permits from 2000 to 2004. Chapter 4 details the economic impacts and
analyzes conducted to estimate the impacts of the various time/area closure alternatives.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-8

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Alternative B2(a) would potentially impact a total of 61 vessels and potentially result in
an 11 percent decline in fishing effort, and reductions in landings of target species ranging from
a minimum of one percent for bigeye tuna to a maximum of 14.3 percent for yellowfin tuna. The
combined total loss in gross revenues for alternative B2(a) without redistribution of effort would
be approximately $2,299,018 annually. With redistribution of effort, alternative B2(a) is
predicted to result in an increase in all targeted species landings and gross revenues except
yellowfin tuna, which are predicted to decrease by one percent for a loss of approximately
$138,204 annually. The combined total gain in gross revenues for alternative B2(a) with
redistribution of effort would be approximately $1,242,832 annually. If, on the other hand, effort
is displaced into open areas of the Gulf of Mexico only, gross revenues are predicted to decrease
by $5,003,298 (6.8 percent of total 2003 HMS fisheries revenues), or $108,767 per vessel
annually with no redistribution of effort. With redistribution of effort into the open areas of
Gulf, there would be a predicted increase in gross revenues of $679,212. The predicted
economic impacts to gross revenues for the fleet could range from a loss of approximately $5.0
million to a gain of approximately $1.2 million (6.8 to 1.6 percent of total 2003 HMS fisheries
revenues).
Alternative B2(b) would potentially impact a total of 20 vessels. The combined total loss
in gross revenues for the alternative B2(b) closure without redistribution of effort would be
approximately $299,120 annually. Specifically, swordfish landings would potentially decrease
by $231,252 annually. However, with redistribution of effort, the combined total loss in gross
revenues for alternative B2(b) would be approximately $72,675 annually.
Alternative B2(c) would potentially impact a total of 75 vessels. The combined total loss
in gross revenues for the alternative B2(c) closure without redistribution of effort would be
approximately $3,136,229 annually. Specifically, yellowfin tuna gross revenues, the most
lucrative species affected by alternative B2(c) and also the most lucrative HMS species, could
decrease by $2,483,678 annually. However, with redistribution of effort, the combined gain in
gross revenues for alternative B2(c) would be approximately $1,651,023.
Alternative B2(d) would potentially impact a total 78 vessels. The combined total loss in
gross revenues for the alternative B2(d) closure without redistribution of effort would be
approximately $10,683,133 annually. Yellowfin tuna gross revenues would be the most
impacted, with estimated loss of $8,035,791 annually. However, with redistribution of effort, it
is predicted that an overall increase in gross revenues of approximately $6,014,934 annually
primarily due to potential increases in swordfish and bigeye tuna landings as effort redistributes.
Alternative B2(e), a 46,956 nm2 closure in the Northeast, would potentially impact a total
of 49 vessels. The combined total loss in gross revenues for alternative B2(e) without
redistribution of effort would be approximately $3,234,660 annually. However, with
redistribution of effort, gross revenue losses are predicted to total only $820,132 annually (1.1
percent of total 2003 HMS fisheries revenues).
Combining closures of B2(d) and B2(e) year-round would potentially impact a total of
127 vessels that fished in that area and without redistribution of effort would result in decrease in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-9

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

landings valued at $12.9 million annually based on 2003 prices or $13.25 million based on 2004
prices. With redistribution of effort revenues could potentially increase by $7,802,425.
Modifications to two closed areas, alternatives B3(a) and B3(b), would potentially result
in positive economic impacts. Re-opening areas of either closure would allow fishermen access
to previously closed fishing grounds, resulting in increased landings of targeted species.
However, this may create gear conflicts between recreational and commercial fishermen.
Conversely, the modified area of B3(a) would be along the axis of the Gulf Stream, which would
afford recreational fishermen closed portions inshore and allow pelagic longline vessels to fish in
re-opened areas offshore.
Alternative B3(a), the Charleston Bump modification, would result in approximately a
total increase in landings worth $234,460 annually with approximately $220,806 annually for
swordfish alone. Alternative B3(b), the NEC modification, would potentially increase gross
revenues by approximately $550 annually.
Alternative B4, the preferred alternative to implement complementary HMS management
measures in Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserve, could potentially impact
commercial and recreational HMS fishery participants. However, the impact is likely to be low
considering that between 1997 and 2003 only one pelagic longline set and two bottom longline
sets were reported in the HMS logbook in these areas. Because the preferred closure areas are
relatively small, any HMS fishing activity that otherwise would have occurred in these areas
would likely relocate to nearby open areas with similar catch rates. The impact of this
alternative on HMS recreational and charter/headboat fishing is unknown. However, because
this alternative includes the seasonal surface trolling allowance during prime fishing season, it is
not expected to substantially impact the HMS recreational and charter/headboat sector.
Alternative B5, which establishes criteria for regulatory framework adjustments for
implementing new or making modifications to existing time/area closures, would have no direct
economic impacts. However, the ultimate implementation of new, or modification of existing
closures could have variable economic impacts depending on whether time/area closures are
modified, removed or added. Future modifications to time/area closures will be analyzed for
their social and economic effects on fishermen, recreational anglers, businesses, and
communities.
Alternative B6, the closure off the southwest tip of Key West to bottom longline gear to
protect smalltooth sawfish, would be expected to have minimal negative economic impacts. It is
estimated that this alternative could affect 1.3 percent of commercial bottom longline sets based
on the number of sets in this area between 1994 and 2003. This alternative would help reduce
the number of interactions with smalltooth sawfish, and thereby help the bottom longline
industry stay below their Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for smalltooth sawfish. Staying below
the ITS will have positive economic and social impacts by keeping the entire bottom longline
fishery open and operating, allowing economic activity to continue for the bottom longline
fishermen and associated shore side businesses.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-10

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Alternative B7, prohibiting longlining in all areas, would potentially impact a total of 177
active vessels reporting landings in the Pelagic Longline Logbook. This alternative would have
significant economic impacts on the longline vessel owners, operators and crew that would need
to re-rig their vessels to continue fishing for HMS, find alternative fisheries, or discontinue
fishing. It would also negatively impact dealers that purchase fish from pelagic longliner vessels
and also other onshore business that support the industry. The closure of the pelagic longline
fishery would result in, at a minimum, a loss of $25.8 million in gross revenues (35 percent of
total 2003 HMS fisheries revenues). This estimate does not include the potential loss in revenues
from sharks, tunas, and other finfish landings. This alternative would also likely have adverse
impacts on shoreside support businesses and dealers.
6.4.2
6.4.2.1

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing
Northern Albacore

None of the alternatives considered to address northern albacore would result in impacts
different from alternative C1, no action, as the United States is currently fishing below its
ICCAT allocation for northern albacore. The impact of alternative C2, unilateral action for the
U.S. fleet to reduce landings, would be a reduction in income, but this reduction would be small
on the U.S. fishery since the level of landings for albacore is two orders of magnitude smaller
than swordfish and shark landings. For the recreational fishery, alternative C2 would result in
target species shifts to other opportunistic target species as well as catch-and-release of albacore.
Economic impacts would be difficult to evaluate for the recreational fishery since there is such a
high variation in the catch from year to year. Alternative C3, which would establish the
foundation for developing an international rebuilding program, itself has no economic impact.
As ICCAT has not yet adopted a rebuilding program for northern albacore tuna, an analysis of
the social and economic impacts from any international rebuilding program resulting from
alternative C3 cannot be conducted at this time. If the ICCAT Rebuilding Program involves a
substantial reduction in allowable catch, there would likely be a short-term reduction in
economic benefits to the longline fishery until the stock recovers. Since recreational fishermen
target northern albacore tuna at certain times of the year and in certain areas, it is difficult to
estimate the effect that a reduction in allowable landings of northern albacore would have on
angler consumer surplus. It might be reduced, but to an unknown extent, since many recreational
trips targeting northern albacore tuna often target other tuna species.
6.4.2.2

Finetooth Sharks

Alternative D1, the no action alternative, would not likely result in any adverse economic
or social impacts since this alternative would not substantially modify or alter commercial or
recreational fishing practices for finetooth or other species of shark. In the long-term, if
finetooth sharks become overfished, there could be larger economic impacts.
Alternative D2, commercial management measures, considers the use of trip limits,
modifying gillnet size, specifying maximum soak times, prohibiting the use of gillnet for
targeting sharks, and reducing the quota for small coastal sharks (SCS). These commercial

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-11

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

management measures may impose negative economic impacts on a limited number of gillnet
vessels that land sharks and potentially other operations.
Implementing a trip limit for finetooth sharks would increase the amount of travel to and
from port resulting in lost fishing time and increased expenditures for fuel. The trip limit may
also impact directed shark permit holders targeting other finfish species if they end up catching
enough finetooth sharks during a trip to reach the limit, and thus reducing the number of sets that
could be conducted per trip. However, the impact to directed shark permit holders targeting
other finfish is likely to be to a lesser degree since it is assumed that finetooth sharks would
comprise a smaller proportion of their landings. In addition, some fishermen targeting finfish
species might discard some of the finetooth sharks that they catch to avoid having trips shortened
as a result of reaching a trip limit.
Modifying gillnet mesh size requirements may impact a small number of gillnet vessels
that direct on sharks, causing them to potentially replace existing gear in order to comply with
any new requirements. Specifying maximum soak times for gillnet vessels targeting sharks may
impose a negative economic effect as vessels would have to work longer hours and make more
sets in order to maintain their current catch levels.
Alternatively, reducing the quota for SCS may have a negative impact depending on the
amount of the reduction. The SCS quota reduction would have to be more than 25 percent to
cause economic impacts on the shark gillnet fishery given historical landings.
Closing the directed the directed shark gillnet fishery would result in negative economic
impacts for at least five vessels actively participating in the shark gillnet fishery, but minimal
economic impacts on the shark fishery as a whole. Closing the shark gillnet fishery would likely
cause economic dislocation of at least five individuals or small entities and possibly up to 15
vessels having reported landing finetooth sharks in Federal logbooks recently. These vessels
would still be able to harvest sharks but only with other authorized gear types. The costs of
refitting vessels to fish with other authorized gears could be substantial.
Alternative D3, considers management measures to reduce recreational fishing mortality
of finetooth sharks including requiring circle hooks and increasing the existing size limit for
finetooth sharks. The potential impacts that could result from requiring circle hooks are
unknown. Requiring circle hooks when targeting SCS may result in negative impacts to the
shark recreational anglers and related industries as a result of adjusting to this new gear, but
those costs are not likely to be significant especially given the potentially lower cost of circle
hooks (see discussion below regarding billfish and circle hooks). Increasing the existing size
limit for finetooth may result in some negative economic impacts. However, the economic
impact may be variable depending on the willingness of anglers to release finetooth sharks
caught and/or substitute harvested fish with other similar species. In addition, finetooth sharks
only comprise less than two percent of the overall SCS recreational harvest, so the economic
impact to the recreational fishery is likely to be low. Tournaments would still be able to offer
prize categories for finetooth sharks provided they are above the minimum size.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-12

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The preferred alternative (D4), identifying sources of finetooth shark fishing mortality to
target appropriate management actions, would have minor economic impacts (e.g., food costs for
observer on board and potential safety compliance costs). The expansion of the shark gillnet
observer program in 2005 to vessels targeting species other than sharks covered an additional 30
trips from eight vessels. The number of vessels fishing with gillnet gear for species other than
shark, possessing a shark permit, and not currently subject to observer coverage is estimated at
approximately ten vessels. These vessels would have to attain the proper safety certification
decals from the United States Coast Guard and ensure that there are adequate accommodations
on board for observers prior to taking an observer. Other efforts to expand data that is currently
collected on shrimp trawl vessels would not result in any economic impacts as the percentage of
observer coverage would not be expanded, only the selected species of bycatch that are sampled.
In the long-term, gaining knowledge as a result this preferred alternative could minimize
economic impacts while sustaining the population.
6.4.2.3

Atlantic Billfish

Eight alternatives are being considered for the management of the directed Atlantic
billfish fishery. Alternative E1, the No Action alternative, would likely have no positive or
negative short-term economic impacts. In the long-term, the No Action alternative could result
in large adverse economic impacts if billfish are put on the endangered species list or if billfish
populations do not recover and continue to decline.
Alternative E2, requiring the recreational fishery to use only non-offset circle hooks
when using natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations, would likely have limited
adverse social and economic impacts. There are an estimated 7,915 billfish anglers in the U.S.
Atlantic and 1,627 billfish anglers in Puerto Rico (Ditton and Stoll, 2003). The universe of
vessels that could be impacted by circle hook requirements are the 25,238 Angling, 4,173 CHB,
and 4,824 valid General category permits. A comparison of current J-hooks and circle hook
prices indicates that anglers would, on average, pay 46 cents less for circle hooks compared to Jhooks if a shift in demand for circle hooks does not significantly affect prices. The delay in
implementation of this alternative is anticipated to allow hook manufacturers, retailers, and
anglers adequate time to utilize current inventories of J-hooks, thereby minimizing adverse
economic impacts associated with alternative E2. This alternative may result in a temporary
decrease in angler consumer surplus given anticipated or real loss of fish as fishermen adjust to
and become more proficient with the use of circle hooks, but some studies of circle hook
effectiveness indicate that there could be increased catches, and therefore angler consumer
surplus associated with circle hooks. While unlikely, it is possible that there could be a decrease
in tournament participation and demand for CHB trips, as well as trips taken by individuals
based on real or perceived declines in catch. Overall, alternative E2 may provide long-term
positive benefits with regard to increased angler consumer surplus and willingness to pay if
circle hooks contribute to rebuilding efforts and result in increased encounter rates.
Alternative E3, a preferred alternative limiting all Atlantic billfish tournament HMS
permitted vessel participants to using only non-offset circle hooks when using natural baits or
natural bait/artificial lure combinations, is similar in economic impact to alternative E2, but
reduced given the smaller universe of effected individuals. NMFS is not able to quantify the
exact number of anglers or vessels participating in tournaments that may be impacted. However,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-13

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

it is known that in 2003 and 2004, there were 244 and 215 registered HMS tournaments,
respectively, and that the average number of vessels participating in a tournament was 47 for the
period 1999-2004. It is possible, but unlikely, that this alternative will result in decreased
tournament participation. The impacts to hook manufacturers, retailers, and anglers would likely
be limited given that J-hooks would continue to be permitted outside of tournaments, and in
tournaments with artificial lures. Angler recreational consumer surplus impacts would be similar
to that of alternative E2, but would impact a smaller universe.
Alternatives E4(a) and E4(b) would increase the minimum size for blue and white
marlins. It is uncertain if these measures would or would not affect angler participation rates.
High current catch-and-release rates, tournaments that establish minimum sizes greater than the
current limit, and past surveys indicate that minimum sizes have not affected billfish fishing
activity. As reported in Table 4.3, very high percentage of blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish
were released in tournaments. Thus, NMFS expects that any resultant negative economic
impacts of these alternatives would be minor.
Alternative E5, recreational bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip, would
likely have minor impacts. Given that the recreational billfish fishery has low CPUE rates and
the chances of landing more than white or blue marlin on a single trip is low, it is reasonable to
assume that anglers would maintain current levels of participation based on the opportunity of
catching and possibly landing one trophy-sized fish. It is possible that there will be an
unquantified decrease in demand for CHB trips if not all individual anglers on a given trip would
have the opportunity to land a billfish. Furthermore, tournament participation would not be
expected to decrease in a substantial manner as tournament rules often prohibit participants from
entering more than one marlin per day.
Alternative E6, which would implement the ICCAT recommendation for a recreational
marlin landings limits, is anticipated to result in minimal to moderate adverse economic impacts
depending on catch rates, angler response, and which of the available management actions
become necessary. Historical data suggest that it is unlikely that the United States will achieve
the 250 marlin landing limit.
Three scenarios were analyzed regarding whether certain thresholds for in-season
management action are achieved to estimate the potential impacts of this alternative. If the
threshold for inseason management action is not achieved, then alternative E6 would not be
expected to result in impacts to the recreational marlin fishery. If the threshold for an inseason
minimum size increase is achieved, NMFS believes it is unlikely that there would be a
substantial decrease in demand for charter/headboat trips, trips by individual anglers, or
participation in billfish tournaments given the catch-and-release ethic of billfish anglers. On the
other hand, if the threshold for implementing catch-and-release only fishing is achieved, there
could be some economic impacts. In a worst case scenario, marlin anglers may reduce their
demand for charter fishing trips by between 0.4 and 24.2 percent of the available trips remaining
during a given season, and the average cost of a CHB trip was $1,053 in 2004. Private vessel
owners who fish for marlin may also reduce participation by between 0.4 and 24.2 percent;
however, the economic impact for this is unquantifiable at this time.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-14

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

In addition, NMFS estimates that between 0.8 and 10.1 percent of tournaments may cease
to operate in a worse case scenario during a catch-and-release only time period based on RBS
data on billfish tournament release rates. If the threshold were reached in May under a fishing
year schedule, 16 tournaments, between 6.5 and 7.5 percent of registered tournaments, could be
impacted and between zero and four tournaments (less than two percent of registered
tournaments) may cease to operate. However, even these low numbers may be an overestimate
given the recent evidence that anglers may be willing to pay more for catch-and-release
tournaments. A reduction in one to four tournaments could result in an estimated adverse direct
economic impact of $1,375,439 to $5,501,756 and result in some small decrease in consumer
surplus for anglers participating in those tournaments. Impacts on shoreside businesses would
likely be minor, but could be increased or decreased depending on angler response and when in
the season a shift to catch-and-release only fishing might occur. Alternative E6 could have
smaller long-term adverse economic impacts than alternative E1, if landing rates increase in the
future, since E6 allows NMFS more flexibility on when and if action should be taken to remain
consistent with international standards.
Alternative E7, which would allow only catch-and-release fishing for Atlantic white
marlin for a five-year period, could potentially lead to negative economic impacts, although the
magnitude is difficult to assess. The short-term social impacts of not being able to land trophy or
record category fish is difficult to assess, however NMFS anticipates that this alternative could
lead to a decrease in angler willingness-to-pay and angler consumer surplus. The long-term
impacts of alternative E7 may result in an increase in net benefits as stocks rebuild and
recreational encounters with white marlin become more frequent. The Agency estimates that
alternative E7 could result in between $49,491 and $1,320,462 in lost revenues to CHB vessels
annually. The loss of revenues of this magnitude would likely result in minor to moderate
negative social and economic impacts to the CHB sector; however, considering the catch-andrelease ethic of billfish anglers (31 white marlin reported landed in 2004), NMFS anticipates that
negative impacts under this alternative would be less severe than those calculated above. Under
alternative E7, negative social and economic impacts could occur if General category vessels that
normally participate in HMS tournaments cease participating in tournaments. Any negative
impacts would likely be reduced if these vessels already practice catch-and-release fishing for
white marlin and participate in catch-and-release tournaments. In 2004, there were 129
registered tournaments that awarded points or prizes for white marlin (see Chapter 3). Assuming
that one to four tournaments cease operations, the Agency estimates that alternative E7 could
result in negative economic impacts ranging from $1,375,439 to $5,501,756. However,
considering the catch-and-release ethic of billfish anglers, NMFS anticipates that negative
impacts under this alternative would be of a lesser magnitude than those calculated above. The
delayed effective date is anticipated to allow tournament operators sufficient time to alter
tournament rules to provide for a catch-and-release format and allow anglers to adjust to new
requirements. Angler willingness-to-pay and consumer surplus would likely remain high, given
the currently high release rate of white marlin, which is reinforced by the low number of verified
landings that occurred in recent years. However, it is possible that angler consumer surplus may
decrease given the inability to land white marlin. Further, under alternative E7, anglers would
still have the ability to land other billfish, including trophy-sized sailfish and blue marlin.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-15

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Alternative E8, which would allow only catch and release fishing for Atlantic blue
marlin, is similar to E7 and could potentially lead to negative economic impacts, although the
magnitude is difficult to assess. Alternative E8 is likely to have a greater economic impact than
the white marlin catch and release only alternative since more blue marlin are landed than white
marlin and since there are more blue marlin tournaments than white marlin tournaments.
Angling category fishermen may reduce the number of trips targeting blue martin under this
alternative. Estimating that between 461 and 2,862 trips may be canceled given the inability to
retain blue marlin, this alternative could result in between $485,433 and $3,013,686 in lost
revenues to CHB vessels annually. The loss of revenues of this magnitude would likely result in
moderate negative social and economic impacts to the CHB sector. However, considering the
catch-and-release ethic of billfish anglers, NMFS anticipates that negative impacts under this
alternative would be of a lesser magnitude than those calculated above. Negative economic
impacts could occur if General category vessels that normally participate in HMS tournaments
cease operations. In 2004, there were 142 registered tournaments that awarded points or prizes
for blue marlin captures (see Chapter 3). NMFS estimates that 10 to 14 tournaments could cease
operations, and therefore alternative E8 could result in negative economic impacts ranging from
$13,754,390 to $19,256,146. The loss of revenues of this magnitude would likely result in
sizable local economic impacts for tournaments, tournament participants, and associated
businesses. Angler consumer surplus would likely remain high, given the currently high release
rate of blue marlin, which is reinforced by the low number of verified landings that occurred in
recent year. However, it is possible that angler willingness-to-pay, and thus angler consumer
surplus, may decrease given the inability to land blue marlin. Further, under alternative E8
anglers would still have the ability to land other billfish, including trophy-sized sailfish and
white marlin. To mitigate negative socio-economic impacts, alternative E8 would delay
implementation of catch-and-release-only fishing requirements to allow the fishery time to adjust
to new measures.
6.4.3
6.4.3.1

Management Program Structure
Bluefin Tuna Quota Management

Alternative F1, the no action alternative, may have both positive and adverse economic
impacts. The positive impacts are associated with the General category time-periods and
associated subquota allocation percentages remaining consistent with those of prior years, as
well as maintaining the General category New York set-aside allocation for those participants
operating in that designated area. The adverse impacts associated with this alternative result
from the Agency’s inability to adapt BFT management measures to account for variations
inherent to the fishery from one year to the next. This alternative would also have some adverse
economic impacts on fishermen, dealers, and the support industries located in the south Atlantic
region, due to the fact that BFT quota tends to be harvested prior to BFT arriving later in the
season (Nov. - Jan.) off the southern Atlantic cost and current allocations do not provide for a
formal winter fishery.
Alternative F2, the establishment of General category time-periods, subquotas, and
geographic set-asides annually via regulatory framework adjustments, would provide NMFS
with more flexibility to establish management measures more expeditiously. However,
constituents would not be provided long-term certainty in the General category quota allocation
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-16

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

scheme around which they could devise a business plan. There may also be positive social and
economic impacts attributed to increases experienced in a domestic quota category, time-period
subquotas, or geographic set-aside quota in a given year; however, the likelihood of experienced
negative social or economic impacts due to a decrease in any of these areas is equally the same.
Alternative F3, the preferred alternative, would blend aspects of alternatives F1 and F2
together to optimize the positive economic impacts associated with this alternative by enhancing
NMFS’ flexibility to adapt to the fisheries inherent variability by authorizing adjustments to the
General category time-periods, associated subquotas, and geographic set-asides via a regulatory
framework adjustment. This alternative would have positive economic impacts on the General
category as a whole by providing reasonable fishing opportunities to General category BFT
fishery participants throughout the range or the time of year that BFT are readily available to
them.
There are four subalternatives associated with alternative F3. F3(a) would distribute the
coastwide General category quota equally among the eight months that currently make up the
General category BFT season (June-January), by allocating in 12.5 percent shares to each month.
This subalternative would have both positive and negative social and economic impacts as it
would provide some stability to the constituency by establishing a known amount of quota that
would be available at the first of each month. However, if catch rates tend to be high, these
quotas could be harvested rapidly and could lead to derby style fisheries on the first of each
month, which is contrary to NMFS' intent. While this subalternative would formalize the recent
General category winter BFT fishery, it would do little to recognize historical General category
BFT allocations. Therefore, this subalternative would result in positive social and economic
impacts for those General category participants located in the south Atlantic region attributed to
a 40 percent increase in available quota, compared to the no action alternative, during the time
frame of October through January. This increase in quota would equate to approximately four
million dollars in additional gross revenue for the later part of the General category season.
However, those General category participants in the New England area or those participants
which pursue BFT in the summer months may experience some adverse social and economic
impacts due to the shift in quota to the later portion of the season. For instance under this
alternative, the status quo June through August time-period subquota allocation would be
reduced by approximately 22.5 percent and the September time-period allocation would be
reduced by approximately 17.5 percent. These reductions in allocation would result in decreased
gross revenues of approximately $2.5 and $2 million , respectively. This subalternative would
also reduce the need for specific geographic set-asides because quota allocation would be made
on a monthly basis and would be evenly distributed. This subalternative would assist in
distributing the General category BFT catch, temporally and geographically, which is beneficial
for the collection of CPUE data and could assist in avoiding large scale landings in a constrained
time frame, thus reducing market gluts.
Subalternative F3(b) would implement General category time-periods, and associated
subquota allocation percentages similar to those contained in the 1999 FMP, but would separate
the October through January time-period into three distinct time-periods of October through
November, December, and January, and establish a formal General category winter BFT fishery
on which fishermen, dealers, and supporting industries could depend and plan. The General
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-17

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

category time-period subquota allocation percentages would be adjusted slightly to incorporate
the allocations in the winter months, but would still recognize the historical General category
allocations during the summer and fall months.
This subalternative would have positive social and economic impacts to those General
category participants located in the south Atlantic region attributed to a 9.5 percent increase in
available quota, compared to the no action alternative, during the time from of October through
January. This increase in quota would equate to approximately $1.1 million in additional gross
revenue for the later part of the General category season. However, those General category
participants in the New England area or to those participants which pursue BFT in the summer
months may experience some adverse social and economic impacts due to the shift in quota to
the later portion of the season. For instance under this alternative, the status quo June through
August time-period subquota allocation would be reduced by approximately 6 percent and the
September time-period allocation would be reduced by approximately 3.5 percent. These
reductions in allocation would result in a decrease of early season gross revenues of
approximately $0.7 and $0.4 million, respectively. These negative impacts may be mitigated by
individuals traveling to where the BFT are located at any time of the season. However, NMFS
has little specific information at this time regarding the costs that would be incurred due to this
travel.
Subalternative F3(c), the preferred alternative, would implement the same time-periods as
mentioned in Subalternative F3(b), but would implement slightly different subquota allocation
percentages for the June through August and October through November time-periods. This
subalternative was designed to redistribute the quota from the early time-periods to provide a
winter General category BFT fishery to during the months of December and January. This
subalternative would reduce the allocation to the June through August time-period to a higher
degree, than subalternative F3(b) and increase the suballocation to the October through
November time period, thus shifting more of the potentially adverse social and economic impacts
to the earliest portion of the season.
This subalternative would enhance equity among regional General category participants,
given that access to fish available at different times of the year in different locations is likely to
occur. Because this alternative would allocate General category quota based on a balance
between historical General category BFT allocations, recent BFT landing trends, and the
NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking, there would be no significant social or economic impacts to
the fishery as a whole. However, this subalternative would have similar positive and adverse
social and economic impacts as outlined in Subalternative F3(b). The adverse social and
economic impacts would be slightly shifted to the earliest portion of the fishery, where the
General category subquota allocations have traditionally been the highest. This subalternative
would have positive social and economic impacts to those General category participants fishing
in the later portion of the season due to a 13.5 percent increase in available quota, compared to
the no action alternative, during the time from of October through January. This increase in
quota would equate to approximately 1.5 million dollars in additional gross revenue for the later
part of the General category season. However, those General category participants who pursue
BFT in the summer months may experience some adverse social and economic impacts due to
the shift in quota to the later portion of the season. For instance under this alternative, the status
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-18

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

quo June through August time-period subquota allocation would be reduced by approximately 10
percent and the September time-period allocation would be reduced by approximately 3.5
percent. These reductions in allocation would result in a decrease of gross revenues of
approximately $1.2 and $0.3 million, respectively for each of these time periods.
Reallocating more quota from the June through August time-period to the later timeperiods would slightly mitigate some of these adverse social and economic impacts because the
amount of quota being reallocated would equate to a smaller percentage of the June through
August subquota relative to the other time-period subquotas. This subalternative is preferred due
to the balance it strikes between providing all General category BFT fishery participants an
equitable opportunity to harvest a portion of the coastwide General category quota, while still
recognizing the historical participation in this fishery. Any adverse social or economic impacts
associated with this alternative would be minimized and may even be mitigated as fishermen are
allowed to travel to the geographical location of where the BFT are located at any give time.
However, NMFS has little specific information at this time regarding the costs that would be
incurred due to this travel.
Subalternative F3(d) would implement the same time-periods as described in
Subalternatives F3(b) and F3(c), but would allocate the General category time-period subquota
in accordance with the NCDMF’s Petition for Rulemaking (i.e., 150 mt total for the months of
December and January or approximately 21.7 percent of the coastwide General category quota).
This alternative would have a greater positive social and economic impact to General category
participants in the south Atlantic region, region due to a 24.7 percent increase in available quota,
compared to the no action alternative, during the time from of October through January. This
increase in quota would equate to approximately $2.6 million in additional gross revenue for the
later part of the General category season. However, those General category participants in the
New England area or to those participants which pursue BFT in the summer months may
experience greater adverse social and economic impacts due to the shift in quota to the later
portion of the season. For instance under this alternative, the status quo June through August
time-period subquota allocation would be reduced by approximately 21.3 percent and the
September time-period allocation would be reduced by approximately 3.4 percent. These
reductions in allocation would result in decrease gross revenues of approximately $2.5 and $0.3
million, respectively. These negative impacts may be mitigated by individuals traveling to
where the BFT are located at any time of the season. However, NMFS has little specific
information at this time regarding the costs that would be incurred due to this travel.
Alternative F4 would clarify the procedures NMFS uses in calculating the ICCAT
recommendations regarding the eight percent tolerance for BFT under 115 cm. This alternative
would have slightly more positive economic impacts as it would slightly increase the school sizeclass BFT quota by approximately two mt ( 0.02 percent) of the status quota allocation.
Alternative F5 would maintain the status quo process currently used in allocating the
ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC domestically, the accounting for annual
under/overharvest, and establishing General category effort controls. This alternative is not
expected to have any substantial economic impacts.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-19

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Alternative F6 would have slightly more positive economic impacts, in comparison to F5,
as each baseline domestic quota category allocation, quantified in metric tons, would be codified
in the regulatory text implementing the consolidated HMS FMP. This alternative would have
positive economic impacts to the domestic BFT fishery as a whole by allowing BFT fishery
participants, either commercial or recreational in nature, to make better informed decisions on
how to best establish a business plan for the upcoming season.
Alternative F7, which would not allow carry forward of unharvested quota from one
fishing year to the next, would likely have the most adverse economic impact of all the annual
BFT management measure alternatives. This alternative could lead to derby style fishing where
vessels may operate in less than optimal conditions to harvest the quota before the season is
closed. This alternative could also result in a domestic quota category not receiving a quota
transfer from another domestic quota category with large amounts of underharvest to assist in
covering an overharvest situation, which could result in that category having quota deducted
from the following year. This could result in reduced fishing opportunities, income, and angler
consumer surplus for the commercial and/or recreational fleet, as well as the businesses that
support those BFT fisheries.
Alternative F8, which would limit the amount of unharvested BFT quota in each category
that could be carried forward, would have both slightly positive and negative economic impacts
on the BFT participants. This would limit the maximum amount of revenue each domestic quota
category could generate to no more than double the value of the baseline allocation. These
potential negative economic impacts would be mitigated, overall, by reallocation of tonnage that
exceeds the cap to the Reserve or to another domestic quota category.
Alternative F9 maintains inseason action procedures. When catch rates are low, a
liberalized retention limit of two or three BFT may have positive economic impacts on a vessel
that is able to harvest multiple fish especially if ex-vessel prices are high during a low catch rate
period. However, if catch rates were to increase dramatically over a short period while retention
limits were set at the upper end of the allowable range, large numbers of BFT could be landed in
a short time period, thus flooding the market and depressing ex-vessel prices.
Alternative F10 would have slightly more positive economic impacts, as the criteria
NMFS must consider when making inseason action determinations would be consolidated and
consistent, regardless of what type of inseason action is being considered. This consolidation
will likely minimize confusion regarding how NMFS came to a decision, and thereby provide
additional transparency to the management process.
Alternative F11, which would eliminate BFT inseason actions, would constrain NMFS’
ability to adjust management actions that help spread the maximum utilization of BFT quota over
the longest period of time to provide reasonable fishing opportunities. The positive economic
aspect of this alternative would be that quota allocations and daily retention limits would remain
stable throughout the entire season, which would aid in planning fishing activities.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-20

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

6.4.3.2

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries

Three alternatives were considered for changing the annual management timeframes for
HMS fisheries. Alternative G1, maintaining the current fishing year for all HMS species, would
not result in any anticipated disruptions to any of the HMS markets.
Alternative G2, which would manage all HMS species on a calendar year cycle, would
not have any economic impacts on the shark fishery, since this is the status quo for that fishery.
For the bluefin tuna fisheries, the economic impacts of alternative G2 are expected to be minimal
given the current measures used to distribute quota throughout the year. The economic impacts
to the Atlantic billfish fisheries could vary slightly depending upon whether thresholds for taking
restrictive action are achieved and the management measures subsequently implemented. Minor
to moderate impacts as a result of the ICCAT billfish landings limit (E6) could be shifted to the
tail end of the calendar year, beginning in late summer, under this alternative. This temporal
shift in impacts would result in some geographic shift to include New England and Mid-Atlantic
regions. If the threshold for implementing catch-and-release-only fishing is achieved to comply
with the ICCAT limit, it is estimated that an average of 39 tournaments awarding prizes for
marlin occurring from August to December could be impacted, and up to four tournament
cancellations could occur resulting in an annual economic impact of $5,501,756.
Alternative G3, which would establish a June 1 – May 31 fishing year management cycle
for all HMS species, could result in some short-term negative economic impacts as shark
wholesale and retail markets adjust to the potential disruption in catch rates resulting from the
shift to a fishing year and new trimesters.
6.4.3.3

Authorized Gears

Seven alternatives have been considered to address issues with authorized gear.
Alternative H1, the No Action alternative, would not be expected to have any additional
economic impacts because fishermen are already operating under these measures.
Alternative H2, which would authorize speargun fishing gear as a permissible gear-type
in the recreational Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery, could have positive economic impacts for
spearfishermen. Not allowing BFT to be taken with speargun fishing gear avoids the possibility
of further exacerbating quota limited situations in the school size fishery and might avoid gear
conflicts with other members of the BFT recreational fleet. It could also increase sales of
speargun fishing gear. The charter/headboat sector may also experience positive economic
impacts as spearfishermen may increase their use of for-hire vessels.
Alternative H3, which would authorize speargun fishing in both the commercial BAYS
tuna handgear and recreational fisheries, would have similar economic impacts to alternative H2
except that there would be potential economic benefits for CHB and General category fishermen
from the sale of commercially speared tunas. However, it is not anticipated that many
commercial tuna fishermen would utilize this gear type.
Alternative H4 would authorize green-stick gear for the commercial harvest of Atlantic
BAYS tunas. This alternative would likely have positive economic impacts for those fishermen
who wish to employ green-stick gear to target Atlantic BAYS tunas commercially. The vessels
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-21

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

that would be authorized to use green-stick gear under this alternative would include all
permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, and HMS CHB (on non for-hire trips) category
vessels, approximately 214, 4,824, and 4,173 vessels, respectively. The higher landing rates and
higher quality of meat landed using green-stick gear could provide positive economic impacts to
commercial fishermen, as well as benefit fish houses, gear supply houses, and other associated
business. The economic benefits of this alternative, however, would likely be small since some
vessels are already utilizing this gear type. There could be negative economic impacts from the
prohibition on the possession or retention of BFT when possessing commercial configurations of
green-stick since this practice may already be occurring. Any increases in green-stock gear sales
could produce positive economic benefits to onshore gear suppliers and other onshore
businesses.
Alternative H5 would allow the commercial swordfish handgear fishery to continue
utilizing unattached handlines, redefined as “buoy gear,” and would likely continue affording
positive economic benefits to current fishery participants. If any vessels are currently fishing
with buoy gear utilizes more than 35 flotation devices, this alternative could limit effort, and
there could be some unquantified adverse economic impacts. This alternative would also require
that fishermen using this gear type affix gear monitoring equipment to each buoy to aid in
recovery. NMFS anticipates that most swordfish handgear fishermen using unattached handlines
likely already possess and utilize some or all of this gear monitoring equipment. If not,
minimum compliance costs for the least expensive equipment (e.g., reflective tape and spotlight)
could be incurred. Given the change in definition of handlines in alternative I5(b) requiring them
to be attached to a vessel, alternative H5 represents a positive economic opportunity for
commercial swordfish handgear and directed swordfish limited access permit holders. However,
this alternative could result in perceived negative social impacts by recreational fishermen by
continuing to allow commercial swordfishing in areas closed to HMS pelagic longline gear.
Alternative H6 is similar to H5, except under alternative H6, each buoy would be allowed
to have no more than 15 hooks or gangions attached. This alternative could provide additional
positive economic impacts stemming from the ability to increase the number of hooks attached to
each buoy gear. Additionally, this alternative would allow vessels in the swordfish handgear
fishery to possess and deploy up to 50 flotation devices.
Alternative H7, which would clarify the allowance of hand-held cockpit gears used at
boat side for subduing HMS, would likely have positive economic impacts by reducing
confusion over the allowance of these gears and increased retention rates for those fishermen
who target large HMS and wish to use these secondary gears. The use of these hand-held
cockpit gears can be dangerous and lead to costs if injuries occur, but they would help subdue
fish and are already being used.
6.4.3.4

Regulatory Housekeeping

Eleven regulatory housekeeping issues were addressed with several alternatives for each
issue. NMFS considered five different alternatives for the first issue, clarifying the definitions of
pelagic and bottom longlines. Alternative I1(a), the No Action alternative, would likely produce
the fewest additional adverse economic impacts on fishing vessels, though it could result in
compliance issues and longer periods of interruption during compliance inspections at sea.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-22

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Alternative I1(b), would establish additional restrictions on longline gear in HMS
time/area closures by requiring that BLL vessels in closed areas possess no more than 70
commercial fishing floats, and that PLL vessels in BLL closed areas possess at least 71
commercial fishing floats, would not be expected to produce adverse economic impacts. This
alternative would potentially impact less than 5 percent of all PLL sets and less than 10 percent
of all BLL sets. BLL fishermen would not need to buy more floats to comply with this
alternative. However, PLL fishermen who regularly use short lines may need to buy more floats
to ensure that they have more than 71 floats. This alternative would also likely improve
inspections at sea.
Alternative I1(c), the preferred alternative, would differentiate between PLL and BLL
gear based upon the species composition of the catch onboard or landed. A five percent
incidental allowance of “indicator” species is higher than the average across five years, and
therefore this alternative would not be expected to produce adverse economic impacts. This
alternative, however, could adversely impact those longline vessels that regularly target both
demersal and pelagic species on the same trip and that fish in closed areas. The time required to
conduct an enforcement inspection at sea under this alternative could create an adverse economic
impact in terms of lost opportunity cost, and possibly reduce net revenues associated with reicing the fish and reduced quality of the catch, but it could also have a positive economic impact
if these inspections are quicker than under the No Action alternative.
Alternative I1(d), which would require time/depth recorders on all HMS longlines, would
result in direct economic costs associated with the purchase of these devices. It is estimated that
equipment costs per vessel could be approximately $1,400 to $6,500, and there could be costs
associated with a loss of efficiency due to attaching the devices to longlines, and downloading
and recording the information. Some positive economic benefits could be realized if this
alternative would minimize the disruption of enforcement inspections.
Alternative I1(e) would implement HMS longline time/area closures for both pelagic and
bottom longline HMS permitted vessels. This alternative is expected to produce the most
significant negative economic impacts, primarily on HMS-permitted BLL vessels that would be
prohibited from fishing year-round in the DeSoto Canyon and Florida East Coast closed areas, in
the Charleston Bump closed area from February 1 through April 30 each year, and in the
Northeastern U.S. closed area from June 1 through June 30 each year.
NMFS considered four alternatives for enhancing shark identification. Alternative I2(a),
which retains the current regulations, is not expected to result in economic impacts in the shortterm. In the long-term, data issues resulting from poor shark identification could result in less
than optimal fishery management.
Under alternative I2(b), fishermen could experience, in the short-term, some adverse
economic impacts associated with keeping the second dorsal and anal fins on the shark. In the
long-term, the improved quota monitoring and stock assessment data as a result of this
alternative could result in a larger quota, and therefore larger net revenues for both fishermen and
dealers. Alternative I2(c) is similar, but would allow fishermen to remove all the fins of lemon
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-23

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

and nurse sharks while at sea. Since so few lemon and nurse sharks are landed, NMFS believes
that any economic benefits gained would be marginal.
Alternative I2(d), which would require all fins to remain on all sharks through landing,
would have the largest economic impact of any of the shark identification alternatives. It is
unlikely that the ex-vessel price of the fins that were packed in ice with the rest of the shark
would be as high as the fins that had begun to dry if they were removed. Additionally, if the
shark cannot be packed in ice properly due to maintaining the fin on the shark, the quality of the
meat, and therefore its value, could also decrease.
NMFS considered three alternatives for addressing compliance with HMS retention
limits. Under alternative I3(a), the No Action alternative, individual vessel owner/operators,
and/or dealers may experience some positive economic benefits from the sale or purchase of
HMS exceeding the commercial retention limits; however, there would be economic impacts
from noncompliance with retention limits. Under I3(b) and I3(c) it would be illegal to purchase
or sell any HMS from an individual vessel in excess of the retention limits, and therefore there
could be slightly less revenue by vessels exceeding the retention limits. However, there would
be slightly positive economic impacts with enhanced compliance with the retention limits, but
there may be increased dealer administrative/information costs with insuring that they are not
purchasing more than the commercial retention limits from a particular vessel.
NMFS considered two alternatives for defining the Florida East Coast closed area. The
No Action alternative I4(a) would not result in any additional economic impacts. Alternative
I4(b) would extend the closed area and could potentially reduce HMS catches and associated
landings revenues by a small amount. This is not expected to be significant given the limited
number of vessels that fished in that area in recent years.
NMFS considered five alternatives for revising the definition of handline. Alternative
I5(a), which would retain the current definition, would not add any additional economic impacts.
Alternative I5(b), which would amend the definition of “handline” by requiring that they remain
attached to all vessels, would potentially impact a large portion of HMS permit holders and result
in negative economic impacts by potentially reducing operational efficiency. However, this
practice does not appear to be widespread and is likely limited to recreational swordfish activity.
Alternative I5(c), which would require handlines remain attached to all vessel when fishing
recreationally, could impact recreational fishing activity but there is currently no data indicating
how many recreational vessels are fishing this way.
Alternative I6(a) and I6(b) focus on clarifying the recreational nature of the billfish
fishery. Neither the No Action alternative (I6(a)) nor the alternative to prohibit the possession of
taking of billfish by commercial permit holders (I6(b)) would be expected to have any adverse
economic impacts since Atlantic billfish cannot be bought or sold by commercial vessels. There
could be some positive economic impacts to the recreational fishing community if alternative
I6(b) results in enhanced fishing opportunities for recreational fishermen.
NMFS considered three alternatives for BFT dealer reporting. Alternative I7(a), the No
Action alternative, would not change the current economic impacts of reporting, but it could
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-24

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

continue to impose time costs associated with the entry of similar data on several different forms
for reporting. Alternative I7(b) would allow the option to do one-stop data entry on the Internet,
and thus provide flexibility that could reduce economic impacts associated with reporting.
Alternative I7(c) would require most dealers to use electronic reporting, which might benefit
some, but could also impose additional Internet access costs and training costs in learning the
new system.
Alternatives to address no fishing and cost-earnings reporting forms (I8(a-c)) clarify the
current practices in submitting these forms and are not likely to increase economic costs
associated with these activities. However, the clarification of the timeframes involved for
submitting reports may result in fewer permit renewal delays.
Maintaining the current non-tournament recreational landings reporting requirements for
North Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic billfish under alternative I9(a) would not result in any
significant economic impacts. Alternative I9(b), which would require vessel owners to report
non-tournament recreational landing, would not cause any significant adverse economic impacts
since 95 percent of past reports were reported by vessel owners. Linking non-reporting to permit
sanctions would enhance enforcement and compliance that is expected to improve recreational
data collection. In addition, the overall number of calls needed to report landings might be
reduced if operators report landings for several anglers’ landings.
Under the No Action alternative I10(a), status quo regulatory text would remain
unchanged and the applicability of quota carry-over provisions to this set-aside quota would not
be clarified. Under this alternative, unharvested quota from the set-aside would be rolled-over to
subsequent fishing years, and thus would provide a potential positive economic impact. There
may be a perceived negative economic impact among other fishery sectors if they were to close
after achieving their allocated quota and were unable to access available quota, via in-season
transfers, from the NED set-aside. Alternative I10(b) would amend the regulatory text to clarify
that carry-over provisions apply to this specific set-aside and therefore would also allow
unharvested quota from the set-aside to be rolled-over to subsequent fishing years, and thus
provide a potential positive economic impact. Again, there may be a perceived negative
economic impact among other fishery sectors if they are closed after achieving their allocated
quota and are unable to access available quota, via in-season transfers, from the NED set-aside.
Alternative I10(c) would conduct additional discussions at ICCAT regarding the long-term
implications of allowing unused BFT quota from the previous year being added to the
subsequent year’s allocation. Depending on the results these discussions the regulations and
operation procedures may need to be further amended in the future. In the interim, NMFS would
maintain the current regulatory text, but would amend the practice of allowing under/overharvest
of this set-aside allocation to be rolled into, or deducted from, the subsequent fishing year’s setaside allocation. Therefore, regardless of the amount of the set-aside harvested or unused in a
given year, the balance would return to 25 mt (ww) at the start of each fishing year. This
alternative would be expected to have some negative economic impacts as it would not allow for
the potential economic gain attributed to quota being carried forward from the preceding fishing
year.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-25

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Alternatives I11(a-b) examine whether or not recreational vessels with Federal permits
should be required to abide by Federal regulations regardless of where they are fishing, unless a
state has more restrictive regulations. If Federal regulations always apply unless state
regulations are more restrictive, as in alternative I11(b), there could be some decreases in
recreational satisfaction as a result of potentially increasing regulatory requirements to the
Federal standards.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-26

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
Cortes, E. 2005. Updated Catches of Atlantic Sharks. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center, Panama City, FL.
Larkin, S.L., D.J. Lee, and C.M. Adams. 1998. Costs, earnings, and returns to the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet in 1996. Staff paper series SP 98-9. University of Florida, Institute
of Food and Agriculture Sciences, Food and Resource Economics Department,
Gainesville, FL. 46 pp.
Larkin, S.L., C.M. Adams, and D.J. Lee. 2000. Reported trip costs, gross revenues, and net
returns for U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline vessels. Marine Fisheries Review 62(2): 49-60.
Larkin, S.L., L.A. Perruso, D.J. Lee, and C.M. Adams. In press. An empirical investigation of
the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet: Specification and estimation of a multi-species
profit function with suggestions for missing data problems. Presented at North American
Association of Fisheries Economists 1st Annual Meeting, April 2001. Revised October
2001 for proceedings.
NMFS. 2005. National Report of the United States (to ICCAT): 2004. NOAA, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. NAT/03/06.
Porter, R.M., M. Wendt, M.D. Travis, and I. Strand. 2001. Cost-earnings study of the Atlanticbased U.S. pelagic longline fleet. Pelagic Fisheries Research Program. SOEST 01-02;
JIMAR contribution 01-337. 102 pp.
Ward, J. and E. Hanson. 1999. The regulatory flexibility act and HMS management data needs.
Presentation at the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. Charlotte, North
Carolina.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

6-27

CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC EVALUATION
REFERENCES

CHAPTER 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 7 Table of Contents......................................................................................................7-i

Chapter 7 List of Tables .............................................................................................................7-i

7.0
Regulatory Impact Review............................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Description of the Management Objectives................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Description of the Fishery.............................................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Statement of the Problem............................................................................................... 7-1

7.4 Description of Each Alternative..................................................................................... 7-1

7.5 Economic Analysis of Expected Effects of Each Alternative Relative to the Baseline 7-1

7.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 7-3

CHAPTER 7 LIST OF TABLES
Table 7.1

Summary of the Net Economic Benefits and Costs of Alternatives........................ 7-4

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-i

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

7.0

REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

The Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) is conducted to comply with Executive Order
12866 (E.O. 12866) and provides analyses of the economic benefits and costs of each alternative
to the nation and the fishery as a whole. Certain elements required in an RIR are also required as
part of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Thus, this section should be considered only
part of the RIR, the rest of the RIR can be found throughout this document.
7.1

Description of the Management Objectives

Please see Chapter 1 for a description of the management objectives associated with these
management actions.
7.2

Description of the Fishery

Please see Chapter 3 for a description of the fisheries that could be affected by these
management actions.
7.3

Statement of the Problem

Please see Chapter 1 for a description of the problem and need for these management
actions.
7.4

Description of Each Alternative

Please see Chapter 2 for a summary of each alternative and Chapter 4 for a complete
description of each alternative and its expected ecological, social, and economic impacts.
Chapters 6 and 8 provide additional information related to the economic impacts of the
alternatives.
7.5

Economic Analysis of Expected Effects of Each Alternative Relative to the Baseline

In the preceding chapters, NMFS has analyzed the impacts of the alternatives for nine
major issues. Table 7.1 indicates the possible net economic benefits and costs of each alternative
for the nine major issues. It is likely that the implementation of the preferred alternatives could
incur moderate economic costs. However, the benefits of these actions, in particular preventing
closures of the fishery due to exceedance of authorized take of protected species and BiOp
requirements, improving data for shark stock assessments, rebuilding HMS, maintaining
compliance with ICCAT, increasing the flexibility of BFT management, adding more authorized
fishing gears, and addressing a wide variety of regulatory issues, will likely outweigh the costs.
Several alternatives were considered for workshops for protected species handling and
release and species identification. The preferred alternatives that would require owners and
operators of vessels that use longline and gillnet gear to attend workshops and renew their
certifications every three years addresses the BiOp recommendations while avoiding excessive
costs associated with certifying crew (A4) or shorter renewal cycles. In addition, the preferred
alternative for species identification workshops, alternative A9, would target training to shark
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-1

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

dealers who are likely to face the greatest challenges in proper species identification since they
are inspecting landed carcasses, rather than whole specimens. In combination with alternative
I2(b), requiring that the second dorsal fin and anal fin remain on all sharks through landking,
there could be significant improvements in proper shark species identification and therefore
reporting.
The examination of additional time/area closures revealed that is difficult to target
closures to prevent impacts on a particular species without impacting other species that are
overfished, experiencing overfishing, threatened or endangered. Redistribution of effort, as a
result of a closure alternative targeting a particular species interaction, often resulted in the
potential for significant impacts on other species that are overfished, experiencing overfishing,
threatened or endangered. The potential redistribution of effort with the analyzed time/area
closure alternatives often revealed that the economic impact of time/area closures is very
dependent on the extent of effort redistribution. Criteria for regulatory framework adjustments
for closures, one of the preferred alternatives for this issue, would have minimal economic
impacts and would likely lead to enhanced future fishery management planning. In addition, the
implementation of complementary HMS management measures in the Madison-Swanson and
Steamboats Lumps Marine Reserves (B4), the other preferred alternative for this issue, would
result in minimal economic costs on commercial revenues and recreational activities.
The analysis of the northern albacore tuna alternatives reveals that economic costs could
occur by unilateral restrictions on effort, however, the ecological and economic benefits from
implementing management measures now are likely to be negligible without coordinated
international management of this highly migratory species. Pursuing an international rebuilding
plan at ICCAT would likely have the best economic return for the potential costs involved in
managing northern albacore.
In a similar vein, the management of finetooth sharks within just the HMS fishery would
not produce enough ecological benefits to warrant the potential high costs on a small number of
HMS permit holders. The preferred alternative would lead to identification of mortality of
finetooth sharks in other fisheries that should reveal lower marginal cost opportunities to reduce
finetooth shark mortality and thus maximize net benefits.
Incremental management measures, such as those under alternative E3 which limits all
HMS permitted vessels participating in Atlantic HMS tournaments to using only non-offset
circle hooks when using natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations, would achieve
many of their ecological benefits with the minimum amount of economic impacts. Requiring
HMS permitted tournament participants to adopt circle hooks would likely encourage other
recreational billfish fishery participants to also adopt circle hooks and result in a low regulatory
cost and high ecological benefit outcome. Alternative E6 also would utilize an incremental
approach to achieve compliance with ICCAT catch/landing limits while having the low impact
on billfish tournaments and billfish recreational anglers.
The alternatives considered for bluefin tuna management focus on enhancing regulatory
flexibility to address a constantly changing and dynamic resource. NMFS expects that
maintaining flexibility and consistency should allow businesses to plan and should maximize the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-2

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

net benefits for this fishery. The preferred alternatives would allow for future adjustments to take
place via regulatory framework actions (F3), formalize a winter fishery for BFT (F3(c)), clarify
procedures for calculating school size-class BFT subquota allocations, streamline the annual
BFT specification and associated seasonal management measures process (F6), and establish a
quota carryover process that would allow for the reallocation of tonnage that exceeds the cap to
the Reserve or to another domestic quota category that could result in economic benefits by
increasing total allowable catch for those quota categories (F8).
Several regulatory issues have been addressed. The potential shift from a “fishing year”
to a calendar year to manage the HMS fishery would impact several of the regulatory alternatives
being considered. The largest impact of this potential shift would likely be on billfish fishery
participants, however, the benefits of a consistent and easily understood management timeframe
would likely have net benefits to the businesses associated with the fishery in the long term.
Impacts would only occur if thresholds for implementation of in-season management action are
achieved. Otherwise, no impacts would likely occur.
Authorizing recreational Atlantic BAYS spearfishing would also likely enhance the HMS
recreational fishery by introducing a new dedicated user group into the Atlantic BAYS
recreational fishing community. The benefits of this alternative to the recreational speargun
fishing community and CHB sector would likely exceed any associated costs. In general,
providing the flexibility to use various technologies allows opportunities to find greater
efficiencies. This would likely also be the case with the buoy gear and hand-held cockpit gear
alternatives. The buoy gear preferred alternative (H5) and the allowance of hand-held cockpit
gears (H7) will continue to afford positive economic benefits to current fishing participants.
Other regulatory issues being considered address a variety of definitional issues and
clarifications that are not likely to have much of an overall impact on net benefits and costs. The
details of those regulatory adjustments are included in the table below.
7.6

Conclusion

Under E.O. 12866, a regulation is a “significant regulatory action” if it is likely to: (1)
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; and (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The
preferred alternatives described in this document do not meet the above criteria. Therefore,
under E.O. 12866, the preferred alternatives described in this document have been determined to
be not significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866. A summary of the expected net economic
benefits and costs of each alternative, which are based on supporting text in Chapters 4 and 6,
can be found in Table 7.1.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-3

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Table 7.1

Summary of the Net Economic Benefits and Costs of Alternatives.

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

Workshops
A1
Voluntary protected species
safe handling, release, and
identification workshops for
HMS longline fishermen
(No Action)

Minimal

Short-term cost of traveling for
fishermen who attend voluntary
workshops. In the long-term, if targets
are not met, could result in closures
and significant economic impacts to
pelagic and bottom longline fisheries.
Cost for 12 workshops estimated
$42,000 plus materials per year for the
Agency.

A2
Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and identification
workshops and certification
for all HMS pelagic or
bottom longline vessel
owners –
Preferred Alternative

Long-term benefit from preventing the
fishery from being closed and, if fishery
is perceived as being environmentally
responsible, from increasing ex-vessel
prices.

Travel costs for approximately 549
owners and an estimated $154,269 ­
$258,048 in annual opportunity costs.
Costs associated with recertification
(See A6).
Cost for 12 workshops estimated
$42,000 plus materials per year for the
Agency.

A3
Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and identification
workshops and certification
for vessel operators actively
participating in HMS
pelagic and bottom longline
fisheries – Preferred
Alternative

Long-term benefit from preventing the
fishery from being closed and, if fishery
is perceived as being environmentally
responsible, from increasing ex-vessel
prices.

Travel costs for approximately 1,098
captains and an estimated $163,602 $378,810 in annual opportunity costs.
Costs associated with recertification
(See A6).
Cost for 23 workshops estimated
$80,500 plus materials per year for the
Agency.

A4
Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and identification
workshops and certification
for all HMS longline vessel
owners, operators, and crew

Long-term benefit from preventing the
fishery from being closed and, if fishery
is perceived as being environmentally
responsible, from increasing ex-vessel
prices.

Travel costs for 3,843 participants and
an estimated $515,511 - $876,222 in
annual opportunity costs. Costs
associated with recertification (See
A6).
Cost for 81 workshops estimated
$283,500 plus materials per year for
the Agency.

A5
Mandatory protected
species safe handling,
release, and identification
workshops and certification
for shark gillnet vessel
owners and operators –
Preferred Alternative

Long-term benefit from preventing the
fishery from being closed and, if fishery
is perceived as being environmentally
responsible, from increasing ex-vessel
prices.

Travel and the opportunity cost for
approximately 20 participants. Costs
associated with recertification (See
A6).
Cost for 3 workshops estimated
$10,500 plus materials per year for the
Agency.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-4

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

A6
Protected species safe
handling, release, and
identification certification
renewal every 3-years –
Preferred Alternative

Long-term benefit from preventing the
fishery from being closed and, if fishery
is perceived as being environmentally
responsible, from increasing ex-vessel
prices.

Costs associated with renewing
certification.
Minimum cost for workshops
estimated $42,000 plus materials per
year for the Agency.

A7
No HMS identification
workshops (No Action)

No travel costs. If enough fishermen
attend, then the LCS fishery could
rebuild faster and quotas might be
increased.

Inaccuracies in data could result in
longer rebuilding timeframes and
lower quotas for the fishery.

A8
Voluntary HMS
identification workshops for
dealers, all commercial
vessel owners and
operators, and recreational
fishermen

Minimal. If enough fishermen attend,
then the LCS fishery could rebuild
faster and quotas might be increased.

Cost of travel for fishermen who
attend voluntary workshops.
Cost for workshops estimated $25,200
plus materials per year for the Agency.

A9
Mandatory shark
identification workshops for
all shark dealers –
Preferred Alternative

Long-term the LCS fishery could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. The LCS quota could then
be increased and result in higher
benefits.

Travel and the opportunity cost for
approximately 336 participants. Costs
associated with recertification (See
A16).
Cost for 3 workshops estimated
$25,200 per year for the Agency.

A10
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops for
all swordfish, shark, and/or
tuna dealers

Long-term the HMS fisheries could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. Those HMS fisheries that
are quota limited could then have quotas
increased, resulting in higher benefits.

Travel and the opportunity cost for
approximately 649 participants. Costs
associated with recertification (See
A16).
Cost for 24 workshops estimated
$50,400 per year for the Agency.

A11
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops for
all commercial longline
vessel owners

Long-term the HMS fisheries could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. Those HMS fisheries that
are quota limited could then have quotas
increased, resulting in higher benefits.

Travel costs for approximately 549
owners and an estimated $154,269 ­
$245,952 in annual opportunity costs.
Costs associated with recertification
(See A16).
Cost for 19 workshops estimated
$39,900 per year for the Agency.

A12
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops for
all commercial longline
vessel operators

Long-term the HMS fisheries could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. Those HMS fisheries that
are quota limited could then have quotas
increased, resulting in higher benefits

Travel costs for approximately 1,098
operators and an estimated $163,602 $378,810 in annual opportunity costs.
Cost associated with recertification
(See A16).
Cost for 37 workshops estimated
$77,700 per year for the Agency.

A13
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops for
all commercial vessel
owners (longline, CHB,
General category, and
handgear/harpoon)

Long-term the HMS fisheries could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. Those HMS fisheries that
are quota limited could then have quotas
increased, resulting in higher benefits

Travel costs for approximately 9,636
vessel owners and an estimated
$4,085,664 in annual opportunity
costs. Costs associated with
recertification (See A16).
Cost for 322 workshops estimated
$676,200 per year for the Agency.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-5

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

A14
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops for
all commercial vessel
operators (longline, CHB,
General category, and
handgear/harpoon)

Long-term the HMS fisheries could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. Those HMS fisheries that
are quota limited could then have quotas
increased, resulting in higher benefits

Travel costs for approximately 10,374
vessel operators and an estimated
$1,597,596 in annual opportunity
costs. Cost associated with
recertification (See A16).
Costs for 346 workshops estimated
$726,600 per year for the Agency.

A15
Mandatory HMS
identification workshops for
all HMS Angling permit
holders

Long-term the HMS fisheries could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. Those HMS fisheries that
are quota limited could then have quotas
increased, resulting in higher benefits

Travel and the opportunity costs for
approximately 25,238 participants.
Costs associated with recertification
(See A16).
Cost for workshops estimated
$1,768,200 per year for the Agency.

A16
HMS identification
certification renewal every
3-years – Preferred
Alternative

Long-term the LCS fishery could
rebuild as a result of improved
information. The LCS quota could then
be increased and result in higher
benefits.

Cost associated with renewing
certification.
Minimum estimated cost for
workshops estimated $25,200 per year
for the Agency.

Time/Area Closures
B1
Maintain existing closures;
no new closures (No
Action)

Current closures have reduced bycatch
and should be aiding in rebuilding. In
long-term, stock may rebuild leading to
greater quotas.

Continued negative impacts on pelagic
longline industry from existing closed
areas, including loss of participants
and supply infrastructure base.

B2(a)
Prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear in HMS
fisheries in the central
portion of the Gulf of
Mexico from May through
November (7 months)r

There could be benefits to protected
species, and thus increase total
existence value of these species.
Additional reduction in bycatch of HMS
and other fisheries should aid in
rebuilding of stocks in general. If
fishery is perceived as being
environmentally responsible then
additional benefits could be realized.

Estimated decrease in annual revenues
potentially range from (-) $5.1 million
to (+)$1.2 million.

B2(b)
Prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear in HMS
fisheries in an area of the
Northeast during the month
of June (1 month)

There could be benefits to protected
species, and thus increase total
existence value of these species.
Additional reduction in bycatch of HMS
and other fisheries should aid in
rebuilding. If fishery is perceived as
being environmentally responsible then
additional benefits could be realized.

Estimated decrease in annual revenues
potentially range from (-) $307,077 to
(-) $74,608.

B2(c)
Prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear in HMS
fisheries in the Gulf of
Mexico from April through
June (3 months)

There could be benefits to protected
species, and thus increase total
existence value of these species.
Additional reduction in bycatch of HMS
and other fisheries should aid in
rebuilding. If fishery is perceived as
being environmentally responsible then
additional benefits could be realized.

Estimated decrease in annual revenues
potentially range from (-) $3.2million
to (+) $1.6 million.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-6

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

B2(d)
Prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear in HMS
fisheries in the Gulf of
Mexico west of 86 degrees
west longitude year-round

There could be benefits to protected
species, and thus increase total
existence value of these species.
Additional reduction in bycatch of HMS
and other fisheries should aid in
rebuilding. If fishery is perceived as
being environmentally responsible then
additional benefits could be realized.

Estimated decrease in annual revenues
potentially range from (-) $10.9
million to (+) $6.2 million.

B2(e)
Prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear in HMS
fisheries in an area of the
Northeast to reduce sea
turtle interactions

There could be benefits to protected
species, and thus increase total
existence value of these species.
Additional reduction in bycatch of HMS
and other fisheries should aid in
rebuilding. If fishery is perceived as
being environmentally responsible then
additional benefits could be realized.

Estimated decrease in annual revenues
potentially range from (-) $3.3 million
to (-) $841,948.

B3(a)
Modify the existing
Northeastern U.S. time/area
closure to allow the use of
pelagic longline gear in
areas west of 72º 47’ west
longitude during the month
of June

Estimated increase in annual revenues
of
$241,025.

Perceptions of gear conflict may result
in loss of recreational fishery income
in infrastructure base.

B3(b)
Modify the Northeastern
U.S. closure

Estimated increase in annual revenues
of $565.

Perceptions of gear conflict may result
in loss of recreational fishery income
in infrastructure base.

B4
Implement complementary
HMS management measures
in Madison-Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps Marine
Reserves year-round –
Preferred Alternative

There could be benefits to protected
species, and thus increase total
existence value of these species. May
result in increased revenue for gag
grouper fishery.

Minimal impact on commercial
revenues and recreational activity.

B5
Establish criteria to
consider when
implementing new time/area
closures or making
modifications to existing
time/area closures –
Preferred Alternative

Variable

Variable

B6
Prohibit the use of bottom
longline gear in an area
southwest of Key West to
protect endangered
smalltooth sawfish

Staying below smalltooth sawfish ITS
may keep fishery open. If fishery is
perceived as being environmentally
responsible then additional benefits
could be realized.

Minimal impacts on bottom longline
fleet.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-7

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative
B7
Prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear in HMS
fisheries in all areas

Net Economic Benefits
There could be benefits to protected
species, and thus increase total
existence value of these species.

Net Economic Costs
Minimum loss of revenue of $26.5
million in revenue annually. May
shift fishing effort to other countries
that are not as environmentally
conscious regarding protected species,
and thus increase ecological impacts.

Northern Albacore Tuna
C1
Maintain compliance with
the current ICCAT
recommendation (No
Action)

None

None

C2
Unilateral proportional
reduction of United States
northern albacore fishing
mortality

If the fishery is rebuilt, there could be
an increase in ecological benefits and
long-term increase in commercial and
recreational benefits.

Possible reduction in income from
northern albacore tuna depending on
restrictions needed per rebuilding
plan.

C3
Establish the foundation
with ICCAT for developing
an international rebuilding
program – Preferred
Alternative

If the fishery is rebuilt, there could be
an increase in ecological benefits and
long-term increase in commercial and
recreational benefits.

None

Finetooth Sharks
D1
Maintain current regulations
for recreational and
commercial fisheries (No
Action)

In short-term, business arrangements
would remain the same. In long-term,
none.

In the long-term, there could be a
decrease in finetooth shark population
and result in a decrease in commercial
revenues from finetooth shark harvest.

D2
Implement commercial
management measures to
reduce fishing mortality of
finetooth sharks

None

Negative impacts on limited number
of gillnet vessels. Could also increase
discards and increase ecological
impacts.

D3
Implement recreational
management measures to
reduce fishing mortality of
finetooth sharks

None

Potential negative economic impacts
to shark recreational fishery and
related industries.

D4
Identify sources of finetooth
shark fishing mortality to
target appropriate
management actions –
Preferred Alternative

Long-term, the alternative would have
positive ecological impacts by
addressing finetooth mortality in HMS
and other fisheries and positive
economic impacts if the fishery is
sustained.

If action as result of information
collection does not happen in time to
prevent the stock from becoming
overfished, then the alternative could
reduce quotas and cause more
restrictive management measures to be
implemented.

Atlantic Billfish

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-8

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

E1
Retain existing regulations
regarding recreational
billfish fishing, including
permit requirements,
minimum size limits,
prohibited species, landing
form, allowable gear, and
reporting requirements (No
Action)

None

Continued overfishing could
potentially lead to ESA listing and the
closure of the recreational fishery.

E2

Long-term benefits to angler consumer
surplus from rebuilding efforts. Circle
hooks cost less so there is some minor
benefit associated with this alternative.

Temporary decrease in angler
consumer surplus from adjustment to
using circle hooks.

E3
Effective January 1, 2007,
limit all HMS permitted
vessels participating in
Atlantic billfish tournaments
to deploying only non-offset
circle hooks
when using natural baits or
natural bait/artificial lure
combinations – Preferred
Alternative

Long-term benefits to angler consumer
surplus from rebuilding efforts. Circle
hooks cost less so there is some minor
benefit associated with this alternative.

Temporary decrease in angler
consumer surplus from adjustment to
using circle hooks.
Unlikely potential decrease in
tournament participation.

E4(a)
Increase the minimum size
limit for Atlantic white
marlin to a specific size
between 68 and 71’’ LJFL

Long-term potential benefits as Atlantic
white marlin stocks rebuild and
recreational encounters with white
marlin increase.

Uncertain impact on angler
participation rates.

E4(b)
Increase the minimum size
limit for Atlantic blue
marlin to a specific size
between 103 and 106’’
LJFL

Long-term potential benefits as Atlantic
blue marlin stocks rebuild and
recreational encounters with blue marlin
increase.

Uncertain impact on angler
participation rates.

E5
Implement a recreational
bag limit of one Atlantic
billfish per vessel per trip

Long-term potential benefits as stocks
rebuild and recreational encounters with
marlin increase.

Minor reductions in billfish angler
consumer surplus.

Effective January 1, 2007,

limit all participants in
Atlantic HMS recreational
fisheries to using only nonoffset circle hooks when
using natural baits or natural
bait/artificial lure
combinations

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-9

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

E6
Effective January 1, 2007,
implement ICCAT
Recommendations on
Recreational Marlin
Landings Limits – Preferred
Alternative

Long-term potential benefits as stocks
rebuild and recreational encounters with
marlin increase.

None to moderate adverse impacts to
anglers depending on whether
thresholds for action are met.
Potential reduction in CHB trips by
0.4 to 24.2 percent (from the point in
the management cycle when catch and
release only fishing may have to be
implemented).
Potential loss of $1.3 to $5.5 million
worth of tournament activity annually
under a worst case scenario.
Potential impacts on shoreside
businesses.

E7
Effective January 1, 2007, ­
December 31, 2011, allow
only catch and release
fishing for Atlantic white
marlin

Long-term potential benefits as stocks
rebuild and recreational encounters with
marlin increase.

Potential decrease in angler consumer
surplus.
Potential decrease in CHB revenue of
$49,491 to $1.3 million annually.
Potential negative economic impact to
tournaments from $1.4 to $5.5 million
annually.

E8
Effective January 1, 2007, ­
December 31, 2011, allow
only catch and release
fishing for Atlantic blue
marlin

Long-term potential benefits as stocks
rebuild and recreational encounters with
marlin increase.

Potential decrease in CHB revenue of
$0.5 to $3.0 million annually.
Potential negative economic impacts
to tournaments from $13.8 to $19.3
million annually.
Angler consumer surplus may
decrease.

Bluefin Tuna Quota Management
F1
Maintain the time-periods,
subquota allocations, and
geographic set asides for the
General and Angling
categories as established in
the 1999 FMP (No Action)

None

Economic impacts to fishermen,
dealers, and support industries
associated with timeliness of required
FMP amendment.

F2
Establish General category
time-periods, subquotas,
and geographic set asides
annually via framework
actions

Framework actions would result in
overall positive economic impacts to the
General category by allow fishing in
locations and times when BFT are most
available.

Uncertainty regarding General
category quota allocation, from one
year to the next, could increase
difficulty of business planning.
Potential short-term decreases in quota
available.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-10

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

F3
Amend the management
procedures regarding
General category timeperiods, subquota, as well
as geographic set-asides to
allow for future adjustments
to take place via a
regulatory framework
action – Preferred
Alternative

Framework actions would result in
overall positive economic impacts to the
General category by allowing fishing in
locations and times when BFT are most
available. Minor benefits to the South
Atlantic region.

Minor impacts to New England
General category due to reallocation
of time period sub-quotas from the no
action alternative.

F3(a)
Establish monthly General
category time-periods and
subquotas (June-Jan, 12.5%
each)

By formalizing the winter fishery, there
would be positive economic impacts for
General category participants in the
South Atlantic region.

Minor impacts to New England
General category.
If catch rates tend to be high, these
quotas could be harvested rapidly and
could lead to derby style fisheries on
the first of each month.

F3(b)
Revise General category
time-periods and subquotas
to allow for a formalized
winter fishery (June-Aug,
54%; Sept, 26.5%; OctNov, 9%; Dec, 5.2%; and
Jan, 5.3%)

By formalizing the winter fishery, there
would be positive economic impacts for
General category participants in the
South Atlantic region.

Minor impacts to New England
General category.
Minor impacts to those who would
pursue BFT in the summer months as
other time-period subquotas would be
reduced.

F3(c)
Revise General category
time-periods and subquotas
to allow for a formalized
winter fishery (June-Aug,
50%; Sept, 26.5%; Oct-Nov,
13%; Dec, 5.2% and Jan,
5.3%) – Preferred
Alternative

By formalizing the winter fishery, there
would be positive economic impacts for
General category participants in the
South Atlantic region.

Minor impacts to New England
General category.
Minor impacts to those who would
pursue BFT in the summer months as
other time-period subquotas would be
reduced.

F3(d)
Revise General category
time-periods and subquotas
to allow for a formalized
winter fishery (June-Aug,
38.7%; Sept, 26.6%; Oct ­
Nov, 13%; Dec, 10.8%; and
Jan, 10.9%)

Greater positive economic impacts to
General category participants in the
South Atlantic region

Would have increased negative
economic impacts to those General
category participants in northern areas.

F4
Clarify the procedures for
calculating the Angling
category school size-class
BFT subquota allocation
and maintain the Angling
category north/south
dividing line – Preferred
Alternative

Minimal positive impacts by slightly
increasing school size-class quota (2
mt).

Minimal

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-11

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

F5
Maintain the annual BFT
specification process and
the under/overharvest
procedures within
individual domestic quota
categories and individual
vessels in the Purse seine
category (No Action)

None

None

F6
Revise the annual BFT
specification process to
refer back to the supporting
analytical documents of the
consolidated HMS FMP
and include seasonal
management measures in
annual framework actions –
Preferred Alternative

Minor positive economic impacts by
allowing for better planning.

None

F7
Eliminate unharvested quota
carryover provisions and
return unharvested quota to
the resource, while
maintaining status quo
overharvest provisions

None

Could result in derby-style fishing
where vessels may operate in less than
optimal conditions to harvest the quota
before the season is closed.
Could reduced fishing opportunities,
income, and angler consumer surplus
for the commercial and/or recreational
fleet, as well as the businesses that
support those BFT fisheries.

F8
Establish an individual
quota category carry-over
limit of 100 percent of the
baseline allocation (i.e., no
more than the annual
baseline allocation may be
carried forward), except for
the Reserve category, and
authorize the transfer of
quota exceeding the 100
percent limit to the Reserve
or another domestic quota
category, while maintaining
status quo overharvest
provisions – Preferred
Alternative

Reallocation of tonnage that exceeds the
cap to the Reserve or to another
domestic quota category could result in
economic benefits by increasing total
allowable catch for those quota
categories.

Slight negative impacts as a result of
limiting maximum amount of harvest
available from carry forward for a
category.

F9
Maintain inseason action
procedures (No Action)

None

None

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-12

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

F10
Revise and consolidate
criteria considered prior to
performing inseason and
some annual BFT
management actions –
Preferred Alternative

Consistent criteria for inseason actions
could lead to positive economic
benefits.

None

F11
Eliminate BFT inseason
actions

Quota allocations and daily retention
limits would remain stable and help
facilitate planning.

Prevents maximum utilization of BFT
quota over longest time period.

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
G1
Maintain the current fishing
year for all HMS (No
Action)

Minimal

Minimal

G2
Shift the fishing year to
January 1 – December 31
for all HMS – Preferred
Alternative

Would establish consistent timing
between U.S. domestic and international
management programs.
Would improve international reporting
and negotiations, and thus potentially
improving international management of
fisheries.

In conjunction with preferred Alt E6,
could result in impacts to billfish
tournaments (see E6 above), but this is
unlikely.

G3
Shift the fishing year to
June 1-May 31 for all HMS

None

Short-term negative economic impacts
to shark wholesale and retail markets.
Authorized Gears

H1
Maintain current authorized
gears in Atlantic HMS
fisheries (No Action)

Minimal, if any

Minimal, if any

H2
Authorize speargun fishing
gear as a permissible gear
type in the recreational
Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery Preferred Alternative

Positive economic impacts to
recreational speargun fishermen and
CHB sector.

Competition for fishing grounds may
result in negative economic impacts
for rod and reel fishermen.

H3
Authorize speargun fishing
gear as a permissible gear
type in the commercial tuna
handgear and recreational
tuna fisheries

Positive economic impacts to
recreational speargun fishermen and
CHB sector.
Potential economic benefits for CHB
and General category fishermen from
the sale of commercially speared tunas.

Competition for fishing grounds and
speargun fishing take under the BFT
Angling and General categories may
result in negative economic impacts
for rod and reel fishermen.

H4
Authorize green-stick
fishing gear for the
commercial harvest of
Atlantic BAYS tunas

Potentially higher landing rates and
higher quality of meat landed using
green-stick gear could provide positive
economic impacts to commercial
fishermen, as well as benefit fish
houses, gear supply houses, and other
associated business.

None

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-13

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

H5
Authorize buoy gear as a
permissible gear type in the
commercial swordfish
handgear fishery; limit
vessels employing buoy
gear to possessing and
deploying no more than 35
floatation devices, with each
individual gear having no
more than two hooks or
gangions attached Preferred Alternative

Positive economic benefits continued to
be afforded to current fishery
participants.

Negative economic impacts to vessels
employing more than 35 free-floating
buoyed handlines.

H6
Authorize buoy gear as a
permissible gear type in the
commercial swordfish
handgear fishery; limit
vessels employing buoy
gear to possessing and
deploying no more than 50
floatation devices, with each
individual gear having no
more than 15 hooks or
gangions attached

Additional positive economic impacts
from the ability to increase the number
of hooks attached to each buoy gear.

None

H7
Clarify the allowance of
hand-held cockpit gears
used at boat side for
subduing HMS captured on
authorized gears Preferred Alternative

Positive economic impacts by reducing
confusion over the allowance of these
gears.

None

Regulatory Housekeeping
I1(a)
Retain current definitions
for PLL and BLL gear (No
Action)

None

Could continue compliance issues and
longer periods of interruption during
compliance inspections at sea.

I1(b)
Establish additional
restrictions on longline gear
in HMS time/area closures
by specifying a maximum
and minimum allowable
number of commercial
fishing floats to qualify as a
BLL and PLL vessel,
respectively

Could reduce periods of interruption
during compliance inspections at sea.

More restrictive gear definitions could
potentially impact approximately 5
percent of all PLL and 10 percent of
BLL sets.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-14

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

I1(c)
Differentiate between PLL
and BLL gear based upon
the species composition of
the catch onboard or landed
– Preferred Alternative

Provides quantifiable method to
determine fishing technique without
requiring additional gear restrictions.

Could adversely impact longline
vessels that regularly target both
demersal and pelagic species on the
same trip.
Potentially longer enforcement
inspections.

I1(d)
Require time/depth
recorders (TDRs) on all
HMS longlines

Could minimize disruption of
enforcement inspections.

Could costs vessels $1,400 to $6,500
in equipment costs, efficiency losses
having the devices on the line, and
labor costs associated with recording
the information.

I1(e)
Base HMS time/area
closures on all longlines
(PLL & BLL)

None

Primarily would impact BLL vessels
by making some PLL time/area
closures also apply to all longline
vessels resulting in more significant
economic impacts than other
alternatives considered for this issue.

I2(a)
Retain current regulations
regarding shark landing
requirements (No Action)

None

None

I2(b)
Require that the 2nd dorsal
fin and the anal fin remain
on all sharks through
landing – Preferred
Alternative

Increased accuracy in identification
could improve stock assessments and
lead to faster rebuilding of shark stocks
and therefore the fishery.

Potential small reduction in income
from retaining second dorsal and anal
fins on sharks.

I2(c)
Require that the 2nd dorsal
fin and the anal fin remain
on all sharks through
landing, except for lemon
and nurse sharks

Increased accuracy in identification
could improve stock assessments and
lead to faster rebuilding.

Potential small reduction in revenues
from retaining second dorsal and anal
fins on sharks, except lemon and nurse
shark fins can be removed.

I2(d)
Require all fins remain on
all sharks through landing

Increased accuracy in identification
could improve stock assessments and
lead to faster rebuilding of shark stocks
and therefore the shark fishery.

Reduction in revenues from sale of
removed shark fins.
Value of shark meat could decrease if
retaining fins causes packing
problems.

I3(a)
Retain current regulations
regarding retention limits,
with no new prohibitions
(No Action)

None

Non-complying vessels may be
landing and selling HMS in excess of
the commercial retention limits, thus
circumventing the conservation
benefits derived from those limits.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-15

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

I3(b)
Add new prohibition at §
635.71(a)(48) making it
illegal for any person to,
“Purchase any HMS that
was offloaded from an
individual vessel in excess
of the retention limits
specified in §§ 635.23 and
635.24” – Preferred
Alternative

Increased compliance could lead to
faster rebuilding of HMS stocks.

Increase dealer
administrative/information costs with
insuring that they are not purchasing
more than the commercial daily
retention limits from a particular
vessel.

I3(c)
Add new prohibition at §
635.71(a)(49) making it
illegal for any person to,
“Sell any HMS that was
offloaded from an
individual vessel in excess
of the retention limits
specified in §§ 635.23 and
635.24” – Preferred
Alternative

Increased compliance could lead to
faster rebuilding of HMS stocks.

None

I4(a)
Retain current coordinates
for the East Florida Coast
closed area (No Action)

None

None

I4(b)
Amend the second
coordinate of the East
Florida Coast closed area
to 28° 17’ 10” N. lat., 79°
11’ 24” W. long., so that it
corresponds with the EEZ –
Preferred Alternative

None

Minor impact on landings revenue.

I5(a)
Retain the current definition
of “handline” at § 635.2 (No
Action)

None

None

I5(b)
Amend the definition of
“handline” at § 635.2 by
requiring that they be
attached to, or in contact
with, all vessels – Preferred
Alternative

Decreased opportunity to lose gear may
lead to ecological benefits.

Could impact large portion of HMS
permit holders. Potentially reduce
operational efficiency.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-16

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

I5(c)
Require that handlines
remain attached to all
vessels when fishing
recreationally and allow
unattached handlines when
fishing commercially

None

Could impact recreational anglers by
reducing operational efficiency.

I6(a)
Retain current regulations
regarding the possession of
Atlantic billfish (No Action)

None

None

I6(b)
Prohibit vessels issued HMS
commercial permits and
operating outside of a
tournament from
possessing, retaining, or
taking Atlantic billfish from
the management unit –
Preferred Alternative

Minor potential enhancement of billfish
recreational fishing.

None

I7(a)
Retain the current
regulations regarding BFT
dealer reporting (No
Action)

None

Could continue extra time costs of
entering similar data on multiple
forms.

I7(b)
Amend the HMS regulations
to provide an option for
Atlantic tunas dealers to
submit required BFT
reports using the Internet –
Preferred Alternative

Could increase data entry efficiency.

None

I7(c)
Amend the HMS BFT
dealer reporting regulations
to require
that Atlantic tunas dealers
submit BFT reports
electronically, with specific
exceptions

Could increase data entry efficiency.

Could result in additional Internet
access costs and training costs for
some dealers.

I8(a)
Maintain the existing
regulations regarding
submission of logbooks (No
Action)

None

None

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-17

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

I8(b)
Require submission of “No
Fishing” reporting forms
for selected vessels if no
fishing trips occurred
during the preceding month,
postmarked no later than
seven days after the end of
the month – Preferred
Alternative

Potentially decreases permit renewal
delays and their associated costs.

None

I8(c)
Require submission of the
trip "Cost-Earnings”
reporting form for selected
vessels 30 days after a trip
and the annual “CostEarning” report form by
January 31 of each year –
Preferred Alternative

Potentially decreases permit renewal
delays and their associated costs.

None

I9(a)
Retain existing regulations
at § 635.5(c)(2) requiring
anglers to report nontournament recreational
landings of North Atlantic
swordfish and Atlantic
billfish (No Action)

None

Would continue inconsistency with
some other HMS recreational
reporting requirements.
Anglers on CHB vessels may be
unaware of reporting requirements.

I9(b)
Require vessel owners(or
their designees) to report
non-tournament
recreational landings of
North Atlantic swordfish
and Atlantic billfish –
Preferred Alternative

Minor – could reduce number of overall
calls for reporting.

Minor - almost all owners (or
designees) currently report.

I10(a)
Retain the current
regulations specifically
referring to 25 mt (ww) (No
Action)

Potential increased revenue from
unharvested quota from NED set-aside
rolling from one year to the next.

May create an incentive for PLL
vessel operators to increase effort, or
even possibly directing their effort, on
BFT in this area. Potential impacts to
other fishery sectors if they are closed
after reaching their quota and cannot
access available quota from the NED
set-aside.

I10(b)
Modify the HMS
regulations to state that “In
addition, each year, 25 mt
(ww) will be allocated for
incidental catch by pelagic
longlines” in the NED

Potential increased revenue from
unharvested quota from NED set-aside
rolling from one year to the next.

May create an incentive for PLL
vessel operators to increase effort, or
even possibly directing their effort, on
BFT in this area. Potential impacts to
other fishery sectors if they are closed
after reaching their quota and cannot
access available quota from the NED
set-aside.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-18

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

Alternative

Net Economic Benefits

Net Economic Costs

I10(c)
Conduct additional
discussions at ICCAT
regarding quota rollovers
and adjust quotas allocated
to account for bycatch
related to pelagic longline
fisheries in the vicinity of
the management area
boundary accordingly Preferred Alternative

Would eliminate additional incentives
for PLL vessel operators to increase
effort, or even possibly directing their
effort, on BFT in this area.

Would not allow revenue from
unharvested quota from NED set-aside
rolling from one year to the next.
Potential impacts to other fishery
sectors if they are closed after
reaching their quota and cannot access
available quota from the NED setaside.

I11(a)
No permit condition for
recreational trips (No
Action)

None

None

I11(b)
Require recreational vessels
with a Federal permit to
abide by Federal
regulations, regardless of
where they are fishing,
unless a state has more
restrictive regulations Preferred Alternative

Reduced confusion may lead to greater
fishery participant satisfaction.

Potential minor decrease in
recreational fishing satisfaction.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

7-19

CHAPTER 7
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW

CHAPTER 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 8 Table of Contents......................................................................................................8-i

8.0 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis............................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Statement of the Need for and Objectives of this Final Rule .................................... 8-1

8.2 A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised By the Public Comments in Response to

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Summary of the Assessment of the

Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Rule as a

Result of Such Comments.......................................................................................... 8-1

8.2.1 W
orkshops ............................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2.2 Time/Area Closures ................................................................................................. 8-3
8.2.3 Finetooth Sharks ...................................................................................................... 8-4

8.2.4 A
tlantic Billfish........................................................................................................ 8-4

8.2.5 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Domestic Management Measures........................................ 8-6

8.2.6 Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries .......................................... 8-6

8.2.7 Authorized Fishing Gear.......................................................................................... 8-6
8.2.8 Regulatory Housekeeping........................................................................................ 8-7
8.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed

Rule Will Apply......................................................................................................... 8-9

8.3.1 Workshops ............................................................................................................... 8-9

8.3.2 Time/Area Closures ................................................................................................. 8-9
8.3.3 Northern Albacore Tuna ........................................................................................ 8-10

8.3.4 Finetooth Sharks .................................................................................................... 8-10
8.3.5 Atlantic Billfish...................................................................................................... 8-10

8.3.6 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Domestic Management Measures...................................... 8-10

8.3.7 Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ........................................ 8-10

8.3.8 Authorized Fishing Gear........................................................................................ 8-10
8.3.9 Regulatory Housekeeping...................................................................................... 8-11
8.4 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small

Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirements of the Report or Record....... 8-11

8.5 Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken to Minimize the Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent with the Stated Objectives of

Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons

for Selecting the Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule and the Reason That Each

One of the Other Significant Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency

Which Affect Small Entities Was Rejected ............................................................. 8-12

8.5.1 Bycatch Reduction ................................................................................................. 8-13
8.5.1.1 Workshops ..................................................................................................... 8-13
8.5.1.2 Time/Area Closures ....................................................................................... 8-15
8.5.2 R
ebuilding and Preventing Overfishing................................................................. 8-16

8.5.2.1 Northern Albacore Tuna ................................................................................ 8-16

8.5.2.2 Finetooth Sharks ............................................................................................ 8-16
8.5.2.3 Atlantic Billfish.............................................................................................. 8-16
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-i

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

8.5.3 Management Program Structure ............................................................................ 8-18

8.5.3.1 Bluefin Tuna Quota Management.................................................................. 8-18

8.5.3.2 Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ................................ 8-19

8.5.3.3 Authorized Fishing Gears .............................................................................. 8-19

8.5.3.4 Regulatory Housekeeping.............................................................................. 8-20

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-ii

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

8.0

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is conducted to comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et. seq.) and provides a description of the economic
impacts of the various alternatives on small entities. Certain elements required in an FRFA are
also required as part of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Therefore, the FRFA
incorporates the economic impacts identified in the EIS. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis was done in the draft EIS and is also contained in the proposed rule.
8.1

Statement of the Need for and Objectives of this Final Rule
Please see Chapter 1 for a description of the need for action.

8.2

A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised By the Public Comments in Response to
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Summary of the Assessment of the
Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Rule as a
Result of Such Comments

NMFS received many comments on the proposed rule and the draft HMS FMP during the
public comment period. A summary of these comments and the Agency’s responses are
included in Appendix D of this document and will be included in the final rule. NMFS did not
receive any comments specific to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), but did
receive a limited number of comments related to economic issues and concerns. These
comments are responded to with the other comments in Appendix D. The specific economic
concerns are also summarized here.
8.2.1 Workshops
The Agency received public comment both in support of and opposed to the protected
species workshops. Some commenters were concerned about potential lost revenue on longline
trips if bycatch were to be handled correctly, and recommended not limiting these workshops to
longline fishermen. Some comments supported extending the workshop requirements to include
all HMS fishermen, as well as expanding the release techniques to include additional species.
NMFS received many comments suggesting that various combinations of owners, operators, and
crew members be required to participate in the workshops. Commenters noted that if the crew
members are not required to attend, then the operators should be responsible for training the
crew. A few comments supported grandfathering in the industry certified individuals, so that
they do not need to attend the first round of mandatory workshops (they would still need to be
recertified). Additionally, the Agency received comment on the recertification timeframes, and
provided recommendations for scheduling and selecting venues to mitigate any negative impacts
to participants.
Public comment both supported and opposed alternative A2, stating that mandatory
owner attendance may discourage them from hiring inexperienced operators who may not know
how to properly handle sea turtles and other protected resources, handling protected resources
wastes time on money making trips, and owners may not be operators.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-1

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

The Agency received public comment in favor of owners/operators being required to
train all crew members onboard. NMFS encourages all workshop participants to disseminate
this information to all crew members involved with haul-back or fishing activities, however, is
not requiring owners to train crew members at this time.
Alternative A3 was supported by public comment. Commenters suggested that vessel
operators should be certified and that they should, in turn, train each individual crew member
working aboard their vessel to ensure that the crew is informed and that proper procedures are
followed. Operators are encouraged to transfer the knowledge and skills obtained from
successfully completing the workshops to the crew members, potentially increasing the proper
release, disentanglement, and identification of protected resources. While this alternative would
not require crew members to attend the workshops, it is likely that knowledge transfer from
operator and owners to crew would be able to disseminate this information in a cost effective
manner. In addition, the Agency received several comments opposing the requirement to have
crew certified because of their transient nature and the fact that some crew members are not U.S.
citizens and may not be available to attend workshops.
The Agency received public comment supporting alternative A5. However, some
commenters were concerned about requiring both owners and operators of vessels to be certified.
The Agency realizes that many vessel owners may not operate or be present on the vessels
during fishing trips; therefore, certifying vessel owners ensures that they are aware of the
certification requirements and protocols. The owners are, then, accountable for preventing their
vessel from engaging in fishing activities without a certified operator on board.
NMFS received several comments in support of alternative time periods for renewal of
certification; however, the Agency prefers to maintain the original preferred alternative of
recertification every three years. Recertification every three years would balance the ecological
benefits of maintaining familiarity with the protocols and species identification, and the
economic impacts of workshop attendance due to travel costs and lost fishing opportunities.
The Agency received comment regarding the need for proxies for dealers attending
workshops under alternative A9, the flexibility required in certifying newly hired proxies, and
the need for multiple proxies. Alternative A9 was modified to address these comments and
allow for dealer proxies. Because not all shark dealer permit holders may be onsite where
vessels unload their catches, a local proxy could attend the workshop to obtain the proper
training in species-specific shark identification, while allowing the permit holder to meet the
certification requirements. Furthermore, since the actual permit holders may not be involved in
fish house activities, the workshops would be more effective at decreasing the reported unknown
sharks if a proxy whom is directly involved with fish house activities attends and obtains the
training in lieu of the permit holder. If a dealer opts to send a proxy, then the dealer would be
required to designate a proxy from each place of business covered by the dealer’s permit. A
proxy would be a person who is employed by a place of business, covered by a dealer’s permit, a
primary participant in identification, weighing, or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from
a vessel, and involved in filling out dealer reports. According to public comment, NMFS should
anticipate turnover in dealer proxies. To address this, the Agency is allowing one-on-one

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-2

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

training sessions that would accommodate the replacement of a proxy whose employment was
terminated on short notice. These sessions would be at the expense of the permit holder.
Public comment on the HMS Identification Workshops were supportive of mandatory
workshops for Federally permitted shark dealers, but also suggested that these workshops be
available to others, such as the recreational and commercial fishery, law enforcement, port
agents, and state shark dealers. While these workshops would be mandatory for Federally
permitted shark dealers, NMFS would try to accommodate other interested individuals when it is
feasible. At well-attended workshops, those persons for whom the workshops are mandatory
would be given priority in terms of hands-on instruction.
8.2.2

Time/Area Closures

NMFS also received comments on the time/area closure alternatives. A number of
commenters expressed concern over the effort redistribution model used to analyze these
alternatives. These commenters felt that pelagic longline vessels were not mobile enough to
redistribute effort uniformly and that vessels in a certain area would move to adjacent areas (e.g.,
vessels homeported in the Gulf of Mexico would stay in the Gulf of Mexico and would not move
into the mid-Atlantic bight). NMFS received comments that different approaches to effort
redistribution should be considered, particularly for closures of bluefin tuna in spawning areas in
the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, NMFS considered redistribution of effort based on an analysis
of the mobility of the PLL fleet and known effort displacement currently taking place out of the
Gulf of Mexico (see Appendix A). Based on this revised approach, NMFS has determined that
the closures in the Gulf of Mexico could still result in an increase in bycatch for some of the
species being considered. As a result, NMFS has decided not to move forward with any new
time/area closures other than complementary closures for Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps.
During the comment period, NMFS heard from commenters and the peer reviewers that
the Agency should design a “decision matrix” that could help to guide the choices that NMFS
would have to make between different closures and different species. NMFS interpreted this
request to mean that NMFS should decide whether, for example, it is more important to protect
spawning BFT during particular times and areas than leatherback sea turtles. If NMFS decided
that were the case, then an area would be closed to protect spawning BFT even though it could
potentially increase takes of leatherback sea turtles. Related to this idea of a decision matrix,
some commenters noted that NMFS should set bycatch reduction goals. For example, NMFS
would need to reduce BFT discards by some set percent; under this concept, NMFS would need
to find ways to reduce BFT discards by the appropriate percent, possibly to the detriment of
other species. Once that percent reduction was made, NMFS would no longer need to reduce
BFT discards. Similarly, if NMFS implements measures that reduce BFT discards by more than
the decided amount, NMFS could potentially relax some of the measures to bring the reduction
down to the pre-decided level. Finally, NMFS received comments from commercial interests
indicating that the bycatch reduction goals of the existing closures have already been met and,
therefore, the Agency should reopen at least portions of the current closures.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-3

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

8.2.3

Finetooth Sharks

NMFS received a range of public comments regarding finetooth shark alternatives
indicating support and opposition to Alternatives D2-D4, and additional comments, including,
but not limited to: comments on gillnet fisheries in general, the use of VMS, the results of the
2002 SCS stock assessment, reporting of HMS by dealers, identification of finetooth sharks, and
the accuracy of data attained from MRFSS. All of these comments were considered prior to
selection of the preferred course of action for preventing overfishing of finetooth sharks.
Additional measures, possibly those analyzed in this document, and/or others, may be necessary
to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks in the future.
8.2.4

Atlantic Billfish

NMFS also received many comments regarding Atlantic billfish alternatives.
Commenters strongly suggested that given the feeding habits of blue marlin, mandating circle
hooks on artificial lures would significantly reduce the viability of trolling for blue marlin.
Based on public comment from scoping and the draft HMS FMP, as well as an examination of
post-release mortality data of blue marlin caught on J-hooks, NMFS is allowing anglers on HMS
permitted vessels in billfish tournaments to continue to use J-hooks with artificial lures.
NMFS received substantial public comment opposing and supporting circle hook
requirements proposed under draft alternatives E2 and E3. A prevalent theme contained in
comments opposing mandatory circle hook use, in all or portions of the HMS and billfish
recreational fisheries, was that the recreational sector has a minor impact on Atlantic billfish
populations relative to the commercial pelagic longline fleet. However, given the relatively
small size of the U.S. domestic pelagic longline fleet and the considerable size of the recreational
fishing fleet, NMFS determined that it was appropriate to examine this issue from the domestic
perspective.
A second important theme in comments opposing mandatory circle hook use under
alternatives E2 and E3 was the need for NMFS to promulgate more detailed specifications for
circle hooks. NMFS is unable to provide an index of detailed hook specifications for each size
circle hook that could be used in the recreational billfish fishery. NMFS is continuing to work
on various formulaic definitions of circle hooks that may lead to a more refined hook definition
in the future. However, NMFS finds that it is appropriate to require the use of circle hooks in
portions of the recreational billfish fishery at this time in an effort to reduce post-release
mortalities in the recreational billfish fishery.
NMFS received public comment expressing concern that HMS circle hook requirements
may apply to all tournament participants, even non-HMS fishermen participating in large
tournaments that may have award categories for species other than HMS. NMFS has refined the
phrasing of the alternative to more accurately reflect the intent of this alternative.
NMFS also received comment that tournament operators would need advance notice of
impending circle hook regulations to allow for production of rules, advertising, and informing
tournament participant of potential circle hook requirements. NMFS surveyed a number of
tournament operators in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean to better understand various
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-4

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

aspects of tournament operations, and determined that a delayed date of effectiveness of no less
than six months would be necessary to minimize adverse impacts to tournament operators and
participants. NMFS is preferring an effective date of January 1, 2007 for Atlantic billfish
tournament circle hook requirements. This additional six month delay in effectiveness will
provide billfish tournament anglers additional time to familiarize themselves and become
proficient in the use of circle hooks, while allowing tournament operators to adjust tournament
rules, formats, and materials production, as appropriate, thereby minimizing any potential
adverse socio-economic impacts.
NMFS received comment recommending that the Agency automatically carry forward
any underharvest to the following management period. As noted above, this alternative allows
for underharvests to be carried forward. However, given the uncertainty surrounding landings of
Atlantic marlin in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Caribbean, the United States
has made a commitment to ICCAT not to carry forward underharvest until such time as this
uncertainty is resolved.
Given that the known level of U.S. recreational marlin landings have been within the 250
fish limit for three of the four reported years, and that the 2002 overharvest was offset by the
2001 underharvest, the ecological benefits of this alternative are likely limited. NMFS received
comment on the limited ecological impact that could be categorized into two opposing views and
which suggested two different courses of action as a result of the anticipated limited ecological
impact. Some commenters suggested that the limited ecological impact was not worth any
potential adverse economic impact, even a very limited one, while other commenters suggested
that the United States must implement the 250 marlin limit to live up to U.S. international
obligations and as part of a strategy to implement appropriate measures to help limit billfish
mortality. Implementation of this preferred alternative is anticipated to allow the United States
to continue to successfully pursue international marlin conservation measures by fully
implementing U.S. international obligations and potentially provide a minor ecological impact
with, at most, minor adverse economic impacts.
NMFS received strong public comment opposed to the Atlantic white marlin catch and
release alternative. Based on public comment that indicated more significant concerns over
potential adverse economic impacts to the fishery if catch and release only fishing for Atlantic
white marlin were required, as well as a number of other factors, including but not limited to, the
impending receipt of a new stock assessment for Atlantic white marlin and upcoming
international negotiations on Atlantic marlin, NMFS has chosen not to prohibit landings of
Atlantic white marlin. Additionally, the Agency received substantial comment in support of this
measure. The commenters supporting the landings prohibition stated concerns over white marlin
stock status, the ESA listing review, and an interest in maintaining leadership at the international
level. The implementation of circle hook requirements (alternative E3) is an important first step
in reducing mortality in the directed billfish fishery. NMFS will consider catch and release only
fishing options for Atlantic white marlin as well as other billfish conservation measures in future
rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-5

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

8.2.5

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Domestic Management Measures

NMFS received public comment in the past regarding the timing of annual BFT
specification publication and that administrative or other delays in publishing the annual BFT
specifications can have adverse social and economic impacts due to constituents inability to
make informed business decisions. Under the preferred alternative the annual BFT quota
specifications established baseline domestic quota category allocations, as well as adjusted those
allocations based on the previous years under- and/or overharvest. Any delay in publishing the
annual BFT quota specifications would have prolonged the establishment of a baseline quota in
any of the domestic categories.
NMFS received a number of comments opposing the removal of the Angling category
North/South dividing line and one comment supporting its removal. In response to those
comments, NMFS modified preferred alternative F4 to include maintaining the north/south
dividing line.
Fishermen have commented that knowing the exact schedule of BFT RFDs prior to the
season facilitates planning and scheduling of trips and the preferred alternative F6 should help
facilitate the development of timely schedules.
8.2.6

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries

The timeframe for annual management of HMS fisheries preferred alternative G2 was
modified because the comment period was extended. The actual compressed fishing year would
occur in 2007 rather than 2006 as described in the draft Consolidated HMS FMP. During the
public comment period, several commenters expressed concern about the effect of a calendar
year management cycle on the availability of quota rollover from the previous calendar year
during the January portion of the south Atlantic fishery. Under changes to the BFT management
program included in this Consolidated HMS FMP, the January subperiod would be provided
with a quota of 5.3 percent of the annual ICCAT allocation.
8.2.7

Authorized Fishing Gear

In regard to authorized gears, there was strong public comment support for the preferred
alternative H2 authorizing speargun fishing as a permissible gear type for recreational Atlantic
BAYS tuna. NMFS has received written requests, comment at public hearings, and has heard
presentations at AP meetings requesting that NMFS authorize the use of speargun fishing gear in
the Atlantic tuna fishery. NMFS has received comment that recreational spearfishermen place a
high value on spearfishing for tunas and are currently traveling outside of the United States for
the opportunity to participate in tunas speargun fisheries.
During the public comment period, numerous comments were received expressing
confusion over the current regulatory regime regarding green-stick gear, unease over the
potential impacts and intent of the preferred alternative in the draft Consolidated HMS FMP, and
concern over potential negative impacts of the green-stick gear. Therefore, the agency does no
longer prefer H4, the green-stick authorization alternative.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-6

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

In regard to buoy gear, the Agency received public comment requesting that commercial
vessels be limited to deploying fewer than 35 individual buoy gears. Additionally, commercial
fishermen familiar with this gear type requested that they be allowed to attach multiple floatation
devices to buoy gears to aid in monitoring and retrieval, as well as allow them to use “bite
indicator” floats that will alert them to gears with fish attached. In response to public comment,
NMFS modified the preferred alternative to allow fishermen to use more than one floatation
device per gear and configure the gear differently depending on vessel and crew capabilities, or
weather and sea conditions. This increased flexibility may result in positive social impacts and
increased safety at sea.
The Agency has also received public comment in support of the clarification of the
allowance of cockpit gears associated with alternative H7.
8.2.8

Regulatory Housekeeping

The public also provided comment on the proposed regulatory housekeeping alternatives.
NMFS requested public comment regarding whether or not to include a definition of "fishing
floats" in the regulations, and on potential language for a “float” definition. Based on these
comments, NMFS has chosen not to prefer alternative I1(b) in this document. Several
commenters indicated that the number of floats is not an appropriate gauge to determine the type
of fishing gear that is being deployed, and that the presence of “bullet floats,” anchors, or the
type of mainline would be better indicators. Other commenters stated a float requirement would
be an unnecessary burden that could diminish the flexibility of vessel operators to participate in
different fishing activities, depending upon the circumstances. Finally, consultations with NMFS
Office of Law Enforcement indicated that the float requirement in alternative I1(b) would not be
practical. For these reasons, alternative I1(b) is no longer preferred. Although alternative I1(b)
was preferred in conjunction with alternative I1(c) in the draft HMS FMP, NMFS believes that
the objective of this alternative can be effectively achieved by implementing alternative I1(c)
alone, species composition of catch.
On the basis of public comment, the list of demersal “indicator” species associated with
alternative I1(c) has been modified from the Draft HMS FMP by removing silky, great
hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, and smooth hammerhead sharks from the list, and by
adding tilefish, blueline tilefish, and sand tilefish to the list. NMFS believes that these changes
are appropriate because those shark species can be caught on both pelagic and bottom longlines,
and because the tilefish species are representative of demersal fishing activity.
NMFS received comments indicating that alternative I1(c) could adversely impact
longline vessels that fish, at least part of a trip, in HMS closed areas and that catch both demersal
and pelagic species on those trips. Similar to the comments received regarding alternative I1(b),
there were concerns that, by establishing a species threshold when fishing in HMS closed areas,
this alternative would restrict the flexibility of longline vessel operators to participate in different
fishing activities depending upon the circumstances. Also, adverse economic impacts could
result if vessel operators are unable to retain a portion of their catch that otherwise would have
been retained on mixed fishing trips in the closed areas, or if they must necessarily choose to fish
outside of the closed areas. NMFS received other comments indicating that there could be
additional costs on vessels if they are boarded at sea by enforcement, and it was necessary to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-7

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

retrieve or observe fish in the hold in order to calculate the percentages of demersal and pelagic
species possessed onboard. The Agency, however, still finds that this preferred alternative is
important in maintaining existing time/area closures.
In regards to alternative I2(b) regarding that the second dorsal fin and anal fin remain on
all sharks through landing, NMFS received various comments supporting the preferred
alternative, as well as comments confirming that retention of second dorsal and anal fins through
landing could improve shark identification and species-specific landing data. However, NMFS
also received comments indicating that this alternative would do little to improve shark
identification. NMFS received comment that although these species have valuable fins, retaining
them until landing was acceptable. The Agency received a comment opposing this alternative
due to additional time and revenue losses that may result from removing the smaller/secondary
fins after docking. While initial adjustments may have to be made to the offloading and
processing procedures, in the long-term, improved quota monitoring and stock assessment data
as a result of this alternative could result in a larger quota and therefore larger net revenues for
both the fishermen and the dealer.
Public comment suggests that, among active fishery participants, a requirement for
handlines to remain attached to all vessels would reduce the number of handlines that could be
fished or deployed. Operationally, it may also be less efficient to fish with several attached
handlines as they may be more prone to entanglement. Because this alternative could restrict or
limit fishing effort, it is projected to produce unquantifiable positive ecological impacts,
including a reduction in the bycatch of undersized swordfish, other undersized species, protected
species, and target species catches. Based upon public comment the practice does not appear to
be widespread, but it may be growing among a small number of vessel operators primarily
targeting swordfish in the East Florida Coast closed area. According to public comment,
recreational swordfish catches would most likely be affected, as that is the primary target
species. If few recreational vessels are currently fishing with unattached handlines, then any
social or economic impacts associated with this alternative would be minimal.
NMFS prefers alternative I7(b) regarding allowing the option for electronic reporting for
BFT dealer reports, and has received public comment supporting this alternative. The preferred
alternative would provide an option for BFT dealers to submit certain reports electronically over
the Internet once such a system is developed, but would not require it.
Based upon public comment regarding requiring vessel owners to report non-tournament
recreational landing of North Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic billfish under preferred alternative
I9(b), this alternative has been modified slightly from the draft HMS FMP by specifying that a
vessel owner’s designee may also report landings, in lieu of the owner. NMFS received
comment indicating that this alternative could potentially disadvantage absentee vessel owners.
In consideration of this comment, NMFS has modified the preferred alternative to allow an
owner’s designee to report.
During the comment period, NMFS received comments from several states who felt that
NMFS was exceeding their authority with the permit condition. NMFS believes that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act does provide the authority to manage HMS species throughout their
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-8

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

range (16 U.S.C. 1812 Section 102). NMFS could opt to pre-empt state’s authority either
through the Magnuson-Stevens Act or through ATCA. However, NMFS prefers to work with
states and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions towards consistent
regulations that meet both international and domestic goals because each state is different and the
fishermen in each state prefer to fish for different HMS (e.g., fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico
may fish for Atlantic sharpnose sharks while fishermen in New Jersey would not) and use
different gears.
Finally, NMFS received several comments in general regarding the information presented
regarding the HMS recreational sector. Section 3.5.2 provides detailed information regarding the
data available and past research concerning the HMS recreational fisheries. Economic data on
recreational data is difficult to collect and challenging to interpret. Nevertheless, efforts have
been undertake to improve, update, and expand upon the economic information regarding the
HMS recreational fisheries.
8.3

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rule Will Apply

NMFS considers all permit holders to be small entities as reflected in the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) size standards for fishing entities. All permit holders are considered to
be small entities because they either had gross receipts less than $3.5 million for fish-harvesting,
gross receipts less than $6.0 million for charter/party boats, or 100 or fewer employees for
wholesale dealers. These are the SBA size standards for defining a small versus large business
entity in this industry. A description of the fisheries affected, the categories and number of
permit holders, and registered tournaments can be found in Chapter 3.
8.3.1 Workshops
The alternatives considered for requiring attendance at workshops on protected species
release, disentanglement, and identification for pelagic longline, bottom longline, and gillnet
owners and operators (A2, A3, and A5) are estimated to apply to 549 vessels permitted to fish
for HMS with longline gear and 20 shark gillnet vessels. The preferred alternatives for shark
identification workshops (A9) would impact approximately 336 Federally permitted shark
dealers.
8.3.2 Time/Area Closures
The preferred time/area closure alternative (B4) to implement complementary HMS
time/area closures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserve would apply
to 549 pelagic and bottom longline permitted vessels, but would likely impact few pelagic or
bottom longline vessels based on past observer and logbook data indicating only one pelagic
longline and two bottom longline sets reported in those areas. This preferred alternative would
also apply to 4,173 permitted HMS charter/headboat businesses and 25,238 HMS angling permit
holders. However, the impacts to charter/headboat businesses and recreational fishermen are not
expected to be substantial since this alternative includes a seasonal surface trolling allowance. In
addition, many of these businesses have already been impacted by the previously implemented
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves established by the GOMFMC, and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-9

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

therefore are not likely to face further economic impacts as a result of the preferred
complimentary HMS closure in the same area.
8.3.3

Northern Albacore Tuna

The preferred alternative considered for northern albacore management (C3), which
would establish the foundation for developing an international rebuilding program through
ICCAT, would apply to all tuna categories, a total of 34,501 permit holders. However, the
preferred alternative does not have any direct impacts on small entities in the short term because
it does not require any changes to direct management measures at this time.
8.3.4

Finetooth Sharks

The preferred alternative for finetooth sharks, a strategy for preventing overfishing (D4),
also would not have any direct impacts on small entities but could affect 20 commercial vessels
and potentially some of the 25,238 HMS angling permit holders. The non-preferred commercial
management alternative, however, would apply to the estimated 20 shark gillnet vessels that are
permitted and could apply to all commercial shark permit holders depending on what the
management measures would be. The non-preferred recreational management alternative would
apply to the 25,238 HMS angling permit holders; however, a small percentage of these
recreational anglers target small coastal sharks or finetooth sharks.
8.3.5

Atlantic Billfish

The preferred Atlantic billfish Alternatives E3 and E6 would apply to 25,238 Angling,
4,173 CHB, and up to 4,824 valid General (those participating in tournaments) category permits.
In addition, there are currently 256 registered HMS tournaments that would be impacted by the
Atlantic billfish alternatives.
8.3.6

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Domestic Management Measures

The alternatives being considered for bluefin tuna management for time-periods and
subquota allocations would primarily apply to the 4,824 General category tuna permit holders.
However, other bluefin tuna alternatives to streamline management processes would apply to all
tuna categories, a total of 34,501 permit holders (Section 3.9.4).
8.3.7

Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries

The alternatives that consider changing the timeframe for annual management of HMS
fisheries from a fishing year to a calendar year would essentially apply to all 36,925 HMS permit
and tournament registrants, including dealer permits. Under the preferred alternative (G2), only
the shark fishery would not be impacted by the shift in annual management timeframe because it
is already managed on a calendar year basis at this time.
8.3.8

Authorized Fishing Gear

Several alternatives allowing or defining authorized gears would apply to small entities.
The authorization of recreational speargun fishing for Atlantic tunas (H2) would apply to an
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-10

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

unknown number of speargun users. This preferred alternative may also positively impact the
4,173 CHB permit holders by potentially increasing charter revenues. The non-preferred
alternative to allow speargun in both recreational and commercial tuna fisheries (H3) would also
apply directly to the 4,824 General category and 4,173 CHB permit holders. Alternative H5,
which address the utilization of unattached handlines, would apply to 279 permit holders (88
swordfish handgear and 191 swordfish directed). The preferred alternative clarifying the
authorized use of secondary cockpit gears (H7) would apply to all HMS permit holders.
8.3.9 Regulatory Housekeeping
Finally, a variety of regulatory housekeeping preferred alternatives would apply to small
entities. Specifically, the preferred change to the definitions of pelagic and bottom longline
(alternative I1(c)) would apply to the 576 permitted pelagic and bottom longline vessels. The
preferred alternative requiring smaller second dorsal and anal fins would need to remain attached
to the shark (alternative I2(b)) would apply to the 240 directed shark and 312 incident shark
permit holders. The preferred HMS retention limit requirements (I3) would apply to the 621
permitted shark and swordfish dealers and the 416 permitted Atlantic tuna dealers. The change
in the definition of the East Florida Coast Closed Area (I4) is unlikely to directly impact any
small entities but could affect any commercial permit holders fishing in that area. The preferred
alternative prohibiting the retention of Atlantic billfish by vessels issued commercial permits and
operating on a non-for-hire trip or outside of a tournament (I6(b)) would apply to General
category, bottom longline, and shark gillnet vessels utilizing rod and real gear, but it is unlikely
that many would be impacted by this proposed regulation. The preferred alternative to amend
the HMS regulations to provide an option for Atlantic tunas dealers to submit required BFT
reports using the Internet (I7(b)) would apply to the 416 Atlantic tuna permit dealer holders. The
preferred alternative requiring vessel owners or proxies to report non-tournament recreational
landings of North Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic billfish (I9(b)) would apply to 4,173 CHB
permit holders and 25,238 Angling permit holders, but it is not expected that this proposal would
impact many entities. Finally, the preferred alternative requiring recreational vessels with a
Federal permit to abide by Federal regulations (I11(b)), regardless of where they are fishing,
would potentially apply to 25,238 Angling, 4,173 CHB, and up to 4,824 valid General (those
participating in tournaments) category permits.
Other sectors of the HMS fisheries such as dealers, processors, bait houses, and gear
manufacturers, some of which are considered small entities, might be indirectly affected by the
preferred alternatives, particularly time/area closures, Atlantic billfish, and authorized gear
alternatives. However, the rule does not apply directly to them, unless otherwise noted above.
Rather, it applies only to permit holders and fishermen. As such, economic impacts on these
other sectors are discussed in Chapters 4, 6, and 7.
8.4

Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small
Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirements of the Report or Record

None of the preferred alternatives in this document would result in additional reporting,
record-keeping, and compliance requirements that would require new Paperwork Reduction Act
filings. However, some of the preferred alternatives could modify existing reporting and record­
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-11

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

keeping requirements. These include workshops, coordination efforts directed at gathering
additional information about finetooth shark mortality, and bluefin tuna dealer reporting. The
preferred alternatives for workshops (A2, A3, A5, A6, A9, and A16) would require recordkeeping by NMFS to record attendance at workshops and the certification status of pelagic and
bottom longline vessel owners and operators, as well as shark gillnet owners and operators and
shark dealers and proxies. This Agency record keeping would not have an impact on small
entities although small entities will need to keep their own certificates and may decide to keep
copies of certificates for their own records. Attending workshops would also be a change in
compliance.
In addition, the finetooth shark preferred alternative (D4) may expand the coverage of the
current HMS observer programs. In addition, this preferred alternative would result in efforts to
expand data that are currently collected by NMFS observers on shrimp trawl vessels to include
finetooth shark and other HMS species of interest. Fishermen themselves would not need to
change reporting.
Finally, under regulatory housekeeping, the preferred alternative to allow bluefin tuna
dealers the option to report electronically (I7(b)) once a system is developed and is made
available would modify current reporting requirement, but would not result in additional
reporting or burden. In fact, this option may reduce the potential need to report the same data on
multiple reports for those some small entities that chose this option.
In addition to the reporting and record-keeping requirements of the preferred alternatives,
there are also compliance requirements associated with the preferred alternatives. These
compliance requirement include limiting billfish tournament participants to using only non-offset
circle hooks when using natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations (E3), requiring
the retention of shark second dorsal and anal fins (I2(b)), and establishing the minimum and
maximum number of floats for bottom longline and pelagic longline gear definitions (I1(b)).
The other preferred alternatives, which are outlined in Chapter 2, would change quota
allocations, timeframes, authorized gear types, definitions, and other management measures, but
would not likely change reporting or compliance in the fishery.
8.5

Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken to Minimize the Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent with the Stated Objectives of
Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the Factual, Policy, and Legal
Reasons for Selecting the Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule and the Reason
That Each One of the Other Significant Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the
Agency Which Affect Small Entities Was Rejected

One of the requirements of an FRFA is to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule
that accomplish the stated objectives and that minimize any significant economic impacts. These
impacts are discussed below and in Chapters 4 and 6 of this document. Additionally, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 603 (c) (1)-(4)) lists four general categories of
“significant” alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant
alternatives. These categories of alternatives are:

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-12

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

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 final HMS FMP and the statutes (i.e., Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA,
ESA) as well as address the management concerns at hand, NMFS cannot exempt small entities
or change the reporting requirements for small entities. Among other things, this final HMS
FMP would set quotas for the fishing season, retention limits for the recreational fishery, and
gear restrictions, all of which would not be as effective with differing compliance and reporting
requirements. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed which fall under the first and fourth
categories described above. Alternatives under the second and third categories are discussed
below with the alternatives that were considered but not preferred.
As described below, NMFS considered a number of alternatives that could minimize the
economic impact on small entities, particularly those pertaining to workshops, time/area
closures, northern albacore tuna, finetooth sharks, Atlantic billfish, bluefin tuna quota
management, timeframe for annual management, authorized fishing gears, and regulatory
housekeeping measures.
8.5.1

Bycatch Reduction

8.5.1.1 Workshops
The preferred alternatives for protected species safe handling, release, and identification
workshops require mandatory workshops and certification on a three year renewal timeline (A6)
for all HMS pelagic and bottom longline vessel owners (A2) and operators (A3) and shark gillnet
vessel owners and operators (A5). These measures were designed to minimize the economic
impacts on fishermen, while simultaneously complying with 2003 BiOp and the post-release
mortality targets for protected resources established in the June 2004 BiOp. Alternative A2 is
estimated to have an economic impact to each bottom and pelagic longline vessel owner of up to
$281 and $448 in potentially lost revenue share based on 2004 logbook data, as well as
unquantified travel costs to attend a workshop. The aggregate economic impact is estimated to
be between $154,269 and $258,048 in the first year. Longline vessel operators would also be
impacted by the preferred alternative, but it might not impact the economic well-being of the
small business for which they work. In addition, the estimated twenty shark gillnet owners that
would be participating in required workshops would each have an economic impact of up to
$424 in lost revenue share based on 2004 logbook data, as well as unquantified travel costs to
attend a workshop.
Specifically, under these alternatives, NMFS would strive to host a number of workshops
in regional fishing hubs in order to minimize travel and lost fishing time. Besides the costs of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-13

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

travel and lost time, there would be no additional costs for workshop participants. NMFS would
attempt to hold workshops during periods when the fishery is typically inactive, effectively
minimizing lost fishing time. To minimize the overall economic cost of these workshops, the
preferred alternatives would limit required participation in these workshops to owners and
operators. Owners and operators could pass information and appropriate direction to their crew
concerning release, disentanglement, and identification of protected resources. NMFS would
also select a recertification period that would allow for sufficient retraining to maintain
proficiency and update fishermen on new research and development related to the subject matter
while not placing an excessive economic burden on the participants due to lost fishing time and
travel resulting from attending a recertification workshop in person. In addition, to lower the
costs of recertification, NMFS is considering the use of alternative sources of media including
CD-ROM, DVDs, or web-based media that would not result in travel costs or lost fishing time,
as well as allowing private certified trainers to provide training at tailored times and locations to
minimize any costs.
Other alternatives considered were voluntary workshops for longline fishermen (A1) and
mandatory workshops that would include crewmembers in addition to owners and operators
(A4). Several alternatives would have less onerous economic impacts to small businesses
relative to the preferred alternatives. These include: the No Action alternative (A1) and
mandatory workshops for only owners or only operators. These alternatives would not satisfy
the RPA under the June 2004 BiOp issued pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
The preferred alternative for identification workshops, which would require mandatory
workshops for all Federally permitted shark dealers (A9), is preferred because species-specific
identification of offloaded shark carcasses is much more difficult than other HMS as evidenced
by the large proportion of “unclassified” sharks listed on shark dealer logbooks. The Agency
would attempt to minimize economic impacts to shark dealers by holding workshops at fishing
ports to minimize travel costs and during non-peak fishing times to minimize perturbations to
business activity, to the extent possible. As a result of public comment, dealers would also have
the option to specify proxies to attend workshops in order to increase flexibility and minimize
costs. Similar measures as those being considered for disentanglement and identification
recertification are being considered for the identification workshops for shark dealers in order to
minimize the economic impacts caused by this measure.
Other alternatives in addition to the No Action alternative were voluntary HMS
identification workshops (A8), mandatory identification workshops for swordfish and tuna
dealers (A10), mandatory identification workshops for all commercial longline vessel owners
(A11) and operators (A12), mandatory identification workshops for all commercial vessel
(longline, CHB, General category, and handgear/harpoon) owners (A13) and operators (A14),
and mandatory identification workshops for all HMS Angling permit holders (A15). The
economic impacts of these alternatives are detailed in Chapter 6. The No Action (A7) and
voluntary HMS identification workshop alternative (A8) would have less onerous economic
impacts relative to the preferred alternative. However, these alternatives would not address the
persistent problems with species-specific shark identification in dealer reports nor satisfy the
requirements and goals of this final HMS FMP or aid in rebuilding the shark fishery.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-14

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

In addition to the type of workshops, NMFS considered two additional renewal
timetables of two and five years. A renewal timetable of five years would have a less adverse
impact than the preferred timetable of three years. However, recertification every five years for
bycatch release and disentanglement workshops would allow a more extensive period of time to
lapse between certification workshops than necessary to maintain proficiency and provide
updates on research and development of handling and dehooking protocols. In a similar fashion,
recertification every five years for HMS identification workshops would also allow a more
extensive period of time to lapse between certification workshops than necessary to maintain
proficiency in species identification.
8.5.1.2 Time/Area Closures
The preferred alternatives for time/area closures, which would implement complementary
measures in Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures (B4) and establish criteria to be
considered when implementing new time/area closures or making modifications to existing
time/area closures (B5), were designed to minimize economic impacts incurred by fishermen,
while simultaneously reducing the bycatch of non-target HMS and protected species, such as sea
turtles, in Atlantic HMS fisheries. Alternative B4 would establish complementary HMS
regulations in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures with minimal economic
impacts. Creating these complementary HMS regulations would consolidate and simplify
requirements for fishermen, and therefore simplify compliance. This alternative would also
implement compatible regulations that would provide for a seasonal allowance (May – October)
for surface trolling to partially alleviate any negative economic impacts associated with the
closures or the HMS recreational and charter/headboat sector.
Other alternatives considered in addition to the No Action alternative were a closure of
11,191 nm2 in the central Gulf of Mexico to pelagic longline gear (B2(a)), a closure of 2,251 nm2
in the Northeast to pelagic longline gear (B2(b)), a closure of 101,670 nm2 in bluefin tuna
spawning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (B2(c)), a closure west of 86º W Longitude in the Gulf of
Mexico to pelagic longline gear (B2(d)), a closure of 46956 nm2 in the Northeast to pelagic
longline gear (B2(e)), a prohibition on the use of bottom longline gear in an area off the Florida
Keys to protect endangered smalltooth sawfish (B6), and a prohibition on the use of pelagic
longline gear in HMS fisheries in all areas (B7). These closures alternatives were not preferred
due to large economic impacts with conflicting ecological benefits between species. The details
of the economic impacts associated with these other alternatives are detailed in Section 4.1.2 and
Chapter 6. In addition to the closure alternatives, modifications to existing closures were also
considered for the Charleston Bump closure (B3(a)) and the Northeastern U.S. closure (B3(b)
which provided some economic relief but did not meet ecological needs.
Alternative B5 would establish criteria that would guide future decision-making
regarding implementation or modification of time/area closures. This would provide enhanced
transparency, predictability, and understanding of HMS management decisions. The time/area
closure criteria would not have immediate impacts. Any ecological, social, or economic impacts
of a specific closure or modified closure would be analyzed in the future when that specific
action is proposed.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-15

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

8.5.2

Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing

8.5.2.1 Northern Albacore Tuna
The preferred alternative for northern albacore management, which would establish the
foundation for developing an international rebuilding program (C3), was designed to address
rebuilding of the northern albacore tuna fishery while simultaneously minimizing economic
impacts incurred by fishermen. This alternative would have minimal economic impacts, because
it would not implement any additional restrictions at this time. Even under an international plan,
the United States is a small participant in this fishery and only has a small allocation that it does
not even fully harvest at this time.
Other alternatives considered were No Action (C1) and taking unilateral proportional
reductions in northern albacore tuna harvest (C2). Taking unilateral action to address northern
albacore tuna on the part of the United States would likely not be effective in rebuilding the
stock because the United States is a small participant in this fishery, and would have larger
economic impacts than the preferred alternative.
The No Action alternative would have the same economic impacts as the preferred
alternative because NMFS has been promoting an international rebuilding plan at ICCAT. In a
prior rulemaking, NMFS addressed the same northern albacore tuna alternatives but did not
incorporate them into the HMS FMP. The No Action alternative is rejected, because it would
not include the rebuilding strategy in the FMP.
8.5.2.2 Finetooth Sharks
The preferred alternative for finetooth shark management (D4) was designed to address
overfishing while minimizing economic impacts incurred by fishermen and potential negative
ecological impacts. This alternative would be expected to have minimal to no economic impacts,
because no new restrictions are being proposed at this time. Long-term, the alternative would
have positive ecological impacts by addressing finetooth mortality in HMS and other fisheries
and positive economic impacts if the fishery is sustained.
Other alternatives considered were No Action (D1), commercial management measures
(D2), and recreational management measures (D3). Only the No Action alternative would have
less economic impact relative to the preferred alternative. However, this alternative was not
preferred because it would not facilitate efforts to address overfishing of finetooth sharks.
8.5.2.3 Atlantic Billfish
The preferred alternatives for Atlantic billfish management, which include requiring the
use of non-offset circle hooks when using natural baits in tournaments (E3) and implementing
the ICCAT marlin landings limits (E6), were designed to minimize economic impacts incurred
by recreational fishing sector, while simultaneously enhancing the management of the directed
Atlantic billfish fishery. Specifically, alternative E3 would likely have a minimal economic
impact, since it would not affect all billfish recreational anglers, only tournament participants.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-16

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

Therefore, the impacts on hook manufactures, retailers, and anglers would likely be limited given
that J-hooks would continue to be permitted outside of tournaments and within tournaments with
artificial lures. In addition, delayed implementation to 2007 would help lower any potential
economic impacts due to supply and demand changes. Impacts on tournaments would also likely
be minimal, given the increase in the number of tournaments that provide special award
categories or additional points for billfish captured and released on circle hooks. Alternative E3
would also likely have high compliance rates given the self-policing that is likely to occur among
tournament participants competing for prizes, as well as the increasing use of tournament
observers.
Alternative E6 is the preferred alternative because management measures can be
implemented in response to the needs of a given fishing year to ensure maximum utilization of
the ICCAT landing limit. The alternative considers three levels of management measures based
upon marlin landing thresholds to minimize the economic impact. When it is not expected that
marlin landings will approach the threshold for action, then no in-season actions would occur
and there would not be any economic impacts. If the threshold for action were achieved,
minimum size requirements for Atlantic marlins would increase to a level sufficient to curtail
landings. Finally, if the ICCAT landing limits were achieved in any one year, the fishery would
shift to a catch and release only fishery for the remainder of that year. This last scenario would
be unlikely given historical landings and minimum size requirements that would occur at the
action threshold. Under the preferred calendar year management alternative (G2), alternative E6
also would help reduce any disproportionate economic impacts to CHB operators, tournaments,
and anglers who fish for marlin late in the fishing year or in late season tournaments by
providing anglers the greatest opportunity to land marlin over the entire length of the fishing
year. Alternative E6 is estimated to potentially result in $1.3 to $2.7 million in economic
impacts as compared to the $13.4 to $20.0 million in impacts for catch-and-release only for
Atlantic blue and white marlin (Alternatives E7 and E8 combined) resulting in an estimated one
to two tournament cancellations and unquantified impacts on CHB businesses.
Other alternatives considered were No Action (E1), limiting all participants in the
Atlantic HMS recreational fishery to using only non-offset circle hooks when using natural baits
or natural bait/artificial lure combinations in all HMS fisheries (E2), increasing the minimum
size limit for Atlantic white and/or blue marlin (E4), implementing recreational bag limits of one
Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip (E5), allowing only catch and release fishing for Atlantic
white marlin (E7), and allowing only catch-and-release fishing for Atlantic blue marlin (E8).
Only the No Action alternative would have less onerous economic impacts relative to the
preferred alternative. However, the No Action alternative would not satisfy the requirements and
goals of implementing the ICCAT recommendations under ATCA, rebuilding the Atlantic blue
and white marlin fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the objectives of the HMS FMP.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-17

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

8.5.3

Management Program Structure

8.5.3.1 Bluefin Tuna Quota Management
The preferred alternatives for bluefin tuna quota management include revised General
category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized winter fishery (F3(c)), clarified
procedures for calculating the Angling category school size-class subquota allocation (F4),
modification of the bluefin tuna specification process and streamlining annual under/overharvest
procedures (F6), an individual quota category carryover limit and authorization of the transfer of
quota exceeding limit (F8), and revised and consolidated criteria that would be considered prior
to performing a BFT inseason action (F10). These preferred alternatives were designed to
minimize economic impacts incurred by fishermen, while simultaneously enhancing and
clarifying bluefin tuna quota management and inseason actions.
Alternative F3(c) would strike a balance between providing consistent quota allocations
and having the flexibility to amend them in a timely fashion. This alternative would slightly
reduce General category quota from early time periods, thereby allowing for a formal winter
General category bluefin tuna fishery to take place during the months of December and January,
and therefore would increase regional access. By shifting the allocated quota from the June
through August time-period, which has an overall higher allocation, to a later time-period any
adverse impacts would be mitigated by the increased revenue generated in the later time-period.
In addition, the fishermen from the Northeast are not precluded from fishing in southern areas
during winter bluefin tuna season.
Alternative F4 would clarify the procedures NMFS uses in calculating the ICCAT
recommendation regarding the eight percent tolerance for BFT under 115 cm. It would also
maintain the north/south dividing line that separates the Angling category. This alternative is not
likely to have an economic impact.
Alternative F6 would simplify quota allocations by eliminating the need to allocate each
domestic quota categories’ baseline allocation each year, as the allocation percentages and the
actual quota equivalents (measured in metric tons) would be codified in the regulations
implementing the consolidated HMS FMP at least until ICCAT alters its BFT TAC
recommendation. This alternative would have positive economic impacts to the domestic BFT
fishery as a whole by allowing BFT fishery participants, either commercial or recreational in
nature, to make better informed decisions on how to best establish a business plan for the
upcoming season.
Alternative F8 would have some economic impacts as a result of limiting the amount of
underharvest of the bluefin tuna quota that could be rolled over from one year to the next within
a category. However, this alternative was designed to mitigate any impacts by allowing NMFS
to redistribute quota exceeding the proposed 100 percent rollover cap to the Reserve or to other
domestic quota categories, provided the redistributions are consistent with ICCAT
recommendations and the redistribution criteria.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-18

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

Alternative F10 would result in slightly more positive economic impacts as the criteria
NMFS must consider when making an inseason action determination would be consolidated and
consistent regardless of what type of inseason action is being considered. This would minimize
confusion and provide additional transparency to the management process.
Other alternatives considered in addition to the No Action (F1, F5, and F9) alternatives
were establishing General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic set asides annually
via framework actions (F2); establishing monthly General category time-periods and subquotas
(F3(a)); revising the General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a formalized
winter fishery with different time-period allocations (F3(b) and (d)); eliminating the
underharvest quota carryover provisions (F7), and eliminating the BFT inseason actions (F10).
These additional alternatives would not likely reduce overall impacts to the fishery as a whole
further relative to the preferred alternatives.
8.5.3.2 Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
The preferred alternative for the timeframe for annual management of HMS fisheries,
which would shift the time frame to a calendar year (January 1 to December 31 (G2)), was
designed to minimize economic impacts on HMS fisheries and simplify HMS fishery
management and reporting to ICCAT. This alternative would not impact the shark fishery, since
that fishery is already operating under a calendar year. The shift in the other HMS fisheries’
timeframe for annual management would establish consistent timing between U.S. domestic and
international management programs, reducing the complexity of U.S. reports to ICCAT and
creating more transparent analyses in the U.S. National Report. Setting an annual quota and
other fishery specifications on a multi-year basis for bluefin tuna could mitigate any potential
negative impacts associated with reduced business planning periods that may result from a
calendar year timeframe. The flexibility established in alternative E6 for billfish could partially
mitigate any negative regional economic impacts to marlin tournaments, charters, and other
related recreational fishing businesses. To facilitate the transition to a calendar year management
timeframe for bluefin tuna and swordfish, the 2007 fishing year would be abbreviated from June
1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, which could provide slightly higher quotas during that time
period and slight positive impacts for fishermen. The specifics of this abbreviated season would
be implemented under a separate action.
Other alternatives considered were to maintain the current fishing year (G1) and to shift
the fishing year to June 1 - May 31 for all HMS species (G3). These alternatives are not likely to
result in economic impacts substantially different than the preferred alternative; however, they
would not meet the objectives of this action.
8.5.3.3 Authorized Fishing Gears
The preferred alternatives for authorized gears, which would authorize speargun fishing
in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery (H2), authorize buoy gear for the commercial swordfish
fishery (H5), and clarify the allowance of hand-held cockpit gear (H7), were designed to reduce
the economic impacts to fishermen, in the case of H5, and enhance the economic opportunities in
recreational and commercial fishing. Specifically, alternative H2 would enhance economic

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-19

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

opportunities in the tuna recreational fishery by including a new authorized class of recreational
fishing, speargun fishing.
The swordfish handgear fishery may currently utilize individual handlines attached to
free-floating buoys, however, preferred alternative I5(b) would require that handlines used in
HMS fisheries be attached to a vessel. Alternative H5 would change the definition of individual
free-floating buoyed lines, that are currently considered to be handlines, to “buoy gear,” allowing
the commercial swordfish handgear fishery to continue utilizing this gear type. Alternative H5
would explicitly authorized this gear type but limit vessels to possessing and deploying no more
than 35 individual buoys with each having no more than two hooks or gangions attached. The
economic impact of this alternative would likely be minimal, since the upper limit on the number
of buoys is based on information obtained about the fishery though public comment, and based
on what NMFS has identified as the manageable upper limit for the commercial sector.
Finally, alternative H7 would also likely reduce confusion over the allowable use of
secondary cockpit gears to subdue HMS captured on authorized gears. The use of these
secondary gears might result in positive economic benefits from anticipated increases in
retention rates.
Other alternatives considered in addition to No Action were to authorize speargun in both
the commercial tuna handgear and recreational tuna fisheries (H3), authorizing green-stick
fishing gear (H4), and authorizing buoy gear in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery with
50 buoys with 14 hooks each (H6). None of the non-preferred alternatives would have less
economic impacts than the preferred alternatives.
8.5.3.4 Regulatory Housekeeping
The preferred alternatives for regulatory housekeeping items were designed to minimize
economic impacts, while also clarifying regulatory definitions and requirements, facilitating
species identification, and enhancing regulatory compliance.
The preferred alternative I1(c), which would differentiate between BLL and PLL gear by
using the species composition of catch landed, would more clearly define the difference between
BLL and PLL gear using a combination of gear configuration and performance standards based
on the composition of catch landed. This would clarify the difference between these two gear
types and enhance compliance with time/area closures that place restrictions on these two gear
types. There could be some, but likely limited, economic impacts to vessels that may currently
fish in gear restricted time/areas closures that do not conform to the proposed BLL and PLL gear
specifications and performance standards. This performance based standard could adversely
impact those longline vessels that regularly target both demersal and pelagic species on the same
trip. Other alternatives considered in addition to the No Action alternative were to specify
maximum and minimum number of floats for BLL and PLL gear (I1(b)) require time/depth
recorders on all HMS longlines (I1(d)) and base closures on all longline vessels (I1(e)). Only the
No Action alternative could have less onerous economic impacts relative to the preferred
alternatives. However, the No Action alternative would not address the Agency’s concerns with
differentiating between bottom and pelagic longline gear.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-20

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

The preferred alternative for shark identification, which would require that the second
dorsal fin and anal fin remain attached on all sharks (I2(b)), addresses issues associated with
shark species identification, but would be flexible enough to still allow fishermen to remove the
most valuable fins in order to minimize the economic impacts of this alternative. Fishermen
could experience, in the short-term, some adverse economic impacts associated with lower
revenues associated with keeping the second dorsal and anal fins on sharks. Other alternatives
considered in addition to the No Action alternative (I2(a)) were to require the dorsal and anal fin
on all sharks except lemon and nurse sharks (I2(c)) and to require all fins on all sharks be
retained (I2(d)). Some alternatives could have fewer economic impacts relative to the preferred
alternative. These include the No Action alternative and the alternative requiring the dorsal and
anal fin on all sharks except lemon and nurse sharks (I2(c)). These alternatives, however, would
not satisfy enforcement and species identification needs.
The preferred alternatives I3(b) and I3(c), which would prohibit the purchase or sale of
HMS from vessels in excess of retention limits, would enhance compliance with current
regulations by consolidating the requirement for both vessels and dealers. These alternatives
would have minimal economic impact on dealers and vessels following the current retention
limits. The only additional alternative considered was No Action, which would have less
economic impact than the preferred alternatives but would not satisfy the enforcement or
monitoring objectives.
The preferred alternative I4(b), which would amend the Florida East Coast closed area,
would clarify the regulations regarding this closed area and make them consistent with the
boundary of the EEZ. The only additional alternative considered was No Action. Neither
alternative is expected to have any economic impact since fishing activity is likely to be limited
in this small area.
The preferred alternative I5(b), which would amend the definition of handline gear to
require that they be attached to a vessel, would clarify the definition of handline. The economic
impact of this new definition would be minimal since unattached handline gear would be defined
as “buoy gear” under alternative H5. Other alternatives considered were No Action (I5(a)) and
to require handlines be attached to recreational vessels only (I5(c)). These two alternatives could
have less economic impacts relative to the preferred alternative, but they would not meet the
ecological objectives of this document.
The preferred alternative I6(b), which would prohibit commercial vessels from retaining
billfish, would not have any economic impacts because current regulations do not allow these
vessels to sell the billfish that are landed. This alternative would clarify and consolidate the
requirements for commercial vessels to make them consistent with the regulations prohibiting
vessel with pelagic longline gear from retaining billfish. The only other alternative considered
was No Action, which could have less social impacts than the preferred alternative but it would
not satisfy ecological needs of rebuilding billfish stocks.
The preferred alternative I7(b), which would allow Atlantic tuna dealers to submit reports
using the Internet, would simplify reporting and potentially reduce costs. The other alternatives

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-21

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

considered were No Action and providing BFT dealers the option to report online (with specific
exceptions). They would not result in less economic burden than the preferred alternative.
The preferred alternatives I8(b) and I8(c), which would require the submission of no
fishing and cost-earnings reporting forms, would clarify current regulations and potentially
enhance compliance. The other alternative considered was No Action; that alternative would not
meet the NMFS’ objectives to collect quality data to manage the fishery. Neither alternative is
expected to have any economic impacts.
The preferred alternative I9(b), which would require vessel owners to report nontournament recreational landings, would clarify and simplify the reporting process by codifying
the current prevalent practice of recreational landings being reported by vessel owners versus
individual anglers. The other alternative considered, No Action (I9(a), might result in less
economic burden to small businesses but would not satisfy the goal of improving reporting or
other objectives of the FMP.
The preferred alternative I10(c) would conduct additional discussions at ICCAT
regarding the long-term implications of allowing unused BFT quota from the previous year being
added to the subsequent year’s allocation. Depending on the results these discussions the
regulations and operation procedures may need to be further amended in the future. In the
interim, NMFS would maintain the current regulatory text, but would amend the practice of
allowing under/overharvest of this set-aside allocation to be rolled into, or deducted from, the
subsequent fishing year’s set-aside allocation. Other alternatives considered include No Action
and amending the regulatory text to clarify that rollover provisions would apply to this set-aside
quota. There could be potential economic impacts associated with all of these alternatives, for
instance the potential economic gain attributed to quota being carried forward from the preceding
fishing year would remain be available under alternative I10(a) and I10(b), however alternative
I10(c) would prevent excessive rollovers from occurring, thereby eliminating an incentive for
PLL vessel operators to increase effort, or even possibly directing their effort, on BFT in this
area. Accumulation of incidental quota, and possibly providing an incentive to target BFT with
longline gear would not fully reflect the intent of the recommendation.
Finally, the preferred alternative I11(b), which would require recreational vessels with a
Federal permit to abide by Federal regulations regardless of where they are fishing, would
standardize compliance with HMS regulations for vessels possessing a federal HMS permit.
This would likely simplify compliance with regulations, except in cases where a state has more
restrictive regulations. The other alternative considered was No Action, which could have
marginally less economic impact than the preferred alternative, but it would not result in
simplified compliance with regulations, and therefore would not meet the objectives of the FMP.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

8-22

CHAPTER 8
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 9 Table of Contents......................................................................................................9-i

Chapter 9 List of Tables ...........................................................................................................9-iii

Chapter 9 List of Figures .......................................................................................................... 9-v

9.0
Community Profiles ....................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 9-1

9.2
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 9-3

9.2.1
Previous community profiles and assessments .................................................... 9-3

9.2.2
Information Used in this Assessment .................................................................. 9-3

9.2.2.1 Community Impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita .................................. 9-5

9.3
United States Demographic Profile ............................................................................. 9-6

9.4
State and Community Profiles ..................................................................................... 9-7

9.4.1
Maine ................................................................................................................... 9-7

9.4.2
New Hampshire ................................................................................................... 9-8

9.4.3
Massachusetts ...................................................................................................... 9-9

9.4.3.1 Gloucester, Massachusetts ............................................................................. 9-11

9.4.3.2 New Bedford, Massachusetts......................................................................... 9-13

9.4.4
Rhode Island ...................................................................................................... 9-17

9.4.5
Connecticut ........................................................................................................ 9-18

9.4.6
New York........................................................................................................... 9-20

9.4.7
New Jersey ......................................................................................................... 9-21

9.4.7.1 Barnegat Light, New Jersey........................................................................... 9-22

9.4.7.2 Brielle, New Jersey ........................................................................................ 9-25

9.4.8
Delaware ............................................................................................................ 9-28

9.4.9
Maryland ............................................................................................................ 9-29

9.4.10
Virginia .............................................................................................................. 9-30

9.4.11
North Carolina ................................................................................................... 9-31

9.4.11.1 Hatteras .......................................................................................................... 9-33

9.4.11.2 Wanchese, North Carolina ............................................................................. 9-36

9.4.12
South Carolina ................................................................................................... 9-39

9.4.13
Georgia............................................................................................................... 9-40

9.4.14
Florida ................................................................................................................ 9-41

9.4.14.1 Pompano Beach, Florida................................................................................ 9-43

9.4.14.2 Fort Pierce, Florida ........................................................................................ 9-45

9.4.14.3 Madeira Beach, Florida.................................................................................. 9-46

9.4.14.4 Panama City, Florida ..................................................................................... 9-49

9.4.14.5 Islamorada, Florida ........................................................................................ 9-51

9.4.15
Alabama ............................................................................................................. 9-53

9.4.16
Mississippi ......................................................................................................... 9-55

9.4.17
Louisiana............................................................................................................ 9-56

9.4.17.1 Venice, Louisiana .......................................................................................... 9-57

9.4.17.2 Dulac, Louisiana ............................................................................................ 9-61

9.4.18
Texas .................................................................................................................. 9-64

9.4.19
Puerto Rico......................................................................................................... 9-65

9.4.19.1 Arecibo, Puerto Rico...................................................................................... 9-66

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-i

CHAPTER 9
COMMUNITY PROFILES

9.5
Future Assessments.................................................................................................... 9-68
Chapter 9 References............................................................................................................... 9-76

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-ii

CHAPTER 9
COMMUNITY PROFILES

CHAPTER 9 LIST OF TABLES
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3
Table 9.4
Table 9.5
Table 9.6
Table 9.7
Table 9.8
Table 9.9
Table 9.10
Table 9.11
Table 9.12
Table 9.13
Table 9.14
Table 9.15
Table 9.16
Table 9.17
Table 9.18
Table 9.19
Table 9.20
Table 9.21
Table 9.22
Table 9.23
Table 9.24
Table 9.25
Table 9.26
Table 9.27
Table 9.28
Table 9.29

Demographic Profile of the United States. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
.............................................................................................................................. 9-6

Maine Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. ................... 9-8

New Hampshire Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 .... 9-9

Massachusetts Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ..... 9-10

Demographic Profile of Gloucester, Massachusetts. Source: U.S. Census, 1990

and 2000............................................................................................................. 9-12

Demographic Profile of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Source: U.S. Census, 1990

and 2000............................................................................................................. 9-14

Rhode Island Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ....... 9-18

Connecticut Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000......... 9-19

New York Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ........... 9-20

New Jersey Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.......... 9-22

Demographic Profile of Barnegat Light. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 & 2000. . 9-23

Demographic Profile of Brielle, New Jersey. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-26

Delaware Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000............. 9-28

Maryland Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000............. 9-29

Virginia Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000............... 9-31

Demographic Profile of North Carolina. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 9-32

Demographic Profile of Hatteras, North Carolina Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-34

Demographic Profile of Wanchese, North Carolina. Source: U.S. Census 1990

and 2000............................................................................................................. 9-37

South Carolina Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 .... 9-39

Georgia Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000 ............... 9-40

Florida Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000................. 9-42

Demographic Profile of Pompano Beach, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-44

Demographics of Fort Pierce, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000. ... 9-45

Demographic Profile for Madeira Beach, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-47

Demographic Profile for Panama City, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-50

Demographic Profile for Islamorada, Florida. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-53

Alabama Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.............. 9-54

Mississippi Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. ......... 9-55

Louisiana Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. ........... 9-56

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-iii

CHAPTER 9
COMMUNITY PROFILES

Table 9.30
Table 9.31
Table 9.32
Table 9.33
Table 9.34
Table 9.35
Table 9.36
Table 9.37
Table 9.38
Table 9.39

Demographic Profile of Venice, Louisiana. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.

............................................................................................................................ 9-60

Demographic Profile of Dulac, LA. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000. ...... 9-63

Texas Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000................... 9-65

Puerto Rico Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 and

2000.................................................................................................................... 9-65

Number and Percentage of HMS Angling Permits by State and Country in 2005.

............................................................................................................................ 9-69

Number and Percentage of HMS Charter/Headboat Permits by State and Country

in 2005. .............................................................................................................. 9-71

Number and Percentage of Commercial Tuna Permits by State and Country in

2005.................................................................................................................... 9-72

Number and Percentage of HMS Dealers by State and Country as of February

2006 (sharks and swordfish) and for calendar year 2005 (tunas). ..................... 9-73

Number and Percentage of Directed and Incidental Shark Permit Holders by State

as of February 2006. .......................................................................................... 9-74

Number and Percentage of Swordfish Permit Holders by State as of February

2006.................................................................................................................... 9-75

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-iv

CHAPTER 9
COMMUNITY PROFILES

CHAPTER 9 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 9.1
Figure 9.2
Figure 9.3
Figure 9.4

Figure 9.5

Figure 9.6
Figure 9.7

Location of HMS Angling Permit Holders in 2005 and the percentage of Angling
permit holders for the top five states.................................................................. 9-69
Location of HMS Angling Permit Holders in 2005 by region........................... 9-70
Location of the HMS Charter/Headboat Permit Holders in 2005 and the
percentage of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders for the top five states.... 9-71
Location of the Commercial Tuna Permit Holders in 2005 (all gear categories harpoon, longline, purse seine, and trap) and the percentage of commercial tuna
permit holders for the top five states.................................................................. 9-72
Location of all HMS Dealer Permit Holders as of February 2006 for shark and
swordfish permits and for fishery year 2005 for tunas and the percentage of total
HMS dealer permit holders for the top five states. ............................................ 9-73
Location of the Shark Directed and Incidental Permit Holders as of February 2006
and percentage of shark permit holders for the top five states. ......................... 9-74
Location of the Swordfish Permit Holders as of February 2006 and the percentage
of swordfish permit holders for the top five states. ........................................... 9-75

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-v

CHAPTER 9
COMMUNITY PROFILES

9.0

COMMUNITY PROFILES

This Chapter identifies and describes the HMS fishing communities as required under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other laws. This Chapter consolidates all of the communities
profiled in previous HMS FMPs or FMP amendments and updates the community information
where possible. The communities profiled in this chapter were originally selected due to the
proportion of HMS landings in the town, the relationship between the geographic communities
and the fishing fleets, the existence of other community studies, and input from the HMS and
Billfish Advisory Panels. Though additional communities could be impacted by changes to the
current HMS regulations, the communities profiled in this section were previously identified as
ones that are most likely to experience the most significant impacts. After reviewing the HMS
permit databases, additional HMS-related community profiles should be developed in the future.
Recommendations for these new profiles are included at the end of this chapter (Section 9.1).
9.1

Introduction

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires, among other things, that all FMPs include a fishery
impact statement intended to assess, specify, and describe the likely effects of the measures on
fishermen and fishing communities (§303(a)(9)).
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also requires federal agencies to
consider the interactions of natural and human environments by using a “systematic,
interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences...in planning and decision-making” (§102(2)(A)). Moreover, agencies need to address
the aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects, which may be direct, indirect,
or cumulative. Consideration of social impacts is a growing concern as fisheries experience
increased participation and/or declines in stocks. The consequences of management actions need
to be examined to better ascertain and, if necessary and possible, mitigate regulatory impacts on
affected constituents.
Social impacts are generally the consequences to human populations resulting from some
type of public or private action. Those consequences may include alterations to the ways in
which people live, work or play, relate to one another, and organize to meet their needs. In
addition, cultural impacts, which may involve changes in values and beliefs that affect people’s
way of identifying themselves within their occupation, communities, and society in general are
included under this interpretation. Social impact analyses help determine the consequences of
policy action in advance by comparing the status quo with the projected impacts. Community
profiles are an initial step in the social impact assessment process. Although public hearings and
scoping meetings provide input from those concerned with a particular action, they do not
constitute a full overview of the fishery.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act outlines a set of National Standards (NS) that apply to all
fishery management plans and the implementation of regulations. Specifically, NS 8 notes that:
“Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation
requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-1

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
INTRODUCTION

overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing
communities in order to: (1) provide for the sustained participation of such communities;
and, (2) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such
communities.” (§301(a)(8)). See also 50 CFR §600.345 for National Standard 8
Guidelines.
“Sustained participation” is defined to mean continued access to the fishery within the
constraints of the condition of the resource (50 CFR §600.345(b)(4)). It should be clearly noted
that NS 8 “does not constitute a basis for allocation of resources to a specific fishing community
nor for providing preferential treatment based on residence in a fishing community” (50 CFR
§600.345(b)(2). The Magnuson-Stevens Act further defines a “fishing community” as:
“ ... a community that is substantially dependent upon or substantially engaged in the
harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and
includes fishing vessel owners, operators, crew, and fish processors that are based in such
communities.” (§3(16))
The National Standard guidelines expand upon the definition of a fishing community, and
state that, “A fishing community is a social or economic group whose members reside in a
specific location and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence
fishing or on directly related fisheries-dependent services and industries (for example, boatyards,
ice suppliers, tackle shops)” (50 CFR §600.345(b)(2)). So while there is a diffuse VietnameseAmerican population in Louisiana actively participating in the pelagic longline fishery and
commuting to fishing ports as mentioned in Section 4.6, this group of individuals is not
considered a fishing community, according to the National Standard guidelines.
NMFS (2001) guidelines for social impact assessments specify that the following
elements are utilized in the development of FMPs and FMP amendments:
1.

The size and demographic characteristics of the fishery-related work force residing in
the area; these determine demographic, income, and employment effects in relation to
the work force as a whole, by community and region.

2.

The cultural issues of attitudes, beliefs, and values of fishermen, fishery-related
workers, other stakeholders, and their communities.

3.

The effects of proposed actions on social structure and organization; that is, on the
ability to provide necessary social support and services to families and communities.

4.

The non-economic social aspects of the proposed action or policy; these include lifestyle issues, health and safety issues, and the non-consumptive and recreational use of
living marine resources and their habitats.

5.

The historical dependence on and participation in the fishery by fishermen and
communities, reflected in the structure of fishing practices, income distribution and
rights.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-2

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
INTRODUCTION

9.2

Methodology
9.2.1

Previous community profiles and assessments

NMFS contracted with Dr. Doug Wilson, from the Ecopolicy Center for Agriculture,
Environmental and Resource Issues at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, to help
develop the community profiles and social impact assessments for the 1999 HMS FMP and
Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Billfish. Dr. Wilson and his colleagues completed their
fieldwork in July 1998. This study covered four species groups (tunas, swordfish, sharks and
billfishes) that have important commercial and recreational fisheries extending along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts from Maine to Texas and in the Caribbean. The study investigated the social and
cultural characteristics of fishing communities in five states and one U.S. territory:
Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico. These areas
were selected because they each had important fishing communities that could be affected by the
1999 HMS FMP and Atlantic Billfish Amendment, and because they are fairly evenly spread
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and the Caribbean. The study compiled basic sociological
information from at least two coastal communities for each state or territory. These locations
were visited for further analysis. In the 1998 study, towns were selected based on HMS landings
data, the relationship between the geographic communities and the fishing fleets, and the
existence of other community studies. The information in this document incorporates by
reference the Wilson et al., (1998) study of the HMS fishery and the work of McCay and Cieri
(2000) for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, “The Fishing Ports of the MidAtlantic.”
Additionally, this Chapter uses the information gathered under the contract with the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) at the College of William and Mary to re-evaluate
several of the baseline HMS communities (Kirkley, 2005). The VIMS study gathered a profile
of basic sociological information for the principal states involved with the Atlantic shark fishery.
From the 255 communities identified as involved in the 2001 commercial fishery, Amendment 1
to the 1999 HMS FMP focused on specific towns based on shark landings data, the size of the
shark fishing fleet, the relationship between the geographic communities and the fishing fleets,
and the existence of other community studies. While the recreational fishery is an important
component in the overall shark fishery, the VIMS study did not profile the shark recreational
fishery because participation and landings were not documented in a manner that permits
community identification. The Wilson et al., study selected only the recreational fisheries found
within the commercial fishing communities for a profile due to the lack of community-based data
for the sport fishery. To the extent that it is available, the information on the HMS-related
recreational fisheries has been incorporated into the community profiles.
9.2.2

Information Used in this Assessment

To ensure continuity with the 1999 HMS FMP and previous amendments, if a community
was selected and described as being involved with an HMS fishery, the same community was
included in this assessment. The HMS permit data support the need to include the previously
profiled communities as communities that continue to be active in HMS fisheries. The
communities selected for detailed study are Gloucester and New Bedford, Massachusetts;
Barnegat Light and Brielle, New Jersey; Wanchese, and Hatteras Township, North Carolina;
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-3

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
METHODOLOGY

Pompano Beach, Fort Pierce, Madeira Beach, Panama City Beach, and Islamorada, Florida;
Boothville/Venice and Dulac, Louisiana; and Arecibo, Puerto Rico. These communities are not
intended to be an exhaustive list of every HMS-related community in the United States; rather
the objective is to give a broad perspective of representative areas. The demographic profile
tables in this chapter were modified from previous documents to include the same baseline
information for each community profiled. As a result, most of the tables include more
information than portrayed in previous HMS FMPs and amendments. The demographic tables
use both 1990 and 2000 Bureau of the Census data for comparative purposes. A profile for the
U.S. Virgin Islands could not be created because the 1990 Census data were not available, and
only some of the demographic information was available for 2000. Additionally, a descriptive
profile for the Virgin Islands has not been developed for any previous HMS-related actions. The
descriptive community profiles in this chapter include information provided by Wilson, et al.
(1998) and Kirkley (2005) with some new information provided by Impact Assessment, Inc
(2004) on the Gulf of Mexico communities. Unlike the Wilson, et al. (1998) study used in the
1999 HMS FMP, it was not possible to undertake field research for this assessment. In this
chapter, the community descriptions are organized by state.
This assessment also reviewed the available information on location of HMS permit
holders to provide information about residence and to identify additional HMS-related fishing
communities that may be profiled in the future. Six GIS maps were generated to identify the
communities where angler, charter/headboat, HMS dealers (tunas, shark, and swordfish
combined), commercial tuna (all gear categories combined), directed and incidental shark, and
swordfish (directed, incidental, and handgear combined) permit holders reside with four regional
maps for the angler permits due to the volume of permit holders. In past community profile and
social impact analyses, it was difficult to identify where HMS recreational fishermen were
located because no data were available for the number of recreational fishermen and their
landings by community. As a result, the previous assessments report on charter fishing
operations, fishing tournaments, and related activities to identify the scope of recreational fishing
for each of the communities described. The permit holder information should assist in
identifying future recreational industry community profiles, such as Ocean City and Berlin,
Maryland.
While geographic location is an important component of a fishing community, the
transient nature of HMS may cause the permitted fishermen to shift location in an attempt to
follow the fish. Because of this characteristic, management measures for HMS often have the
most identifiable impacts on fishing fleets that use specific gear types. The geographic
concentrations of HMS fisheries may also fluctuate from year to year, as the behavior of these
migratory fish is variable. The relationship between these fleets, gear types, and geographic
fishing communities is not always a direct one; however, they are important variables for
understanding social and cultural impacts. As a result, the inclusion of typical community
profiles in HMS management decisions is somewhat difficult, as geographic factors and use of a
specific gear type have to be considered.
Several other chapters in this FMP include information that addresses the requirements
described Section 9.1 and that is an integral part of this social impact assessment and fishery
impact statement. Please refer to the Description of the Fisheries in Chapter 3, the Economic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-4

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
METHODOLOGY

Evaluation in Chapter 6, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) in Chapter 7, and the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in Chapter 8. Furthermore, each of the management
alternatives in Chapter 4 includes an assessment of the potential social and economic impacts
associated with the proposed alternatives. The preferred alternatives are selected to minimize
economic impacts and provide for the sustained participation of fishing communities, while
taking the necessary actions to rebuild overfished fisheries as required by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
9.2.2.1

Community Impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

The impacts of both Hurricane Katrina (late August 2005) and Hurricane Rita (September
2005) have yet to be fully realized, but have had a devastating effect on many Gulf of Mexico
communities. NMFS has conducted assessments of the commercial and recreational fishing
sectors, as well as the coastal communities and the supporting marine infrastructure (NMFS,
2005b). Much of this information is still preliminary and has not been thoroughly documented to
date.
Storm surge and/or broken levies destroyed many of the Gulf communities, such as
Venice, Louisiana and areas south of Belle Chasse (Ingles, pers. com.). Many individuals
involved with HMS fisheries, and their families, have lost their homes and have been displaced
or are living in temporary structures with no electricity or running water and only minimal
monetary assistance from Federal Emergency Management Agency (pers. com. with affected
fisheries participants). In some instances, vessels have become the primary residence because
their homes were destroyed. Rebuilding has been challenging because many people did not have
insurance prior to the hurricanes. Those with insurance found that it covered only wind and not
water damage. And others with basic coverage found that it was not enough to cover the boat,
business, and home. As a result, the hurricanes have accelerated gentrification in many of the
communities (Ingles, pers. com.).
In addition to their homes, the storms had a devastating impact on fishing vessels in the
Gulf region. These impacts include, vessels sunk, displaced, piled up, or completely destroyed
(Ingles, pers. com.). Even though some vessel did survive the hurricanes, there was a major
impact to the supporting infrastructure that the commercial industries rely upon (e.g., seafood
dealers, processors, suppliers) and anglers require to go fishing (e.g., bait shops, marinas, etc.)
(NMFS, 2005b). Where vessels escaped relatively unscathed by the hurricanes, but lost the
supporting infrastructure to continue landing in their usual ports, fishermen chose to land their
catch in Gulf ports located further west where the damage was not as great (Ingles, pers. com.).
The pelagic longline fishery was significantly impacted by the hurricanes since about 60
percent of the Eastern pelagic longline vessels were in the Gulf region when the hurricanes
arrived (National Fishermen, 2006). The number of sets made in 2005 declined compared to
2004 with a majority of that decline attributable to the Gulf of Mexico area (National Fishermen,
2006). About 22 percent of the active PLL fleet showed no activity during third quarter of 2005,
likely due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina; and about 14 percent of the active fleet showed no
activity in the fourth quarter, possibly a result of Hurricane Rita. More than half the longline
vessels operating out of Louisiana were fishing again by March 2006 with the remainder of the
vessels severely damaged or being used for housing, rather than fishing (National Fishermen,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-5

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
METHODOLOGY

2006). Even those vessels that can still operate may not be in an area where the infrastructure is
sufficient to support a commercial fishery and may not be able to relocate due to the rising price
of fuel (Ingles, pers. com.).
While the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were devastating to many Gulf
communities, at least half of the inactive permit holders in the second half of 2005 had renewed
their permits as of March 2006 (Preliminary Logbook Data, 2005). Though this does not
necessarily indicate that these vessels are actively fishing, it at least indicates that the permit
holders are hopeful about using the permits again.
9.3

United States Demographic Profile

In 1990, the United States had a total population of 248.7 million (Table 9.1). The
population increased to 281.4 million in 2000. Throughout the previous decade, the population
was roughly half female and half male. Individuals between 20 and 44 years of age comprised
the largest proportion of the population in both 1990 and 2000. The dominant race was white.
Ninety-two million total households, in 1990, grew to 105.5 million households in 2000. The
average household and family size remained about the same between the two decades. The
number of high school graduates, ages 25 and older, increased between 1990 and 2000 by about
five percent (Table 9.1). Between 1990 and 2000, the total number of business establishments in
the United States increased from 6.2 to 7.1 million. While unemployment decreased by half in
2000, the individuals below the poverty line decreased by less than one percent. In 1990,
employment in farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries accounted for 3.3 percent
collectively; whereas in 2000, collective employment in these industries accounted for less than
two percent.
Table 9.1

Demographic Profile of the United States. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.

Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Other
Household
Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy
Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure
Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1990
2000
248,709,873 281,421,906
48.7%
51.3%

49.1%
50.9%

25.6%
43.2%
18.6%
12.6%

28.6%
36.9%
22.0%
12.4%

80.3%
12.1%
0.8%
2.8%
0.1%
3.9%

75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%

91,947,410 105,480,101
70.2%
68%
29.8%
32%
3
2.59
3.16
3.14

UNITED STATES
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Economic Characteristics
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line*
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales
Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

1990
281,421,906
75.2%

$

102,263,678 115,904,641
10.1%
9.0%
64.2%
35.8%

66.2%
33.8%

9-6

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
U.S. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

65.3%
6.3%
30,056
13.1%
26.4%
31.7%
26.2%
2.5%
3.3%
6.2%
17.7%
4.4%
16.8%
23.3%
1.4%

9.4

State and Community Profiles
9.4.1

Maine

Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the state of Maine increased by about 4.6
percent (Table 9.2). The number of high school graduates, ages 25 years and older, has
increased over the past decade. The unemployment rate decreased, while the percentage of
individuals below the poverty line remained the same. Employment in the farming, fishing,
forestry, and mining industries remained about the same with education, health, and social
services industries providing the greatest source of employment for the state’s residents.
As of February 2006, Maine had nine commercial vessels with shark and swordfish
fishing permits (Table 9.38 and Table 9.39) and 517 commercial tuna permit holders (Figure 9.4
and Table 9.36). Maine also has 26 licensed dealers for tunas, sharks, and swordfish; ten of the
dealers reside in Portland (Table 9.37 and Figure 9.5). In fact, Maine has the third greatest
number of commercial tuna permit holders with 10.2 percent of the total (Table 9.36).
Despite having only four shark permits issued to Maine residents in 2006, there were
several communities involved with the commercial shark fishery in 2003, such as Cape
Elizabeth, Harpswell, and Portland (Cumberland County); Southwest Harbor and Winter Harbor
(Hancock County); Owls Head and Rockland (Knox County); and Kittery, Milbridge, and Old
Orchard Beach (York County) (NMFS 1999a). Many of the vessels homeported in Maine
participate in the shark fisheries in southern waters and make landings in Florida and other
states; therefore, landings are not always indicative of a community’s involvement in a fishery.
The incidental nature of shark catches off Maine for the commercial fishery is also true for the
recreational fishery. Sharks are often taken incidentally during tuna fishing trips. There is,
however, a small group of anglers who fish with light tackle for blue shark, mako, and porbeagle
in the Gulf of Maine. To date, no HMS-related community profiles have been developed for the
State of Maine, as there are no significant concentrations of HMS-related fisheries in any
particular community.
In 2004, an estimated 287,000 sportfishermen made 760,000 fishing trips in marine
waters off Maine (NMFS, 2005a). Of these anglers, about 54 percent were from out of state.
About one percent of the HMS angling permit holders live in the state of Maine (Table 9.34 and
Figure 9.1). The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) estimated that all saltwater
recreational fishing in Maine in 2001 generated some $67.8 million in direct and indirect retail
sales. Employment in marine recreational fishing services was estimated to be 1,287 jobs (ASA,
2002). An indication of recreational interest in shark fishing is that charterboats advertise for
shark fishing trips from York Harbor, Sheepscot, Casco Bay, Saco Bay, Bath, Damariscotta, and
Old Orchard Beach. Sixty-one charter/headboats in Maine held HMS permits as of February
2006 (Table 9.35). These Maine charter operations are seasonal, typically from Memorial Day
to Labor Day, and some of the operators advertise that they move to Florida, or the Caribbean, to
run charters during the Florida season from November to May.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-7

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Table 9.2

Maine Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.

Maine
1990
2000
1,227,928 1,274,923
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
78.8%
85.4%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
65.6%
65.3%
Unemployment Rate
6.6%
4.8%
Median Household Income
$27,854
$37,240
Individuals below the poverty line*
10.8%
10.9%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
2.8%
2.6%
Construction
7.3%
6.9%
Manufacturing
19.7%
14.2%
Wholesale trade
3.6%
3.4%
Retail
18.4%
13.5%
Education, health & social services
24.8%
23.2%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
0.9%
7.1%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

9.4.2

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s population increased by about 10.3 percent between 1990 and 2000
(Table 9.3). The number of high school graduates, ages 25 years and older, increased slightly.
The unemployment rate decreased, while the percentage of individuals below the poverty line
remained the same. Employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries
declined by six percent with education, health, and social services industries continued to
provide the greatest source of employment for the state’s residents.
New Hampshire’s commercial shark fishery is very small and largely incidental to the
take of other species. The local shark fishery involves three vessels (Table 9.38). Only one
swordfish permit holder resides in New Hampshire (Table 9.39). There are 26 HMS dealers in
the state of New Hampshire (Table 9.37). New Hampshire has the sixth greatest number of
commercial tuna permit holders (Table 9.36). Slightly greater than one percent of the angling
permit holders reside in New Hampshire (Table 9.34). Because of the relatively small size of the
HMS fisheries, community profiles were not developed for New Hampshire ports.
The recreational fishery for sharks in New Hampshire waters is largely incidental, on a
very small scale, and similar to that of Maine. Occasionally caught close to shore, most makos
are taken in water reaching depths over 20 fathoms. New Hampshire is home to 324 HMS
angling permit holders in 2005 (Table 9.34). There are 55 charterboat operators in Portsmouth,
Rye, Seabrook, Hampton, as well as a few other towns, held HMS permits in 2005 (Table 9.35).
Many of these charterboats advertise shark fishing trips offshore from June through September,
with the best fishing in June and July. Target species for these trips are mako, blue, thresher and
porbeagle sharks.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-8

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

In 2003, 164,000 anglers made 361,000 fishing trips to the marine waters off New
Hampshire (NMFS, 2003). Of these saltwater anglers, 43 percent were visitors from out-ofstate. It is estimated that these saltwater anglers generated some $59.3 million in direct and
indirect retail sales related to their fishing in New Hampshire in 2001 (ASA, 2002). The marine
recreational fishing services sector provided some 1,103 jobs in the state in 2001.
Table 9.3

New Hampshire Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000

New Hampshire
1990
Population:
1,109,252
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
82.2%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
71.9%
Unemployment Rate
6.2%
Median Household Income
$36,329
Individuals below the poverty line*
6.4%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.5%
Construction
7.1%
Manufacturing
22.5%
Wholesale trade
4.0%
Retail
17.6%
Education, health & social services
22.6%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.2%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

9.4.3

2000
1,235,786
87.4%
70.5%
3.8%
$49,467
6.5%
0.9%
6.8%
18.1%
3.6%
13.7%
20.0%
6.9%

Massachusetts

Commercial fisheries in Massachusetts are diverse, and range from small-scale inshore
small-boat fisheries for lobster and clams, to offshore scallops, groundfish dragging, and longline
fishing for HMS species. In 2003, New Bedford, Massachusetts ranked eighth in the United
States for the weight of fish landed, and first for value with ex-vessel sales, bringing in 176.2
million dollars (NMFS, 2004). In the same year, Gloucester ranked twelfth in weight of fish
landed and thirteenth in ex-vessel value. Due to the number of HMS permit holders and the
relative importance of commercial and recreational fisheries to the Commonwealth, community
profiles for both New Bedford and Gloucester were originally developed for the 1999 HMS FMP
and have been included below.
The population in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts increased from 6 million people
to 6.3 million people over the past decade (Table 9.4). The majority of individuals 25 years and
older have a high school diploma and/or a graduate level degree. The percentage of employed
individuals and individuals below the poverty line has remained about the same in the past
decade, but there has been a slight decline in the unemployment rate, almost two percent.
Employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined over the last
decade. The arts, recreation, lodging, and food services industries are the only industries that
expanded.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-9

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Massachusetts holds the greatest number of commercial tuna permits with 1,601 vessels
permitted in 2005 (Table 9.36). In addition, Gloucester has the greatest concentration of
commercial tuna permit holders with 106 vessels permitted (Figure 9.4). Massachusetts is
ranked fourth in the greatest number of swordfish permit holders with just over nine percent of
the total swordfish permit holders residing in Massachusetts (Table 9.39). In addition to
swordfish, there are 17 directed and incidental shark permit holders (Table 9.38). Boston has the
greatest concentration of HMS permitted dealers with New Bedford and New York City in
second and third for the greatest number of HMS dealers (Table 9.37 and Figure 9.5).
Table 9.4

Massachusetts Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000

Massachusetts
1990
2000
Population:
6,016,425 6,349,097
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
80.0%
84.8%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
67.8%
66.2%
Unemployment Rate
6.7%
4.6%
Median Household Income
$36,952
$50,502
Individuals below the poverty line*
8.9%
9.3%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.2%
0.4%
Construction
5.5%
5.5%
Manufacturing
18.1%
12.8%
Wholesale trade
4.1%
3.3%
Retail
16.2%
11.0%
Education, health & social services
28.0%
23.7%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.1%
6.8%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

In 2003, marine recreational fishing in Massachusetts attracted an estimated 1,017,000
anglers making 4,569,000 fishing trips in both state and Federal waters (NMFS, 2004b).
Approximately, 344,000 (34 percent) of the anglers were from out of state. Direct and indirect
retail sales generated by marine recreational fishermen in Massachusetts in 2001 were estimated
to be $320.7 million (ASA, 2002). The marine recreational fishing industry generated 5,423 jobs
in the Commonwealth in 2001. Shark fishing, largely catch-and-release using light tackle, takes
place in offshore waters (NMFS, 2003). Recreational vessels often travel 50 - 100 miles out to
their fishing grounds and most shark trips are 10 - 12 hours in duration, with some extending to
an overnight trip, or even two- or three-day trips. Massachusetts residents held 557
charter/headboat permits in 2005. Sharks are usually taken incidental to bluefin tuna fishing, but
a number of charterboat operators advertise shark fishing trips. The target shark species South
and East of Cape Cod are mako, blue and porbeagle sharks and these species, as well as thresher,
dusky, and tiger sharks are found throughout the Gulf of Maine.
HMS fishing tournaments are promoted, and participated in, by some charterboat
operators (NMFS 2003). Examples of these tournaments include Boston Big Game and Monster
Shark Tournaments (Oak Bluffs); Nantucket Angler’s Club (Nantucket); Fisherman Outfitter’s
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-10

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Cutty Hunk Shootout (Cutty Hunk); and Giant Bluefin Tournament (Hyannis). Charterboat
operations advertising shark fishing trips are based in Newburyport, Rockport, Gloucester,
Boston, Quincy, Chatham, Harwich Port, South Yarmouth, Hyannis, Mashpee, East Falmouth,
Oak Bluffs, Edgartown, Vineyard Haven, Menemsha, Mattapoisett, Fairhaven, New Bedford,
and Westport Point.
9.4.3.1

Gloucester, Massachusetts

In 1990, the population of Gloucester was 28,716. There was a minimal population
increase of approximately 1,500 individuals between 1990 and 2000 (Table 9.5). Forty percent
of the population was between the ages 20 – 44 years old in 2000. The median age of the
Gloucester population has gotten older by five years, rising to 40 years old in 2000. There is a
slightly larger percentage of females in the Gloucester population, 48 percent males to 52 percent
females. In 2000, the number of households is two and half times greater than in 1990, but the
total number of housing units increased only slightly, from 13,125 to 13,958.
A greater percentage of the 16 years and older population was an active part of the labor
force during 2000 (Table 9.5). While the percentage of unemployed declined, the percentage of
individuals below the poverty line increased in the last decade. The greatest source of
employment in 1990 was the technical and administrative industries. In 2000, 36 percent of the
population was employed in the managerial and professional industries. The number of
businesses engaged in the forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture industries declined
over the last decade from 3.9 percent to 2.5 percent. The greatest percentage of businesses was
engaged in education, health, and social service.
Gloucester residents hold the largest number of commercial tuna permits with 106
permits issued in 2005 (Table 9.36 and Figure 9.4). The Atlantic bluefin tuna purse seine fishery
lasts for a short period of time each year and is limited by regulation to five vessels. One purse
seine vessel operates out of Gloucester. The economic health of the purse seine fishery is
heavily dependent on bluefin tuna prices and, concomitantly, on the value of the Japanese yen.
Finding crew is not a problem; many of the current crew members have had their berths for
years. The owner and many of the crew of purse seine vessels, even some who do not reside in
the community, are well-integrated through kinship ties into the fishing community. They see
themselves as responsible for creating the bluefin tuna fishery and the fleet enjoys the respect of
the extended fishing communities in Gloucester (Wilson et al., 1998).
There are also a large number of HMS dealers in the Gloucester area, licensed to
purchase and sell tuna, sharks, and swordfish (Table 9.37 and Figure 9.5). Bluefin tuna dealers
in Gloucester work with a large number of vessels of various types, including purse seine
vessels. Most bluefin tuna are sold on consignment, and some dealers give a minimum
guarantee on fish they take. Personal networks are very important and the competition can be
intense. During the bluefin tuna season, some transient dealers come to Gloucester. The largest
dealer buys from the purse seine vessels because it is one of the few dealers that is able to
finance the transaction. This business has only one full-time employee and up to seven seasonal
employees, who may be fishermen seeking alternative employment. The dealer to whom the
purse seine vessels sell their bluefin tuna heavily depends on those vessels to maintain its current
profit margins. However, this dealer reports that the structure of its business is such that there
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-11

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

would be no lost jobs even if the purse seine landings were significantly reduced, since BFT
reallocated to another gear category would likely be handled by the same dealer (Wilson et al.,
1998).
Table 9.5

Demographic Profile of Gloucester, Massachusetts. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.

Demographics
Total Population

1990

2000

Gloucester, Massachusetts

28,716

30,273

Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Economic Characteristics
Labor force (16 years and over)

Sex
Male
Female

48.2%
51.8%

47.9%
52.1%

Age
Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65

35.5
25.2%
39.3%
20.2%
15.4%

40.2
23.9%
34.4%
26.1%
15.6%

Race
White
Black or African American
American Indian & Alaska Native
Asian
Other

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical/administrative

99.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%

97.0%
0.6%
0.1%
0.7%
0.5%

11,550
66.1%
33.9%
2.49
3.11

29,913
62.7%
37.3%
2.38
3.00

Housing Occupancy
Total housing units
Vacant housing units

13,125
11.8%

13,958
9.8%

Housing Tenure
Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

57.8%
42.2%

59.7%
40.3%

Household
Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size

1990

2000

28,716

30,273

75.6%

85.7%

62.6%

66.1%

4.5%
3.2%
$ 32,690 $ 47,722
7.5%
8.8%
26.8%
28.0%

36.1%
25.4%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction

2.8%
13.0%

21.4%
2.0%

3.9%
5.5%

2.5%
7.1%

Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

22.1%
4.7%
16.2%
14.1%
1.4%

16.7%
3.6%
10.8%
20.2%
9.2%

Commercial rod and reel tuna fishing (with General category permits) as well as
recreational rod and reel tuna fishing (with Angling category permits) drive a large shoreside
economy, including the sale and repair of tackle, vessels, and engines, and the sale of supplies
such as bait and ice. The rod and reel fishery also supports general tourist services such as
restaurants and hotels. This community is competing with many other possible tourist
destinations for tuna fishermen, increasing their dependence on the bluefin tuna as a prominent
attraction. Vulnerabilities stem from the seasonal nature of tuna fishing in Gloucester and the
general dependence of tuna fishing on the health of the economy. According to those
interviewed, seasonality makes business planning, as well as finding and retaining trained
employees, more difficult (Wilson, et al., 1998).
The bluefin tuna rod and reel fishery attracts wealthier fishermen than the fisheries for
many other species. The bluefin tuna fishing experience is not always a family activity, but it is
often the attraction that brings an adult, and hence the rest of the family, to the community. It
attracts experienced and amateur fishermen alike, as well as adventure seekers who are often
outdoors enthusiasts in other arenas. Gloucester used to have an annual bluefin tuna tournament
organized by the largest of the recreational marinas. However, limited availability of fish has
canceled the tournament in past years (Wilson et al., 1998). Most fishing tourists who come to
Gloucester are from the northeastern United States. These “weekend warrior” bluefin tuna

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-12

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

fishermen have an important impact on the community’s economy, particularly weekend fuel
sales (Wilson, et al., 1998).
The Gloucester charter fleet follows a standard policy that, when a bluefin tuna is landed,
the fish belongs to the vessel and the charter for the day is free, since the vessel operator may sell
the fish to the dealer (Wilson et al., 1998). Serious customers want to target bluefin tuna, even
though there is a low probability that they will catch them. Very often when the General
category is open, charter captains will take an extra mate and fish for bluefin tuna without paying
passengers. They feel that having no amateurs on board enhances their chances of actually
landing a fish.
Of the three retail tackle shops in Gloucester, only one specializes in offshore fishing.
Eighty-five percent of its business is related to both commercial and recreational bluefin tuna
fishing. Bluefin tuna and shark fishing gear is very expensive; reels cost $800 to $1,000 and are
useful for shark and bluefin tuna only. Fishermen in Gloucester often choose high quality gear
and show little concern about price (Wilson et al., 1998).
In the HMS rod and reel fishery of Gloucester, sharks are usually not the primary target
species, but they are encountered incidentally to tunas. Most sharks caught in Gloucester
recreational fisheries are released (Wilson et al., 1998). Researchers noted tension and distance
between the recreational and commercial fishing communities, as recreational fishermen tend to
believe that commercial fishing is to blame for the decline in local shark populations.
9.4.3.2

New Bedford, Massachusetts

New Bedford is a long and narrow city along the coast of southern Massachusetts, facing
the city of Fairhaven across the water. New Bedford faces problems associated with its urban
setting, such as low education levels and high unemployment. The working waterfront and its
industry have become increasingly important economically as the manufacturing base of the city
has declined. With multiplier effects, the city’s economy may benefit from the fishing industry
by $500 million (Wilson et al., 1998). Thousands of people are employed in supporting services
such as processing, manufacturers of equipment, transport companies, supply houses, oil
companies, welders, pipe fitters, stores, settlement houses, etc. Once the “whaling capital of the
world,” New Bedford still possesses one of the largest fishing fleets in the eastern United States
(NOAA, 1996). New Bedford ranked seventh in the United States for the weight of fish landed
in 2004, and first for value with ex-vessel sales bringing in 206.5 million dollars (NMFS, 2005a).
New Bedford has learned a great deal about how to survive crises in fisheries. Many of
the members of this fishing community are descended from Portuguese fishing families and
kinship networks are an extremely important influence on employment patterns in the fishing
industry (NMFS, 1999a). The Portuguese families are very close and many trace their families
back to fishermen in Portugal. The Fishermen’s Family Assistance Center opened in 1994 with
help from the Federal government in response to the collapse in the groundfish fishery. Thirtytwo vessels in New Bedford were removed through the buyback program. With help from the
Center, ex-fishermen are finding jobs, particularly in the marine trade, computer, and trucking
industries. The marine trade jobs tend to be in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-13

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Other industries in New Bedford have been supportive of the fishermen through the crisis and
extended family networks have helped minimize social impacts (Wilson, et al., 1998).
Between 1990 and 2000, New Bedford experienced a decrease in its population of over
6,000 individuals — 99,922 in 1990 to 93,768 in 2000 (Table 9.6). The median age of the
population increased slightly, from 33 to 36 years old. The 2000 age distribution remains
relatively similar to the age distribution in 1990 with the greatest percentage of individuals in the
20 to 44 years age group. The percentage of females in the population is larger than the
percentage of males in both 1990 and 2000 by 6 percent. The number of total households
increased by 42 percent in the last decade, which could be attributed to an increase in the number
of non-family households.
The number of high school graduates increased by almost 8 percent in the 1990s (Table
9.6). The size of the 16 years and older labor force increased, and the percentage of unemployed
declined, but the percentage of individuals below the poverty line increased by almost 4 percent.
A large percentage of New Bedford residents are employed in the construction, production,
maintenance, and transportation industries. This was a significant increase over the last decade
in this sector, where the greatest percentage of employment was in the technical, administrative,
and sales industries throughout the 1990s. The percentage of businesses engaged in the forestry,
fishing, hunting, and agriculture industries declined by almost a third throughout the 1990s. In
2000, the major industries were manufacturing and education, health, and social services.
Table 9.6

Demographic Profile of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
1990

2000

New Bedford, Massachusetts

Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age

99,922

93,768

Population:

46.7%
53.3%

47.1%
52.9%

High school graduates (25 years or older)
Economic Characteristics
Labor force (16 years and over)

Median Age
< 20
20-44
45- 64
> 65
Race

32.6
29.1%
35.4%
18.0%
17.4%

35.9
27.4%
35.6%
20.1%
16.7%

Unemployed

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household
Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

87.8%
3.8%
0.4%
0.3%
7.6%

78.9%
4.4%
0.6%
0.7%
9.5%

38,646
69.0%
31.0%
2.59
3.15

91,782
63.1%
39.9%
2.40
3.01

Total housing units
Vacant housing units

41,760
7.1%

41,511
8.0%

Housing Tenure
Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

43.8%
56.2%

43.8%
56.2%

Demographics

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1990

2000

99,922

93,678

49.7%

57.6%

52.1%

57.7%

7.2%

5.0%

Education:

Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

$ 22,647 $ 27,569
16.8%
20.2%
17.0%
27.2%

20.8%
23.6%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining

2.6%
11.9%

34.9%
1.0%

Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

3.16%
6.1%
27.8%
4.3%
17.0%
15.4%
0.7%

1.1%
7.1%
20.7%
4.4%
12.1%
20.9%
7.4%

9-14

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

New Bedford also has a large number of residents with a commercial tuna permit (Table
9.36 and Figure 9.4). All pelagic longline vessels that land HMS in New Bedford are large
“distant water” vessels. The fleet consists of large vessels that follow swordfish throughout their
migrations. These vessels make long trips, are relatively expensive to operate, and are highly
specialized to distant water fishing (i.e., they have large holds and additional fuel capacity).
Respondents to the Wilson et al. study report that these large distant water vessels have
developed a minimal history in other U.S. fisheries, though it is fairly easy for both the vessels
and captains to find work in foreign longline fisheries. Many of these vessels already moved
from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, and others are currently for sale (Wilson et al.,
1998). In summer months, the remaining large distant water vessels fish on the Grand Banks and
land swordfish in New England and Canadian ports. During winter months, their product is
initially landed in San Juan, Puerto Rico and transhipped to New Bedford and other destinations.
San Juan, Puerto Rico is the only international airport in the Caribbean with the necessary lift
capacity to tranship their product. Long storage time at sea means that this fleet produces
relatively lower quality swordfish, so they compete directly with cheaper imports for the low-end
markets. Participants report concern over expenses and the decreased price of swordfish.
Because of these problems and the pressures brought about by increased regulation and
several decreasing fish stocks, the distant water fleet has responded by staying out at sea for
longer periods (Wilson et al., 1998). This has affected family life; wives of fishermen do not
want to raise children essentially alone. While some members of this fleet, their suppliers, and
their customers live in the New Bedford area, the distant water fleet is not attached to a
geographical community in the same sense as other fleets. Participants in this fleet tend to be
fairly isolated within the communities where they live, even when those communities are
strongly integrated fishing communities like New Bedford. The wives of captains and crew who
participate in the distant water fishery generally do not know each other well. New Bedford has
a fishermen’s wives association but it is mainly for older Portuguese women whose husbands are
scallopers and draggers “who do only 14-day trips” (Wilson et al., 1998). New Bedford
respondents not associated with the distant water fleet report that they see it as socially distant
from the rest of the community. This isolation from other fishing people, and the length of the
trips, has placed a strain on the family life of participants.
The distant water fleet has used its longer reach to recruit crew members from overseas,
particularly the West Indies, thus avoiding crew supply problems typical of other sectors of the
longline fleet. The range of these vessels over many different waters makes them particularly
dependent on the skill and experience of their captains. New Bedford does not offer these
captains alternative employment outside of the fishing industry at comparable income levels
(Wilson, et al., 1998).
A dealer in the New Bedford area who purchases from the distant water fleet does $15
million to $20 million worth of business each year, including imports. About half of the dealer’s
purchases are domestic. Overall, his business consists of 60 percent swordfish, 15 percent tunas
(yellowfin, bigeye, bluefin), ten percent lobster, and 15 percent other (sharks, bait, etc.). The
dealer employs 40 to 65 people depending on supply conditions (Wilson et al., 1998). There are
also a large number of HMS dealers in Gloucester licensed to purchase and sell tunas, sharks,
and swordfish (Figure 9.5).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-15

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

When fishing is disrupted through closures, the dealers experience large labor
fluctuations. Even the increased reliance on imports has not completely solved this problem.
When they make an effort to buy from U.S. vessels in distant waters, special arrangements and
timing are required to get the fish to market and maintain vessels. The fishermen have to unload
close to an international airport with lift capacity, which in the Caribbean means San Juan. The
dealers have to hire people to unload any vessel landings in San Juan, and send supervisors so
that the fish is kept cold, weighed properly and counted correctly. Then they need to arrange for
cargo departure and negotiate freight weight. These activities can be easily disrupted by short
notice of seasonal closures and other regulatory decisions.
Of the five vessels that hold permits to fish in the bluefin tuna purse seine fishery, four
are associated with New Bedford. One of these vessels is owned by a resident while the three
other vessels are owned by non-residents. All four land their catch in New Bedford and have
crew members who live in the city. The owners and many of the crew of the purse seine vessels,
even some who do not reside in the community, are well integrated through kinship ties into the
fishing community. They are generally thought of as being responsible for creating the bluefin
tuna fishery, and the fleet enjoys the respect of extended fishing communities in New Bedford
(Wilson et al., 1998). Three of these vessels do nothing else but fish for bluefin tuna and are tied
up at the dock for the rest of the year. The fourth vessel holds a scallop permit as well. Many of
the current crew members have had their berths for years. In 1998, these vessels employed 26
crew members combined, 24 percent less than they did at the height of this fishery in the 1980s.
Many of these crew members are family and almost all have been with these vessels for a long
time. The average age is considerably older than that of most fishing crews. When the vessels
are tied up, the crew members collect unemployment and do odd jobs. A greater percentage of
the crew members’ wives worked outside the home in the 1990s compared to the 1980s (Wilson
et al., 1998).
The purse seine fleet’s economic health is heavily dependent on bluefin tuna prices and,
concomitantly, on the value of the Japanese yen. The New Bedford dealer who buys bluefin tuna
from the purse seine fleet has been in business since the early 1960s. This dealer currently
depends on the purse seiners to maintain profit margins. However, he reports that the structure
of his businesses is such that there would be no lost jobs even if the purse seine landings were to
be significantly reduced, since any bluefin tuna reallocated to other commercial categories would
likely be handled by the same dealer. The business employs 200 people and would not lay off
workers if the bluefin tuna quota were cut. While bluefin tuna currently makes up only 1.25
percent of their gross dollars, it accounts for 25 percent or more of their net profit.
The recreational tuna fishing industry in New Bedford is a highly diverse one, with an
increasing emphasis on providing an enjoyable fishing experience for all ages. Fishery
participants feel that bluefin tuna fishing is an adventure, and the prize is an important aspect of
the experience. It attracts experienced and amateur fishermen alike, as well as adventure seekers
who are often outdoors enthusiasts in other arenas. Most charterboats in the New Bedford area
are owner-operated. Respondents report that it can be hard to find suitable crew members
because the business is seasonal and they are unwilling to hire unemployed commercial
fishermen (Wilson et al., 1998).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-16

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Recreational fishing in these communities drives a much larger economy, including the
marine trades (tackle, vessels, engines, etc.), suppliers of bait and ice, and general tourist services
such as restaurants and hotels. These communities are competing with many other possible
tourist destinations, increasing their dependence on large, well-known fish that act as prominent
attractions. Economic vulnerabilities stem from the seasonal nature of recreational fishing in
these communities and recreational fishing’s general dependence on the health of the economy.
The seasonality of this fishery makes business planning, as well as training and keeping
employees, more difficult. Respondents emphasized that these communities depend on potential
customers’ expectation that they will have a reasonable chance to land a fish (Wilson et al.,
1998).
Shark tournaments are also an important component in promoting business in the New
Bedford area, attracting numerous repeat customers. They bring in curious people because
sharks are considered a dangerous and exciting fish. Recreational shark fishing in New Bedford
is mainly catch-and-release (Wilson et al., 1998). However, respondents argue that New
Bedford is not the appropriate area for catch-and-release tournaments, because the length of the
trip (100 miles) makes taking observers impractical. Although shark fishing is comparatively
less important to recreational fishermen in this community, some customers are attracted by the
particular challenge of shark fishing. Recreational fishermen throughout the area tend to believe
that commercial fishing is to blame for the decline in shark populations.
9.4.4

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s population increased from just over one million people in 1990 to 1.1
million people in 2000 (Table 9.7). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high
school diploma and/or some graduate level degree has increased by three percent. The
percentage of employed individuals and the unemployment rate declined slightly, but the number
of individuals below the poverty line increased from 9.6 percent to almost 12 percent.
Employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined with the
education, health, and social services industries providing the greatest employment opportunities
in 2000. Due to the relatively low involvement in the HMS fisheries in the past, there are no
community profiles describing the relationship of HMS fisheries to any Rhode Island
communities.
Over four and half percent of the commercial tuna permit holders reside in Rhode Island
(Table 9.36) with a concentration of permit holders residing in Wakefield (Figure 9.1). Nine
shark permit holders and 27 swordfish permit holders are located in the state of Rhode Island
(Table 9.38 and Table 9.39). Communities involved with the commercial fisheries are Warwick,
Little Compton, Newport, Tiverton, Block Island, Narragansett, Peace Dale, Point Judith, South
Kingstown, Wakefield and West Kingstown. Rhode Island also has 45 HMS dealers, operating
in Newport, Point Judith, Middletown, Wakefield, Narragansett, Peace Dale, South Kingstown,
and Block Island (Table 9.37 and Figure 9.5). In the future, NMFS may want to consider
developing a HMS-related community profile for Wakefield, Rhode Island due to the number of
residents involved in the commercial tuna and swordfish fisheries according to the information
from the HMS permit databases.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-17

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Table 9.7

Rhode Island Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000

Rhode Island
1990
2000
1,003,464 1,048,319
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
72.0%
78.0%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
66.1%
64.6%
Unemployment Rate
6.6%
5.6%
$32,181
$42,090
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line*
9.6%
11.9%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.3%
0.5%
Construction
5.7%
5.4%
Manufacturing
22.7%
16.4%
Wholesale trade
3.7%
3.4%
Retail
17.5%
12.1%
Education, health & social services
25.0%
23.0%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.2%
8.6%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

In 2004, some 351,000 anglers took 1,444,000 saltwater fishing trips for all species of
fish in the state of Rhode Island (NMFS, 2005a). Of these marine anglers, about 65 percent were
from out-of-state. In 2005, 831 Rhode Island residents held an HMS angling permit (Table
9.34). Retail sales generated by marine anglers in Rhode Island in 2001 are estimated to total
$86.2 million and 1,382 jobs were generated in the marine recreational fishing industry (ASA,
2002). Recreational shark fishing from Rhode Island is seasonal between late June and October,
with a peak in late August (NMFS 2003). A variety of shark species are available with the most
common being mako sharks between 60 - 100 pounds. After mako, thresher, blue, dusky and
sandbar sharks are the most common species caught by anglers. Light tackle is the gear
preferred for shark fishing by the charter operators and most private boat fishermen, and catchand-release is normal in the fishery.
In Rhode Island, the number of charter/headboat permit holders increased from 94 in
2003 to 143 in 2005 (Table 9.35). Charter operators offering shark fishing trips are based in
Block Island, Point Judith, Little Compton, Warwick, West Greenwich, Newport, and Westerly.
Charter trips for sharks are usually to the deep waters South of Rhode Island and the eastern tip
of Long Island, last at least 10 hours and, in August, are often overnight trips. On the ten-hour
trips with five anglers onboard, the average fee was on the order of $800 in 2003 (NMFS, 2003).
This fee is comparable to those charged in the other New England states. Fees for participation
in a five-day fishing tournament are on the order of $4,500 for a fully rigged and provisioned
boat with skipper and mate (the angler is responsible for the payment of the tournament fees,
which can be in excess of $5,000 per angler).
9.4.5

Connecticut

Connecticut’s population has increased by 3.5 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Table
9.8). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma and/or a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-18

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

graduate level degree has increased by about five percent. The percentage of employed
individuals has declined, and correspondingly, the unemployment rate and individuals below the
poverty line have increased over the past decade. Employment in the farming, fishing, forestry,
and mining has declined with the education, health, and social services industries providing the
greatest employment opportunities in 2000.
In general, Connecticut’s involvement in the commercial fishery has been minimal.
There are 170 commercial tuna permit holders living in the state (Table 9.36) with two permit
holders for the shark and swordfish permits (Table 9.38 and Table 9.39). Only two HMS
permitted dealers are located in Connecticut (Table 9.37). The communities involved in the
commercial shark fishery are New London and Old Lyme. Due to the relatively minimal
involvement with HMS fisheries, there are no community profiles for the state of Connecticut.
In 2003, some 369,000 anglers took 1,579,000 saltwater fishing trips for all species of
fish (NMFS, 2004b). Of these marine anglers, about 18 percent were from out-of-state. In 2005,
1,080 Connecticut residents held an HMS angling permit (Table 9.34). Recreational shark
fishing is conducted throughout Long Island Sound, but primarily from the eastern ports in the
state from which offshore waters can be easily reached. The number of charter/headboats permit
holders in Connecticut has increased from 62 in 2003 to 110 in 2005 (Table 9.35). Charterboats
advertising shark fishing trips operate from Milford, New London, Norwalk, Old Lyme,
Saybrook, Stonington and Westport. The recreational fishery is principally a catch-and-release
fishery using light tackle.
Table 9.8

Connecticut Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000

Connecticut
1990
2000
Population:
3,287,116 3,405,565
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
79.2%
84.0%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
69.0%
66.6%
Unemployment Rate
5.4%
5.3%
Median Household Income
$41,721 $53,935
Individuals below the poverty line*
6.8%
7.9%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.3%
0.4%
Construction
5.9%
6.0%
Manufacturing
20.5%
14.8%
Wholesale trade
4.2%
3.2%
Retail
15.4%
11.2%
Education, health & social services
24.8%
22.0%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.1%
6.7%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-19

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

9.4.6

New York

The state of New York’s population increased by nearly one million people in the decade
between 1990 and 2000 (Table 9.9). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a
high school diploma and/or some graduate level degree has increased by about five percent. The
percentage of employed individuals has declined slightly, while both the unemployment rate and
individuals below the poverty line have increased over the past decade. Employment in the
farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined with the education, health, and
social services industries providing the greatest employment opportunities in 2000.
Twenty-one individuals holding an HMS shark permit and 29 individuals holding a
swordfish permit reside in New York (Table 9.38 and Table 9.39). In addition to the shark and
swordfish permit holders, there are also 327 commercial tuna permit holders in New York (Table
9.36). New York has the third greatest number of HMS dealer permit holders (86 total) with a
large concentration of dealers located in New York City and the surrounding areas (Table 9.37
and Figure 9.5). The communities participating in the shark commercial and recreational
fisheries include Freeport, Lawrence, Ammagansett, Brightwaters, East Hampton, East Quogue,
Greenport, Hampton Bays, Islip, Montauk, Oakdale, Brooklyn, Riverhead, Seaford, Port
Jefferson, Babylon, Hauppauge, Staten Island, Southold, and Wantagh. While no HMS
community profiles have been developed for New York, a profile should be developed for
Montauk due to the residents’ significant participation in the commercial tuna, charter/headboat
and the number of shark permit holders.
Table 9.9

New York Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000

New York
1990
2000
Population:
17,990,455 18,976,457
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
74.8%
79.1%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
63.6%
61.1%
Unemployment Rate
6.9%
7.1%
Median Household Income
$40,927
$43,393
Individuals below the poverty line*
13.0%
14.6%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.3%
0.6%
Construction
5.2%
5.2%
Manufacturing
14.7%
10.0%
Wholesale trade
4.2%
3.4%
Retail
14.9%
10.5%
Education, health & social services
27.9%
24.3%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.5%
7.3%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

In 2004, some 677,000 anglers took 4,743,000 saltwater fishing trips for all species of
fish in both state and Federal waters (NMFS, 2005a). The majority of these anglers are residents
of New York State, with about 11 percent were from out-of-state. In 2005, New York had the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-20

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

fourth greatest number of HMS angling permit holders with 2,391 permitted vessels (Table 9.34)
and a large concentration of these anglers residing in New York City (Figure 9.2). The Amecian
Sportfishing Association (ASA) estimated that, in 2001, saltwater angling generated some
$389.3 million in New York State in retail sales and some 5,122 jobs in the marine recreational
fishing industry (ASA, 2003). Shark fishing by anglers appears to be largely catch-and-release,
using light tackle, and tends to be incidental to tuna and billfish fishing offshore. In New York
State, there are 379 charter/headboats were permitted for HMS fishing in 2005 (Table 9.35). A
number of charterboat operators advertise shark fishing as part of their offerings. A large
percentage of the 41 charterboats operating out of Montauk advertise shark fishing either as an
occasional exciting catch or offering shark fishing trips offshore. Montauk is positioned well for
offshore trips as it lies only 20 – 40 miles from the edge of deep water and Gulf Stream eddies.
Connecticut and Rhode Island boats on the other hand have to travel at least 60-100 miles to
reach the prime fishing waters for tunas and sharks.
9.4.7

New Jersey

Between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census, New Jersey’s population increased from
7.7 million people to 8.4 million people, respectively (Table 9.10). The percentage of
individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma and/or some graduate level degree has
increased by about five percent. The percentage of employed individuals has declined slightly,
while the unemployment rate remained about the same and individuals below the poverty line
increased over the past decade. As with many of the other states, employment in the farming,
fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined, whereas the education, health, and social
services industries provided the greatest employment opportunities in 2000.
While both Barnegat Light and Brielle have already been profiled for HMS fisheries,
NMFS may want to also consider an HMS profile for Cape May due to the number of HMS
angling, charter/headboat, shark and swordfish permits located in the community.
In 2005, there were 357 commercial tuna permit holders in the state of New Jersey (Table
9.36). New Jersey has the second greatest number of shark permit holders living within the state,
second to Florida (Table 9.38) with significant concentrations of shark permit holders living in
Barnegat Light and Cape May (Figure 9.6). New Jersey is also home to 50 swordfish permit
holders (Table 9.39) with many of these permit holders in Barnegat Light and Cape May (Figure
9.7). Fifty-six HMS dealers are also located in New Jersey (Table 9.37).
Marine recreational fishing attracted 1,120,000 participants to New Jersey in 2004
(NMFS, 2005a). These anglers, collectively, made 6,580,000 saltwater fishing trips during the
year. Of these anglers, 33 percent were from out-of-state, and about two percent from noncoastal counties in New Jersey. In 2005, New Jersey has the greatest number of HMS angling
permit holders at 3,439 (Table 9.34) with large concentrations of these anglers residing in Point
Pleasant Beach, Brick, Toms River, Forked River, and Tuckerton (Figure 9.2). The ASA
estimated that saltwater angling-related retail sales in New Jersey were some $448.7 million in
2001. The marine recreational fishing industry provided some 7,762 jobs in New Jersey in 2001
(ASA, 2002).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-21

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Table 9.10 New Jersey Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
New Jersey
1990
2000
Population:
7,730,188 8,414,350
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
76.9%
82.1%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
67.4%
64.1%
Unemployment Rate
5.7%
5.8%
Median Household Income
$40,927
$55,146
Individuals below the poverty line*
7.6%
8.5%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.2%
0.3%
Construction
6.0%
5.6%
Manufacturing
16.9%
12.0%
Wholesale trade
5.4%
4.4%
Retail
15.2%
11.3%
Education, health & social services
23.4%
19.8%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.7%
6.9%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

The recreational fishery for sharks is primarily incidental to fishing for tuna and billfish.
New Jersey is also second to Florida in the number of HMS charter/headboats permit holders
with 578 permitted vessels in 2005 (Table 9.53). Many of the angling communities are also
home to the charter/headboat permit holders, but also Cape May, and Ocean City (Figure 9.3).
Of these party and charterboats, some advertise shark trips using light tackle during the summer
and early fall (July-October) (NMFS, 2003). These trips go offshore between 25 and 60 miles to
the heads of the canyons, and thus are full-day or overnight trips.
9.4.7.1

Barnegat Light, New Jersey

Barnegat Light is one of eleven municipalities on Long Beach Island, a large “barrier
beach” island that helps form the seaward boundary of Barnegat Bay. This small town measures
less than one square mile and is located on the northern end of the barrier island. The town is
named after its famous lighthouse that guided ships for generations along the New Jersey coast.
This lighthouse was replaced in 1855 with the second-tallest lighthouse in the United States
operating until 1927 (NMFS, 2003). The building continues as both a community landmark and
a navigation mark. The name Barnegat originates from “Barende-gat,” a Dutch name meaning
“inlet of breakers” (NMFS, 1999a). Prior to 1820, fishing operations and maritime trade were
conducted in the small settlements on the mainland inside the chain of islands and sand bars
fringing the New Jersey Coast (NMFS, 2003). Barnegat Inlet was one of the important channels
to the open ocean, with a sheltered anchorage immediately inside the inlet, and ample resource
for a fishing community. A lighthouse was built in 1824 to mark the entrance to the inlet. In
1995, the infamous inlet’s fierce currents were tamed by a $45 million Army Corps of Engineers
project that constructed a South jetty along with a three-quarter-mile beach and a fishing pier
(NMFS, 1999a).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-22

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Barnegat Light has grown and changed in the decade between the 1990 and 2000
Censuses. The changes are reflected in two demographic dimensions. The first is a shift to
higher education and higher qualification occupations and the second is a continued shift to an
older, retired population. The change in age structure also signifies a change in the workforce
and the source of household earnings. In 2000, there were 371 households with an average size
of 2.05 persons per household (Table 9.11). Of these households, 233 (62.8 percent) received
income in the form of earnings, while 202 households (54.4 percent) received income from
Social Security (NMFS, 2003). One hundred and thirty households received retirement income
(35.0 percent). For households receiving income from earnings, the average income was
$63,373 in 19991. The average Barnegat Light household with retirement income received
$22,168 (plus appropriate Social Security payments). In comparison with New Jersey as a
whole, employment earnings were less than the state average, while retirement income was
above the state average. However, the median household income in Barnegat Light ($52,361) in
1990 was some $2,800 lower than the statewide median household income.
Table 9.11 Demographic Profile of Barnegat Light. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female

1990
681

2000
764

Barnegat Light, New Jersey
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Economic Characteristics
Labor force (16 years and over)

52.0%
48.0%

50.9%
49.1%

Median Age
< 20
20-44
45-64
> 65
Race

50.9
12.8%
29.8%
27.0%
30.4%

54.9
15.4%
20.9%
29.4%
34.3%

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

99.6%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

98.3%
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
0.4%

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size

342
62.0%
38.0%
1.99
2.42

371
62.0%
38.0%
2.05
2.60

Housing Occupancy
Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure

1,167
71.0%

1,207
69.3%

Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

82.6%
17.4%

87.9%
12.1%

Age

1990

2000

681

764

84.9%

92.1%

52.6%

46.9%

0.5%
1.2%
$ 37,955 $ 52,361
7.2%
4.7%
32.4%
31.4%

40.8%
23.3%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing

10.4%
13.9%

16.4%
6.5%

12.6%
12.6%
7.4%

8.2%
10.3%
4.8%

Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

1.3%
21.0%
7.4%
2.9%

1.7%
9.2%
16.8%
11.0%

Barnegat Light is a vacation and retirement destination. Of the 1,207 housing units
available in 2000, 64.3 percent (781 units) were vacation homes, and 371 homes were occupied
year-round (NMFS, 2003). Some 69.3 percent of the homes were unoccupied at the time of the
2000 census. About one-quarter of the resident population had lived in Barnegat Light for less
than five years in 2000, and most of the new residents moved to the town from other parts of
New Jersey. Of the population of Barnegat Light in 2000, 55 percent (430 persons) had been
1

Income and earnings data reported in the decennial Censuses is for the previous year, i.e. the income
reported in the 1990 Census is for 1989, for the 2000 Census it is for 1999.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-23

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

born in New Jersey, while 41 percent were born elsewhere in the United States. There is a
“community stickiness” factor among persons resident in Barnegat Light, since 70 percent had
lived there prior to 1995, but there is also evidence of change that could affect life-style and the
culture of the community. One of the elements of “community stickiness” is that many of the
“new” residents are retirees who have converted their former vacation homes to year-round
residences.
In 1881, the Barnegat City Improvement Company was formed and developed the
present-day town as a resort and recreation area, with the town owning all the beaches and dunes
(NMFS, 2003). The mix of tourism and fishing has continued to the present. Fishing operations
are now linked to their markets by road and there is a tight mesh between the winter and summer
economies. Local shops and services are sustained by the fishing activities in the winter months,
and it is estimated that the direct employment in fisheries and fishing services was on the order
of 52 percent of the 300 persons civilian workforce in 2000. This number does not agree with
the Census Bureau’s data of fisheries employment of 6.5 percent, probably due to failure of
respondents to complete census forms or undercounting because fishermen were at sea.
There are four full service marinas in Barnegat Light in addition to 44 municipal boat
slips and a municipal ramp (NMFS, 2003). The marinas and slips are on the bayside of Long
Beach Island and extend southwards some 18 blocks from the inlet. Commercial fishing docks
and fishhouses also line Bayview Avenue, but are clustered towards the southern end of the
street. Five bait and tackle shops, three of which also provide boat rentals, provide services to
local and visiting fishermen. The charter fleet working from Barnegat Light is estimated to be
20 boats, including eight vessels with HMS permits. About half this fleet is active year-round in
Barnegat Light, while the other vessels at least fish elsewhere in the winter months. Some of the
boat fish for tuna off North Carolina in the winter and spring, while others fish from November
through April from ports in Florida.
One dock is completely occupied by privately-owned, commercial vessels, including
seven scallopers, ten longliners that fish for tunas, swordfish, and tilefish, and about nine inshore
net vessels. Three offloading stations are part of this dock. Five or six locally hired full-time
employees, the vessel captain, and the crew perform the offloading. Additional dock hands are
hired locally for the busy season. The owners of the dock sell some of the catch to fresh fish
markets in Boston, Philadelphia, Maryland, and New York with the remaining being sold to local
restaurants, retailers, wholesalers or at their own fish market, which is open from April to
October (McCay, 1993).
Some of the fisheries organizations in Barnegat Light include Blue Water Fishermen’s
Association; Forked River Tuna Club; Jersey Devils Fishing Club; Beach Haven Marlin and
Tuna Club; Long Beach Island Fishing Club; and United National Fishermen’s Association.
The Barnegat Light port is known for its pelagic longline fishery. Today, the fleet targets
yellowfin and bigeye tunas for most of the year and swordfish for part of the year. Pelagic and
large coastal sharks are important incidental catches and some species like mako, porbeagle, and
sandbar sharks are usually kept and sold. There are a large number of residents that hold a
commercial permit for sharks (22 permits; Table 9.38) and swordfish (18 permits; Table 9.39).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-24

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

During the winter, a few vessels continue to bottom longline for tilefish in the deep waters of the
outer continental shelf and canyons. Some captains from this port have begun to fish off the
coasts of other countries. Pelagic longline crews are increasingly from other regions, such as
Nova Scotia and some of the southern states. Some of the pelagic longline fishermen from
Barnegat Light have become distant-water operators, going to the Grand Banks off
Newfoundland, the waters off Greenland, as well as the Caribbean, Brazil, and other distant
fishing grounds. The owner of one major fleet (six longline vessels) has left Barnegat Light to
fish for HMS in the Pacific Ocean (Wilson et al., 1998).
Other captains of pelagic longline vessels strongly prefer to work closer to home or to
take shorter trips. The options of those who resist going to other ports are far more restricted.
Distant water fishing is very disruptive to families and the community. Some local vessels are
now converting from pelagic longline fishing to monkfishing, although many who have tried to
convert to other fisheries have failed to meet deadlines for limited entry. Another concern of
local residents is that the demise of commercial fisheries is likely to transform the use of the
waterfront, bringing in condominium development where marinas are now located, an outcome
that many long-term residents find undesirable.
9.4.7.2

Brielle, New Jersey

Brielle is located in the southernmost region of Monmouth County, and borders the
Manasquan River of central New Jersey. For the purposes of this document, the community will
include Brielle/Point Pleasant. This is an area where recreational fishermen are as traditional as
commercial fishermen, and recreational fishermen have been distressed about the management of
tunas and sharks.
Brielle experienced a modest population increase between 1990 and 2000 from 4,406 to
4,893 individuals (Table 9.12). The percent of males and females remained virtually unchanged
between 1990 and 2000 with 48 percent of the population comprised of males and 52 percent
females. The age distribution of the Brielle population remained virtually the same for the past
decade. The age distribution is fairly even between the under 20 years old, 20 – 44, and 45 – 64
years old. The over 65 year olds are the smallest age group with about 19 or 18 percent. Whites
accounted for approximately 93 percent of the population in both 1990 and 2000. The percent of
other races, however, declined between 1990 and 2000. The largest industry in 1990 was retail
trade, which dropped significantly by 2000 (7.3 percent). In 2000, the largest industries in
Brielle were education, health, and social services. In both 1990 and 2000, the greatest source of
employment was managerial and professional related jobs. Employment in the farming, fishing,
forestry, and mining declined from 6.8 percent in 1990 to 0.7 percent in 2000.
The Brielle/Point Pleasant port is one of the most important of the inlet ports along the
barrier beach complex that makes up the New Jersey coast. It has been a center of both
recreational and commercial fishing since the early 1800s. It is estimated that up to
100 working charterboats used this port historically. Today, Brielle has ten charter/headboats,
and there are 17 charter/headboats in Point Pleasant. The majority of vessels that fish offshore
are private vessels. It is reported that although these vessels actively fish for tunas and are thus
required to have an Atlantic tunas permit, many of these vessels do not hold the necessary
permit.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-25

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

New Jersey, and in particular Brielle, recreational fishermen (private and
charter/headboats) have historically targeted school bluefin tuna (measuring 27 inches to less
than 47 inches). There is documentation back to the 1890s regarding the recreational fishery for
bluefin tuna. According to respondents in the Wilson et al., study, New Jersey vessels landed
nearly 20,000 bluefin tuna in one month of 1939. The 1998 annual coastwide Angling category
quota was 269 mt, or about 19,000 fish.
Table 9.12 Demographic Profile of Brielle, New Jersey. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age

1990
4,406

2000
4,893

Brielle, New Jersey

1990

Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Economic Characteristics
Labor force (16 years and over)

48.2%
51.8%

47.4%
52.6%

Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race

42.7
23.2%
28.6%
29.1%
19.2%

42.9
25.2%
27.9%
29.1%
17.8%

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

93.8%
5.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%

93.1%
3.5%
0.1%
0.7%
2.7%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

1,735
74.6%
25.4%
2.54
3.00

1,938
73.0%
27.0%
2.52
3.00

Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure

1,986
12.6%

2,123
8.7%

Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

82.3%
17.7%

83.4%
16.6%

2000

4,406

4,893

91.3%

94.8%

58.6%

59.4%

4.4%
2.1%
$ 53,485 $ 68,368
2.3%
3.9%
44.7%
31.5%

56.0%
21.8%

0.9%
6.8%

11.3%
0.7%

1.6%
5.9%
11.7%

0.7%
7.4%
8.4%

6.7%
21.4%
18.7%
2.1%

2.5%
7.3%
23.1%
7.8%

Here, as elsewhere in New York and New Jersey, HMS fisheries often take place in the
“canyons” and around eddies and at the edge of the continental shelf. In the past, bluefin tuna
could be caught on day trips in coastal waters, rather than the canyons, and they were the major
source of profit for the charter/headboat fleet here (and elsewhere in New Jersey and the larger
Mid-Atlantic). Today, the canyon fisheries for tunas are thought of as additional opportunities
for most charter/headboat captains, who regularly take clients fishing for bluefish, fluke, or other
tunas.
At one time, the full-time canyon fishermen included hundreds of inshore bluefin tuna
vessels, and “six-pack” boats (smaller vessels certified to carry no more than six passengers; also
known as uninspected vessels). Respondents to the 1998 Wilson et al. study indicated that they
must steam 80 miles offshore to reach the canyons, and are therefore limited by weather. A
similar trend is found in Cape May, New Jersey, where anglers fish in the Baltimore Canyon.
The Hudson Canyon offshore fishery started 15 to 20 years ago, and the Brielle/Point Pleasant
fleet rely heavily on the canyon for the fall fishery. This fishery has diminished, and the smaller,
less powerful vessels are gone. Recent improvements in the U.S. economy have once again
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-26

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

fueled investment in expensive offshore fishing vessels, and this is a major contribution to New
Jersey’s economy. For example, the majority of the private vessels purchased in the Cape May
area are built in New Jersey. There are eight tackle shops in the Brielle/Point Pleasant area.
Charter/headboat captains indicate that in 1998, they were generally unable to book tuna
trips, because passengers do not like to take trips when the bluefin tuna retention limit is low or
when retention is prohibited. One of the charterboat owners said that in 1991, the four busiest
captains averaged 30 to 35 tuna trips each, but that the average number of trips dropped to
approximately 12 in 1996 (Wilson et al., 1998). The argument for more liberal retention limits
includes the idea that it is necessary to keep people interested in the gambling aspect of the
fishery. Although people may not actually land more fish, customers are attracted by the
possibility. Charterboat captains emphasize that reasonable recreational retention limits are
important to their clients, who wish to bring fish home to eat and share with others.
Due to landings restrictions on bluefin tuna, bluefish generally replaced the tunas as the
important inshore/offshore fishery in northern New Jersey. The Brielle/Point Pleasant
charter/headboat fishermen, like most other people involved in the sport fisheries, would like to
see the economic value of their fisheries documented. In this light, a recent study done in
Virginia found that 30 percent of the fisheries income in the state came from the offshore
recreational fisheries. Respondents emphasized that the figure is likely to be much larger for
New Jersey (Wilson et al., 1998).
Adding to the general problems of the bluefin tuna fishery in New Jersey is the effect of
the “North-South line.” This line (38E 47’ N), roughly at Delaware Bay, is used to separate the
Angling category fishery into a northern and a southern area. Recreational bluefin tuna
fishermen from Brielle fish in the northern area whereas fishermen from Cape May and other
southern ports have historically fished in the southern area. However, because it is unlawful to
possess bluefin tuna in excess of the daily retention limit in the respective area, those who fish in
the southern zone and return to a New Jersey port with their catch must abide by northern area
regulations. The Draft Consolidated HMS FMP contained a preferred alternative to remove the
Angling category’s North/South line (see Section 2.3.1). Removal of the North-South line would
mean consistent regulations in the EEZ off of New Jersey; making it easier for New Jersey
anglers to comply with the daily retention limits and allowing them to land in any New Jersey
port. Due to public comment on the alternative, the Consolidated HMS FMP would maintain the
North/South line as a management tool and would provide an equitable opportunity to harvest
the recreational BFT allocation.
Sharks are comparatively less important to recreational fishermen in Brielle than bluefin
tuna. Sharks play an important role in the fishing industry, and, while other fish may be
available, some customers are attracted by sharks in particular. Makos are the sharks with the
greatest economic importance to the recreational fishery in New Jersey. Mako tournaments are
popular and several impose catch restrictions on participants. They have recently canceled some
traditional shark tournaments out of concern for the stock, and two recent shark tournaments in
New Jersey did not catch a single mako above the tournament’s minimum size. Researchers
reported that the shark fishery in Brielle is being strongly affected by a decrease in its historical
tuna fishery and is therefore more vulnerable to negative impacts.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-27

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

9.4.8

Delaware

Between 1990 and 2000, Delaware’s population increased by 15 percent (Table 9.13).
The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma and/or a graduate
level degree has increased by about five percent. The percentage of employed individuals has
declined slightly, while both the unemployment rate and individuals below the poverty line
increased over the past decade. As with many of the other states, employment in the farming,
fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined, whereas the education, health, and social
services industries provided the greatest employment opportunities in 2000.
Table 9.13 Delaware Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Delaware

1990
2000
Population:
666,168
783,600
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
77.50%
82.60%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
68.3%
65.7%
Unemployment Rate
4.0%
5.2%
Median Household Income
$34,875
$47,381
Individuals below the poverty line*
8.7%
9.2%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
2.3%
1.1%
Construction
8.0%
7.4%
Manufacturing
18.8%
13.2%
Wholesale trade
3.5%
2.6%
Retail
2.1%
11.6%
Education, health & social services
23.0%
19.4%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
10.4%
7.7%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

Thirty-nine commercial tuna permit holders lived in Delaware during 2005 (Table 9.36).
There are three HMS dealers for tuna located in Delaware, one in Rehoboth, another in
Harrington, and the last in Middletown (Table 9.37 and Figure 9.5). There was one shark and
one swordfish permit holder in the state of Delaware during 2005 (Table 9.38 and Table 9.39).
The recreational fishery in Delaware Bay and offshore is popular because of the diversity
of species and habitats available to anglers. In 2004, Delaware’s recreational fisheries attracted
354,000 saltwater anglers of whom 68 percent were from out-of-state. In total, the anglers made
1,163,000 fishing trips in 2004 (NMFS, 2005a). In 2005, Delaware was home to 741 HMS
angling permit holders (Table 9.34) with a significant concentration of anglers in Millsboro,
Delaware. The retail sales generated by the Delaware anglers were estimated to be $48.9 million
in 2001 and the marine recreational fishing service sector provided some 724 jobs in Delaware
(ASA, 2002). One hundred and three charter/headboats with HMS permits were operating from
Delaware communities in 2005. Communities where these HMS-permitted charter/headboats
are registered include Bethany Beach, Cedar Creek, Dagsboro, Dewey Beach, Dover, Fenwick
Island, Georgetown, Indian River, Lewes, Long Neck, Middletown, Milford, Millsboro, Ocean
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-28

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

View, Rehoboth Beach, and Wilmington (NMFS, 2003). To date, no HMS community profiles
have been developed for any Delaware communities due to the relatively low level of
involvement with HMS fisheries.
9.4.9

Maryland

Maryland’s population increased from 4.8 million people in 1990 to 5.3 million people in
2000 (Table 9.14). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma
and/or some graduate level degree has increased by about five percent. The percentage of
employed individuals, ages 16 and older, has declined slightly, while both unemployment rate
and individuals below the poverty line remain approximately the same over the past decade. As
with many of the other states, employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining
industries has declined, whereas the education, health, and social services industries provided the
greatest employment opportunities in 2000.
In Maryland, there are 57 commercial tuna permit holders (Table 9.36). In addition, ten
shark permit holders and seven swordfish permit holders reside in Maryland (Table 9.38 and
Table 9.39). To support these HMS fisheries, there are sixteen dealers permitted for tuna, sharks
and swordfish (Table 9.37).
Table 9.14 Maryland Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Maryland

1990
2000
Population:
4,781,468 5,296,486
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
78.4%
83.8%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
70.6%
67.8%
Umemployment Rate
4.3%
4.7%
Median Household Income
$39,386
$52,868
Individuals below the poverty line*
8.3%
8.5%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.7%
0.6%
Construction
7.9%
6.9%
Wholesale trade
3.8%
2.8%
Retail
15.0%
10.5%
Manufacturing
10.3%
7.7%
Education, health & social services
25.8%
20.6%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.2%
6.8%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

In 2004, some 485,000 Maryland residents were marine recreational fishermen (NMFS,
2005a). Another 336,000 out-of-state marine anglers also fished in Maryland. Between them
these two groups made some 2.7 million fishing trips for saltwater species (NMFS, 2005a). In
2005, Maryland was home to 1,563 HMS angling permit holders (Table 9.34). The ASA
estimated that saltwater anglers generated $335.9 million in retail sales, and the marine
recreational fishing industry provided some 6,981 jobs in Maryland in 2001 (ASA, 2002).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-29

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

The recreational fishery for sharks is largely offshore, although sharks are found in the
lower reaches of the Chesapeake Bay. The offshore fishery takes place at least 15 miles out to
sea and charterboats often run 60 to 70 miles offshore to areas of deep water. In Maryland, the
number of HMS charter/headboat permit holders increased from 155 in 2003 to 196 in 2005
(Table 9.35). Most of these vessels are registered in Ocean City, which is known as the “White
Marlin Capital of the World”. This hotspot for recreational fishing industry is home to the
Annual White Marlin Open, which brings approximately $1 million as the top prize for the
tournament. Other communities involved with the HMS charter/headboat industry include
Annapolis, Baltimore, Cambridge, Chesapeake City, Chester, Conowingo, Edgewater, Glen
Burnie, Ocean Pines, Pasadena, Pocomoke, Salisbury, Severna, St. Michaels, Stevensville,
Tilghman, White Hall, and White Haven.
9.4.10 Virginia
Virginia’s population increased from 6.2 million people in 1990 to 7.1 million people in
2000 (Table 9.15). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma
and/or some graduate level degree has increased by six percent. The percentage of employed
individuals, ages 16 and older, has declined slightly, while both the unemployment rate and
individuals below the poverty line remained approximately the same over the past decade.
Employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined, whereas the
education, health, and social services industries provided the greatest employment opportunities
in 2000.
Virginia ranked second for the quantity of commercial fishery landings at its Reedville
port and third for the value of the commercial landings in the Hampton Roads area in 2004
(NMFS, 2005a). Virginia has 106 commercial tuna permit holders (Table 9.36). The Virginia
commercial HMS fisheries have 27 licensed dealers, with two or more dealers operating in
Chincoteague, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach (Table 9.37 and Figure
9.5). Six shark and five swordfish permit holders live in the Commonwealth of Virginia (Table
9.38 and Table 9.9). The commercial landings of tuna, sharks, and swordfish are not as
significant as the total commercial landings coming into the state; therefore, HMS fisheries are
not significantly tied to any particular Virginia community and no HMS-specific community
profiles have been developed for Virginia.
In 2003, the Virginia recreational saltwater fishery attracted 996,000 anglers, of whom
just over 42 percent were from out-of-state (NMFS, 2005a). Collectively, these anglers made 3.6
million recreational fishing trips in 2004. In 2005, Virginia was home to 1,351 HMS angling
permit holders (Table 9.34) with a large concentration of angling permit holders living in
Virginia Beach and Chesapeake (Figure 9.1). It is estimated that these saltwater anglers
generated some $246.8 million in retail sales in Virginia in 2001 and their activity provided
4,251 jobs in the marine recreational fishing industry (ASA, 2002). Principal species sought
were striped bass, flounder, bluefish, weakfish (sea trout) and drum. Offshore fishing was
principally for mackerels, tuna, dolphin fish, and billfish.
The Virginia recreational fishery for sharks is similar to that of Delaware and Maryland.
There is a very small directed shark fishery in the private boat sector, but most sharks are taken
incidentally to the catch of other species. There are 153 charter/headboats in Virginia with HMS
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-30

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

permits (Table 9.35). The communities with the greatest number of charterboats with HMS
permits were Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Chincoteague, Wachapreague, and Portsmouth. The
principal shark fishing season for recreational anglers is June through October.
Table 9.15 Virginia Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Virginia

1990
6,187,358

Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
75.2%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
68.9%
Unemployment Rate
4.5%
Median Household Income
$33,328
Individuals below the poverty line*
10.2%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
2.6%
Construction
7.8%
Wholesale trade
3.4%
Retail
16.1%
Manufacturing
15.1%
Education, health & social services
23.2%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.1%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

2000
7,078,515
81.5%
66.8%
4.2%
$46,677
9.6%
1.3%
7.3%
2.7%
11.4%
11.3%
18.3%
7.2%

9.4.11 North Carolina
The population in North Carolina increased by nearly 18 percent between 1990 and 2000
(Table 9.16). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma
and/or some graduate level degree has increased by eight percent. The percentage of employed
individuals, ages 16 and older, has remained roughly the same, while the unemployment rate
increased and the individuals below the poverty line declined slightly over the past decade. As
with many of the other states, employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining
industries has declined, whereas the manufacturing industry provided the greatest employment
opportunities in 2000.
North Carolina’s commercial fishery has a distinctive split between the North and South
with Cape Hatteras as the dividing point as a result of the local oceanographic conditions. The
Gulf Stream, as it skirts the Cape Hatteras shoals, is twenty miles offshore. This is the closest it
approaches land after leaving the Cape Canaveral area. The cold Labrador Current influences
the waters North of Cape Hatteras. The area off Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina is
where these two water bodies mix and provides very rich fishing grounds. South and West of
Cape Hatteras, the coast curves away to the West forming the relatively shallow Carolina Bight.
Vessels operating in this area have further to travel from shore to the Gulf Stream and do not
have the same diversity and richness found in the fisheries immediately to the North of Cape
Hatteras.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-31

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

North Carolina has the fifth largest number of HMS angling permit holders with 1,863
permits issued to its residents (Table 9.34). In 2004, NMFS estimated that 2,055,000 anglers
fished in North Carolina’s marine waters making a total of 7,025,000 million recreational fishing
trips (NMFS, 2005a). Of these fishermen, 1,152,000 anglers (56 percent) were from out-of-state
and 14 percent were from non-coastal counties in North Carolina. Marine recreational fishing is
thus an important element in the life and economies of coastal counties. In 1996, expenditures
by saltwater anglers in North Carolina were approximately $673 million, accounting for nearly
eight percent of the total U.S. expenditures by saltwater anglers. Saltwater fishing in North
Carolina incurred expenditures of nearly $1.3 billion (about five percent of the U.S. total),
generated wages and salaries of approximately $357 million and created over 19,000 jobs (ASA,
1997 cited by Wilson, 1998). In 2001, ASA estimated that saltwater recreational fisheries
generated about $388 million in retail sales and the marine recreational fishing industry provided
8,551 jobs (ASA, 2002).
Table 9.16 Demographic Profile of North Carolina. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
North Carolina

1990
2000
Population:
6,628,637 8,049,313
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
70.0%
78.1%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
67.6%
65.7%
Unemployment Rate
4.8%
5.3%
Median Household Income
$26,647
$39,184
Individuals below the poverty line*
13.0%
12.3%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
2.9%
1.6%
Construction
7.0%
8.2%
Wholesale trade
4.2%
3.4%
Retail
16.1%
11.5%
Manufacturing
26.7%
19.7%
Education, health & social services
20.3%
19.2%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.0%
6.9%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

The marine recreational fisheries in North Carolina fall into three groups by species, gear
and access. First, the recreational fishery in the Sounds and behind the barrier islands is typically
a small, open boat fishery for flounder, croaker and drum, spot and sea trout. Striped bass
(rockfish) forms an important fishery in Albemarle Sound and around the northern inlets.
Second, the inshore and ocean beach fisheries target the same species but also include striped
bass, bluefish, and king and spanish mackerel. These inshore fisheries require larger boats and
heavier gear, but the boats operate within sight of land. Third, the offshore recreational fisheries
target billfish, tunas (bluefin, yellowfin and blackfin), mackerels, dolphin fish (mahi mahi),
wahoo, and, in the southwestern area, shark. In the area North of Hatteras and around Cape
Lookout, recreational fishermen view sharks as a nuisance in their pursuit of other fish,
particularly tuna, marlin, and swordfish. Typically, the boats are 22 feet long or longer, have
electronic navigation systems, and are powered by an inboard engine. Generally, heavy tackle is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-32

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

used, and fighting chairs are usually installed for the billfish and giant tuna fishing. The
offshore boats normally fish 15 to 60 miles offshore. North Carolina marine recreational
fisheries are seasonal, but fishing is year-round as fish species move through the area.
In 2005, North Carolina had the fourth largest fleet of charter/headboats holding HMS
permits with 441 vessels (Table 9.35). A significant percentage of these boats operated from
communities North of Cape Hatteras. Some of these charterboats were highly specialized, for
seeking only billfish for example. The vessels specializing in tunas usually began the year
fishing off Dare or Hyde counties, and then moved North to operate off New Jersey and then
later off Cape Cod. Vessels specializing in billfish fisheries, would fish off North Carolina in the
summer months and then head to the Caribbean for the winter season. Other charterboats, and
some headboats, would fish in North Carolina waters from April through November, and then
travel south to Florida to fish from December through March. From the advertising materials
distributed by charter operations it would appear that from 12 to 15 percent of the fleet changed
their operating base during the fishing year.
An unusual feature of the North Carolina charter/headboat fleet is the number of boats
built locally. This appears to be particularly true for vessels over 35 feet in length and fishing
offshore. Similarly, information about captains and crew of the charter fleet emphasized their
local connections, and often relatives of different generations fished together. While this
information has not been gathered systematically, it appears that community linkages between
North Carolina captains and crews are stronger than those in many of the other states.
North Carolina has historically been an important commercial shark fishing state with 35
to 60 percent of all South Atlantic region landings coming from North Carolina in recent years.
The time/area closure implemented in January 2005, to protect essential fish habitat for sandbar
and dusky sharks has forced commercial shark fishermen to seek out other fisheries or other
gears to target sharks and other species. Many fishermen claim that the closure has hurt their
business. After North Carolina’s petition to NMFS reopen Federal waters or adjust the MidAtlantic shark closure was denied, the State of North Carolina decided to reopen state waters to
the commercial shark fishery in 2006.
In addition to recreational and for-hire industries, North Carolina residents hold the
second largest number of commercial tuna permits with 659 permitted vessels (Table 9.36).
Thirty-eight North Carolina residents hold shark permits and 20 residents hold swordfish permits
(Table 9.38 and Table 9.39). In addition to these commercial permit holders, there are 58 dealers
authorized to purchase and sell tunas, sharks, and swordfish. North Carolina is fourth in HMS
dealers behind Florida, Massachusetts, and New York (Table 9.37).
9.4.11.1 Hatteras
Hatteras Township is located in the “Outer Banks” of North Carolina, and includes the
villages of Avon, Buxton, Frisco and Hatteras. Hatteras Village is a rural community at the
southern end of Hatteras Island on North Carolina’s Outer Banks. Hatteras Island is a dynamic
barrier island, bordered by the Atlantic on the East and Pamlico Sound on the West. In the 18th
century, Hatteras established itself as a seaport community, where activities included whaling

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-33

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

and exporting/importing. Since World War II, the economy of the Hatteras community has
depended on charter and commercial fishing (Wilson et al., 1998).
According to the 1990 and 2000 Census data, the population decreased from 2,675 in
1990 to 2,596 in 2000 (Table 9.17). The population decline can be attributed to mortality and
out-migration exceeding births and in-migration. The number of males and females were
approximately equal in 1990 and 2000. The age structure of the population has changed; the
population has aged markedly, with consequences for educational attainment and other
demographic indicators. In 1990, 37 percent of the population was 45 years or older, while in
2000 some 57 percent of the year-round residents were aged 45 years or older. The racial
composition of the township has not changed significantly between the 1990 and 2000 censuses
with the majority of the township Caucasian and European ancestry predominant. The number
of households has increased from 1,078 in 1990 to 1,171 in 2000, while the average size of
households has dropped from 2.46 persons to 2.20 persons/household. These trends are
consistent with an aging and declining population as “empty-nesters” and retirement couples and
widows/widowers make up a higher proportion of households. The farming, fishing, forestry,
and mining industries employed about 34 percent of the Hatteras population, a significant
increase from 1990, and the greatest sources of employment (Table 9.17). One of the most
prominent fishing organizations is the Hatteras-Ocracoke Auxiliary of the North Carolina
Fishermen’s Association (Wilson et al, 1998).
Table 9.17 Demographic Profile of Hatteras, North Carolina Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Demographics
Total Population
Sex

1990
2,675

2000
2,596

Hatteras Township, North Carolina
Population:

1990

2000

2,675

2,596

Education:

Male

51.6%

49.2%

High school graduates (25 years or older)

74.4%

68.1%

Female
Age

48.4%

50.8%

Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)

67.3%

83.1%

35.1

42.1

< 17
18 - 44

23.9%
39.6%

20.4%
33.7%

45 - 64
> 65
Race

25.4%
11.1%

39.6%
17.2%

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

98.8%
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%

97.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

1,078
69.7%
30.3%
2.46
2.97

1,171
78.1%
21.4%
2.20
2.73

Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure

1,919
43.4%

2,156
45.7%

Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

72.3%
27.7%

79.1%
20.9%

Median Age

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales
Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

2.80%
4.6%
$ 24,667 $ 39,881
6.4%

4.7%

28.4%
29.9%
16.6%
6.7%

23.2%
23.3%
10.8%
33.8%

6.4%
16.2%
3.4%

10.4%
15.5%
2.4%

2.7%
26.1%
11.3%
1.2%

4.0%
14.9%
14.0%
13.4%

Fishing from Hatteras is a year-round activity, subject to weather conditions. The cycle
of the offshore fishery begins in December, when giant bluefin tuna are passing through the area
through March. This catch-and-release fishery is followed by the availability of yellowfin tuna,
dolphin, and wahoo from March through December. In the summer months, a catch-and-release
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-34

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

fishery for blue and white marlin, swordfish and sailfish takes place between May and
September. If ocean conditions are poor, fishermen are able to fish in the sheltered waters
behind the barrier islands and in Pamlico Sound for striped bass, drum, sea trout and redfish.
Commercial fishing is a major occupation on Hatteras Island, where there are
approximately 500 to 600 part-time and full-time commercial and charterboat fishermen (Wilson
et al., 1998). The 2000 Census indicates that 34 percent of the population is employed in the
farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industry (Table 9.17). Since fishermen are customarily
self-employed either as owner-operators of vessels or as crew/independent contractors receiving
a share of the catch or tips as payment for their services, Wilson’s estimate of 500-600 part-time
and full-time commercial and charterboat fishermen is considered to be accurate for 2003
(NMFS, 2003).
Tourism and recreational fishing are also major industries in Hatteras in terms of seasonal
employment. There are three economic “seasons” in Hatteras (NMFS, 1999a). In the spring,
weekend and holiday travelers cause an increase in revenue; several vessels from the commercial
fleet become active in charter fishing beginning in April. During the second season, June
through August, family vacations provide tourist income. The third season is the fall, when
fishing, surfing and windsurfing are the dominant activities.
There are five seafood wholesalers, one retail market, and three marinas (Wilson et al.,
1998). The three marinas in Hatteras provide dockage for as many as 56 offshore
charter/headboats, some 15 inshore boats that can fish along the coast, and six charterboats that
fish only in the Sounds. In addition, there are approximately 210 berths for private boats. Some
commercial boats use the marinas during the late fall and winter months, but otherwise dock at
fish houses and the fishermen’s private docks.
The three marinas each have a charterboat fleet of independent owner/operators, and each
maintains a booking and information system for its fleet. The charterboats operate with a captain
and mate or crewman, and often have a second relief captain available for peak seasons when the
boat will be making trips every day. The captain takes his profits (pay) from the revenues earned
by the boat, and the mate customarily receives a tip of 15 - 20 percent of the charter fee from the
client. In many cases, the boat will retain the sale rights to fish caught by clients and if the right
is exercised, the ex-vessel price is apportioned between boat, captain, and mate (crew). At the
height of the summer season, the recreational fisheries and fishing services (marinas, bait and
tackle, etc) in Hatteras provide employment for approximately 205 persons.
The recreational rod and reel fishery for pelagic fish flourishes in Hatteras. A bluefin
tuna fishery during winter months is intense but somewhat unpredictable. Early in the spring,
fishermen target offshore yellowfin tuna, dolphin, and wahoo, followed by marlin and sailfish
fishing in the summer. Other species caught seasonally include king mackerel and striped bass.
Fly-fishing has become more popular, although it still comprises a small number of offshore trips
from Hatteras. Captains say it is very hard to find a year-round mate because college students
work summers only and most skilled fishermen want their own vessels (Wilson et al., 1998).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-35

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

About half of fishing parties are all male and the other half are families, some of which
participate in other tourist activities while the others fish. “Make-up charters”, where marinas
organize the parties, are becoming increasingly common (Wilson et al., 1998). One captain
estimated that his marina did 140 make-up charters in the past year. The majority of the charter
customers want to fish offshore. Customers are often willing to accept retention limits imposed
by the captain, although the possibility of landing at least one fish is important to many anglers.
Changes in fishing conditions including weather conditions and the availability of fish affect
charter bookings almost instantly, and there is not much customer loyalty to Hatteras. Clients
cancel trips when they hear a species has moved out of the area. Because Hatteras attracts top
sport fishermen from around the world, the issues of minimum sizes and trophy fish take on
special significance. Many fishermen are interested in setting records by catching smaller
bluefin tuna on fly rods.
In 2005, there were 25 HMS charter/headboat permit holders from Hatteras, North
Carolina, but many of the charterboats operating in Hatteras are from other areas. They come for
the winter bluefin tuna fishery but stay year-round. Researchers report tension between the local
charterboats and the transient charterboats because of increased competition for both fish and
customers. There is also tension with private recreational fishermen who follow the
charter/headboats to see where they fish (Wilson et al., 1998).
The status of the relatively new winter bluefin tuna fishery is hot topic for HMS
fishermen in Hatteras is the status of the relatively new winter fishery for bluefin tuna. In their
study of the 1997 bluefin tuna fishing season, Ditton et al. (1998) found that bluefin tuna anglers
spent $3.6 million dollars in Hatteras in two and one-half months in the 1997 winter season.
They estimate that this meant a $7.6 million impact on the output of the Hatteras area economy
and supported 170 jobs. Dare County unemployment estimates indicate that the bluefin tuna
fishery may have reduced unemployment by eight percent during the first quarter of 1997.
Unemployment in Dare County in March 1998, a year when the bluefin tuna did not show up in
numbers anywhere near the 1997 level, was 29 percent higher than in March 1997.
Respondents view and respond to the winter fishery very differently, even disagreeing on
the year it started. Because of the unpredictability of the appearance of bluefin tuna and the
duration of their stay, there is uncertainty among local businesses about whether or not to invest
further and stay open during winter months. Those who now have winter jobs, and those who
hire them, have a different perspective. Businesses are generally pleased to retain year-round
employees rather than hiring and training seasonally. Finding a place to live on Hatteras Island
is already difficult for low wage workers. Many people, especially fishermen, did not think the
winter fishery would last (Ditton et al., 1998).
9.4.11.2 Wanchese, North Carolina
Wanchese is located on the southern part of Roanoke Island, in the northern Outer Banks.
The village continues to revolve around fishing and fish processing. Wanchese’s first seafood
dealership was opened in 1936 by a family that still operates two seafood businesses in the
community. The Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park was constructed in 1980 by the state. It has
30 acres of leasable land, a 15-acre deep-water harbor, and 1,500 feet of commercial-style
concrete docks, and seven seafood-related businesses (CNCSS, 1993). The industrial park is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-36

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

also the scene of the annual blessing of the fleet, which is organized by the Oregon Inlet Users
Association. Although commercial fishing has historically been a major industry, there has been
an increasing emphasis on recreational angling and tourism.
Between 1990 and 2000, the population increased from 1,374 to 1,527 individuals (Table
9.18). The population is roughly divided between males and females. The population of
Wanchese is about 98 percent Caucasian, and mostly of European ancestry. The largest age
group is the 18 - 44 year old individuals and continues to remain about the same over the past
two decades. The most dramatic shafts in the population distribution have been the decline in
the percent of individuals under 20 and increase in the 45 - 64 year old group. In 1990, there
were 503 households in Wanchese, with an average of 2.73 persons per household. The number
of households had grown to 614 in 2000, with an average of 2.49 persons per household.
Table 9.18 Demographic Profile of Wanchese, North Carolina. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000
Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age

1990
1,374

2000
1,527

Wanchese, North Carolina

1990

Population:

2000

1,374

1,527

67.3%

76.5%

70.7%

66.6%

Education:
51.2%
48.8%

50.7%
49.3%

High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)

Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race

27.7
36.8%
35.7%
20.2%
7.2%

37.2
25.9%
37.9%
24.1%
12.0%

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

98.5%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%

98.1%
30.0%
0.6%
0.1%
0.5%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

503
76.1%
23.9%
2.73
3.25

614
70.5%
29.5%
2.49
2.96

Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure

574
10.8%

690
11.0%

Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

72.1%
27.9%

89.0%
11.0%

7.8%
1.8%
$ 25,977 $ 39,250
9.3%
8.1%
17.0%
24.6%

24.3%
21.9%

18.8%
12.6%

36.0%
9.5%

19.7%
5.0%
9.5%

8.2%
9.9%
13.1%

6.6%
19.1%
8.5%
2.9%

6.9%
11.7%
22.0%
7.2%

In 1990, the largest industries in Wanchese were forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and
agriculture with retail trade as a close second (Table 9.18). The 2000 Census data show a
significant decline in the forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture industry and a
marked increase in the education, health and social services industries. The decline in the
farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industry is also noticeable in the employment estimates.
Some of these declines can be attributed to difficulties in hiring and managing crew for pelagic
longline vessels, especially for the larger vessels that need people to stay on for longer trips
(Wilson et al., 1998). There is a lot of turnover in fishing crews, particularly when vessels shift
to other fisheries and revenue drops. Many of the larger vessels have already left, and
experienced fishermen are finding work overseas and other captains and vessel owners are
searching for alternatives to commercial fishing. Some have switched to carpentry and building
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-37

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

and others have gone into the charter fishing business. Finding alternative permanent work may
prove difficult for many fishermen who are highly skilled in their profession but have less formal
education than the average worker (Wilson et al., 1998).
Fishing related associations include the Oregon Inlet Users Association and the North
Carolina Fisheries Association. The former is involved with supporting the plans for jetties at
Oregon Inlet and are responsible for organizing both the Wanchese Seafood Festival and the
Blessing of the Fleet. The latter is a trade organization of seafood dealers and commercial
fishermen from the state; two members of the 18-member Board of Directors are from Wanchese
(CNCSS, 1993).
Recent growth in tourism and recreational fishing has sparked competition for a restricted
resource. However, commercial and recreational fishermen still see themselves as being part of
the same fishing-based community and many come from the same families. Members of the
non-fishing public are generally supportive of the fishing industry. Unlike the surrounding
communities, and in distinct contrast to Hatteras Township, Wanchese has very little seasonal
variation in employment resulting from tourism; what seasonal fluctuations do exist are caused
by the availability of the fisheries resources and are countered by the flexibility and opportunistic
nature of the Wanchese fishermen (CNCSS, 1993).
Wanchese is not a community linked to tourism in the way that most other Outer Banks
and Dare County communities are. Of the housing stock, only eleven percent was rental
properties in 2000 (Table 9.18). The marinas and boatyards in Wanchese cater to transient boats
and the charterboat fleets, but recreational fishing from Wanchese is more likely to be done by
local fishermen in the Albemarle, Currituck, or Pamlico Sounds, rather than by tourists fishing
offshore in private or charterboats. The reason for this is the distance to Oregon Inlet, and the
presence of the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center with extensive recreational boat docks, facilities for
charterboats, and launching ramps with large parking areas close to the inlet.
A large number of commercially important marine fish are landed in Wanchese,
including inshore and offshore species. Many fishermen emphasized that they have to be
versatile due to quick changes in water temperature and therefore in availability of species in the
area (Wilson et al., 1998). The species that longline fishermen target off the mid-Atlantic coast
include swordfish, sharks, and tunas (primarily, yellowfin and bigeye). Although targeting
bluefin tuna with longline gear is prohibited, there is an incidental catch allowance of bluefin
tuna as part of other fishing operations. Fishermen aboard large longline vessels fish for
swordfish, tunas, and dolphin. Because of the weather, tunas and swordfish are accessible to the
medium-sized vessels that gillnet for other species and longline in the summer. Respondents
explained that they also gillnet for dogfish, bluefish, and Spanish mackerel (in spring and fall),
and trout and croaker (in winter). They also bottom fish for bass and grouper. There are a
number of vessels that gillnet in some seasons and then switch over to charterboat fishing in the
summer. Other fishing activities in Wanchese include trawling trips for squid in the summer,
and fishing for weakfish, croaker, and flounder in the winter. Market considerations are crucial
in deciding which species should be targeted by longline vessels (Wilson et al., 1998).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-38

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Researchers found pressure on this sector of the longline fishery to be substantial. Hiring
and managing crew for pelagic longline vessels is increasingly difficult, especially for the larger
vessels that need people to stay on for longer trips. There is a lot of turnover in fishing crews,
particularly when vessels shift to other fisheries and revenue drops. Many of the larger vessels
have already left, and experienced fishermen are finding work overseas and other captains and
vessel owners are searching for alternatives to commercial fishing. Some have switched to
carpentry and building and others have gone into the charter fishing business. Finding
alternative permanent work may prove difficult for many fishermen who are highly skilled in
their profession but have less formal education than the average worker (Wilson et al., 1998).
9.4.12 South Carolina
The population in South Carolina has increased by 13.1 percent between 1990 and 2000
(Table 9.19). The number of individuals with a high school diploma or greater has increased
from 68.3 percent in 1990 to 76.3 percent in 2000. The unemployment rate has remained about
the same and the number of individuals below the poverty line declined by just over one percent.
Employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined slightly with
the only significant increase in employment taking place in the arts, recreation, lodging, and food
services industries, from 1.1 percent in 1990 to 8.3 percent in 2000.
Table 9.19 South Carolina Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
South Carolina

1990
2000
Population:
3,486,703 4,012,012
Education:
68.3%
76.3%
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
66.0%
63.4%
Labor force (16 years and over)
5.6%
5.9%
Unemployment Rate
$26,256
$37,082
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line*
15.4%
14.1%
Employment in some industry sectors:
2.3%
1.1%
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
7.9%
8.3%
Construction
3.6%
3.3%
Wholesale trade
16.6%
11.9%
Retail
Manufacturing
25.7%
19.4%
Education, health & social services
19.9%
18.6%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.1%
8.3%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

South Carolina has 89 commercial tuna permit holders, holding 1.7 percent of the total
commercial tuna permits (Table 9.36). Additionally, there are 32 dealers for tunas, shark, and
swordfish in the state of South Carolina. With 25 shark permits (directed and incidental), South
Carolina holds the fifth greatest number of shark permits. Due to the relatively small number of
HMS permit holders and landings in South Carolina, no community profiles have been
developed at this time.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-39

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

In 2005, South Carolina was home to 736 HMS Angling permit holders (Table 9.34).
About 662,000 marine anglers fished in South Carolina’s waters making 2.2 million recreational
fishing trips in 2004 (NMFS, 2005a). Of these recreational fishermen, 335,000 (51 percent)
were from out-of-state and 101,000 (15 percent) were from non-coastal counties within South
Carolina. Estimated retail sales generated by the saltwater fishery in South Carolina in 2001
were some $264 million and the marine recreational fishing industry created 5,498 jobs (ASA,
2002). Anecdotal information suggests that the shark fishery is incidental to other fisheries, and
is primarily catch-and-release.
In 2005, South Carolina had a fleet of 130 charter/headboats with HMS permits, many of
which fish the Gulf Stream for tuna and billfish, dolphin and wahoo, and take shark as incidental
catch (Table 9.35). There is a directed fishery by charter/headboats for sharks in South
Carolina. Shark fishing trips, including night fishing, are offered by a number of charter
operators. Sharks are taken, in the directed fishery, from near-shore waters, inlets, and from
around breakwaters and jetties. Shark fishing is said to be particularly good from May to
December, but sharks are available year-round. Principal species targeted are blacktip,
hammerhead, lemon, and tiger shark. The International Game Fish Association (IGFA) worldrecord tiger shark was caught off Cherry Grove Beach, SC, near Myrtle Beach. Charterboat
operators advertising shark fishing as special trips or part of general near-shore fishing are found
in the communities of Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head, Georgetown, Pawley’s
Island, Murrell Inlet, Edisto Beach, Isle of Palms, Seabrook Island, Charleston, Mount Pleasant,
Beaufort, and Little River.
9.4.13 Georgia
The population in Georgia has increased quite a bit in the last decade, from 6.5 million
people in 1990 to 8.2 million people in 2000 (Table 9.20). The labor force (ages 16 and older)
and unemployment has remained the same over the past decade, but there was a slight decline in
the percentage of individuals below the poverty line. Employment in the farming, fishing,
forestry, and mining industries has declined slightly since 1990; there has been only a slight
employment increase in the art, recreation, lodging, and food services industries, from one
percent to seven percent.
Table 9.20 Georgia Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Georgia
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployment Rate
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line*
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
Construction

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1990
6,478,216

2000
8,186,453

70.9%

78.6%

66.1%
5.5%
$29,021
14.7%

66.1%
5.5%
$42,433
13.0%

2.7%
6.9%

1.4%
7.9%

9-40

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Georgia

1990
2000
Wholesale trade
5.1%
3.9%
Retail
16.5%
12.0%
Manufacturing
18.9%
14.8%
Education, health & social services
20.4%
17.6%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.0%
7.1%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

Commercial shark fishing in Georgia has traditionally been only a very small segment of
the commercial fisheries in the state. There are only four vessels that hold shark permits in
Georgia (Table 9.38). Both Darien and Townsend, in McIntosh County, have been involved
with the commercial shark fishery. There are three dealers permitted to sell HMS such as tunas,
sharks, and swordfish (Table 9.37). Twenty-six vessels are permitted to participate in the
commercial tuna fisheries (Table 9.36). The number of HMS charter/headboat permits operating
in Georgia increased from 27 in 2003 to 40 in 2005 (Table 9.35). Some of the active
charter/headboat communities are Columbus, Brunswick, Marietta, Savannah, Atlanta,
Alpharetta, and St. Simons Island.
In 2005, Georgia residents held 205 HMS angling permits (Table 9.34). In 2004, marine
recreational fishing in Georgia attracted 276,000 anglers, of whom 20 percent (54,000) were
from out-of-state and 43 percent from non-coastal counties (NMFS, 2005a). Collectively, these
anglers made 929,000 recreational fishing trips in 2004. Saltwater angling is estimated to have
generated some $57.8 million in retail sales in Georgia in 2001 and about 10,649 jobs in the
marine recreational fishing service sector (ASA, 2002). Principal recreational fisheries are for
tarpon and snook inshore, and billfish and tunas offshore. Sharks are taken incidental to these
fisheries but there are targeted shark fisheries inshore on spinner, sandbar, and lemon sharks.
9.4.14 Florida
Florida’s population increased by more than 3 million people between 1990 and 2000
(Table 9.21). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma
and/or a graduate level degree has increased by almost five percent in the last decade. The
percentage of employed individuals has declined slight, whereas the unemployment rate and
percentage of individuals below the poverty line remained about the same through the nineties.
As with many of the other states, employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining
industries has declined, whereas the education, health, and social services industries provided the
greatest employment opportunities in 2000. Employment in the arts, recreation, lodging, and
food services industries has been on the rise in the last decade.
Florida’s fishing industry is one of the largest and most diverse in the region. Florida
residents hold more than half of the commercial shark permits with 283 permit holders residing
in the state (Table 9.38). Some of the large concentrations of permit holders are in Fort Pierce,
St. Petersburg, Key West, and Panama City, Florida (Figure 9.6). Florida is also home to the
greatest number of swordfish permit holders with 117 permitted vessels (Table 9.39). The large
numbers of swordfish permit holders are found in Fort Pierce, Pompano Beach, St. Petersburg,
and Panama City. Florida residents hold about five percent of the commercial tuna permits, and
are generally spread out along the entire coast of Florida (Table 9.36 and Figure 9.4). Florida
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-41

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

residents also have the greatest number of HMS dealer permits with 137 dealers permitted to
purchase and sell tunas, sharks, and swordfish (Table 9.37). A large number of these dealers can
be found in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Key West, and St. Petersburg.
Florida has the largest marine recreational fisheries in the United States. In 2004,
approximately 6,534,000 saltwater anglers fished in the waters off Florida and made 27,204,000
fishing trips during that year (NMFS, 2005a). Of these fishermen, 3,291,000 (50 percent) were
from out-of-state. More specifically to recreational HMS fisheries, Florida has the greatest
number of HMS angling permits in the United States, with 3,439 permitted individuals (Table
9.34). A large concentration of HMS anglers reside in Jupiter, West Palm Beach, Pompano
Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami, Florida (Figure 9.2). The retail sales generated by saltwater
anglers in Florida in 2001 were estimated to be $2,987.2 million and the marine recreational
fishing industry provided 59,418 jobs (ASA, 2002). Sharks are an incidental catch for many
fishermen, but some private boat fishermen have a directed fishery for sharks, including lemon,
hammerhead, sandbar, blacktip and tiger sharks.
As with the recreational anglers, Florida is also the number one state for HMS
charter/headboat permit holders with 632 permitted vessels (Table 9.35). Many of these
charter/headboat operators are from Key West, Islamorada, Miami, and Destin, Florida (Figure
9.3). It should be noted that these 634 charterboats/headboats permit holders refer to Florida
residents and do not account for the transient vessels traveling to Florida for the winter and
spring fishing seasons.
Table 9.21 Florida Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
Florida
1990
2000
Population:
12,937,926 15,982,378
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
74.0%
79.9%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
60.4%
58.6%
Unemployment Rate
5.8%
5.6%
Median Household Income
$27,483
$38,819
Individuals below the poverty line*
12.7%
12.5%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
3.1%
1.3%
Construction
7.8%
8.0%
Wholesale trade
4.6%
3.9%
Retail
19.6%
13.5%
Manufacturing
10.5%
7.3%
Education, health & social services
21.4%
18.1%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
2.3%
10.5%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-42

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

9.4.14.1

Pompano Beach, Florida

Pompano Beach is a small city directly adjacent to Fort Lauderdale. The Fort Lauderdale
area is known as the “Yachting Capital of the World” and the “Venice of America” because of
the vast canal system, which extends throughout Broward County and creates 165 miles of
waterfront in the region. Recreational fishing is a very important activity in Pompano Beach,
mainly targeting billfish. In contrast to many Florida communities, local people in addition to
tourists support a substantial amount of the recreational fishing industry. Many small fishing
tournaments attract about 75 percent local people and 25 percent tourists. Pompano Beach is
also a globally important manufacturing center for commercial longlining equipment with its
own small commercial longline fleet (Wilson et al., 1998). As a community, Pompano Beach
owes its current infrastructure and social and economic lifestyle to the arrival of the railroad in
1896 to a small coastal settlement. The proximity of good fishing and other natural resources
encouraged the town and region’s development as tourism and retirement center. The local
chamber of commerce sponsors three marine festivals every year.
Between 1990 and 2000, the population increased from 72,411 to 78,191 individuals
(Table 9.22). The male to female ratio in the Pompano population changed only slightly in the
past decade with a slight decrease in the number of females (48:52 to 49:51). The percent of the
total population by each age group remained relatively constant between 1990 and 2000. Since
the 1990 Census, the ethnic and racial population of Pompano Beach has shifted to increase the
number of “other” ethnicities in the population. In 1990, the population was 70 percent
Caucasian and 29 percent Black-American. Twenty percent of the population was of Hispanic
ancestry. In 2000, the population consisted of 67 percent Caucasians, 25 percent BlackAmericans, and eight percent of people of other ethnicities. The proportion of the population
with Hispanic ancestry had dropped to ten percent.
The number of households increased from 31,891 in 1990 to 35,197 in 2000 (Table 9.22).
The average household size in Pompano Beach decreased from 2.2 persons/household in 1990 to
2.1 persons/household in 2000. Of the households in 2000, some 69 percent were in receipt of
earned income. Some 36 percent of the households received Social Security payments, while 16
percent of households were in receipt of retirement income from pensions (NMFS, 1999a). This
suggests that some 30 percent of households were retired and living on fixed incomes. The per
capita income for Pompano Beach in 1989 was $17,382, and greater than the state average by
$2,684 per annum. In 2000, per capita income in Pompano Beach was $23,938, and greater than
the state average income by $2,381. The technical, administrative, and sales industries provide
the greatest source of employment, with managerial and professional positions a close second.
Employment in the farming, fishing, forestry and mining industries declined from almost 12
percent in 1990 to less than one percent in 2000.
Pompano Beach has a proud longlining heritage and there are several successful
businesses that are still involved to some degree with the fleet (Wilson et al., 1998). This gives
the current small vessel fleet and other longline business some networks of support. At the same
time, Pompano Beach is now increasingly a recreational fishing community. In fact, Pompano
Beach has the second largest concentration of HMS angling permit holders with 303 residents
participating in the HMS recreational fishery (Figure 9.2). Virginia Beach has 316 permit
holders. There is a great deal of tension between the recreational fishermen and the longliners.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-43

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

At the present time, researchers found that the longline fleet is not receiving community support
beyond that supplied from within their own industry. Both sides acknowledge a problem with
overfished stocks, but each often blames the other side.
Pompano Beach has a small pelagic longline fleet, remnant of a much larger fleet, which
mainly targets tunas and swordfish. A large number of swordfish permit holders reside in
Pompano Beach (Figure 9.7). There is also some shark fishing farther North along the coast.
There are eleven HMS longline permit holders residing in Pompano Beach, Florida. The most
intensive local fishing takes place December through April. The longline fleet conducts business
with three Pompano Beach dealers permitted for shark and swordfish and one Dania shark and
swordfish permitted dealer. The development of the Pompano Beach area for yachting and
recreational fishing has made dockage and access to the water more expensive (NMFS, 1999b).
Wilson et al. (1998) noted that commercial respondents reported increased difficulty in
getting quality crew. The smaller vessels take two crew plus the captain. Owner-operators often
try to have at least one consistent crew member, and then find anyone they can for particular
trips. The end result of all of these factors has been a substantial reduction of the Pompano
Beach longline fleet. Pompano Beach’s remaining pelagic and bottom longline fleet is
considered, by both its owners and suppliers, to be in major trouble (Wilson et al., 1998).
Skilled captains were seeking employment in the Bahamas, as well as with the growing longline
fleets in South Africa and South America, while the longline supply business has shifted its
emphasis to supplying foreign fleets. In the urban economy of Pompano Beach, non-fishing
alternatives for fishermen do exist. However, the work force is fairly well-educated, so finding
employment could be competitive (Table 9.22). Commercial fishing employment alternatives
for vessels and crew are minimal because of limited entry programs in other fisheries.
Table 9.22 Demographic Profile of Pompano Beach, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex

1990

2000

Pompano Beach, Florida

72,411

78,191

Population:

1990

78,191

73.7%

77.2%

Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)

Male
Female
Age

48.2%
51.8%

49.3%
50.9%

Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race

39.8
19.8%
35.0%
19.9%
25.3%

42.2
19.7%
34.5%
22.5%
23.4%

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

70.1%
28.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.9%

67.8%
25.4%
0.2%
0.8%
2.0%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry Code Description
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

31,981
57.9%
42.1%
2.26
2.90

35,197
52.4%
47.6%
2.13
2.85

Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

Total housing units
Vacant housing units

42,179
24.7%

44,496
20.9%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

2000

72,411

Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals Below the Poverty Line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

9-44

52.1%
53.8%
3.5%
3.6%
$ 29,683 $ 36,073
16.0%
17.0%
24.8%
31.8%

28.6%
30.0%

3.2%
11.6%

11.4%
0.5%

3.1%
10.4%
8.5%

0.5%
9.8%
7.1%

5.4%
18.6%
13.2%
2.3%

4.7%
13.6%
14.9%
11.0%

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

9.4.14.2 Fort Pierce, Florida
Fort Pierce is located in St. Lucie County, a rapidly developing area in South Florida. St.
Lucie County is known as a center for citrus growing, particularly grapefruit. Fort Pierce is on
the site of an Army fort built in 1838, and remained an isolated outpost until the railroad reached
the town in 1900. Fort Pierce was incorporated in 1901, and soon developed as a center for
industry and agribusiness. At the junction of the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95, Fort Pierce
is a thriving intermodal transportation center, distribution point, and tourist stopover point.
Fort Pierce is a community in transition. The community grew rapidly between 1960 and
1990, from a population of 24,857 to 36,830 (Table 9.23). Between 1990 and 2000, the
population grew by only two percent, increasing by about 800 people. Changing from a
predominantly white community in 1950, the white portion of the population declined to less
than half the total in 2000. The black or African American population made up just over 40
percent of the Fort Pierce population. No other ethnic or racial groups dominate the remaining
11 percent of the population. About 30 percent of the population is under 20 years old, whereas
another 33 percent is between 20 and 44. The median age in 2000 was 35.4 years old.
Table 9.23 Demographics of Fort Pierce, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age
Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household
Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy
Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure
Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

1990
36,830
47.1%
52.9%

2000

Fort Pierce, Florida

37,516

Population:

49.3%
50.7%

34.2
30.4%
30.8%
18.8%
20.0%

35.4
30.3%
32.7%
19.6%
17.5%

53.8%
42.5%
0.2%
0.4%
3.1%

49.5%
40.9%
0.3%
0.9%
5.4%

14,283
64.4%
35.6%
2.58
3.21

14,407
61.2%
38.8%
2.56
3.19

17,250
17.8%

17,170
16.6%

53.3%
46.7%

53.2%
46.8%

1990

Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals Below the Poverty Line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales
Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

2000

36,830

37,516

56.9%

59.7%

48.2%
55.1%
6.8%
4.9%
$ 18,913 $ 25,121
29.2%
30.9%
16.8%
28.0%
9.7%
10.4%
9.8%
8.2%
7.1%
4.1%
21.0%
17.1%
1.1%

19.9%
20.5%
9.0%
31.3%
7.8%
12.6%
8.0%
4.8%
12.5%
16.9%
10.8%

There were 14,407 households in Fort Pierce, with an average household size of 2.56
persons, in 2000. The population is relatively mobile, since only 46 percent lived in the same
house in 2000 as they did in 1995. It is also a relatively poor community, with median
household income of $25,121 in 2000, and 31 percent of the population living below poverty
level. Per capita income in Fort Pierce in 2000 was $14,345, compared to the statewide average
per capita income of $21,557, and $9,593 less than the per capita income in Pompano Beach.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-45

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

These earnings data reflect the unskilled and seasonal nature of jobs in agribusiness, packing
plants and transportation businesses in and around Fort Pierce.
Locals refer to Fort Pierce as the “gateway to the Bahamas” because of the number of
sport fishing and other vessels which use Fort Pierce as their departure point for the Bahamas
and its associated Gulf Stream fisheries for HMS and other species of fish, including shark. In
2003, Fort Pierce hosted 15 fishing tournaments and related marine activities. The city’s marina,
in conjunction with other marinas and docks along the Indian River, Indian River Lagoon, and
Intracoastal Waterway, provides sufficient dockage for recreational boaters and fishermen and
for a commercial fishing fleet, principally longliners, but also the shark gillnetters. Fifteen shark
and nine swordfish permit holders reside in Fort Pierce (Figure 9.6 and Figure 9.7).
The commercial fishing fleet in Fort Pierce has grown in the past decade due to lost dock
space for commercial fleets in nearby ports. With the exception of the gillnet fleet unique to Fort
Pierce, the commercial fishery is similar to the commercial fishery of Pompano Beach and is
principally conducted during the fall and winter seasons. Smaller vessels switch gears and target
species throughout the year, while larger vessels move with the fish stocks and retain the same
gear configurations. Dealers and fish processors have also consolidated buying and packing
operations in Fort Pierce because of the high cost of doing business in the tourism-related coastal
communities North and South of Fort Pierce.
9.4.14.3

Madeira Beach, Florida

Madeira Beach is part of the Tampa Bay urban complex, one of several beach suburbs of
St. Petersburg. The area is the home of the West-central Florida shark bottom longline fleet.
Madeira Beach is also home to a thriving recreational HMS fishery. In terms of revenue, tourism
is the number one industry in Pinellas County. Annually, four million visitors contribute about
two billion dollars to the economy. The tourism industry also employs almost 60,000 of the
residents either directly or indirectly, adding up to $720 million in wages (St. PetersburgClearwater Visitors Bureau brochure, 1998). The state of the economy since September 2001
has dampened the tourism industry, and Pinellas County Chamber of Commerce reported that the
2002 visitor and expenditure statistics were similar to those of 1998 (PCCC Report, March,
2003).
Madeira Beach’s economy has changed with the changing tourism industry. A sign of
the times is the renovation of much of the waterfront along St. John’s Pass from a working
waterfront of docks, fish houses and chandleries to a boardwalk lined with restaurants and
boutiques. Many of the slips remaining are assigned to recreational vessel docking and storage.
The once-dominant fishing industry is now a shadowy presence in much of Madeira Beach.
The population in Madeira Beach increased by about six percent over the last decade
(Table 9.24). In 2000, 97 percent of the population was Caucasian. During the decade, the
number of people in the population claiming German ancestry rose from 11 percent to 19.7
percent in 2000, although 92 percent of the population of Madeira Beach was born in the United
States. The Madeira Beach population aged during the decade. The median age increased from
34.2 in 1990 to 47.6 in 2000. The number of households in Madeira Beach increased from 2,230
in 1990 to 2,523 in 2000, but the average number of persons in a household declined from 1.88
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-46

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

persons in 1990 to 1.78 in 2000. In 2000, almost 28 percent of the housing units in Madeira
were seasonal or recreational units vacant at the time of the Census.
Per capita income in Madeira Beach in 1989 was $17,301; in 1999, per capita income had
risen to $30,097, some $8,000 more than the state average per capita income and $15,752 more
than the average per capita income in Fort Pierce. Individuals living at or below poverty level
comprised 9.8 percent of the Madeira Beach population. Some 72 percent of Madeira Beach’s
households received earnings from wages or salaries. Twenty-three percent of the households
were in receipt of retirement funds or pensions, while 31 percent of the households received
income from Social Security. The jobs in farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries
declined over the last decade from just over ten percent to less than one percent (Table 9.24).
The industry itself also declined, whereas the arts, recreation, lodging and food services related
industries increased from 2.5 percent to over 21 percent.
The offshore fishing industry in Madeira Beach started as a bandit (reel fixed to transom)
fishery before it shifted to bottom longlining. Grouper is the traditional fishery for the
community. In the 1960s, there were two dealers supported by charterboats selling fish and a
small commercial fleet targeting kingfish and grouper. Many species that are now sold in
Madeira Beach, such as amberjack, were considered junk fish in earlier years. As demand for
seafood began to grow, higher prices accompanied by investment programs led to substantial
investment in commercial fishing within this community.
Table 9.24 Demographic Profile for Madeira Beach, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age

1990
4,225

2000
4,500

Madiera Beach, Florida

1990

Population:

2000

4,225

4,500

83.8%

87.3%

56.9%

61.5%

Education:
50.9%
49.1%

52.0%
48.0%

High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)

Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race

34.2
11.2%
35.3%
28.0%
25.6%

47.6
9.5%
32.5%
36.0%
21.9%

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals Below the Poverty Line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

99.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%

97.4%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
1.8%

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

2,230
50.5%
49.5%
1.89
2.49

2,523
59.8%
40.2%
1.78
2.39

Total housing units
Vacant housing units

3,788
41.1%

3,971
36.5%

1.6%
2.7%
$ 24,748 $ 36,671
8.4%
9.8%
35.3%
31.2%

30.4%
28.9%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing

1.4%
10.3%

17.8%
0.7%

1.4%
8.8%
7.5%

0.0%
7.0%
11.3%

Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

4.5%
30.7%
11.4%
2.5%

4.1%
11.4%
7.9%
21.6%

Longline vessels began to target swordfish in the 1970s, using cloth and nylon line before
monofilament longlining was commonly used. Local availability of swordfish declined quickly
and a group of vessels went North to look for fish. On their way back they set longline gear in
deep water and caught a significant amount of shark, tilefish and yellowedge grouper; this was
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-47

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

how the bottom longline fishery in Madeira Beach began (Wilson et al., 1998). Marginal
swordfish vessels began to experiment with various techniques such as straight hooks, autobaiters and circle hooks. The Madeira Beach fleet is currently 95 percent bottom longline
vessels. There are three seafood dealers in this community, two of which were permitted to sell
HMS species in 2005. One dealer estimated that before restrictions on shark fishing his business
used to be 45 percent grouper, 45 percent shark, and ten percent swordfish and tuna; now it is 75
percent grouper, ten percent shark and 15 percent swordfish and tuna (Wilson et al., 1998). With
the imposition of the live-bait ban in 2000, the swordfish and tuna landings have decreased
appreciably.
Sharks and grouper are both caught with bottom longline gear. For this reason, the
majority of longline fishermen hold permits for multiple fisheries. Due to the various regulations
for all of the fisheries, the maximum number of trips fishermen can make is about 15 trips a year,
as a bottom longline trip lasts some seven to fourteen days. Grouper fishermen are subject to
limited access, a minimum size, area restrictions, seasonal closures, and a quota.
Overall, the Madeira Beach bottom longliners are becoming fewer and more isolated
from the rest of the fishing community (Wilson et al., 1998). Respondents say that antagonism
and competition among dealers has gotten worse in recent years as vessels drop out of fishing,
often being sold outside of the country. Many of these crews are living trip to trip and often need
credit for engine repair, ice, fuel and even household and personal items. Both the fishermen and
an engine supplier reported that the commercial fleet is spending more on maintaining existing
gear and vessels rather than buying new equipment. Traditional patterns of dealers building
relationships by extending services and credit to vessels are giving way to price-based
competition to gain access to vessels (NMFS, 1999a).
Fishermen in this community have experienced restrictions on gear, harvest, and capacity
in many of its important fisheries. Wilson et al. found that alternative employment outside of the
fishery is available through expanding opportunities in the tourism and recreational fishing
industries. However, this relatively ready supply of alternative employment threatened the
stability of the labor pool for the fishing industry. Some reported that the best captains are
leaving the country or moving on to other jobs. Like many other fishing communities, the
longline fleet in Madeira Beach is experiencing market competition from imports of their target
species (Wilson et al., 1998; NMFS, 1999a).
When the shark bottom longline fishery began in Florida, it was easy to catch sharks, but
the catch from the bottom longline fishery has become marginal due to restrictions and increased
steam time to fishing grounds (Wilson et al., 1998). Members of the fishing and supply
industries reported price fluctuations in the shark fishery, which they attributed to the difficulty
in maintaining steady supplies under derby-style quota management. The fins bring the most
money and are exported to Asian nations. Shark trips have to be kept as short as possible to
maintain good quality meat. Respondents suggest that regulations, particularly the 4,000-pound
shark commercial retention limit, have turned the fishery into a small vessel fishery. Some
fishermen keep both grouper and shark gear on board (NMFS, 1999a).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-48

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Approximately 50 to 60 charter/headboats participated in the recreational fisheries of
Madeira Beach during the 1990s, and more than 48,000 pleasure vessels were registered in
Pinellas County (Florida Bureau of Vessel Titling and Registration, 1996 and 1997).
Researchers found tension and distance between the recreational and commercial fishing
communities to be high, and recreational fishermen tend to maintain that commercial fishing is
to blame for the declining shark populations (Wilson et al., 1998). Shark fishing is
comparatively less important to recreational fishing in Madeira Beach than other HMS, although
researchers reported that the local recreational shark fisheries are very healthy (NMFS, 1999a).
The renewal and renovation of the town’s waterfront, particularly on John’s Pass,
removed many of the berths and infrastructure, which supported both the charterboat fleet and
the commercial fishing fleet. In 2005, there was one charter/headboat with HMS permits holders
living in Madeira Beach. Additionally, the Madeira Beach shark tournaments, which were
mostly sponsored by a vessel or engine manufacturer, are no longer held due to loss of this
infrastructure. Stores sell very little shark tackle, but some maintain the industry is beginning to
come back. The miles-long remainder of the old Sunshine Skyway bridge is now used as a pier
for recreational shark fishing. It is estimated that recreational shark fishing in this community is
90 percent catch-and-release (NMFS, 1999a).
9.4.14.4

Panama City, Florida

Panama City is located on the Gulf of Mexico in the Florida Panhandle. Panama City is
one of the Florida’s top fishing centers offering surf fishing, pier fishing, and charter/headboat
fishing, according to the Panama City Tour Guide (NMFS, 2003). According to the Florida
Bureau of Vessel Titling and Registration, the county has a total of 16,865 registered vessels
with 15,359 pleasure and 1,433 commercial vessels. Headboats are an important part of Panama
City’s tourism. People enjoy bringing children along since these trips are shorter than
charterboat trips. Panama City is a summer resort, with little tourist activity in the winter, as
well as an important commercial fishing port.
During the winter, recreational fishermen target bottom fish and bluefish. In March, the
season begins for Spanish mackerel, cobia, snapper, bonito, little tunny, amberjack, snapper, red
porgies, rudder fish, blue runner, bluefish, and redfish. By summer, they also fish for king
mackerel, dolphin fish, wahoo, little tunny, and barracuda. White marlin, blue marlin, and
sailfish are caught recreationally in late summer. Some charterboats will go shark fishing at
night for extra income. In September, the fishery is very mixed, and in October, king mackerel
and bonito are popular. Tourists are mainly interested in bottom fishing. Motivations have
changed; people used to be interested in catching a lot of fish and taking it home to eat or sell,
but now people are satisfied to catch anything (Wilson et al., 1998; NMFS, 1999a).
Between 1990 and 2000, Panama City experienced a modest increase in its population
from 34,378 in 1990 to 36,417 in 2000 (Table 9.25). Since 1990, there has been an increase in
the male population with a corresponding decrease in the female portion of the total population;
males: 47 to 49 percent and females: 53 to 51 percent. The Panama City population did get older
in the past decade the median age increased from 34 years old to about 37 years old.
Correspondingly, the greatest portion of the population in both decades was in the 20 – 44 years
old age bracket.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-49

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Panama City had 14,033 households in 1990, and the number of households grew to
14,819 in 2000 (Table 9.25). The average household size decreased from 2.37 persons in 1990
to 2.30 persons in 2000, indicating that there might be an increase in “empty nesters” and retiree
households. The percentage of individuals below the poverty line decreased slightly over the
past decade from almost twenty to seventeen percent. In 1989, the per capita income in Panama
City was $12,169 and was significantly lower than the state average per capita income of
$14,698. This situation persisted in 1999, when the Panama City per capita income had
increased to $17,830, but continued to be less than the Florida average of $21,557 per capita.
Like Fort Pierce, Panama City is a transportation hub and has an agricultural and
industrial base in addition to its fisheries. Panama City’s commerce rests on a supply of
unskilled labor able to service agribusiness, transportation services, and the tourism industry.
Panama City has two city marinas in addition to private commercial operations. The Panama
City marina is located downtown on the Intracoastal Waterway and provides 240 berths for
recreational, commercial and charter/headboat vessels. The second municipal marina, St.
Andrews, lies on St. Andrews Bay, closer to the Gulf of Mexico, and provides docking and other
facilities for much of the commercial fishing fleet. This fleet is chiefly composed of shrimp
boats. Seven charter/headboats are based in the city marinas. There are thirty Panama City
residents with an HMS charter/headboat permit (Figure 9.3). While the largest local employers
are hospitals and resort hotels, two shipyards between them employed 650 persons in 2003
(Panama City/Bay County Chamber of Commerce, 2003).
Table 9.25 Demographic Profile for Panama City, Florida. Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age
Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household
Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy
Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure
Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

1990
34,378

2000
36,417

46.7%
53.3%

48.6%
51.4%

33.9
28.6%
34.9%
19.6%
16.9%

37.2
25.6%
36.8%
21.7%
16.0%

76.1%
21.0%
0.7%
1.6%
0.6%

73.6%
21.5%
0.6%
1.6%
0.8%

14,033
69.2%
30.8%
2.37
2.90

14,819
61.0%
39.0%
2.30
2.92

15,928
11.8%

16,548
10.4%

58.3%
41.7%

57.8%
42.2%

Panama City Beach, Florida

1990

Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals Below the Poverty Line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales
Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

2000

34,378

36,417

70.3%

79.2%

54.0%
53.9%
4.6%
3.1%
$ 21,881 $ 31,572
19.6%
17.2%
25.9%
32.2%
1.5%
10.2%

32.2%
27.7%
19.0%
0.4%

1.6%
7.0%
7.7%
3.3%
21.4%
19.4%
1.5%

0.5%
6.7%
7.0%
0.1%
13.8%
22.2%
14.2%

In the early 1980s, yellowfin tuna was the main commercial fishery for Panama City
from April through December while bluefin tuna were targeted in the winter. Some of the
longline vessels shifted from yellowfin tuna fishing to bottom longline fishing for grouper and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-50

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

sharks in 1998, since the latter required fewer crew members (Wilson et al., 1998). Some of
these vessels targeted dolphin fish in the summer, and swordfish more rarely. In 1998, two of
these vessels were owner operated, two were owned by a dealer, three were each owned by a
single person who hired a captain, and two others were jointly owned and had hired captains
(Wilson et al., 1998). In 2005, ten longline vessels held an HMS permit; 20 shark permits and
12 swordfish permits were issued to residents of Panama City.
Some pelagic longline fishermen also participated in the reef fish and bottom longline
fishery. There were 16 to 19 grouper vessels operating out of Panama City in 1998. One fish
trader interviewed by the researchers in 1998 reported that his current business was 87 percent
yellowfin tuna and eight percent snapper, with the remainder being a mix of swordfish, bluefin
tuna, dolphin, wahoo, sandbar shark, and escolar. He bought from about ten vessels in 1998, but
had bought from 30 vessels a few years ago (Wilson et al., 1998). The prohibition on the use of
live bait in 2000 reduced the tuna and swordfish catches of the commercial fleet and increased
use of bottom longline for grouper and shark.
While Panama City was developing tourist and recreational fishing industries, the
commercial fishermen were becoming fewer and more isolated from the rest of the community.
The competition among dealers was perceived as becoming more aggressive in 1997 - 1998.
Traditional patterns of dealers building relationships by extending services and credit to vessels
in the shrimp and longline fisheries were giving way to price-based competition to gain access to
vessels. Fishermen in this community had experienced restrictions on gear, harvest, and capacity
in many important fisheries. Researchers found in 1998 that alternative employment outside of
the fishery was available in the developing tourism and recreational fishing industries. However,
researchers concluded that this relatively ready supply of alternative employment threatened the
stability of the labor pool for the fishing industry (Wilson et al., 1998).
9.4.14.5

Islamorada, Florida

Located in the Florida Keys, Islamorada calls itself the Sportfishing Capital of the World
because of its proximity to the Florida Bay, the Everglades, bonefish flats, coral reefs and the
Gulf Stream. Islamorada is famous for light tackle technique and many different rods have been
developed in this community. It is now increasingly a recreational fishing community, with
many charterboats that troll for yellowtail snapper, grouper, blackfin tuna, dolphin, wahoo and
billfish in inshore waters. Recreational activities in the Keys consist of trophy fishing, catchand-release, spearfishing, and fishing for food. In the past decade or so, there has been a
growing interest in the guided fishing industry that promotes catch-and-release (NMFS, 1999a).
According to the Florida Bureau of Vessel Titling and Registration, Monroe County has a total
of 23,079 registered vessels, with 18,731 pleasure and 4,260 commercial vessels as of 1996. In
1998, there were eleven marinas in Islamorada (Wilson et al., 1998).
Tournaments are an important marketing device for tourism in this town. The majority of
vessels in Islamorada tournaments are Florida vessels, but there are some out-of-state
participants. The Tourist Development Council of the Florida Keys has a large marketing budget
and gives grants and sponsorship to tournaments. One tackle shop employed 57 people in 1998
and planned to open a fishing school next year that would employ six teachers and teach 24
people at a time for three to four days. Other water-related tourist businesses include powerboat
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-51

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

rentals, boat tours, cruises, kayak, wave runner and sailboat rentals, snorkel and dive shops, boat
dockage, lifts and repair shops, and fishing supply shops.
The largest resort in Islamorada began as a fishing marina and sportfishing is a big part of
their marketing. The resort has two sets of vessels offshore and “back country,” the local term
for the Florida Bay area. There are 19 “six-pack boats” which are charterboats and one
headboat. In the winter, charter/headboats target sailfish, blackfin tuna, and bonito. Recreational
fishermen in this community generally feel that retention limits, minimum sizes, voluntary catchand-release, and other management measures are effective. Florida’s ban on inshore net fishing
is also considered a success. Sea trout, bonefish, pompano, and Spanish mackerel are plentiful
as a result of the net ban.
According to the Monroe County Cooperative Extension Service, fishing is better as a
result of regulations. However, some charter/headboat captains are pessimistic about the future.
They feel that the overall fishing is not good, and they have lost customers because there are not
as many fish to target (Wilson et al., 1998). There is a general concern in Islamorada that it
would be devastating to the community if the fish stocks were depleted. There are a lot of
concerns with habitat such as the loss of grass beds, destruction of mangrove shoreline, water
quality, algae blooms, and coral reefs dying from ozone depletion and too much sunlight. Some
people are concerned with runoff from the lower part of the peninsula including phosphates and
exhaust. There is also a concern over an increasing number of fishermen in the area (Wilson et
al., 1998).
Islamorada has been subject to considerable expansion. In 1990, the population was
1,220 individuals and in 2000, it was 6,846 - 429.5 percent increase over a ten-year period (Table
9.26). The population was roughly half male and half female in both census years. The pattern
of age distribution, however, changed between 1990 and 2000. The population in Islamorada is
older than Fort Pierce, Pompano, and Panama City. The median age increased from just over 42
years to just over 46 years old over the past decade. The dominant age group shifted from 20 –
44 years old to 45 – 64 years old. Islamorada has a very well educated population with almost
92 percent having at least graduated high school.
The labor force has declined over the past decade indicating that the population is aging
(Table 9.26). While the median household income and the percentage of individuals above the
poverty line increased, the employment rate also increased slightly. In both 1990 and 2000, the
greatest source of employment is in the technical, administrative, and sales industry sectors.
Employment in farming, fishing, forestry, and mining decreased by one half. Correspondingly,
the forestry, fishing, mining, and agriculture industry decreased by one half. The largest industry
in Islamorada was retail trade in 2000.
Due to limited range and safety concerns about venturing farther offshore, Islamorada has
a small vessel longline fleet that fishes year-round in nearby waters. While these vessels are
experiencing increased difficulty with finding crew, this is significantly less of a problem for
them than for larger pelagic longline vessels. Researchers found that the commercial fishing
community has an increasingly smaller niche relative to recreational fisheries. They cited
limited entry in the snapper, king mackerel, and crab fisheries; a ban on net use in inshore waters
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-52

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

in Florida; and incidental catch limits for bluefin tuna as limiting factors for the commercial
fisheries. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has also proposed a “no take” zone policy,
which will put many commercial fishermen out of business (NMFS, 1999a).
Skilled captains were seeking employment in the Bahamas, as well as the growing
longline fleets in South Africa and South America, while the longline supply business has shifted
its emphasis to supplying foreign fleets. In Islamorada, a growing recreational fishing industry
provides alternative employment opportunities for commercial fishermen familiar with
charter/headboats and as fishing guides. In fact, there is a significant concentration of
charter/headboat permits issued to Islamorada residents, 27 permitted vessels in 2005. However,
the Islamorada work force is fairly well educated, so finding alternative employment could be
competitive.
Table 9.26 Demographic Profile for Islamorada, Florida. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex

1990
1,293

2000
6,846

Islamorada, Florida

1990

Population:

6,846

77.8%

91.7%

73.2%

62.9%

Education:

Male

54.2%

53.0%

High school graduates (25 years or older)

Female
Age

45.8%

47.0%

Employment:

Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race

42.3
13.3%
40.8%
26.7%
19.2%

46.2
17.0%
30.6%
35.6%
16.9%

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals Below the Poverty Line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native

95.3%
0.9%
0.0%

96.8%
0.5%
0.2%

0.0%
3.9%

0.7%
0.8%

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

672
51.6%
48.4%
1.92
2.54

3,174
58.4%
41.6%
2.10
2.63

Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure

966
32.4%

5,461
41.9%

Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

65.9%
34.1%

71.1%
28.9%

Labor force (16 years and over)

Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

2000

1,293

0.9%
2.3%
$ 26,266 $ 41,522
9.1%
6.9%
25.9%
30.7%

28.0%
30.0%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
Industry

7.8%
7.9%

17.9%
3.9%

Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing

6.8%
3.8%
4.6%

3.7%
6.6%
1.9%

2.9%
39.4%
6.1%
3.2%

1.2%
20.2%
12.7%
21.1%

Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

9.4.15 Alabama
The population in Alabama has increased by about 400,000 people between 1990 and
2000 (Table 9.27). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma
and/or some graduate level degree has increased by about eight percent. The percentage of
employed individuals, unemployment rate, and percentage of individuals below the poverty line
have declined slightly in the last decade. As with many of the other states, employment in the
farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined, whereas the education, health, and
social services industries provided the greatest employment opportunities in 2000. Also, the arts,

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-53

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

recreation, lodging, and food services, and manufacturing industries have been the greatest
source of employment Alabama residents over the past decade.
In 2005, Alabama residents held 20 commercial tuna permits (Table 9.36). There are
seven commercial shark permits allocated to Alabama residents and three swordfish permit
(Table 9.38 and Table 9.39). The communities involved in the shark fishery are Andalusia,
Bayou la Batre, Elba, Elberta, Gulf Shores, and Lillian. There are five licensed HMS dealers
working in coastal Alabama (Table 9.37). Alabama residents hold about one percent or less of
the commercial tuna, shark, and swordfish permits; therefore, no community profiles have been
developed to date.
The marine recreational fishery off Alabama attracted 806,000 anglers in 2004, who
made 2.0 million fishing trips (NMFS, 2004b). Of these recreational fishermen, 398,000 (49
percent) are from out-of-state and another 183,000 anglers (22.7 percent) are from non-coastal
counties within Alabama. In 2005, there were 320 Alabama residents who held an angling
permit to fish recreationally for HMS (Table 9.34). A large number of these anglers are in
Mobile, Alabama. The estimated retail sales generated by saltwater anglers in Alabama in 2001
were valued at $235.9 million. Some 5,477 jobs were attributed to the marine recreational
fishing industry in 2001 (ASA, 2002). Thus recreational fishing off Alabama also benefits the
local tourist industry as it does in Florida. Shark fishing is largely incidental to recreational
fishing for other fish species.
Table 9.27 Alabama Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Alabama
1990
2000
Population:
4,040,587 4,447,100
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
66.9%
75.3%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
61.1%
59.7%
Unemployment Rate
6.9%
6.2%
Median Household Income
$23,597
$34,135
Individuals below the poverty line*
18.3%
16.1%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
3.03%
1.90%
Construction
7.1%
7.6%
Wholesale trade
4.1%
3.6%
Retail
16.2%
12.2%
Manufacturing
22.9%
18.2%
Education, health & social services
21.6%
19.3%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
0.9%
6.4%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

There are 78 vessels with an HMS charter/headboat permit in Alabama (Table 9.35). A
significant number of these vessels are located in Orange Beach (34.5 percent). Some other
communities with several charter/head boat permit owners are Birmingham, Mobile, Gulf Shores

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-54

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

and Dauphin Island. There is a small, directed shark fishery advertised by some of the
charter/headboats, but most take shark incidentally to other fish species throughout the year.
9.4.16 Mississippi
Between 1990 and 2000, Mississippi’s population increased from 2.6 million people to
2.8 million people (Table 9.28). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high
school diploma and/or some graduate level degree has increased significantly by almost 24
percent. The percentage of employed individuals has remained the same over the past decade,
while the unemployment rate declined slightly and percentage of individuals below the poverty
line declined by almost five percent. As with many of the other states, employment in the
farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined, whereas the education, health, and
social services industries provided the greatest employment opportunities in 2000. Also, the arts,
recreation, lodging, and food services industries have been growing source of employment in
Mississippi over the past decade.
Eight Mississippi residents held a commercial tuna permit in 2005 (Table 9.36). As for
other HMS-related permits, there are eight residents that held a shark permit and two that held a
swordfish permit (Table 9.38 and Table 9.39). Communities involved in the commercial shark
fishery are Moss Point, Biloxi, and Pascagoula. Only one HMS permitted dealer resided in
Mississippi during 2005 (Table 9.37).
Mississippi’s saltwater recreational fisheries attracted approximately 278,000 anglers in
2004 (NMFS, 2005a). Fifty-four thousand (19 percent) of these anglers were from out-of-state,
and 29,000 (10 percent) were from non-coastal counties within Mississippi. In 2005, there were
194 Mississippi residents with an HMS angling permit (Table 9.34). The ASA estimated that
marine recreational fishing generated $50.5 million in retail sales in Mississippi in 2001 and
some 1,003 jobs (ASA, 2002). There are 36 charter/headboats with HMS permits home-ported
in Mississippi (Table 9.35). Communities involved in the charter and headboat fishery include
Biloxi, Gautier, Gulfport, Long Beach, Pascagoula, Pass Christian, and Picayune. Biloxi and
Gulfport are each homeport to about one-third of the charter and head boat fleet with HMS
permits.
Table 9.28 Mississippi Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Mississippi
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployment Rate
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line*
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
Construction
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1990
2,573,216

2000
2,844,658

64.3%

87.9%

59.7%
8.4%
$20,136
25.2%

59.4%
7.4%
$31,330
19.9%

4.6%
6.4%

3.4%
7.6%

9-55

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Mississippi
1990
Wholesale trade
3.8%
Retail
16.1%
Manufacturing
23.4%
Education, health & social services
22.5%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
0.7%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

2000
3.4%
11.8%
18.3%
20.1%
8.3%

Marine recreational fishing in Mississippi has three modes: shoal water fishing along saltwater marshes, behind barrier islands, and in the sounds; near-shore fishing in relatively shallow
water out to some 15 miles from shore, including trips to artificial reefs and oil platforms; and
offshore fishing in deeper water with HMS species as a target. Sharks are, however, taken in all
three modes and it is reported that some are retained for personal use by anglers.
9.4.17 Louisiana
The population of Louisiana has not changed by much in the past decade, 4.2 million
people in 1990 and 4.5 million people in 2000 (Table 9.29). The percentage of individuals 25
years and older with a high school diploma and/or some graduate level degree has increased by
almost seven percent. The percentage of employed individuals has remained the same over the
past decade, while the unemployment rate and percentage of individuals below the poverty line
have declined. As with many of the other states, employment in the farming, fishing, forestry,
and mining industries has declined, whereas the education, health, and social services industries
provided the greatest employment opportunities in 2000. Also, the arts, recreation, lodging, and
food services industries have been growing source of employment over the past decade.
Louisiana was second only to Alaska in the quantity of its commercial fisheries in the
United States in 2003 and fifth in value (NMFS, 2004b). Several of Louisiana’s communities
were in the top ten major U.S. ports for the greatest quantity of commercial fishery landings:
Empire-Venice, Intracoastal, and Cameron. Two communities were ranked in the top ten for the
value of the commercial fishery landings: Empire-Venice and Dulac-Chauvin, Louisiana. The
menhaden fishery is based in Venice, while shrimping is the principal fishery in Dulac. Both of
these fisheries have declined during the past two decades, from the peak year of Louisiana
commercial landings in 1984 when 1,931,027,000 pounds of fish were landed in the state.
Table 9.29 Louisiana Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Louisiana
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployment Rate
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line*
Employment in some industry sectors:
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1990
4,219,973

2000
4,468,976

68.0%

74.8%

59.3%
9.6%
$21,949
23.6%

59.4%
7.3%
$32,566
19.6%

9-56

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Louisiana

1990
2000
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
5.7%
4.2%*
Construction
6.8%
7.9%
Wholesale trade
4.5%
3.5%
Retail
17.5%
11.9%
Manufacturing
12.5%
10.1%
Education, health & social services
25.3%
21.7%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.1%
9.1%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

Eighty-six Louisiana residents held a commercial tuna permit in 2005 (Table 9.36).
Louisiana was home to the third largest number of shark permit holders with 47 permitted
vessels (Table 9.38). Sixteen of those permit holders live in New Orleans, Louisiana (Figure
9.4). The largest concentrations of shark vessels were home ported in New Orleans, Houma,
Dulac, and Gretna. There are also 43 swordfish permit holders in Louisiana (Table 9.39). To
support these HMS fisheries, there are 25 dealers licensed to purchase and sell tunas, sharks,
and/or swordfish in Louisiana.
The recreational saltwater fisheries off Louisiana attracted some 1,102,000 anglers in
2004, collectively making 4,810,000 fishing trips (NMFS, 2005a). Of these anglers, 19 percent
(207,000) were from out-of-state, while 13 percent were from non-coastal counties within
Louisiana. There were 602 HMS angling permit holders residing in Louisiana during 2005
(Table 9.34). The ASA estimated that salterwater angling generated some $409.6 million in
Louisiana in 2001, and 7,786 jobs in marine recreational fisheries (ASA, 2002). The center of
fishing activity is off the Mississippi delta, and ports like Boothville-Venice, Port Fourchon and
Grand Isle with good road access to the metropolitan areas of Baton Rouge and New Orleans,
benefit from their access to good bottom-fishing areas and to “blue-water” areas offshore.
Sharks are taken in both the bottom-fishery and in the blue-water fishery.
In 2005, there are 90 charter/headboats with HMS permits operating from Louisiana
communities. The majority of websites sampled show that sharks is a component of most trips
offered by these vessels. Communities involved in the charter and head boat fishery for sharks
include Venice, New Orleans, Chauvin/Dulac, Houma, Baton Rouge, Golden Meadow, Belle
Chase, Metaire, Grande Isle, Cut-Off, Chalmette, Lake Charles, and Monroe.
As described in Section 9.2.2.1, the impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have been
devastating to Louisiana and many Gulf Coast communities. NMFS is involved in several
studies to determine the full economic and social impacts of these hurricanes.
9.4.17.1

Venice, Louisiana

Venice is another Louisiana community with historical ties to the commercial fishing
industry. Venice has a strong focus on commercial fisheries, and cites the large volume of local
shrimp landings and numerous residents involved in the fishing industry as evidence. Many
residents fish commercially, at least on a part-time basis (Impact Assessment, 2004). In the past
20 years, however, oil and recreational fishing have become increasingly important for the
economy of Venice. Wilson et al. (1998) note, however, few if any, Venice residents
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-57

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

commercially harvest highly migratory species. Boothville-Venice is a “census designated
place” and the Bureau of the Census statistics includes both small communities. Similarly,
NMFS links Empire and Venice as a single port. Thus, both the port and community are referred
to as Venice in this document.
The population of Venice has declined from 2,743 in 1990 to 2,220 in 2000 (Table 9.30).
There is a slightly greater percentage of males compared to females in the population. The
median age increased from about 26 to 32 between 1990 and 2000. The number of individuals
under 20 declined by almost seven percent, while those 45 and older increased by almost seven
percent in the last decade. Whites account for a majority of the resident population, but blacks or
African Americans accounted for about 29 percent of the total population in both 1990 and 2000.
Despite apparent overall out-migration, numerous families of Vietnamese and Cambodian
ancestry have moved to the area over the last decade (Impact Assessment, 2004). While many
initially went into the fishing industry, more recently, there has been an apparent shift among
many new arrivals toward citrus farming.
In 1990, there were 836 households with an average size of 3.23 people. The number of
households decreased to 746 in 2000 and the average household size had dropped to 2.96 people.
The number of people employed in farming, fishing, forestry, and mining decreased over the last
decade from 16.9 percent to 11 percent. The forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
industries continued to make up twenty-two percent area’s businesses. Retail trade is the second
largest industry in the area.
In 1990, thirty-six percent of the population of Venice lived below the poverty level, but
this figure dropped to 18 percent in 2000 (Table 9.30). In 1990, the median household income
was $16,250. Eighteen percent of the households in Venice in 1990 received Social Security,
averaging $5,433 per year, and 11 percent of the households received public assistance income,
averaging $3,301 per year (NMFS, 1999a). In 2000, the per capita income of Venice residents
was $13,123, while the per capita income for the state of Louisiana had increased to $16,912.
Venice is located about 30 miles south of the parish seat Point B la Hache, which is
flanked by eroding wetlands and levees that border the Mississippi River. The unemployment
rate is low compared to that of Dulac, perhaps because Venice has been the epicenter of oil
industry activity in Louisiana. The main job opportunities in Venice are oil, seafood harvest and
processing and, increasingly, recreational fishing (Wilson et al, 1998). Fishing infrastructure in
Venice is extensive. There are several seafood dealers and docks; sale and repair facilities for
commercial and recreational boats, bait shops, ice houses, boat launches, and several small
marinas and marine suppliers (Impact Assessment, 2004). One of the marinas, the Cypress Cove
Marina and Lodge, is a large facility offering boat storage, charter services, guided waterfowl
hunting with air boat transportation, hotel, restaurant, and various support services essential for
recreational fishing and hunting (Impact Assessment, 2004). The majority of business is sportrecreational. Venice extends into the Gulf of Mexico close to billfish areas that are frequented
by recreational fishermen. Recreational fishing increased steadily there during the 1990s
(Wilson et al., 1998).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-58

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Marina owners suggest that commercial fishing activity has declined over the last several
years, and that Venice residents seem to be more focused on recreational fishing and oil field
support. A local retail seafood dealer suggests that Louisiana’s unpredictable weather and
foreign shrimp imports are detrimentally affecting the local commercial fleet. Other informants
suggest that the commercial fishing fleet is struggling in many ways, but that the involvement of
the larger community in alternative industries, such as offshore oil field support and citrus, is
keeping the local economy fairly dynamic (Impact Assessment, 2004).
Animosity regarding competition for fish extends to the political arena, as commercial
and recreational fishermen oppose each other on regulatory issues. Commercial fishery
participants claim that law enforcement agents harass them, while recreational fishery
participants claim that regulations are not enforced in Venice because there are simply not
enough agents to cover the area. Among local commercial fishermen, there is a sense that
recreational fishermen have helped create a regulatory environment that is pushing commercial
fishermen out of business (Wilson et al., 1998).
Most of the commercial vessels landing in Venice are home-ported in New Orleans or
other Mississippi River towns further upriver from the Gulf of Mexico. Even Louisiana natives
who fish for shark with nets in state waters live in neighboring towns, not in Venice. Shrimp is
the largest commercial catch bought and sold in Venice, although this fishery has become less
profitable since the late 1980s (Wilson et al., 1998). The longline fleet is not well integrated into
the Louisiana community of Venice. The longline fishermen are mostly “commuters” from
towns and cities further inland, such as New Orleans, and most of them are from a different
ethnic background, including many Vietnamese-Americans. Due to the language barrier, many
of these fishermen do not participate in public fisheries meetings (NMFS, 1999a).
In 1998, several dealers in Venice drew 40 percent of their business from the longline
fleets. Another dealer drew only about 20 percent from longline vessels. A large wholesaler
dealt only in longline catches and purchased fish from local dealers. In 1997, 60 percent of this
business was tuna, 30 percent shark and ten percent swordfish. The competition between dealers
in 1998 was perceived as becoming more aggressive (Wilson et al., 1998). Traditional patterns
of dealers building relationships by extending services and credit to vessels are giving way to
price-based competition to gain access to vessels.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-59

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Table 9.30 Demographic Profile of Venice, Louisiana. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population
Sex
Male
Female
Age
Median Age
< 20
20 - 44
45 - 64
> 65
Race

1990
2,699

2000
2,220

Boothville & Venice, Louisiana

1990

Population:

2000

2,699

2,220

43.5%

48.4%

48.1%

53.0%

3.3%
$ 16,250
36.2%

2.0%
$ 33,813
17.3%

Education:
51.4%
48.6%

51.0%
49.0%

High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)

26.3
42.0%
35.1%
18.3%

31.7
35.2%
35.2%
22.0%

4.6%

7.6%

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals Below the Poverty Line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional

13.8%

18.1%

Technical, Administrative, & Sales

20.7%

19.5%

White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
Household

63.9%
31.3%
3.3%
1.4%
0.0%

61.9%
28.7%
3.4%
4.0%
0.3%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing

12.1%
16.9%

40.8%
11.0%

22.5%
10.8%
7.1%

22.7%
8.1%
4.8%

Total
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

836
84.7%
15.3%
3.23
3.58

746
78.3%
21.7%
2.96
3.38

Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

9.4%
16.0%
5.6%
0.0%

0.0%
13.1%
14.4%
10.4%

Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure

960
14.0%

933
20.0%

Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

87.5%
12.5%

87.1%
12.9%

While pelagic longline fishermen with large vessels work year-round, pelagic longlining
in the area tends to intensify in May and ease up during the wintertime. There are four docks in
Venice where longline vessels unload. Docks in Venice employ between five and 15 workers on
a seasonal basis for unloading vessels and packing seafood, as well as five to eight people yearround. The docks purchase tuna year round, shrimp from May through December, bottom fish
such as drum, catfish, and sheepshead, from January through May, mullet (for the roe) from
October through December (NMFS, 1999a).
Researchers in 1998 found that alternative employment outside of the fishery was
available. For instance, the oil industry hired unskilled labor from this area in recent years, and
employed three percent of the civilian labor force in 2000. The agricultural sector also provides
employment opportunities during the off-season for fishing, as reported by one VietnameseAmerican captain. However, researchers found that this relatively ready supply of alternative
employment threatened the stability of the labor pool for the fishing industry. The VietnameseAmerican community has avoided such personnel problems to some extent by relying on tight
kinship networks in both fishing and fish buying, although they did report some difficulty in
finding captains. The Vietnamese-American community was the only one studied which reported
recent investment in new longline vessels. Concerns cited by the fishermen in Venice included
the safety of small vessels during winter openings, and the prospect of small vessels having to
pay for observers and VMS (Wilson et al., 1998).
Other commercial fisheries in the area that could provide alternative employment include
pompano in October, mullet from October to January, shrimp from May to December, and
oysters from January to May (Wilson et al., 1998). Wilson et al. concluded that the overall
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-60

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

effect of increased restrictions on this fleet would be increased pressure on grouper and yellowfin
tuna, increased difficulty in finding and retaining employees, and an acceleration in the rate at
which the fleet’s vessels and experienced fishermen are moving overseas, especially to Mexico.
Recreational fishermen fish from Venice year-round, but are affected by inclement
weather during the winter. The larger vessels can fish for yellowfin tuna year round, in addition
to inshore species like redfish, snapper and speckled trout. Bluefin tuna are found too far away
(100 miles offshore) and recreational fishermen are prohibited from directing effort on bluefin
tuna anyway. They fish for billfish, particularly blue marlin, from May through November.
Blacktip shark was once a popular catch, but recreational fishermen say they are now too small
to be an enjoyable catch. There is some animosity between recreational and commercial
fishermen, which seems to arise from competition for particular species. Charterboats regularly
specify sharks as a species available to their clients.
There are only two marinas in Venice that cater to recreational fishermen, although a
third parish-run marina offers vessel slips to both recreational and commercial fishermen. One
opened in the mid-1980s and offers boat slips, launches, a hoist, a couple of condominiums,
baitshop, fuel, and ice. The marina employs 13 people during peak summer months. Most of the
marina’s business comes from private vessels from New Orleans and border states. Less than
one percent of this business consists of charterboats. The other marina opened only a few years
ago, offering 120 pre-paid boat slips, a 64-room two-story hotel, condominiums, a dry dock
storage facility, fuel, and ice. This second marina employs 12 to 15 people in its newly opened
hotel and another 15 to 25 in the marina. Eight charterboats operate from the marina, and there
is room for ten more.
Researchers in 1998 reported that the catch-and-release ethic for billfish was strong
among recreational fishermen in Venice, but local billfishing tournaments require that trophy
fish be brought to the dock and weighed. Sportfishermen prefer to catch and retain tunas,
dolphin fish, and wahoo for consumption, although they voiced support for tag and release
programs (NMFS, 1999a).
9.4.17.2 Dulac, Louisiana
Dulac is located in the center of Terrebonne Parish, about 15 miles South of Houma,
Louisiana. Houma lies at the intersection of the Houma Navigational Canal and the Intercoastal
Waterway and serves as the parish seat and a locale of employment opportunities in offshore
equipment building for Dulac residents (Wilson et al., 1998). With easy access to Timbalier Bay
and the Gulf of Mexico via the Houma Navigational Canal, many Dulac residents are deeply
involved in commercial fishing, and many recreational fishers from Houma and distant Lafayette
maintain camps in this area (Impact Assessment, 2004). Terrebonne Parish government is a
consolidated government so most data are gathered on a parish-wide basis. According to the
Terrebonne Parish Planning Department in 1998, the parish did not spend much time tracking the
importance of the commercial fishing industry, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it is a longstanding and significant part of the community economy (Wilson et al., 1998). Landings of
tunas, swordfish, and sharks indicate that Dulac is among the most important fishing ports in the
state. However, many of the fishermen who target HMS are a commuter population; they land
fish in Dulac or purchase fish in Dulac, but they live elsewhere. Three dealers purchase fish
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-61

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

from longline vessels; two are owned and operated by first-generation Vietnamese immigrants,
and the other is run by a New Orleans native whose father operates a large tuna wholesale
company in Venice.
In 1990, the population was 3,273 individuals; it declined to 2,458 in 2000 (Table 9.31).
Dulac reported the same number of males as females both 1990 and 2000. Individuals under 20
years old make up the greatest proportion of the population in both 1990 and 2000 with
individuals between 20 and 44 comprising the second largest age group. Whites comprise the
largest proportion of race — 49 and 54 percent in 1990 and 2000, respectively. American Indian
and Native Alaskans accounted for 48 and 39 percent of the total population in 1990 and 2000,
respectively. As noted in Wilson et al. (1998), however, this latter category is made up mostly of
the Houma Indians, which is a tribe not recognized by the U.S. government. Less than two
percent of the population was Asian/Pacific Islander, despite the fact that most of the longline
captains who sustain the Dulac commercial industry for tunas, swordfish, and sharks were
Vietnamese.
In 1990, Dulac had 922 households with an average size of 3.55 persons per household
(Table 9.31). By 2000, the number of households had decreased to 768 and the average size of
each household had dropped to 3.20 persons. At the time of the 1990 Census, nearly half of the
individuals in Dulac were living below the poverty level, with a median household income of
$12,653. In 2000, median household income in Dulac had increased to $22,900, but more than
30 percent of individuals continued to live below poverty level. Per capita income in Dulac in
1990 was $4,946; for the State of Louisiana, average per capita income was $10,635. By 2000,
per capita income in Dulac had risen to $8,785, while for the state as a whole, per capita income
had risen to $16,912. In 1990, the largest proportion of the Dulac population was employed in
the technical, administrative, and sales industries. Whereas in 2000, the largest proportion of the
population was employed in construction, production, maintenance, and transportation. Sixteen
percent of the population was employed in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries
in 2000. Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture were the largest industries in Dulac
in both 1990 and 2000.
The combination of a high concentration of minorities in the Dulac population and the
high percentage of individuals living below the poverty line highlights the need to consider
Executive Order 12898 or Environmental Justice. Under this Executive Order, agencies
determine if there will be disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of its
regulations on the activities of minority and low-income populations. As mentioned in Chapter
4, some of the preferred alternatives may have some negative social and/or economic impacts in
general, but most of these could be mitigated and none of the preferred alternatives are likely to
have disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income sectors of the Dulac population.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-62

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Table 9.31 Demographic Profile of Dulac, Louisiana. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Demographics
Total Population

1990
3,273

2000
2,458

1990

Population:

50.0%
50.0%

High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)

25.5
41.8%
35.2%
17.0%
6.0%

31.8
35.2%
32.2%
22.8%
9.8%

Unemployed
Median Household Income
Individuals Below the Poverty Line
Employment in some industry sectors:
Managerial/professional
Technical, Administrative, & Sales

49.4%
2.3%
48.1%
0.0%
0.3%

54.0%
2.5%
39.4%
0.5%
0.5%

Total Households
Family households
Nonfamily households
Average household size
Average family size
Housing Occupancy

922
85.8%
14.2%
3.55
3.93

768
79.3%
20.7%
3.20
3.55

Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Housing Tenure

1,182
33.0%

1,063
27.8%

Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units

80.1%
19.9%

79.3%
20.7%

Median Age
< 20
20 – 44
45 – 64
> 65
Race
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other

2000

3,273

2,458

27.1%

39.1%

37.8%

44.9%

Education:

Sex
Male
Female
Age

Dulac, Louisana

49.3%
50.7%

Household

8.0%
3.0%
$ 12,653 $ 22,900
49.3%
30.9%
5.7%
18.1%

12.4%
17.7%

Construction, Production, Maintenance, & Transportation
Farming, fishing, forestry, & mining
Industry
Forestry, fishing, hunting, mining, and agriculture
Construction

17.2%
12.3%

41.4%
15.9%

23.6%
3.7%

25.9%
3.1%

Manufacturing

14.0%

10.0%

Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Education, health & social services
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services

8.5%
17.7%
9.7%
0.0%

5.7%
10.3%
8.5%
10.7%

Pelagic longline fishermen in Dulac target yellowfin tuna all year. Dulac longline vessels
do not target swordfish, and incidentally-caught sharks are often discarded (Wilson et al., 1998).
The competition between dealers was perceived as becoming more aggressive in 1998.
Traditional patterns of dealers building relationships by extending services and credit to vessels
were giving way to price-based competition to gain access to vessels. Researchers reported, in
1998, that one dock in Dulac employed three to four people, but laid them all off in 1998. That
dealer purchased tuna (50 percent), shark (30 percent), swordfish (20 percent), and dolphin,
wahoo, and amber jack (20 percent combined). Another dealer employed six or seven people in
1998, all of whom lived in Dulac. Of this dealer’s purchases, 60 percent were tuna, 20 percent
were swordfish and 20 percent were divided among other pelagic species like shark, wahoo,
amber jack. A third dealer employed six Mexican workers, supplemented by local residents on a
seasonal basis (Wilson et al., 1998). The pelagic longline fleet has seen reductions in its catches
with the prohibition of the use of live-bait in 2000 causing a reduction in the community’s
employment rate. In 2005, HMS permit data show only one dealer in Dulac with several HMS
dealer permits.
Researchers in 1998 found that alternative employment outside of the fishery was
available. For instance, while unemployment in Louisiana fishing communities has been high in
the past, the oil industry hired unskilled labor from this area in recent years. In 1990, 33
residents of Dulac worked in the oil fields and a similar number were employed by the oil
industry in 2000. The agricultural sector also provides employment opportunities, as reported by
one Vietnamese-American captain, particularly during the off-season for fishing. However, this
supply of alternative employment threatened the stability of the labor pool for the fishing
industry (Wilson et al., 1998). This was true for both captain and crew positions, particularly
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-63

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

among the non-Vietnamese-American population. The Vietnamese-American community
avoided such personnel problems to some extent by relying on tight kinship networks in both
fishing and fish buying. The Vietnamese-Americans, however, did report some difficulty in
finding captains. The Vietnamese-American community was the only one studied which
reported recent investment in new longline vessels. In Louisiana, the Vietnamese-American
may be impacted more intensely by changes in the regulations given the extent of their
investment in this fishery (NMFS, 1999a).
Dulac was also a homeport for a limited inshore shark bottom longline fishery in Federal
waters in 1998. Blacktip shark was the main catch in this fishery. These fishermen did not fish
much during the winter because of the safety concerns associated with small vessels (Wilson et
al., 1998). Typically, sharks are caught between five and 20 miles from shore. Almost all
vessels that sell in Dulac are owner-operated. Owners are usually their own captains or they hire
a close relative to captain their vessel. Good first mates try to acquire their own vessels. At least
five bottom longline vessels were built in 1997 and have been added to the fleet in Dulac. Some
participants in the bottom longline fishery for sharks also participated in the reef fish fishery.
The local fishermen, fishing for shark in state waters, use a gillnet and fish under a special state
license because longlining for sharks in state waters is banned.
9.4.18 Texas
The population of Texas has increased by nearly 4 million people over the past decade,
reaching 20.1 million in 2000 (Table 9.32). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older
with a high school diploma and/or a graduate level degree has increased slightly. The percentage
of employed individuals, the unemployment rate, and percentage of individuals below the
poverty line, have all declined over the past decade. As with many of the other states,
employment in the farming, fishing, forestry, and mining industries has declined, whereas the
education, health, and social services industries provided the greatest employment opportunities
in 2000.
In the state of Texas, 26 residents possessed a commercial tuna permit (Table 9.36). In
addition to the commercial tuna permit holders, thirteen individuals held a shark permit and
seven individuals held a swordfish permit (Table 9.38 and Table 9.39). The commercial shark
fishery generally tends to be a small portion of the commercial fisheries of Texas. There are
licensed HMS dealers for tuna, shark, and swordfish operating in 14 different locations in coastal
Texas (Table 9.37).
In 2005, there were 586 Texas residents that held an HMS angling permit (Table 9.34).
The ASA estimated that saltwater angling generated some $622.2 million in retail sales in Texas
in 2001 and that there were 13,322 jobs in Texas associated with the marine recreational fishing
industry (ASA, 2002). The number of charter/headboat permit holders from Texas has increased
from 129 in 2003 to 168 in 2005 (Table 9.35) with a significant concentration of the 2005 permit
holders in Port Aransas (Figure 9.3). Most of these take shark as an incidental catch to other
near-shore and offshore fish. In addition to Port Aransas, Freeport, Galveston, Houston, Port
Isabel, and Port O’Connor, as well as several other communities, are home to HMS angling
permit holders.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-64

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Table 9.32 Texas Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.
Texas
1990
2000
Population:
16,986,510 20,851,820
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
72.1%
75.7%
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
66.0%
63.6%
Unemployment Rate
7.1%
6.1%
Median Household Income
$27,016
$39,927
Individuals below the poverty line*
18.1%
15.4%
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
4.9%
2.7%
Construction
6.7%
8.1%
Wholesale trade
4.9%
3.9%
Retail
17.4%
12.0%
Manufacturing
14.4%
11.8%
Education, health & social services
22.5%
19.3%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
1.2%
7.3%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

9.4.19 Puerto Rico
The population in Puerto Rico increased by nearly 300,000 people in the last decade
(Table 9.33). The percentage of individuals 25 years and older with a high school diploma
and/or a graduate level degree has increased by over ten percent in the last decade. The
percentage of employed individuals, unemployment rate, and percentage of individuals below
the poverty line all declined through the nineties. Education, health, and social services provide
the greatest sources of employment. The farming, fishing, forestry, and mining employed less
than two percent of the population in 2000.
While Puerto Rico was home to 100 commercial tuna permit holders in 2005, there were
no permit holders for sharks or swordfish (Table 9.36). A large number of the commercial tuna
permit holders are in Aguadilla (44 percent) and another large group is located in Rincon (13
percent). There are six HMS dealer permit holders in Puerto Rico; four for tunas in Aguadilla;
one for tunas in Aquada; and one for sharks and swordfish in San Juan (Table 9.37).
Table 9.33 Puerto Rico Demographic Profile. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000.
Puerto Rico
Population:
Education:
High school graduates (25 years or older)
Employment:
Labor force (16 years and over)
Unemployment Rate
Median Household Income
Individuals below the poverty line*
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

1990
3,522,037

2000
3,808,610

49.7%

60.0%

47.3%
20.4%

40.7%
19.2%
$ 14,412
48.2%

58.9%

9-65

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

Puerto Rico
1990
2000
Employment in some industry sectors:
Farming, fishing, forestry & mining
1.7%
Construction
Wholesale trade
4.4%
Retail
11.7%
Manufacturing
13.5%
Education, health & social services
19.3%
Arts, recreation, lodging & food services
6.5%
*U.S. Census uses data from 1989 and 1999 to estimate these values.

The recreational saltwater fisheries in Puerto Rico attracted 167,000 anglers in 2004,
collectively making 1,055,000 fishing trips (NMFS, 2005a). Of these anglers, 16 percent of the
anglers were not from Puerto Rico. In 2005, 899 HMS angling permit holders were residing in
Puerto Rico (Table 9.34). The following communities have the largest concentrations of HMS
anglers: San Juan, Guaynabo, Arecibo, Mayaguez, Vega Baja, Ponce, Carolina, as well as
several other communities with smaller concentrations of permit holders. Twenty-seven vessels
from Puerto Rico held an HMS charter/headboat permit in 2005, specifically several were
located in San Juan and Rincon (Table 9.35). Due to the number of HMS permits issued to
individuals located in San Juan, a community profile should be developed in the future.
Generally, the fishing industry of Puerto Rico is made up of private clubs for the upper
and middle class and small, and poor artisanal fishing communities. There are approximately
2,500 licensed artisanal fishermen who are required to report their landings to the Office of
Natural Resources’ Fisheries Laboratory. However, interviews and informal conversation with
artisanal fishermen suggest that the reported and actual landings differ widely (Wilson et al.,
1998). At the local level, there are artisanal fishermen’s associations (villages) and recreational
fishermen’s membership clubs.
The fishing industry is not a prominent economic activity in Puerto Rico and variations in
fishing incomes have little impact on the island’s economy. Most of the recreational fishing
activity centers around the capital city of San Juan. Artisanal fishing communities are found
throughout the island. These communities are extremely poor and will likely be the communities
most affected by changes in regulations. The extremely deep inshore waters off these areas
make billfish and other highly migratory species accessible to the artisanal fishery.
9.4.19.1 Arecibo, Puerto Rico
The Arecibo population in 1990 was 93,385 people; approximately 99 percent of those
people were born in Puerto Rico or in the United States (NMFS, 1999b). The majority of the
population is classified as Hispanic or Latino. Naturalized citizens and non-citizens each make
up less than one percent of the population of Arecibo, but their ethnicity is unknown. According
to interviews with local government officials, the vast majority of immigrants in Arecibo are
from the Dominican Republic; however, there is no way to confirm that information due to
waves of illegal immigration. In 2000, the U.S. Census reported the Arecibo population grew by
less than seven percent (101,131 people).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-66

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

The number of households in Arecibo grew by almost ten thousand throughout the last
decade, from 24,333 to 34,245 households. In 1990, the median household income is $7,520. By
2000, the median household income increased by $5,000 to $12,520. In the early nineties, thirtytwo percent of the households are receiving some kind of public assistance; the average public
assistance income is $1,939. The number of individuals below the poverty line did decrease over
the past decade, from 73 percent to almost 51 percent. The unemployment rate also declined
from 23 percent to eight percent in 2000. Of the population age 16 and older, 43.9 percent are in
the civilian labor force in 1990, whereas this number declined to 38 percent in 2000. In 1990,
the highest employing industries for men and women were manufacturing and services. In 2000,
the construction, production, maintenance, and transportation industries supplied the greatest
number of employment opportunities.
Recreational fishing is the predominant mode of participation in the HMS fisheries in
Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Fifty-one Arecibo residents hold an HMS angling permit, but none of 28
charter/headboat permit holders in Puerto Rico are from Arecibo. Two Arecibo residents hold a
commercial tuna permit. Despite the lack of commercial shark and swordfish permit holders in
Puerto Rico, there is one HMS permitted dealer for sharks and swordfish in San Juan, one for
tunas in Aquada, and four for tunas in Aquadilla.
The Arecibo Yacht Club is a private club created by and for the local recreational
fishermen. The members of the club formed the Association of Sport Fishing of Arecibo and its
facilities. Members of the Arecibo Yacht Club organize marlin and inshore fishing tournaments.
According to local government officials, the municipality does not get any economic benefit
from those tournaments because all the profits go directly to the Club, which is a private
business. The tournament does not affect the economy of the region even indirectly by
promoting related business because the participants are mainly the same local fishermen. The
marlin tournament is held in May. However, according to the commodore of the club, the
tournaments are not always lucrative, even for the club (Wilson et al., 1998). The club has
approximately 253 members, and among them, 82 are boat owners. The size of the vessels
fluctuates between 18 and 50 feet. The larger boats, measuring 33 feet or more, have a crew
consisting of a captain and a mate. The crew is in charge of the maintenance of the boats while
in the marina and directing the fishing journeys. The facilities of the club and marina were
constructed with private funds and are a very exclusive place for the middle-upper class of
Arecibo. Although, the commodore reports that in the club’s facilities there is an area available
for the boats of the artisanal fishermen.
Among the members are part-time artisanal fishermen, but most of them are recreational
fishermen. However, usually they come out on the weekends and use the money they obtain
from the catch to pay for the trip expenses. The artisanal fishermen catch mostly red snapper and
grouper by bottom fishing. This kind of fishing is done with a line that goes to the bottom of the
sea, mostly in rocky areas. The rest of the fishermen mainly target dolphin and tuna. To catch
these species, they use a hand line, or a single cord with one hook. From May through October,
marlin, white needle, and blue needle are typically found seven to ten miles from the shore.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-67

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
STATE AND COMMUNITY PROFILES

9.5

Future Assessments

In the future, the HMS permit databases, landings information, and HMS APs should be
consulted to determine the most appropriate community profiles for HMS-related fisheries. The
2005 HMS permit data indicate that several new community profiles should be developed and
some of the previously profiled communities may not have as significant an investment in the
fishery as the community may have in the past (Figure 9.1 – Figure 9.7). Wakefield, Rhode
Island should be considered due to the number of commercial tuna and swordfish permit holders
in the area. Montauk, New York has a large concentration of charter/headboat, commercial tuna,
and HMS dealers in the community. A large number of Cape May residents hold an HMS
angling, charter/headboat, shark and/or swordfish permits. Ocean City and Berlin, Maryland
have a high concentration of HMS Angling and Charter/headboat permit holders in residence.
The commercial fishery is less significant compared to other towns with higher concentrations.
In addition to the information from the HMS permit databases, NMFS received a large number
of public comments describing the importance of the White Marlin Open Tournament to the
Ocean City area economy. Morehead City, North Carolina is home to a number of HMS
angling, charter/headboat, and commercial tuna permit holders. Each of these towns is actively
involved with more than one sector of HMS fisheries, and therefore changes to HMS regulations
may have could have an impact on each of these communities. While the number of permit
holders in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not as numerous as the permit holders on the
U.S. mainland, HMS fisheries are active in these two area and several communities benefit from
those activities. This chapter does not include a general profile for the Virgin Islands because
1990 and 2000 Census data was incomplete. Future HMS actions should consider developing
general profile for the Virgin Islands and a community profile for Christiansted, St. Croix, as
well as San Juan, Guaynabo, Aguadilla, Mayaguez, and/or Vega Baja Puerto Rico due to the
number of HMS permit holders in these areas. While NMFS may have community profiles
describing these areas, to best determine the impact of changes to HMS-related regulations, an
HMS-specific community profile should be developed for these towns.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-68

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
FUTURE ASSESSMENTS

Figure 9.1

Location of HMS Angling Permit Holders in 2005 and the percentage of Angling permit holders
for the top five states.

Table 9.34 Number and Percentage of HMS Angling Permits by State and Country in 2005.
Angling Permits
State
Total
New Jersey
3,439
Florida
3,238
Massachusetts
2,769
New York
2,391
North Carolina
1,863
Maryland
1,563
Pennsylvania
1,520
Virginia
1,351
Connecticut
1,080
Puerto Rico
899
Rhode Island
831
Delaware
741
South Carolina
736
Louisiana
602
Texas
586
New Hampshire
324
Alabama
320
Maine
251
Georgia
205
Mississippi
194
Tennessee
52
Virgin Islands
31
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

%
13.6%
12.8%
11.0%
9.5%
7.4%
6.2%
6.0%
5.4%
4.3%
3.6%
3.3%
2.9%
2.9%
2.4%
2.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.2%
0.1%

Vermont
Ohio
Michigan
Illinois
Missouri
California
West Virginia
Washington, DC
Arkansas
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Minnesota
Indiana
Nevada
Oklahoma
Alaska
Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
New Mexico
Arizona
Marshall Islands
North Dakota
Nebraska

31
24
22
17
17
14
14
13
12
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
9-69

0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Palau
Washington
Wyoming
British Virgin
Islands
Canada
Micronesia
Hawaii
Montana
Oregon
South Dakota
Grand Total

2
2
2

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25,239

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
ADDITIONAL FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 9.2

Location of HMS Angling Permit Holders in 2005 by region.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-70

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
ADDITIONAL FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 9.3

Location of the HMS Charter/Headboat Permit Holders in 2005 and the percentage of HMS
Charter/Headboat permit holders for the top five states.

Table 9.35 Number and Percentage of HMS Charter/Headboat Permits by State and Country in 2005.
Charter/Headboat Permits
State
Total
%
Florida
632 15.1%
New Jersey
578 13.9%
Massachusetts
557 13.3%
North Carolina
441 10.6%
New York
379
9.1%
Maryland
196
4.7%
Texas
168
4.0%
Virginia
153
3.7%
Pennsylvania
143
3.4%
Rhode Island
143
3.4%
South Carolina
130
3.1%
Connecticut
110
2.6%
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Delaware
Louisiana
Alabama
Maine
New Hampshire
Georgia
Mississippi
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
California
Tennessee
Michigan
Ohio
Illinois

9-71

103
90
78
61
55
40
36
27
20
1
6
4
3
2

2.5%
2.2%
1.9%
1.5%
1.3%
1.0%
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%

Kentucky
Oklahoma
Vermont
West Virginia
Alaska
Hawaii
Indiana
Marshall Islands
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
Palau
Grand Total

2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4,173

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
ADDITIONAL FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 9.4

Location of the Commercial Tuna Permit Holders in 2005 (all gear categories - harpoon,
longline, purse seine, and trap) and the percentage of commercial tuna permit holders for the
top five states.

Table 9.36

Number and Percentage of Commercial Tuna Permits by State and Country in 2005.

Commercial Tuna Permits
State
Total
%
Massachusetts
1,601 31.5%
North Carolina
659 12.9%
Maine
517 10.2%
New Jersey
357
7.0%
New York
327
6.4%
New Hampshire
278
5.5%
Florida
250
4.9%
Rhode Island
232
4.6%
Connecticut
170
3.3%
Puerto Rico
106
2.1%
Virginia
106
2.1%
South Carolina
89
1.7%

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
J
ULY 2006

Louisiana
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virgin Islands
Delaware
Georgia
Texas
Alabama
Vermont
Mississippi
Colorado
Washington, DC
Hawaii
Michigan

9-72

86
59
57
46
39
26
26
20
11
8
2
2
2
2

1.7%
1.2%
1.1%
0.9%
0.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Alaska
Arizona
California
Idaho
Indiana
Minnesota
Montana
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Washington
West Virginia
Grand Total

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5,089

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
ADDITIONAL FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 9.5

Location of all HMS Dealer Permit Holders as of February 2006 for shark and swordfish
permits and for fishery year 2005 for tunas and the percentage of total HMS dealer permit
holders for the top five states.

Table 9.37

Number and Percentage of HMS Dealers by State and Country as of February 2006 (sharks
and swordfish) and for calendar year 2005 (tunas).

HMS Dealer Permits
State
Total
%
Florida
137 18.1%
Massachusetts
127 16.8%
New York
86 11.4%
North Carolina
58
7.7%
New Jersey
56
7.4%
Rhode Island
45
6.0%
California
42
5.6%
South Carolina
32
4.2%
Virginia
27
3.6%

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
J
ULY 2006

Maine
Louisiana
Maryland
Texas
Hawaii
Washington
Canada
Puerto Rico
Alabama
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania

26
25
16
14
9
9
8
7
5
5
5

9-73

3.4%
3.3%
2.1%
1.9%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%

Virgin Islands
Delaware
Georgia
Connecticut
Chile
Illinois
Missouri
Mississippi
Grand Total

5
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
756

0.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
100%

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
ADDITIONAL FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 9.6

Location of the Shark Directed and Incidental Permit Holders as of February 2006 and
percentage of shark permit holders for the top five states.

Table 9.38

Number and Percentage of Directed and Incidental Shark Permit Holders by State as of
February 2006.

Shark Permits
State
Total
Florida
283
New Jersey
51
Louisiana
47
North Carolina
38
South Carolina
25
New York
21
Massachusetts
17
Texas
13
Maryland
10
Rhode Island
9

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Mississippi
Alabama
Virginia
Maine
Georgia
New Hampshire
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Virgin Islands
Grand Total

%
51.3%
9.2%
8.5%
6.9%
4.5%
3.8%
3.1%
2.4%
1.8%
1.6%

9-74

8
7
6
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
552

1.4%
1.3%
1.1%
0.9%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
100%

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
ADDITIONAL FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 9.7

Location of the Swordfish Permit Holders as of February 2006 and the percentage of swordfish
permit holders for the top five states.

Table 9.39

Number and Percentage of Swordfish Permit Holders by State as of February 2006.

Swordfish Permits
State
Total
Florida
117
New Jersey
50
Louisiana
43
Massachusetts
33
New York
29
Rhode Island
27
North Carolina
20
Maryland
7
South Carolina
7
Texas
7
Virginia
5
Maine
4
Alabama
3

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

California
Connecticut
Mississippi
Delaware
New Hampshire
Virgin Islands
Grand Total

%
32.4%
13.9%
11.9%
9.1%
8.0%
7.5%
5.5%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%

9-75

2
2
2
1
1
1
361

0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
100%

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
ADDITIONAL FIGURES & TABLES

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES
ASA, 2002. Sportfishing in America: Values of Our Traditional Pastime. Alexandria, Virginia.
American Sportfishing Association. 11pp.
Bureau of the Census (v.d.): American Fact Finder: STF1 and STF3 tables for 1990 and 2000
Suitland, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce (www.census.gov)
Kirkley, J.E. 2005. The Communities of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery:
An Overview of Change Associated with the HMS Fishery Management Plan.
Department of Coastal and Ocean Policy, School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. (NOAANMFS-HMS contract report).
Impact Assessment, Inc. 2004. Identifying Communities Associated with the Fishing Industry in
Louisiana. La Jolla, California. (NOAA-NMFS-Contract WC133F-02-SE-0297).
Interorganizational Committee, 1994. Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.
Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAANMFS-TM-F/SPO-16)
Childers, H. 2006. Summer signals peak harvest time and arrival of 2006 hurricane season.
National Fisherman. 87(2):20-21.
NMFS, 1999a. Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks. Silver
Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Services, Highly
Migratory Species Management Division.
NMFS, 1999b. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan. Silver Spring,
MD. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly
Migratory Species Management Division.
NMFS, 2001. NMFS Operational Guidelines – Fishery Management Process: Appendix 2(g):
Guidelines for Assessment of the Social Impact of Fishery Management Actions. Silver
Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.
NMFS, 2003. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
NMFS, 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Reduction of Sea
Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery. Silver
Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management
Division.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-76

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
REFERENCES

NMFS, 2005a. Fisheries of the United States – 2004. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology,
Fisheries Statistics Division. 109pp.
NMFS. 2005b. Effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the Fishing Industry and Fishing
Communities in the Gulf of Mexico: Hearings before the Subcom. on Fisheries and
Oceans of the House Com. on Resources; 109th Cong. (December 15, 2005) (statement
by Dr. William Hogarth, Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce)
The Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources and the Department of Sociology, East Carolina
University. 1993. Coastal North Carolina Socioeconomic Study. U.S. Department of
Interior.
Wilson, D., B.J. McCay, D. Estler, M. Perez-Lugo, J. LaMargue, S. Seminski, and A. Tomczuk.
1998. Social and Cultural Impact Assessment of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan and the Amendment to the Atlantic Billfish Fisheries Management
Plan. The Ecopolicy Center for Agriculture, Environmental, and Resource Issues, New
Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers, the State University of
New Jersey (NOAA-NMFS-HMS contract report).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

9-77

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY PROFILES
REFERENCES

CHAPTER 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 10 Table of Contents..................................................................................................10-i

Chapter 10 List of Tables ........................................................................................................10-ii

10.0 Essential Fish Habitat.................................................................................................. 10-1

10.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 10-1

10.2 EFH Five-Year Review Process ................................................................................ 10-2

10.2.1
Descriptions of Datasets Used in the Review .................................................... 10-3

10.2.2
Methods Used to Map and Analyze EFH Data.................................................. 10-6

10.3 Summary of Review and Findings............................................................................. 10-8

10.3.1
Tunas.................................................................................................................. 10-9

10.3.2
Swordfish ......................................................................................................... 10-13

10.3.3
Billfish.............................................................................................................. 10-14

10.3.4
Sharks............................................................................................................... 10-16

10.4 Threats to Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................. 10-19

10.4.1
Regulatory Requirements and Fishing Activities That May Affect EFH........ 10-19

10.4.2
Potential Impacts of HMS Fishing Activities on HMS and non-HMS EFH ... 10-20

10.4.2.1
HMS EFH Overview................................................................................ 10-20

10.4.2.2
Impact of HMS Federally regulated gear on HMS and non-HMS EFH.. 10-22

10.4.3
Potential Impacts of non-HMS Fishing Activities on HMS EFH.................... 10-25

10.4.4 Federally Managed Fishing Activities ............................................................. 10-27

10.4.5
Non-Federally Managed Fishing Activities..................................................... 10-29

10.4.6
Description of Fishing Gears ........................................................................... 10-31

10.4.7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 10-45

10.5 Non-fishing Impacts to EFH.................................................................................... 10-45

10.5.1.1
Land-based Activities That May Impact HMS EFH ............................... 10-47

10.5.1.2
Coastal and Offshore Activities That May Impact HMS EFH ................ 10-48

10.5.2
Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 10-51

Chapter 10 References........................................................................................................... 10-54

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-i

CHAPTER 10: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

CHAPTER 10 LIST OF TABLES
Table 10.1. Impact assessment of HMS fishing gear on HMS and non-HMS EFH. ‘-‘

indicates that the gear type is not used in these habitat types. Habitat impacts

are as follows: negligible = 0, low = +, medium = ++, high = +++, unknown=?,

and a blank indicates not evaluated. Source: Symbols before the slash are from

the Caribbean FEIS, 2004 (Table 3.15a). The symbols after the slash are taken

from Barnette, 2001. .................................................................................... 10-25

Table 10.2. A comprehensive list of all gear types used in HMS fisheries. ................... 10-28

Table 10.3. Fishing gear types regulated in Federal waters of the Northeast region and their

effects on HMS EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0.

Source: Stevenson et al., 2004..................................................................... 10-28

Table 10.4. Fishing gear types regulated in Federal waters in the Southeast region and their

effects on HMS EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0.

Source: Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001; GOMFMC FEIS 2004. .............. 10-29

Table 10.5. Non-FMP Fishing Gear in the Northeast region and their effects on HMS EFH.

Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source: Stevenson et al.,

2004. ............................................................................................................ 10-30

Table 10.6. Non-FMP Fishing Gear in Southeast region: Effects of other fishing gear on

HMS EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source:

Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001; GOMFMC, 2004..................................... 10-31

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-ii

CHAPTER 10: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

10.0

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

10.1

Introduction

In 1996 Congress reauthorized the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which required NMFS to describe and identify
essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary
under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat
caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of
EFH. In doing so, Congress recognized the importance of habitat in maintaining viable and
sustainable fisheries. EFH is defined as those habitats necessary to the species for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The EFH guidance published on January 17, 2002 (67
FR 2343) stated that EFH must be identified and described for each life stage and for all species
in the fishery management unit (FMU), as well as the physical, biological, and chemical
characteristics of EFH, and, if known, how these characteristics influence the use of EFH by
each species and life stage. FMPs and FMP amendments must provide written descriptions of
EFH and must also provide maps of the geographic locations of EFH or the geographic
boundaries within which EFH for each species and life stage is found (50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(i)).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that NMFS should periodically review and revise or
amend the EFH provisions as warranted based on available information (50 CFR 600.815(a)(10).
The EFH guidance further states that NMFS should review all EFH information at least once
every five years. EFH, including habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), for HMS were
identified in the 1999 HMS FMP. This amendment constitutes Phase 1 of the comprehensive
five-year review of EFH for all HMS. The purpose of the EFH review is to gather any new
information and determine whether modifications to existing EFH descriptions and delineation’s
are warranted. While NMFS has presented new information relative to HMS EFH in the annual
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports, this is the first comprehensive review
of all new information related to EFH that has been completed since 1999.
NMFS does not intend to modify any of the existing EFH descriptions or boundaries in
this FMP or to minimize impacts from fishing gear. Rather, NMFS is presenting new EFH
information and data collected since 1999, including gear evaluations, and requesting public
comment on any additional data or information that may need to be included in the five-year
review. Based on an assessment of the data collected thus far, NMFS has made a preliminary
determination that modification to existing EFH for some species and/or life stages may be
warranted. At this time, even though NMFS is conducting the gear evaluations, NMFS is not
minimizing any impacts due to fishing gears. Any modifications to existing EFH descriptions
and boundaries and potential measures to minimize fishing impacts would be addressed in a
subsequent FMP action. In order to consolidate EFH descriptions and maps previously provided
in separate documents, all of the EFH descriptions and maps from the 1999 FMP, Amendment 1
to the FMP, and Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP are provided in this FMP. Maps in this FMP
include data acquired through the review process and will provide an opportunity for public
comment on the need for any additional information to be considered. These maps can be found
in Appendix B.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-1

CHAPTER 10: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
INTRODUCTION

To further the conservation and enhancement of EFH, the EFH guidelines encourage
FMPs to identify HAPCs. HAPCs are areas within EFH that meet one or more of the following
criteria: they are ecologically important, particularly vulnerable to degradation, undergoing stress
from development, or they are a rare habitat type. HAPCs can be used to focus conservation
efforts on specific habitat types that are particularly important to the managed species.
Currently, only three HAPCs for sandbar sharks have been identified, including: three separate
areas off North Carolina; Chesapeake Bay, MD; and Great Bay, NJ (NMFS, 1999). Although no
new HAPCs have been identified since the 1999 FMP, and none are proposed in the current
Amendment, NMFS may consider alternatives for HAPCs in a subsequent FMP action, based
upon information provided by experts in the field or from other information gathered during this
review. Once additional information is compiled and analyzed for the five-year EFH review,
additional HAPC alternatives may be proposed.
Additionally, FMPs are required to identify fishing and non-fishing activities and to
minimize any adverse effects on EFH. Each FMP must include an evaluation of the potential
adverse impacts of fishing on EFH designated under the FMP, including effects of each fishing
activity regulated under the FMP; also the effects of other Federal FMPs and non-Federally
managed fishing activities (i.e., state fisheries) on HMS EFH. FMPs must describe each fishing
activity and review and discuss all available relevant information such as the intensity, extent,
and frequency of any adverse effects on EFH; the type of habitat within EFH that may be
adversely affected; and the habitat functions that may be disturbed (§ 600.815(a)(2)). If adverse
effects of fishing activities are identified, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that these effects
on EFH are minimized to the extent practicable (MSA § 303(a)(7)).
NMFS completed the original analysis of fishing and non-fishing impacts in the 1999
FMP, and is now presenting information gathered to complete the five-year review, including all
fishing and non-fishing impacts. Considerable new information is available regarding gear
impacts that have been incorporated into this review. For example, new information presented in
the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Fishery Management Council EFH FEIS’ (2004) suggest that
bottom longline gear may have an adverse affect on coral reef habitat which serves as EFH for
certain reef fishes, and both Councils have taken action to minimize fishing impacts on those
areas. Bottom longline gear in HMS fisheries is primarily used in sandy and/or muddy habitats
where it is expected to have minimal to low impacts. An assessment of whether HMS bottom
longline gear is fished in coral reef areas, and if so, the intensity, extent, and frequency of such
impacts, including any measures to minimize potential impacts will be considered in a
subsequent rulemaking. At that time, NMFS may consider similar alternatives to prohibit HMS
gears in those areas identified by the Councils, or other areas identified by NMFS. Other gear
types that contact the bottom, such as tuna traps or anchored gillnets, are either so few in
number, as in the case of the tuna traps, or are also used in sand or mud habitats, as is the case of
the anchored gillnets, that impacts from these HMS gear types are expected to be minimal, and
will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking.
10.2

EFH Five-Year Review Process

The original identification and description of EFH for HMS was completed for tunas,
swordfish, and sharks in the 1999 FMP, and for billfish in the 1999 Amendment 1 to the Billfish
FMP. Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP included a review and update of EFH for five shark
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-2

CHAPTER 10: EFH
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

species. EFH for these species was updated based on either a change in management status (e.g.
from overfished to not overfished or vice versa) or based on new information that had become
available. Species for which management status had changed included the blacktip shark
(Carcharhinus limbatus) (no longer overfished), sandbar shark (C. plumbeus) (overfishing is
occurring), and finetooth shark (C. isodon) (overfishing is occurring). Species for which new
information had become available included the dusky shark (C. obscurus) and nurse
shark(Ginglymostoma cirratum). As described above, these updated descriptions and maps are
included in this Amendment.
As part of the five-year review process, a search of all new literature and information on
HMS EFH was undertaken to assess habitat use and ecological roles of HMS EFH in the FMU.
Published and unpublished scientific reports, fishery independent and fishery dependent datasets,
and expert and anecdotal information detailing the habitats used by the managed species were
evaluated and synthesized for inclusion in the five-year review process in this FMP Amendment
(See Section 10.3). Ongoing research on the biology, ecology, and early life history of Atlantic
HMS, and research and publications relating to HMS EFH, are described in greater detail below.
10.2.1 Descriptions of Datasets Used in the Review
A number of different data sets from state, Federal, and non-governmental organizations
were compiled during the review process. For the most part, these are updated versions of the
same data sources that were used for the original 1999 EFH identifications. One new data set,
from the Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery (COASTSPAN) program, was
initiated in 1998 by the Northeast Fisheries Science Centers (NEFSC) Apex Predator Program
(APP). Although several of the data sets described below appear to be focused on a particular
species, there may be an overlap in the species that are documented, particularly in the tagging
programs. For example, the Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP), described below,
includes data on 114 adult white marlin tagged between 1964 and 2002, and 318 juvenile white
marlin tagged between 1967 and 2003, even though the primary focus is on Atlantic sharks.
The CSTP, managed by the NEFSC APP, provides one of the most comprehensive, long­
term data sets available on Atlantic sharks and, to a lesser degree, swordfish, tunas, and billfish.
The CSTP data set has a continuous time series of observations dating back to 1962. Between
1962 and 2004, more than 171,000 sharks of 52 species have been tagged and more than 10,000
sharks of 33 species have been recaptured. Information is collected by distributing tags to
scientists and commercial and recreational fishermen who record information on the species,
capture or tagging location, date, gear, and size of the tagged fish prior to its release.
The NEFSC APP has also been conducting surveys since 1986 which represented the
first systematic survey of sharks covering most of the U.S. Atlantic coast from Southern New
England to mid-Florida in depths of 5 to 200 m. Pre-determined stations were positioned
roughly 30 nautical miles (nmi) apart, with additional (tagging only) stations in regions of high
shark abundance. The cruise was designed to obtain baseline information on the abundance and
distribution of large pelagic fishes, primarily sharks, using standard pelagic longline gear. By
1989, the objectives of the survey were shifted from pelagic fish to large coastal sharks and this
survey covered the waters from Tampa, FL, to southern New England. The gear was weighted
and the bottom longline survey was initiated. Survey procedures and gear were standardized
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-3

CHAPTER 10: EFH
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

between the NEFSC and Southeast Fisheries Science Center SEFSC in 1995 to make the surveys
comparable and to mimic the gear used in the commercial large coastal shark fishery. Changes to
the NEFSC survey were: 1) gear changed from New England pelagic (rope mainline, rope and
wire gangions) to Florida bottom (monofilament mainline and gangions), 2) soak time increased
from 1 to 3 hrs, 3) bait changed from mackerel to spiny dogfish, 4) stations limited to depths
between 5 and 40 fms, and 5) longline fished entirely on the bottom, eliminating the pelagic sets
of the previous surveys, 6) 300 hooks fished rather than 100.
The Cooperative Tagging Center (CTC) operated by the SEFSC was established in 1992
in response to expansion of tag release and recapture activities, data requests from other tagging
agencies, and domestic and international tagging research needs. The CTC runs the Cooperative
Tagging System (CTS), and other projects aimed at tagging research and cooperative work with
endangered species emphasizing highly migratory species such as tunas and billfishes. The CTC
collects catch, effort, tagging, and bio-profile data on tunas and billfish to monitor trends in
abundance.
The Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP), also referred to as the Shark
Observer Program (SOP), administered by the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of
Florida, has been collecting information on the directed shark bottom longline fishery since
1994. A voluntary program for many years, it became mandatory in 2002. Trained observers
collect fishery-dependent information on the location of each longline set, species composition,
number of each species caught, disposition of the catch, and information on individual sharks
such as length and sex. The coverage for this data set extends from the Atlantic east coast to the
Gulf of Mexico. Data from this program are essential to monitoring the fishery and providing
distributional information for many different shark species.
The Pelagic Observer Program (POP), administered by SEFSC in Miami, has been
monitoring the commercial pelagic longline fishery since 1992. The program places trained
observers aboard commercial fishing vessels, monitoring the U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Observers collect information on location, number of fish caught
per set, species identification, sex, length, and weight for swordfish, sharks, tunas, and billfish.
The POP targets approximately 8 percent of the vessels based on the fishing effort of the fleet,
and supplies data on all species included in the 1999 FMP.
The COASTSPAN program, also administered by the NEFSC APP, has been collecting
information on shark nursery areas for several Atlantic east coast states since 1998. The purpose
of these surveys is to assess the geographical and seasonal extent of shark nursery habitat,
determine which shark species use these areas and gauge the relative importance of these coastal
habitats. NOAA scientists and state and university researchers monitoring shark populations in
Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida collect the information. In
2002, a synthesis document of research including several other states bordering the Atlantic east
coast and Gulf of Mexico was completed, resulting in additional information on shark EFH. The
information included in this data set was derived through a variety of collecting methods
including longline, gillnet and trawl surveys, and standardized to include information on
location, species, length, and data source.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-4

CHAPTER 10: EFH
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

The Southeast Fishery Longline Shark Survey, administered by the SEFSC, Pascagoula
Laboratory, has been conducting biological surveys to assess the relative abundance and
distribution of coastal sharks since 1995. Biological data is collected from all captures and
associated environmental data is recorded from each longline location. Most of the sharks
captured are tagged and released. The longline surveys provide a useful fisheries independent
database for sharks.
The Mote Center for Shark Research (CSR), operated out of the Mote Marine Laboratory
(MML), includes data on sharks and any tuna and billfish bycatch. MML is an independent,
nonprofit marine research institution with a nearly 50-year history of shark research, including:
collecting angler tag data to provide basic biological information on shark migrations, age and
growth studies, natural mortality studies, and investigations on behavior and habitats.
The Southern Atlantic SEAMAP Shallow Water Trawl Survey, administered by the
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources is a state sponsored public tagging program.
Over the past twenty-seven years, close to12,000 anglers have participated in the program. Over
100,000 fish have been tagged with an overall recovery rate of around 13 percent. Species
tagged include sharks, tunas, and billfish. For example, a blue marlin tagged through SEAMAP
became the first documented Atlantic blue marlin to cross the equator. This marlin was tagged
off Georgetown, South Carolina and was recaptured several months later 750 miles off the coast
of Brazil. It had traveled approximately 4,300 nautical miles from its original tagging location.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) longline survey began in 1973 and is
still continued today. This project allows VIMS scientists to assess the abundance of local shark
stocks and to monitor changes in this abundance over time. The survey is a depth-stratified field
survey of the Chesapeake Bay and Virginia coastal waters.
The Billfish Foundation (TBF) is a non-profit organization that has been collecting data
on billfish tagging for a number of years, and providing the data to the NMFS SEFSC. The
Billfish Foundation developed the widely used hydroscopic nylon tag head, which has been
employed in offshore and inshore fisheries tagging efforts. In addition, TBF has contributed to
the development and use of satellite tagging technology for marlin.
In addition to these data sets, data were obtained from individual researchers involved in
shark, tuna, swordfish, and billfish research. For example, in 2002 a synthesis document of
shark nursery research conducted along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts was
initiated, resulting in additional information on shark EFH. The data collected by the various
researchers were synthesized into a single standardized data set to provide a comprehensive view
of shark nursery and pupping areas in state waters. The information included in this data set was
derived through a variety of collecting methods including longline, gillnet and trawl surveys, and
standardized to include information on location, species, length, and data source.
The Pelagic Longline Logbook (PLL), a comprehensive fisheries dependent logbook
reporting system, was also compiled during the review, but could not be included in the maps
due to the lack of size information. The PLL data include, among other things, targeted species
caught, bycatch, effort, and gear. However, since EFH descriptions are based on different
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-5

CHAPTER 10: EFH
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

lifestages of HMS, information on sizes is required for EFH mapping and analysis. Thus, NMFS
was only able to use the PLL data to confirm the presence of HMS in areas that appeared to be
outside of the normal distribution range of points from other data sets.
10.2.2 Methods Used to Map and Analyze EFH Data
The overall approach used to analyze data and identify EFH is described in the EFH
regulations (§ 600.815(a)(1)) and was followed during the initial identification of HMS EFH in
1999, as well as during this five-year review. The regulations recommend using an approach of
categorizing data according to different levels. The regulations require that, at a minimum,
distribution data (level 1 information) be used to identify EFH. This level 1 information is based
on presence/absence data of the species or life stages in specific habitats used. Where possible,
data sets and information on habitat-related densities of species (level 2), growth, reproduction
and survival within habitats (level 3), and production rates by habitat (level 4), should be used to
identify EFH. Distribution data (level 1) are the most common data available for HMS. As
described in further detail below, the interpretation and application of these data are subject to
certain limitations.
As part of the review process NMFS scientists who have expertise working with HMS
were consulted to determine whether the data included in the updated maps for this amendment
were appropriate, whether appropriate size ranges for species’ individual life stages applied to
the mapped data points, and whether modifications to existing EFH areas may need to be
considered in the future. For mapping purposes, there were no changes to the size ranges for the
three life stages of tunas, swordfish, or billfish from the 1999 FMP. However, the naming
conventions for the life stages were modified slightly to provide clarity and help distinguish
between them. Size ranges for each of the species’ life stages are indicated on the bottom of
each of the maps. Due to a lack of published literature on length-at-age data for several HMS,
NMFS changed the 1999 categories for size classes of tunas, swordfish, and billfishes from
juvenile/subadults to juveniles only. NMFS is aware of the inherent difficulties in accurately
determining the size, sex, and in certain cases, species for classification purposes (described in
more detail in section 10.3).
After reviewing published scientific reports and consulting with experts in the field,
NMFS believes that several of the size ranges for various life stages of sharks may need to be
changed from those described in the 1999 FMP. Identifications and descriptions of shark life
stages by size are provided in Appendix B. The data points on the maps provided in this
Amendment represent these new size ranges. The data points reflect a “neonate” life stage
(where available) and do not contain an “early juvenile” life stage, as was the case in the 1999
FMP. The 1999 definition was modified to include primarily neonates and young-of-the-year
sharks in the neonate category in order to better define and identify the life stage that occupies
nursery habitat. The change in classification of “late juveniles/subadults,” to “juveniles” was
done to ensure that all immature sharks from young juveniles to older or late juveniles were
included in the juvenile category. Finally, the “adult” size class still consists of mature sharks
based on the size at first maturity for females of the species. Similar modifications to other HMS
species’ size ranges may be undertaken in the future.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-6

CHAPTER 10: EFH
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

After careful screening to ensure standardization and quality of the data, all of the data
points for each species were compiled in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) program for
mapping. By combining all of the data sets, the number of observations for an individual life
stage for a single species ranged from several hundred to over 18,000. Each observation
included at a minimum the species, size, life stage, latitude and longitude coordinates, date of
collection, sex, and data source.
Identifying areas with the highest concentration of observations was determined by
superimposing individual observations on a regional grid covering coastal waters in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The grid was constructed of ten-minute squares that are all
equal to 0.0279 square degrees or 100 square degree minutes1, or approximately 100 nm2. The
grid and individual data points were spatially joined and each square was given a summary of the
numeric attributes and a count field of the points that fell inside it. Depending upon the species,
the number of observations per 100 nm2 ranged from zero to several thousand. The squares
containing observations were color-coded depending upon the number of observations per
square, and scaled to reflect the frequency of occurrence.
A grid was used rather than individual data points so that reviewers could determine the
relative concentration of fish in a given area, something that is difficult to determine with
overlapping data points. However, the grid and associated scale are not meant to represent
abundance or density estimates (level 2 data). In addition, the grid will be helpful in future
efforts to revise existing boundaries by providing a scale that can be used as a guide for the
inclusion or exclusion of given areas. For example, in Amendment 1 to the FMP, criteria
(presented here for reference only) for including or excluding a given number of observations per
square were established for each species based on the status of the stock, and used as a guide to
identify appropriate EFH areas. For a rebuilt species like blacktip shark, a criteria of greater than
10 observations per 100 nm2 was used to help identify and map areas as EFH. For an overfished
species such as finetooth shark, a more precautionary criteria of > 1 observation per 100 nm2 was
used to help identify and map EFH areas. Thus, the grid might be used in a future rulemaking to
analyze potential alternatives based on including or excluding a specific number of observations
per 100 nmi2 area.

1

A minute of latitude equals a nautical mile, but the distance represented by a minute of longitude varies
according to distance from the equator. Thus, ten minute “squares” are larger in size near the equator and get
progressively smaller in size as you approach the poles.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-7

CHAPTER 10: EFH
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Due to natural variability in abundance for different species and lifestages, which is
reflected by the variation in the number of observations per 100 nm2, the relative concentrations
were tailored to each species. NMFS adopted this approach because it made the data easier to
view and analyze, but there may also be a benefit to a uniform scale for certain species and
lifestages.
10.3

Summary of Review and Findings

As part of the review process, NMFS provided draft maps of the 1999 EFH boundaries
overlayed both new and existing data for each HMS to technical reviewers for their feedback and
comment. Several reviewers raised concerns regarding identification of EFH for a number of
reasons described in further detail below. The comments ranged from questions regarding size
classifications for various species’ life stages to potential errors in species identification. NMFS
is providing a summary of these comments and observations so that the public and others
reviewing the current distributions and maps will have a better understanding of the issues
involved in interpreting the data, and ultimately modifying EFH.
One of the overarching comments was the challenge of identifying EFH for tunas,
swordfish, billfish, and sharks, and the limitations of relying too heavily on distribution data
alone. By nature, these species are highly migratory and occupy a wide range of habitats
including estuarine, coastal, and offshore pelagic environments. HMS are typically associated
with oceanographic features such as fronts, current boundaries, temperature discontinuities, or
water masses with particular physical characteristics, which may be ephemeral, difficult to map,
and difficult to correlate with specific periods in which they are occupied by HMS. Other
features such as shelf edges and sea mounts are more easily identified and may be sites of higher
abundance for some HMS on a seasonal basis. In the past, areas with readily identifiable
geographic or bathymetric features that coincided with, or overlapped with areas of HMS
aggregations, were used to delineate the boundary, or a portion of the EFH boundary. Where
expert opinion was available and data points were scarce, areas were identified as EFH based on
the best interpretation of life history accounts.
Distribution data alone may not provide sufficient information on whether the habitat
should be considered essential even if correlations can be drawn between the presence of HMS
in a given area and a particular habitat. For many HMS, additional information from surveys, or
observations of feeding or spawning activity may be used to further confirm the importance of
the habitat. Information about the life history of a particular species, such as the timing of the
reproductive cycle, may also be used to correlate the presence of HMS in an area. However, as
described in greater detail below, these types of correlations are difficult to confirm, are not well
documented in the scientific literature, and should be viewed with caution. Due to difficulties in
identifying EFH, a precautionary approach of selecting large areas has been used in the past.
EFH information for most of the data sets described above is based on distribution
information (level 1) derived from systematic presence/absence sampling and relative abundance
(CPUE) data. Level 2 density information (i.e., number of sharks/m3) is generally not available
due to the types of gear used to collect HMS. For example, data from the McCandless et al.
(2002) report on shark nursery areas in coastal waters were gathered using a wide variety of
sampling techniques including gillnet, longline, and trawl surveys. Of the 15 separate research
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-8

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

studies conducted from Massachusetts to Texas that contributed to the McCandless et al. (2002)
report, only one provided trawl data that might have been used to generate habitat related
densities. Additional equipment would have been needed to collect information on water volume
sampled in order to estimate densities. The other sampling techniques (gillnet and longline)
provide presence/absence or relative abundance through CPUE data (e.g. number of
sharks/gillnet hour, or number of sharks/100 hooks), but not density data. Additionally, due to
the differences in fishing effort, a cross comparison of CPUE among the different studies was not
possible. Due to the types of gear used to sample other HMS (longline, rod and reel, handline,
harpoon), similar difficulties are encountered for nearly all HMS. However, the information may
nonetheless prove to be useful in providing a broad overview of the regional distributions,
habitat requirements, and nursery areas for a wide variety of species.
Despite the lack of density information, other valuable information may be derived from
studies such as these, including data on growth rates from recaptured tags and habitat utilization
information through sampling, telemetry, and tagging efforts. By determining the life stage of a
species at capture, through size measurements, additional information may be derived about
habitat utilization. Information on where and when HMS are located in a given area, how long
they may have been in the area, when migrations occur, and whether they return to the same area
in subsequent years may be determined. In combination, all of these data help to determine
habitat value and provide a more complete overview of habitat utilization than simple
distribution data might suggest.
To the extent possible, these and other types of information from studies of life history
dynamics of HMS, reports, and expert opinion are utilized to identify EFH. The sources that
were used to identify EFH areas are referenced in the text. When environmental information was
available, it was included in the EFH descriptions. The information included temperature,
dissolved oxygen, salinity ranges, depths, seasons, and geographic locations. The textual
accounts for each species serve as the legal description of EFH, and where environmental
characterizations are known they have been included. Maps are provided as supplemental
material to facilitate the description and identification of EFH.
Additionally, NMFS conducted a review of new publications related to HMS EFH and
has provided a summary of ongoing EFH research efforts. For each of the HMS groups, the
major issues involved with identifying and describing EFH are discussed in greater detail below.
One of the major considerations for any future adjustments to existing EFH boundaries will be
whether the existing areas can be refined. Currently, HMS EFH encompasses the entire U.S.
EEZ from the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coast to the border of Mexico. One of the objectives of the
proposed modifications in the future would be to reduce the scope of HMS EFH while still
providing the maximum amount of habitat protection. This may require additional research on
HMS habitat use which could be related to landings and logbook data to establish definitive
relationships between fish presence and what is deemed essential fish habitat.
10.3.1 Tunas
In recent years, archival tags and popup satellite tags (PSATs) have been used to
successfully monitor ocean-wide movements of giant bluefin tuna as well as other HMS (Block
et al., 2001, 2005, Lutcavage et al., 1999). This technology has greatly expanded the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-9

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

understanding of migratory patterns, reproductive behavior, and habitat use for bluefin tuna as
well as other HMS such as blue and white marlin (NMFS, 2004). However, despite these
advances, there are considerable gaps in the understanding of habitat requirements as they relate
to identifying EFH for tunas. Accurate identification of certain species of tunas can be difficult
unless one has sufficient knowledge to check for appropriate distinguishing characteristics. This
is particularly true for planktonic larval stages of all tuna species and adult stages of bigeye and
blackfin tuna. For example, bigeye tuna may easily be mistaken for blackfin or juvenile
yellowfin tuna, and can only be positively distinguished from one another by examining the liver
and gill rakers. Reviewers raised concerns regarding presence of a high number of bigeye tuna
in the Gulf of Mexico, which are much more rare than blackfin tuna, and which may have been
misidentified. The distribution maps for bigeye tuna indicate a significant number of
observations in the Gulf of Mexico that may need to be reviewed and reanalyzed for accuracy
prior to any modifications being made to existing boundaries (J. Lamkin, pers. comm.).
The Tag A Giant (TAG) program is a collaborative effort among scientists from Stanford
University, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and NMFS which continues to place electronic tags
internally and externally on Atlantic bluefin tuna in the North Atlantic to continuously record
data. Tag A Giant deployed 201 archival and 37 pop-up satellite archival tags (PSATs) over the
past two years, during which time 21 archival tags were recovered, more than a third of which
were recaptured east of the 45 degree management line. The program has collected over 13,000
geopositions obtained from 330 bluefin tuna. It is now possible to examine data in relation to
year class, season, and spawning grounds visited. Bluefin tuna tagged in the western Atlantic
have migrated to both the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds. Most migration
to spawning grounds in the Gulf of Mexico occurred in the spring months where spawning fish
appear to prefer mesoscale cyclonic eddies in the western Gulf. Results indicate that spawning
occurs in the Gulf of Mexico primarily during the months of April to June (Block et al., 2005).
The results attained from the TAG program detail the movements and behaviors of Atlantic
bluefin tuna. These data answer questions about habitat preferences, spawning and feeding
grounds, spawning site fidelity, the level of mixing between eastern and western stocks, and how
movements are influenced by age class and season. Linking biological data with environmental
data can assist in understanding relationships between the bluefin’s physical environment and its
behavior, movements, abundance and distribution, leading to predictive models enabling
researchers to estimate the abundance and distribution of bluefin based on oceanographic
features, season, and year class. This information is being collected primarily for ICCATs
consideration in updating management strategies and quotas that reflect the bluefin tunas life
history in the Atlantic Ocean.
Data collected to date consistently show that spawning occurs primarily after the bluefin
reach 10 years of age. Bluefin tuna that are 8.5 years and younger tend to remain near New
England in the summer and fall whereas older fish move offshore, many traveling to the east of
the 45 degree management zone to the Mid-Atlantic Bight and Flemish Cap. Seasonal patterns
are also apparent. Bluefin tuna remained in the coastal and offshore waters of North Carolina
and the South Atlantic Bight throughout the winter months, predominately over the shallow
continental shelf. In the spring, most fish move north depending on age class, where they remain

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-10

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

for the summer before returning to the south in the fall. The movements among regions appear
to be dependent on temperature.
In 2002 and 2003, the TAG program expanded tagging efforts to New England, off the
coast of Nantucket to spread efforts over a broader area. In 2003, efforts were expanded to the
eastern Atlantic off the coast of Ireland where the program has obtained the first data on a new
group of fish that have not yet been studied with this technology. Deploying tags off Ireland will
also increase the likelihood of documenting the behaviors of fish spawning in the Mediterranean
for comparison to those spawning in the Gulf of Mexico. The improved understanding of bluefin
movements and behaviors has important applications for management and can serve as the basis
for necessary changes in current management strategies.
Beginning in 1997, studies led by the New England Aquarium have implanted pop-up
and pop-up archival satellite tags (PSATs) on western Atlantic bluefin tuna. Recent studies
involved the implantation of PSATs into 68 Atlantic bluefin tuna in the southern Gulf of Maine
and off the coast of North Carolina between July 2002 and January 2003 (Wilson et al., In
Press). Most of the fish tagged in the southern Gulf of Maine in late summer/early fall remained
in that area until late October, consistent with previous studies. Of the 33, 14 remained in
northern shelf waters (between Maryland and Nova Scotia), 14 moved south to waters off the
coasts of Virginia and North Carolina, and five were in offshore waters of the northwestern
Atlantic Ocean. In the spring, six of the 11 fish either stayed in northern waters or moved to that
area from Virginia and North Carolina waters, and the other five fish moved offshore into the
Mid-Atlantic Ocean. Similar seasonal movement patterns have been shown by individuals
tagged in coastal waters off North Carolina. During the winter months, these fish remained
either on the Carolina shelf or in offshore waters of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and moved
offshore along the path of the Gulf Stream in spring. By summer, many were in northern shelf
waters.
Swimming depth was significantly correlated with location, season, size class, time of
day, and moon phase. The greatest depth recorded was 672 m (2,218 ft), and fish experienced
temperatures ranging from 3.4° to 28.7°C (38° to 83.7° F). The data show that Atlantic bluefin
tuna spend the majority of their time in the top 20 m (66 ft) of the water column, descending
occasionally to depths in excess of 500 m (1,650 ft). The vertical behavior of bluefin tuna
differed among locations, with shallower swimming depths occurring when the fish were in
inshore waters.
A recent study of the diet and trophic position of bluefin tuna in coastal Massachusetts
and the Gulf of Maine used stable isotope analyses to investigate feeding habits of bluefin tuna.
The results suggest that bluefin tuna feed on a variety of schooling fish, including silver hake,
Atlantic mackerel, and Atlantic herring (Estrada et al., 2005). Juvenile bluefin tuna appear to
have isotopic nitrogen signatures similar to those of suspension feeders, suggesting that nektonic
crustaceans or zooplankton may contribute significantly to the diet of juvenile bluefin tuna
(Estrada et al., 2005).
Combined, all of the studies and data are providing a higher resolution of potential
spawning, feeding, and other important habitat areas for bluefin tuna. Given that there is a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-11

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

considerable and growing body of science on bluefin tuna, it may be one of the species for which
NMFS may consider modifying the boundaries in the future. For example, although bluefin tuna
spawning habitat has been described as encompassing nearly all of the Gulf of Mexico by Block
et al. (2005), adult bluefin tuna EFH is limited to a smaller portion of the western Gulf of
Mexico, and the adult EFH areas may not necessarily correspond to areas considered most likely
as bluefin tuna spawning habitat (Block et. al., 2005). NMFS may need to reconsider these
boundaries to account for new information being developed through PSAT technology and other
means. Similarly, some of the highest individual counts of adult bluefin tuna (per 100 nm2) have
been observed off of North Carolina, yet these areas are not currently included as adult bluefin
tuna EFH. Furthermore, the SEFSC is currently conducting a comprehensive review of larval
distributions from 1984 to the present from ichthyoplankton collections in the northern Gulf of
Mexico. Once larval movement due to local currents is accounted for these data may prove
useful in the review of potential modification of EFH boundaries for other tunas as well.
In addition, the distribution and abundance of other tuna species (i.e., albacore, bigeye,
skipjack, and yellowfin tunas) have been attained through fishery data combined with other
information, such as remote sensing data. Many of these species have similar bioecological
responses (i.e., many species are specialized in high energy foraging strategies of sustained fast
swimming, searching over large areas (Sharp and Dizon, 1978; Au 1986)) and therefore, have
similar physiological responses to oceanographic conditions (Ramos et al., 1996). Skipjack and
albacore are highly migratory tunas with active thermic exchanges with the environment (Sharp
and Dizon, 1978). Consequently, their distribution is influenced by changes in marine features at
different spatial and temporal scales (Ramos et al., 1996). For instance, both species are visual
predators and are unable to efficiently capture small pelagic prey in colder turbid upwelled
waters (Ramos et al., 1996). Therefore, over small spatial and temporal scales, the most suitable
areas based on the physiology and feeding strategies for these two species are the boundary
between warm and cold water where food and other abiotic features are physiologically optimal
(Ramos et al., 1996). Over longer temporal and spatial scales, such as migration pathways, sea
surface temperatures generated by the Intertropical Zone of Convergence play an important role
(Ramos et al., 1996). In addition, concentration of food and water quality (i.e., higher
temperature, high concentration of oxygen and low level of turbidity) lead to the concentration of
skipjack and albacore in their respective fishing grounds (the northeast Atlantic for albacore and
Senegal waters 10° North to the Canarian area 28° North for skipjack; Ramos et al., 1996).
Yellowfin tuna is a cosmopolitan species mainly distributed in the tropical and
subtropical oceanic water of the three oceans. In the Atlantic Ocean, tagging and catch-at-size
data analyses have shown that yellowfin tuna move at different scales in the whole tropical
Atlantic Ocean (Maury et al., 2001). Environmental conditions are probably the main causes
driving migration phenomena and massive population movements (Mendelssohn and Roy, 1986;
Lehodey et al., 1997). Recent work by Maury et al. (2001) showed that on a large
spatiotemporal scale (the whole ocean), low salinity was a good predictor of yellowfin habitat.
Juveniles were mainly distributed in low-salinity waters (< 35 parts per thousand) whereas adults
extend their range to water of 36 parts per thousand. This can be due to two reasons; for young
tuna (<3 yrs old), salinity could be a marker of favorable feeding areas, such as low salinity
levels in the Gulf of Guinea where freshwater runoff contains high levels of nutrients. Secondly,
the metabolic cost of osmotic regulation could prevent young yellowfin tuna from reaching high
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-12

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

salinity levels (Maury et al., 2001). After breeding in the Gulf of Guinea, adults, however,
disperse in an east-west fashion related to salinity and warmwater seasonal oscillations (Maury et
al., 2001). On a mesoscale (1000 km), north-south seasonal movements are clearly related to
warmwater seasonal oscillations. Such seasonal migrations should be due to surface water
temperatures where adults preferentially stay in zones of water temperature between 26 to 29° C
and where deeper waters are warmer than 15° C. Juveniles stay in surface waters where the sea
surface temperature is 27° C or higher (Maury et al., 2001). Finally, at the local level (100 km),
yellowfin tuna seem to be influenced by both local hydrological and biological features, such as
tuna prey distribution and the spatial stability of water masses. For instance, the presence of
floating objects, and the existence of small-scale hydrological events like local fronts or
convergences can all be responsible for yellowfin concentrations (Bakun 1996).
Lastly, bigeye tuna are large epi-and mesopelagic fish that are found in surface waters
ranging in temperatures from 13 to 29°C (Collette and Nauen, 1983). However major
concentrations coincide with the temperature range of the permanent thermocline, between 17
and 22°C. Therefore, temperature and thermocline depth appear to be important environmental
factors governing the vertical and horizontal distribution of bigeye tuna (Alvarado Bremer et al.,
1998). Such oceanographic features can have important implications for fisheries management;
for instance, water temperature can prevent movement of fish between ocean basins, influencing
stock structure (Alvarado Bremer et al., 1998). On the basis of fisheries data, geographic
distribution, tagging results, and the location of spawning and nursery areas, a single population
is assumed to inhabit the Atlantic Ocean (ICCAT, 1997). For management purposes, both the
Indian Ocean and Pacific populations are considered to be single units. Recent molecular work
has indicated that the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific populations are two regions and genetically
distinct (Alvarado Bremer et al., 1998), confirming a single spawning stock of bigeye in the
Atlantic and a single spawning stock in the Indo-Pacific. In the Atlantic Ocean, juvenile bigeye
tuna have been observed only in the Gulf of Guinea (ICCAT, 1997). Tagging studies indicate
trans-Atlantic movements of bigeye from the Gulf of Guinea to the central Atlantic north of
Brazil, and northerly migration from the Gulf of Guinea to the eastern Atlantic (ICCAT, 1997).
As with most other HMS, salinity and temperature appear to be primary factors
influencing the distribution of tunas and may ultimately determine EFH. The challenge remains
in identifying specific EFH areas based solely on environmental parameters; in most cases,
distribution data may still provide the best indication of habitat preference of these different
species. For additional EFH information on these tuna species, see Appendix B.
10.3.2 Swordfish
Based on a review of the swordfish maps and current distribution points, reviewers
commented that additional research may be needed to validate the current size ranges for
juvenile and adult swordfish. In addition, further analysis may be needed to determine whether
certain areas have been used consistently over time. Analyzing spawning areas that are
consistently used over a number of years may provide a better understanding of swordfish EFH.
Several discrepancies in distribution points and EFH areas delineated in 1999 were noted,
including a high concentration of observed occurrences of juvenile swordfish in an area north of
Long Island Sound that was not defined as EFH in 1999. NMFS may consider modifying
swordfish EFH boundaries in the future, particularly in the Long Island Sound area, and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-13

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

conversely, areas currently delineated as EFH that have few if any observed occurrences in the
data sets being analyzed.
Pinpointing definitive EFH for spawning swordfish is difficult because research indicates
that presence of larvae may not always be a sign that spawning occurred in the vicinity of the
collection. Adult swordfish, and HMS in general, may move significant distances during
spawning, and eggs and larvae may be transported substantial distances by currents as well.
Govoni et. al. (2000) determined that since a swordfish egg’s incubation period is 3 days at
24°C, with an additional three or four days for posthatch growth, along with an average velocity
of the Gulf Stream of 1.5 m/s (Olson et al., 1994), larvae of four to five mm SL in the Atlantic
could have been transported from as far away as 900 km. A similar trajectory was projected for
small larvae of bluefin tuna (McGowan and Richards, 1989).
10.3.3 Billfish
Similar to other HMS, billfish EFH is not easily identified due to a lack of association
with readily identifiable features such as benthic habitat or other underwater structures. Billfish
tend to aggregate in areas with dynamic features such as temperature gradients, ocean fronts or
currents resulting from interactions between a number of factors. Many of these water column
features are dynamic, making detailed delineation of billfish spawning, nursery, and feeding
habitats difficult. Adding to the difficulty of designating billfish EFH is that most of the
literature on billfish larvae and juveniles mention them as incidental catches in studies that were
directed at other species or that were concerned with characterizing ichthyofaunal or plankton
communities as a whole (NMFS, 2004).
Comments received during the Draft FMP indicate that Sargassum may be an important
component of billfish habitat, particularly during early life stages, and that NMFS should
investigate this further. If NMFS determines that EFH for some or all HMS needs to be
modified, then that would be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking, at which point Sargassum
could also be considered as potential EFH. With regard to harvest, the final South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council FMP for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat in the South Atlantic Region
was approved in 2003 and implemented strict restrictions on commercial harvest of Sargassum.
The approved plan includes strong limitations on future commercial harvest. Restrictions
include prohibition of harvest south of the NC/SC state boundary, a total allowable catch (TAC)
of 5,000 pounds wet weight per year, limiting harvest to November through June to protect
turtles, requiring observers onboard any vessel harvesting Sargassum, prohibiting harvest within
100 miles of shore, and gear specifications.
One of the key issues associated with delineating billfish EFH is the difficulty of
accurately identifying billfish larvae. However, new molecular techniques are being developed
that show promise (Luthy et al., 2005). Without accurate identification of larvae, it is difficult to
draw conclusions on spawning areas, habitat associations, and requirements. Billfish larvae may
be swept miles from actual spawning grounds before they are sampled. Thus, even though peak
spawning periods for blue and white marlin are known to occur from May to June, there are
significant issues related to positive identification of larvae that must be overcome to verify
spawning locations. Research off Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, is one of the few instances
on record where spawning by blue and white marlin was confirmed through simultaneous
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-14

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

collections of both larvae and tracking of spawning adults using pop-up satellite tags (Prince et
al., 2005).
Collaborative studies conducted by NMFS and University of Miami scientists using
PSATs while simultaneously conducting adult and larval sampling off the Dominican Republic
in the spring of 2003 have revealed important information concerning white and blue marlin
spawning locations as well as horizontal and vertical movements. Co-occurrence of larval blue
marlin and white marlin in samples suggest that the two species share a spawning location in the
vicinity of Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Adult white and blue marlin caught in the area
appear to have similar vertical and horizontal movement patterns in terms of time at depth, time
at temperature, average horizontal displacement per day, net horizontal displacement, and
directional dispersion (compass heading).
Displacements of seven white marlins tagged with PSATs ranged from 31.7 to 267.7 nm
(58.7 to 495.8 km), while displacement of one blue marlin was 219.3 nm (406.2 km). In general,
all marlin spent a high proportion of the monitoring time in the upper 25 m (82 ft) and at
temperatures at or above 28°C (82°F). Minimum and maximum depth and temperatures
monitored show that on most days marlin visited depths of 100 m (330 ft) or more, but generally
stayed at these depths less that 10 percent of the time. Minimum temperatures ranged from 16.8°
to 20.6°C (62.2° to 69°F), while maximum temperatures ranged from 28.2° to 30.0°C (82.7° to
86°F). Additional research in other areas of the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic coast would
help improve understanding and delineation of billfish EFH (Prince et al., 2005).
The characterization of adult movements and larval distribution in a potentially important
spawning area is paramount for establishing improved management and rebuilding strategies for
depressed Atlantic billfish stocks. However, more information on the distribution of
reproduction and nursery areas and on adult movement patterns is needed to help managers make
more informed decisions regarding conservation of the resource.
Scientists at VIMS have been involved with electronic tagging of blue and white marlin
since 1999, some of which has been conducted in conjunction with the NOAA SEFSC. More
recently, VIMS has deployed over 60 PSAT on white marlin during the past three years from
both recreational sport boats and a commercial pelagic longline vessel to determine post-release
survival (Prince et. al., 2005). In addition to this work, VIMS is also in the process of updating
information regarding habitat preferences and vertical movements of white marlin using
environmental data obtained from the PSAT work as well as other environmental data. Most of
the work at VIMS, however, remains focused on the interactions of billfish with the various
fisheries.
There are a few considerations and limitations of these data that reviewers should keep in
mind as they look at EFH determinations (E. Prince pers. comm.). Inaccurate EFH maps for
billfish can be created because of boat side misidentification of billfish, sexual dimorphism, and
criteria used in defining groups can result in both under and overestimates and ultimately impact
the accuracy of the maps. The CTS is the main source of data for most of the billfish EFH maps
and it obtains size information of tagged, released, and recovered fish from constituents based
mostly on boatside estimates of fish size. This approach introduces a significant amount of error.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-15

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

In addition, most size estimates are made when the fish is underwater and the reflective index
biases these estimates upwards by as much as 30 percent (E. Prince, pers. comm.).
Billfish are sexually dimorphic (size difference between sexes), with this being most
severe for blue marlin. The maps provided in this amendment do not include a consideration of
sexually dimorphic differences in size and thus the characterization of juvenile size limits on the
maps may be quite different for male and female marlin. The tagging data only infrequently have
recoveries that include gender, so separating the maps into males and females would not likely
be practical, even though it would probably be more accurate (E. Prince, pers. comm.).
Furthermore, the accuracy of the maps for defining juvenile marlin based on size could vary
depending on the criteria used in this definition.
Data from the CTS, which account for a significant portion of the overall data points for
billfish, were historically recorded only to the nearest degree, and did not include minutes or
seconds. As a result, reviewers will notice that certain data points that reflect a high number of
observations are lined up along major lines of latitude or longitude, both in the Gulf of Mexico
and the Atlantic coast. This may be an artifact resulting from the way in which tagging locations
were recorded rather than the true points of highest observed occurrence. Depending on
reviewer comments received on this aspect of the data, NMFS may consider removing these data
points during future considerations of EFH boundaries. Therefore, as a result of technical
reviewer comments, several changes to EFH boundaries may be considered in the future. These
include, but are not limited to, potential modifications of EFH boundaries for blue and white
marlin for the reasons stated above (E. Prince, pers. comm.).
10.3.4 Sharks
Significant progress has been made in recent years in identifying habitat requirements
and EFH for sharks. The proximity of nursery and pupping grounds to coastal areas has
provided research opportunities that do not exist for other HMS that spawn much farther from
shore. Sampling has increased in a number of different locations under the auspices of several
different programs (Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery Survey
(COASTSPAN), Cooperative Gulf of Mexico States Shark Pupping and Nursery Survey
(GULFSPAN), and others). Considerable research has been devoted to determining the size
ranges of the different shark life stages (neonate, juvenile, and adult). The size ranges for each
species’ lifestage used in this review as well as size ranges used in the 1999 FMP are presented
in Table B.1, Appendix B. The table reflects new information and updates to the 1999 FMP size
ranges. Based on these size ranges, the distribution data have been mapped for each species and
life stage.
The 1999 FMP highlighted the importance of coastal nursery and pupping areas in
maintaining viable shark populations. It also identified continued delineation of shark nurseries
as a research priority. As a result, several studies and cooperative research projects aimed at
improving NMFS’ understanding of EFH and shark reproductive habitat requirements have been
undertaken since the 1999 HMS FMP.
In 2002, the COASTPAN project initiated a synthesis document of information on shark
nursery grounds along the U.S. Atlantic east coast and the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers from
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-16

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

universities and state and Federal agencies in twelve different states from Massachusetts to
Texas contributed information to the preliminary report (McCandless et al., 2002; McCandless
et. al., 2005). This information was included in updates to EFH for several shark species in
Amendment 1 to the FMP, and is being incorporated into the data for the current review. Results
for the 2003 sampling year were compiled and synthesized, and the final report is currently under
review. Participants in the 2003 COASTSPAN survey included the North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Carolina
University, the University of Georgia’s Marine Extension Service and the University of Florida’s
Program for Shark Research. Researchers from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Apex
Predators Program and the University of Rhode Island conducted the survey in Delaware Bay. A
total of 3,698 sharks were sampled in the 2003 COASTSPAN survey. Juvenile sharks sampled,
tagged and released during the survey were the Atlantic sharpnose, blacknose, blacktip,
bonnethead, bull, dusky, finetooth, nurse, sandbar, sand tiger, scalloped hammerhead, silky,
spinner, and tiger sharks, and also the smooth and spiny dogfish. Environmental parameters for
each sampling location were also measured to indicate habitat preferences. There were a number
of tag recaptures returned by fishery biologists and commercial and recreational fisherman in
2003 from sharks that were tagged by COASTSPAN cooperators in previous years.
A final synthesis document entitled “Shark Nursery Grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and
the East Coast Waters of the United States” is currently under review for publication by the
American Fisheries Society (AFS). It is a compilation of 20 individual papers documenting
shark distributions in coastal habitats similar to the project described above, but expanded to
include several new studies. This document provides valuable information for the possible
modification or inclusion of additional shark EFH.
In 2003, NMFS initiated the GULFSPAN Survey to expand upon the Atlantic
COASTSPAN Survey. States involved in the program during 2004, the second year of the
program, include Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. Sharks sampled, tagged, and
released during the surveys included the Atlantic sharpnose, blacknose, blacktip, bonnethead,
bull, finetooth, great hammerhead, sandbar, scalloped hammerhead, and spinner sharks. In
addition, environmental parameters were measured qualitatively. The most abundant sharks
included the Atlantic sharpnose, blacktip, and bull sharks. Results of this study are under review
in the AFS synthesis document as well.
In Florida waters, most species captured were juveniles and young-of-the-year. Among
sharks for all areas combined, the Atlantic sharpnose shark, a member of the small coastal shark
(SCS) management group, was the most abundant shark captured, while the blacktip shark was
the most abundant species captured in the LCS management group. The bonnethead shark was
the second most abundant species captured in the SCS group and overall was the third most
encountered species. The remaining species commonly captured in decreasing order of
abundance were the finetooth, spinner, scalloped hammerhead, blacknose, and sandbar sharks.
Other species infrequently caught were bull shark, great hammerhead shark, and the Florida
smoothhound.
In Mississippi and Alabama waters, 75 percent of the sharks captured were immature.
The blacktip shark was the most abundant species caught, followed by the Atlantic sharpnose,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-17

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

finetooth, and bull sharks. In Louisiana in the 2004 sampling season, most species captured were
juveniles. The blacktip shark was the most abundant species caught, followed by the bull shark.
A single adult specimen of the finetooth shark in addition to young-of-the-year Atlantic
sharpnose shark was also collected in 2004.
New information on habitat preferences is also emerging from this study. Juvenile
bonnethead sharks appear to prefer habitat dominated by seagrass (in northwest Florida) or
mangroves (Louisiana), although these areas have not yet been identified as EFH. In areas
where neither of these habitat types is available, juvenile bonnetheads are in very low numbers or
absent (i.e. Mississippi Sound). Adult bonnethead sharks, however, are found in diverse habitats
ranging from areas with a mud or sand bottom to areas dominated by seagrass. Evidence
indicates bull sharks are found among the most diverse environmental conditions with salinities
ranging from 15 ppt (in Louisiana and Mississippi) to 33 ppt (in northwest Florida), and over all
habitat types. Within the Gulf of Mexico, most juvenile sandbar sharks are still predominately
caught in the northwest portion while blacktip, finetooth, and Atlantic sharpnose sharks are
found throughout all areas. Although bull sharks can be found over a variety of habitats, the
areas of highest abundance are those adjacent to freshwater inflow.
Obtaining information regarding trophic relationships and feeding habits of sharks, also
critical to understanding essential fish habitat, is another goal of the GULFSPAN program. A
quantitative examination of feeding ecology from different areas can assist in understanding how
juvenile sharks use nursery habitats, and which habitats are more valuable as nursery areas than
others.
Mote Marine Laboratory’s CSR program is focusing on identifying and understanding
shark nursery areas of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and southeast Atlantic coasts. Through tagging
studies, this program aims to characterize these nursery areas, obtain estimates of juvenile shark
relative abundance, distribution, and growth rates, and reveal the movement patterns of these
sharks. As of fall 2004, the CSR has collected data on 20,732 sharks of 16 species that utilize
these coastal waters as pupping and nursery areas. More than half of the captured sharks
(12,241) comprise neonate, young-of-the-year (YOY) or older juvenile sharks. The studies
found that most pupping activity in the region occurs in the late spring and early summer, and the
neonate and YOY animals inhabit the primary nurseries throughout the summer and into the fall.
Typically, declining water temperatures in the fall are associated with the southward movement
of sharks from these natal waters to warmer and in some cases offshore, winter nurseries. Tag
returns of Year-1 sharks have demonstrated travel distances to winter nursery areas of at least
500 km (311 mi). Tag return data have further demonstrated annual cycles of philopatric
behavior whereby juveniles of both large and small coastal species migrate back to their natal
nurseries in spring and summer (Hueter and Tyminski, in review).
In the 1999 HMS FMP, the smallest size class of sharks was described as “neonates and
early juveniles.” This definition has been modified to include primarily neonates and only small
young-of-the-year sharks in order to better define and identify nursery areas. The total length
cutoff for this size class is determined as the maximum embryo size in term females plus 10
percent. This criteria was used because it helps to eliminate some of the small one-year-old
sharks that fall within the young-of the-year size range, making it easier to identify primary
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-18

CHAPTER 10: EFH
SUMMARY OF REVIEWS & FINDINGS

nursery areas (where pupping occurs and young-of-the-year are present). This criteria can also
be more easily applied to other species given the lack of published data on growth rates for many
species, especially during the first year. This modification should also better represent the
habitat shift between primary nursery areas and secondary nursery areas (occupied by age 1+
sharks), although many species do overlap habitat use between these two size classes.
The middle size class designated in the 1999 HMS FMP, “late juveniles and subadults,”
has been renamed “juveniles”. This size class includes all immature sharks from young juveniles
to older or late juveniles. Some overlap between the “neonate and early juveniles” and the
“adult” EFH areas may occur, depending on the species, due to the return to primary nursery
areas by many juveniles, age 1+, and the developing conformity to adult migration patterns by
late juveniles. As in the 1999 HMS FMP, the largest size class, “adults,” still consists of mature
sharks based on the size at first maturity for females of the species. Changes to the size range of
the adult size class for some species have been made based on new information on the size at
first maturity for females of those particular species.
As a result of technical reviewer comments, several changes to EFH boundaries may be
considered in the future. These include, but are not limited to, potential modification of EFH
boundaries for basking, hammerhead, white, bull, Caribbean reef, lemon, spinner, tiger, Atlantic
sharpnose, blacknose, longfin mako, shortfin mako, oceanic whitetip, and thresher sharks (J.
Castro and J. Carlson, pers. comm.). In summary, based on the preliminary examination of new
information acquired since the original EFH identifications in 1999, and on comments from
technical reviewers, modifications to some of the existing EFH descriptions and boundaries may
be warranted. Any proposed modifications to existing boundaries, as well as consideration of
any new HAPC areas, would be addressed in a subsequent document.
10.4

Threats to Essential Fish Habitat
10.4.1 Regulatory Requirements and Fishing Activities That May Affect EFH

Regulatory Requirement
The EFH regulations and the Magnuson-Stevens Act require the Regional Fishery
Management Councils and NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, to minimize adverse
effects on EFH from fishing activities to the extent practicable. Although NMFS is not taking
any action to minimize fishing impacts in this FMP, NMFS may propose actions to minimize
adverse effects from fishing in a subsequent rulemaking. Adverse effects from fishing may
include physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the substrate, and loss of or injury to
benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other components of the ecosystem. Based
on an assessment of the potential adverse effects of all fishing equipment types used within an
area identified as EFH, NMFS must act if there is evidence that a fishing practice is having an a
more than minimal and not temporary adverse effect on EFH.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that each FMP must contain an evaluation of the
potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH designated under the FMP, including effects of each
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-19

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

fishing activity regulated under the FMP or other Federal FMPs. This evaluation should
consider the effects of each fishing activity on each type of habitat found within EFH. FMPs
must describe each fishing activity, review and discuss all available relevant information (such as
information regarding the intensity, extent, and frequency of any adverse effect on EFH; the type
of habitat within EFH that may be affected adversely; and the habitat functions that may be
disturbed), and provide conclusions regarding whether and how each fishing activity adversely
affect EFH. The evaluation should also consider the cumulative effects of multiple fishing
activities on EFH. The evaluation should list any past management actions that minimize
potential adverse effects on EFH and describe the benefits of those actions to EFH. The
evaluation should give special attention to adverse effects on habitat areas of particular concern
and should identify for possible designation as habitat areas of particular concern any EFH that is
particularly vulnerable to fishing activities. Additionally, the evaluation should consider the
establishment of research closure areas or other measures to evaluate the impacts of fishing
activities on EFH. In
This section includes an assessment of fishing gears and practices that are used in the
Highly Migratory Species (HMS) fisheries to describe impacts to EFH and conservation
recommendations or mitigation measures, as necessary.
10.4.2 Potential Impacts of HMS Fishing Activities on HMS and non-HMS EFH
Adverse effects from fishing may include physical, chemical, or biological alterations of
the substrate, and loss or injury to benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other
components of the ecosystem. However, the degree to which fishing will impact EFH also
depends on the substrate that makes up the EFH; certain substrates, such as complex coral reef
habitat, will be more susceptible to damage due to fishing gears than will mud and/sand
substrates or even the water column because of the extended time for habitat recovery. Below is
a brief overview of HMS EFH followed by an assessment of HMS fishing gear impacts on both
HMS EFH and non-HMS EFH.
10.4.2.1 HMS EFH Overview
From the broadest perspective, fish habitat is the geographic area where the species
occurs at any time during its life. Habitat can be described in terms of location, physical,
chemical and biological characteristics, and time. Ecologically, habitat includes structure or
substrate that focuses distribution (e.g., coral reefs, topographic highs, areas of upwelling, frontal
boundaries, particular sediment types, or submerged aquatic vegetation) and other characteristics
that are less distinct but are still crucial to the species’ continued use of the habitat (e.g., turbidity
zones, salinity, temperature or oxygen gradients) (NMFS, 1999a).
Species use habitat for spawning, breeding, migration, feeding and growth, and for
shelter from predation to increase survival. Spatially, habitat use may shift over time due to
changes in life history stage, abundance of the species, competition from other species, and
environmental variability in time and space. Species distributions and habitat use can be altered
by habitat change and degradation resulting from human activities and impacts, or other factors.
The type of habitat available, its attributes, and its function are important to species productivity,
diversity and survival (NMFS, 1999a).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-20

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

The role of habitat in supporting the productivity of organisms has been well documented
in the ecological literature, and the linkage between habitat availability and fishery productivity
has been examined for several fishery species. Because habitat is an essential element for
sustaining the production of a species, the goals of FMPs must include maintaining suitable
habitat for the considered species (NMFS, 1999a). However, the quantitative relationships
between fishery production and habitat are very complex, and no reliable models currently exist.
Accordingly, the degree to which habitat alterations have affected fishery production is
unknown. In one of the few studies that have been able to investigate habitat fishery
productivity dynamics, Turner and Boesch (1987) examined the relationship between the extent
of wetland habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and the yield of fishery species dependent on coastal
bays and estuaries. They found reduced fishery stock production following wetland losses, and
stock gains following increases in the areal extent of wetlands. While most of the studies
examined shrimp or menhaden productivity, other fisheries show varying degrees of dependence
on particular habitats and likely follow similar trends. Accordingly, a significant threat facing
fishery production is the loss of habitat due to natural and/or anthropogenic causes (NMFS,
1999a).
HMS utilizes diverse habitats that have been identified as essential to various life stages.
Some billfish use both offshore and inshore habitats (e.g., sailfish spawning in coastal habitats
off southeastern Florida) (NMFS, 1999b). Many of the shark species use bays, estuaries and
shallow coastal areas as crucial pupping and nursery areas (NMFS, 1999a). In most cases the
neonates (newborn) and juveniles occupy different habitats than the adults. For example,
neonate blacktip sharks are found in very shallow waters, juvenile blacktip sharks inhabit a
variety of coastal habitats, and adults are found in both coastal and oceanic waters (Castro,
1993). There is little published information correlating life stages and migratory movements,
and there are few descriptions correlating shark habitat use to physical habitat characteristics (but
see McCandless et al., 2002). Parameters that could describe shark habitat are temperature,
salinity, depth, dissolved oxygen, light levels, substrate, and food availability, although there are
probably other important factors or requirements that remain unknown. Unlike certain reef or
benthic fishes, it is difficult to draw definitive links between presence of a given species of HMS
and characteristics of marine substrate (i.e., sand, SAV, cobble) or types or marine ecosystems
(i.e. mangroves, seagrass beds, and coral reefs). For example, Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP
updated the EFH for juvenile (37-221 cm TL) nurse sharks as:
Shallow waters from the shoreline to the 25 m isobath off the east coast of Florida from
south of Cumberland Island, GA (30.5 N) to the Dry Tortugas; also shallow waters from
Charlotte Harbor, FL (26 N) to the north end of Tampa Bay, FL (28 N); also off Puerto
Rico, shallow coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath from 66.5 W to the southwest tip of
the island.
In only a few cases for HMS are there particular bottom types that can be attributed to
influencing the choice of habitats, e.g., the bonnethead shark juvenile stages are associated with
seagrass (Section 10.3.4). More typically, pelagic species (or life stages), such as the pelagic
sharks, tuna and swordfish, are most often associated with areas of convergence or
oceanographic fronts such those found over submarine canyons, the edge of the continental shelf,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-21

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

or the boundary currents (edge) of the Gulf Stream. Some species aggregate at frontal
boundaries in the ocean, with floating objects (such as Sargassum for swordfish and billfish), or
at bottom features such as the continental shelf break, submarine canyons, and even shipwrecks
(NMFS, 1999b).
Occasionally, the aggregations form where a front or boundary lies above one of these
bottom features. These aggregations are most likely associated with prime feeding grounds and,
as such, these areas are identified as EFH. Although there is no substrate or hard structure in the
traditional sense, these water column habitats can be characterized by their physical, chemical
and biological parameters (NMFS, 1999a). The water column can be defined by a horizontal and
vertical component. Horizontally, salinity gradients strongly influence the distribution of biota.
Horizontal gradients of nutrients, decreasing seaward, affect primarily the distribution of
phytoplankton and, secondarily, the organisms that depend on this primary productivity.
Vertically, the water column may be stratified by salinity, oxygen content, and nutrients
(SAFMC, 1998). The water column is especially important to larval transport. While the water
column is relatively difficult to precisely define in terms of habitat characteristics, it is no less
important since it is the medium of transport for nutrients and migrating organisms between
estuarine, inshore, and offshore waters (SAFMC, 1998).
10.4.2.2 Impact of HMS Federally regulated gear on HMS and non-HMS EFH
Generally, HMS is associated with hydrographic structures of the water column, e.g.,
convergence zones or boundary areas between different currents. Because of the magnitude of
water column structures and the processes that create them, there is little effect expected from the
HMS fishing activities undertaken to pursue these animals. There are, however, some impacts
that can be manifest on the biological or chemical characteristics of some of these sites, e.g.,
excess dead discards causing increased biological oxygen demand (BOD) (NMFS, 1999a). For
fisheries in which gear does contact the substrate, there is certainly the potential for disturbance
of the habitat. An analysis of the effects and the impacts they may have on the associated
fisheries is complicated by the fact that scientists are not certain of the particular characteristics
that draw the fish to these habitats (NMFS, 1999a).
Impacts of HMS fishing gears and practices were analyzed by examining published
literature and anecdotal evidence of potential impacts or comparable impacts from other
fisheries. An assessment was made based on this literature review of the gears and practices
employed in HMS fisheries to determine whether these fishing activities cause adverse impacts
on HMS EFH and non-HMS EFH ( Table 10.1). The degree of impact from fishing activities
depends in large part on the susceptibility of particular habitats to damage. EFH varies in its
vulnerability to disturbance, as well as its rate of recovery. A variety of gears are used to target
HMS species. Fishing gears that are only associated with the water column are expected to have
no impact on the benthic environment and minimal to no impact to the pelagic environment
(Table 10.1). However, fishing gears that interact with the benthic environment can have an
impact, depending on the composition of the benthos. For example, due to its simple
composition, sediments (i.e., sand, mud) are impacted to a lesser degree than a complex coral
reef under similar treatments. Coral reefs are composed of numerous structures forming species,
with many that grow vertically into the water column (e.g., sponges, stony corals, gorgonians)
and create a greater surface area than sediments (Barnette, 2001). The vertical profile and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-22

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

increased surface area of coral reefs allow gear to easily become snagged or entangled, thus
providing more opportunities for habitat to be impacted from fishing as compared to sediments
(Barnette, 2001). While NMFS and the Councils have jurisdiction only in Federal waters of the
exclusive economic zone under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, estuarine and nearshore waters are
critical to various life stages of many organisms; numerous managed species utilize estuaries and
bays for reproduction or during juvenile development (Barnette, 2001).
Since most HMS are pelagic species that are predominantly found in the mid- to upper
water column of the neritic environments, most HMS gears are fished in the water column, as
opposed to bottom tending gears such as trawls and dredges that are used to target bottomdwelling or benthic species. The exception is bottom longline gear, which could potentially have
adverse effects on HMS and non-HMS EFH (Table 10.1). Bottom longlines principally target
large coastal sharks in the EEZ between Texas and Maine. Typically they are placed in sandy
and muddy bottom habitats where expected impacts would be minimal to low (Barnette, 2001).
The 1999 NMFS EFH Workshop categorized the impact of bottom longline gear on mud, sand,
and hard-bottom as low (Barnett, 2001). Bottom longline may have some negative impact if
gear is set in more complex habitats, such as hardbottom or coral reefs in the Caribbean or areas
with gorgonians, or soft corals and sponges in the Gulf of Mexico (Barnette, 2001, NREFHSC,
2002; Morgan and Chuenpagdee, 2003). Bottom longline set with cable groundline or heavy
monofilament with weights can damage hard or soft corals and potentially become entangled in
coral reefs upon retrieval, resulting in coral breakage due to line entanglement. However, the
extent to which bottom longline gear is fished in areas with coral reef habitat has not been
determined. This gear type is similar to that employed in fisheries targeting reef fish in the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic regions.
One of the only studies available regarding the impact of bottom longline gears is from
submersible observations of halibut longline gear off the southeast coast of Alaska (NPFMC,
1992). For example, halibut longline gear generally consists of 5/16- inch nylon or polyester
rope as groundline with 3-4 foot long twine gangions (branch lines) spaced at 3-18 feet. To the
degree that Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic longlines differ in construction from the
Alaska longlines, potential damage will also differ. Unlike Alaskan fisheries, Atlantic longlines
can use cable or heavy monofilament with weights for groundline. In addition, the Alaskan
marine ecosystem is much different from that in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic
Ocean in that it does not have tropical coral reefs. However, the Alaskan marine ecosystem does
have sponges and other vertical relief, which makes it somewhat analogous to the Gulf of
Mexico conditions, and therefore, may give some insight to the type of damage bottom longlines
can cause. For instance, the shearing action of the longlines under tension would have similar
results on sensitive vertical structure (Barnette, 2001). However, in instances where target
species are attracted to the habitat due to hydrographic characteristics (i.e., up-welling,
convergences, etc.), the scale of impact from careless placement of bottom longlines is probably
not of sufficient magnitude to affect the characteristics of the habitat. Bottom longline gear may
have a detrimental effect on non-HMS EFH if it is placed in coral reefs, hard bottom or SAV
habitats. However, bottom longline gear in HMS fisheries is primarily used in sandy and/or
muddy habitats where it is expected to have minimal to low impacts.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-23

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Other HMS gears that contact the bottom are tuna traps and anchored gillnets. However,
these are either so few in number that their expected impact is low (i.e., there were only two tuna
trap permit holders in 2004), or they are usually set in sand or mud areas where there is minimal
to low impact on the benthic substrate, as is the case with anchored gillnets. In some cases, rod
and reel or handlines (i.e., “vertical gear”) are used in areas with coral reefs and/or hardbottom,
and impacts from these gears may include entanglement and minor degradation of benthic
species from line abrasion and the use of weights (sinkers). Schleyer and Tomalin (2000) noted
that discarded or lost fishing line appeared to entangle readily on branching and digitate corals
and was accompanied by progressive algal growth. This subsequent fouling eventually
overgrows and kills the coral, becoming an amorphous lump once accreted by coralline algae
(Schleyer and Tomalin, 2000). Lines entangled among fragile coral may break delicate
gorgonians and similar species. Due to the widespread use of weights over coral reef or
hardbottom habitat and the concentration of effort over these habitat areas from recreational and
commercial fishermen, the cumulative effect may lead to significant impacts resulting from the
use of these gear types (Barnette, 2001).
Since most of HMS gears are fished in the water column, the impacts on EFH are
generally considered negligible, minimal, or low. In other words, HMS gears do not affect the
physical characteristics that define HMS EFH such as salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and depth. Similarly, most HMS gears are not expected to impact other fisheries’ EFH, with the
possible exception of bottom longline, depending on where it is fished. Each of the HMS gears,
the means by which they are fished, and their potential impacts on HMS and other species’ EFH
are described in the following section. However, no new management measures, and therefore
no regulations, are proposed in this document. Rather, this document serves as an evaluation of
fishing impacts on EFH and could help identify areas appropriate for HAPC and/or time/area
closures in the future. NMFS is, however, currently exploring potential alternatives that could
minimize the impacts of bottom longline, especially in areas of with hardbottom, hard and soft
coral structure and sponges. For instance, bottom longlines used in the Caribbean reef fish
fishery are typically 700 feet long. Potentially shorter longlines will likely do less habitat
damage than longer longlines (Barnette, 2001). In addition, avoiding or reducing bottom
longline effort on corals, gorgonians, or sponge habitat will minimize risk of habitat damage to
these areas. The two following conservation recommendations are meant as precautionary
measures, and should be used whenever possible in the event that impacts to coral reef or other
hard bottom EFH habitat may be occurring but unverified: (1) fishers should take appropriate
measures to identify bottom obstructions and avoid setting gear in areas where it may become
entangled; and (2) if gear is lost, diligent efforts should be undertaken to recover the lost gear.
The Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils (GOMFMC and
CFMC, respectively) are evaluating the impacts of several gear types, including bottom longline,
on EFH areas identified under their respective reef fish and coral reef fisheries (GOMFMC,
2004; CFMC, 2005). Specifically, both Councils are evaluating measures to minimize the
impacts of bottom longline gear on coral reef habitat identified as EFH for several of their
managed species in areas adjacent to the Dry Tortugas Marine Reserve in Florida and the
Gramantic Banks off of Puerto Rico. However, NMFS would first need to assess the extent of
HMS fishing effort, if any, in these areas. And, if those measures are finalized, NMFS will

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-24

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

consider further rulemaking, as necessary, for the Atlantic shark fisheries, because there may be
overlap in fishery participants (NMFS, 2003).
In summary, according to the best scientific information available to NMFS, NMFS
concludes that most HMS gears are having minimal to no impact on HMS EFH or to other
species’ EFH.
Table 10.1. Impact assessment of HMS fishing gear on HMS and non-HMS EFH. ‘-‘ indicates that the gear
type is not used in these habitat types. Habitat impacts are as follows: negligible = 0, low = +,
medium = ++, high = +++, unknown=?, and a blank indicates not evaluated. Source: Symbols
before the slash are from the Caribbean FEIS, 2004 (Table 3.15a). The symbols after the slash are
taken from Barnette, 2001.
Interactions Between HMS Fishing Gears and HMS and Non-HMS EFH
Habitat Type
Estuarine/Inshore
HMS Gear Type
Bandit Gear
Bottom Longline
Handline
Harpoon
Gillnet, Anchored
Gillnet
/Strikenet
Pelagic Longline
Purse Seine, Tuna
Rod and Reel
Tuna Trap/Fish
Weir

Contacts
Bottom

SAV

Coral
Reef

X

0/
0/

X

X

Offshore

Sand/Shell

Soft
Bottom

+/
+/

Hard
Bottom
/+
+/+
+/+

0/+
0/

0/+
0/

+/+

++/

+/+

+/+

0/+

0/0
0/?
0/
++/++

0/0
0/
+/
-

0/0
0/
+/+
-

0/0
0/+
0/
0/?

0/0
0/+
0/
0/?

HMS EFH
Water column
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

10.4.3 Potential Impacts of non-HMS Fishing Activities on HMS EFH
At this time, only limited information exists to relate fishing activities to habitat damage
(Rester, 2000; Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001; Johnson, 2002; NRC, 2002; Stevenson et al.,
2004), and the degree to which habitat damage affect fishery production to date is unknown
(NMFS, 1999b). Therefore only a speculative, qualitative evaluation of the degree of
impairment of the function of the habitat from fishing impacts can be made. This section
provides an overview of potential impacts of non-HMS fishing gears on HMS EFH.
Nearly all HMS EFH is similarly defined according to the geographic boundaries of a
given area as opposed to specific benthic habitat types that might be affected by fishing gears.
However, for some species of sharks (blacktip, spinner, blacknose and finetooth) certain
substrates, such as mud bottom and seagrasses in a specific area of Apalachicola and Apalachee
Bay, have been identified as EFH (see Appendix B). For these specific coastal and estuarine
habitats, there may be an impact on benthic habitats from bottom tending gears in state waters.
Trawl fisheries that scrape the substrate, disturb boulders and their associated epiphytes or
epifauna, re-suspend sediments, flatten burrows and disrupt seagrass beds have the potential to
alter the habitat characteristics that are important for survival of early life stages of many
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-25

CHAPTER 10: EFH
T
HREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

targeted and non-targeted species. According to the GOMFMC (2004), bottom tending gears in
this area consist of shrimp trawls and stone crab pots. The fishing impact index for these gears
in this area was assessed as being low (based on habitat type and fishing effort from 2000-2001)
(Figures 3.5.24 and 3.5.27b; GOMFMC, 2004). Thus, the adverse effects of these gears on these
species’ EFH are expected to be minimal. No other benthic habitat types have been identified as
EFH for neonate or juvenile sharks (i.e., neonate and juvenile shark EFH has been designated
based on depth, and/or isobath; Appendix B). Therefore, until such habitat types are identified
and the degree of overlap and the extent to which habitat is altered by various bottom tending
gears is known, NMFS cannot assess the impact of such gears on neonate and juvenile shark
EFH.
The degree of impact and long-term habitat modification depends on the severity and
frequency of the impacts as well as the amount of recovery time between impacts (Auster and
Langton, 1999; Barnette, 2001). The extent to which particular parameters are altered by trawl
gear is somewhat dependent on the configuration of the gear and the manner in which the gear is
fished. Additional efforts are required to study HMS EFH areas that are fished for non-HMS
species and identify fishing gears that impact these habitats in a “more than minimal and not
temporary in nature” (50 CFR 600.815(a)(2)(ii)). In this regard, coordination efforts should be
undertaken with the respective Councils to identify potential common areas. Research into the
spatial distribution of these activities, the frequency of disturbance, and the short and long-term
changes induced in the habitat are of primary importance. A better understanding of specific
habitat types for HMS (the highest, most refined level of information available with which to
identify EFH, and which is currently not available for HMS), and the habitat characteristics that
influence the abundance of managed species within those habitats, is also needed in order to
better understand the effects of fishing activities on habitat suitability for sharks (NMFS, 2003).
The potential impacts of different gears with different habitats types are given in more detail in
Barnette (2001), the Caribbean FEIS (2004), and Stevenson et al., (2004). Nonetheless, until
specific habitat types are associated with HMS EFH, the degree to which these impacts will
affect HMS EFH is currently unknown.
Besides altering the physical characteristics of EFH, other fisheries may remove prey
species that make up the necessary biological components of HMS EFH. Many of these impacts
have been addressed in other fishery management plans (e.g., SAFMC, 1998; GMFMC, 1998)
that focus on restricting the removal of attached species such as corals or kelp that provide
essential structure in their respective habitats; however, for pelagic species other biological
components must be considered.
As described in the EFH guidelines, loss of prey species may be an adverse effect on
EFH and managed species because the presence of prey makes waters and substrate function as
feeding habitat. Therefore, actions that reduce the availability of a major prey species, either
through direct harm or capture, or through adverse impacts to the prey species’ habitat that are
known to cause a reduction in the population of the prey species, may be considered adverse
effects on EFH if such actions reduce the quality of EFH. For example, bluefin tuna are
opportunistic feeders that prey on a variety of schooling fish, including Atlantic herring in the
Gulf of Maine. NMFS would need to determine the extent to which herring or other prey species
contribute to bluefin tuna EFH, and whether the removal of a portion of herring would constitute
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-26

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

a negative effect on bluefin tuna EFH. These types of analyses would be part of a follow up
rulemaking in which changes to EFH boundaries may be proposed, potential impacts on EFH
would need to be analyzed, and if necessary, measures to minimize adverse effects would be
proposed. NMFS will continue to examine the importance of forage species on bluefin tuna and
other HMS species EFH.
Besides direct harvest, prey species such as herring may be susceptible and sensitive to
noise and schools are known to disperse when approached by vessels or when disturbed by midwater nets or purse seines (NMFS, 2005). This disturbance could be interpreted as a potential
impact on the pelagic habitat of juvenile or adult herring. The effect, however, is known to be
temporary: schools of herring that are dispersed by vessels or mid-water trawls re-form quickly
after passage of the boat or the net, within a matter of minutes (NMFS, 2005 are references
therein). This may adversely affect the pelagic habitat for juvenile and adult herring, but the
effects are minimal and temporary in nature and do not need to be minimized.
Some tuna and swordfish life stages have been found to be associated, or to co-occur,
with floating mats of the brown algae, Sargassum spp. The mats are pelagic and are moved
extensively by winds and currents. They are frequently found in convergence zones, windrows,
or at current boundaries - areas that are EFH for many of the HMS life stages. Whether the
floating mats serve as shelter, act as a source for aggregating prey (because of the abundance of
prey species associated with them), serve as a means of camouflage, or serve some other
biological function is not entirely clear. It is a biological component that may focus, particularly
on the small scale, the distribution of certain life stages of tuna and swordfish, and it may need to
be examined as EFH.
In summary, there are few anticipated impacts from other (i.e., non-HMS) Federally
regulated and non-Federally regulated gears on HMS EFH. Since most HMS EFH is defined as
the water column or attributes of the water column (i.e., temperature gradients, frontal
boundaries, etc.), there are anticipated to be minimal or no cumulative impacts from non-HMS
fishing gears. The only exceptions are nearshore and estuarine shark pupping grounds in the
specific area described above and the effect of bottom tending gears in this area. Since benthic
habitats have not been identified as EFH for neonate and juvenile sharks (with the exception of
blacktip, spinner, finetooth and blacknose sharks in Apalachee Bay; see above), NMFS cannot
currently assess the impact of these gears. If specific benthic habitat types (i.e., SAV, mud, coral
reefs, etc.) were to be identified as EFH for other sharks species, and the degree of overlap and
impact of various bottom tending gears is known in these areas, NMFS would assess whether
those types of gear have negative impacts on HMS EFH and determine if these impacts are more
than minimal and not temporary in nature.
10.4.4 Federally Managed Fishing Activities
The following tables describe the comprehensive set of gears managed by HMS and by
the different Fishery Management Councils in each of the regions. A brief description of all
gears is given below in Section 10.4.6.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-27

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table 10.2. A comprehensive list of all gear types used in HMS fisheries.
HMS Fishery
HMS Gear Type
Bandit Gear
Harpoon
Gillnet, Drift/Strikenet
Longline, Bottom
Longline, Pelagic
Purse Seine, Tuna
Trap
Vertical Gear
Handline
Rod and Reel

Shark
X

Tuna
X
X

Swordfish
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

Billfish

X

The Federally managed gears for the Northeast region and their potential effects on HMS
EFH are outlined in
Table 10.3. The Northeast region is comprised of the New England, Mid-Atlantic and
South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.
Table 10.3. Fishing gear types regulated in Federal waters of the Northeast region and their effects on HMS
EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source: Stevenson et al., 2004.
Effects of Fishing Gear on HMS EFH

Northeast Region
Gear Type
Bag Nets
Dredge, Clam
Dredge, Sea Scallop
Gill Nets, Drift
Gill Nets, Runaround
Gill Nets, Sink/Anchor
Gill Nets, Stake
Hand Harvest
Haul Seines, Long (Danish)
Longline (Bottom)
Longline (Pelagic)
Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish
Otter Trawl Bottom, Sea Scallop
Otter Trawl Bottom, Shrimp
Otter Trawl Midwater
Pots and Traps, Red Crab
Pots and Traps, Fish
Pots and Traps, Lobster Offshore
Purse Seine, Herring
Purse Seine, Tuna
Scottish Seine
Traps, Floating Fish

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Contacts Bottom*
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

10-28

Water Column
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

CHAPTER 10: EFH
T
HREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Northeast Region

Effects of Fishing Gear on HMS EFH

Gear Type
Contacts Bottom*
Water Column
Trawl, Beam
X
0
Trawl Midwater, Paired
0
Troll Lines
0
Trot Lines
0
Vertical Gear
Handline
0
Reel, Electric or Hydraulic
0
Rod and Reel
0
*At this time, there are no benthic habitats identified as HMS EFH that may be affected by bottom tending gears. In
addition, there is insufficient evidence to indicate an impact of bottom tending gear on HMS EFH that is defined as
the “water column.”

The Federally managed gears for the Southeast region and their potential effects on HMS
EFH are outlined in
Table 10.4. The Southeast region is comprised of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean
Fishery Management Councils.
Table 10.4. Fishing gear types regulated in Federal waters in the Southeast region and their effects on HMS
EFH. Habitat impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source: Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001;
GOMFMC FEIS 2004.
Southeast Region

Effects of Fishing Gear on HMS EFH

Gear Type
Contacts Bottom*
Water Column
Allowable Chemical
X
0
Bandit Gear
0
Dip Net
0
Gill/Trammel Nets
0
Hand Harvest
0
Longline (Bottom)
X
0
Slurp Gun
0
Snare
0
Spears/Powerheads
0
Trap, Lobster
X
0
Trap/Pots, Fish
X
0
1
Trawl, Frame
X
0
1
Trawl, Otter
X
0
Vertical Gear
0
Hook and Line
0
Rod and Reel
0
*At this time, there are no benthic habitats identified as HMS EFH that may be affected by bottom tending gears. In

addition, there is insufficient evidence to indicate an impact of bottom tending gear on HMS EFH that is defined as

the “water column.”

1
Not currently used in the Caribbean; however, potential exists for future use.

10.4.5 Non-Federally Managed Fishing Activities
The following tables describe the comprehensive set of gears that are not managed under
fishery management plans.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-29

CHAPTER 10: EFH
T
HREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table 10.5 and Table 10.6 outline allowable gears that are used in state waters of the
Northeast and Southeast regions. A brief description of all gears is given below in Section
10.4.6.
The non-Federally managed gears for the Northeast region and their potential effects on
HMS EFH are outlined in. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission manages nonFederal fisheries in the New England, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions.
Table 10.5. Non-FMP Fishing Gear in the Northeast region and their effects on HMS EFH. Habitat impact is
as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source: Stevenson et al., 2004.
Northeast RegionNon-FMP (state waters)

Effects of Fishing Gear on HMS EFH

Gear Type
Contacts Bottom*
Water Column
Cast Nets
0
Clam Kicking
X
0
Diving
0
Dredge, Conch
X
0
Dredge, Crab
X
0
Dredge, Mussel
X
0
Dredge, Oyster,
X
0
Dredge, Bay Scallop
X
0
Dredge, Sea Urchin
X
0
Fyke and Hoop Nets, Fish
X
0
Hand Hoes
X
0
Pots and Traps, Conch
X
0
Pots and Traps, Blue and Blue Peeler Crab
X
0
Pots and Traps, Eel
X
0
Pots and Traps, Lobster Inshore
X
0
Pounds Nets, Crab
X
0
Pound Nets, Fish
X
0
Purse Seines, Menhaden
0
Rakes
X
0
Scrapes
X
0
Seines, Haul-Beach
X
0
Seines, Haul-Long
X
0
Seines, Haul-Long (Danish)
X
0
Seines, Stop
X
0
Spears
0
Tongs and Grabs, Oyster
X
0
Tongs Patent, Clam
X
0
Tongs Patent, Oyster
X
0
Trawl, Otter-Crab
X
0
Weirs
X
0
*At this time, there are no benthic habitats identified as HMS EFH that may be affected by bottom tending gears. In
addition, there is insufficient evidence to indicate an impact of bottom tending gear on HMS EFH that is defined as
the “water column.”

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-30

CHAPTER 10: EFH
T
HREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

The non-Federally managed gears for the Southeast region and their potential effects on
HMS EFH are outlined in Table 10.6. The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission manages
non-federal fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean regions.
Table 10.6. Non-FMP Fishing Gear in Southeast region: Effects of other fishing gear on HMS EFH. Habitat
impact is as follows: minimal/negligible = 0. Source: Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001; GOMFMC,
2004.
Effects of Fishing Gear on HMS EFH

Southeast Region
Non-FMP (state waters)
Gear Type
Barrier Net

Contacts Bottom*

Water Column

X

0

Cast Net

0

Crab Scrapes

X

0

Dredge-Oyster

X

0

Drop Net

0

Lampara Net

0

Longline (Pelagic)

X

0

Purse Seine

0

Rakes and Tongs

X

0

Seine, Beach

X

0

Traps/Pots- Crab

X

0

Trawl, Skimmer

X

0

Vertical Gear
Handline
0
*Currently the only benthic habitat types identified as EFH for neonate sharks are in Apalachee Bay off the Florida
Panhandle. In this area, neonate blacktip, spinner, finetooth and blacknose sharks have been associated with mud or
seagrass areas. The GOMFMC (2004) has determined that bottom tending gears (shrimp trawls and crab pots) have
a low impact on these habitat types in this area. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to indicate an impact of
bottom tending gear on HMS EFH that is defined as the “water column.”

10.4.6 Description of Fishing Gears
Fishing gears that are dragged over the seabed or through the water column are called
mobile gear (e.g., trawls, dredges, and purse seines), whereas gear that remains stationary are
called static gear (nets, traps, and longlines). Unless otherwise noted, gear descriptions were
taken from Stevenson et al., (2004).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-31

CHAPTER 10: EFH
T
HREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Bottom Tending, Mobile Gear
Trawls
Trawls are classified by their function, bag construction, or method of maintaining the
mouth opening. Function may be defined by the part of the water column where the trawl
operates (e.g., bottom), by the species that it targets, or the composition of the bottom (smooth
versus rough and soft versus hard) (Hayes, 1983). There is a wide range of otter trawl types used
in the Northeast and Southeast as a result of the diversity of fisheries prosecuted and bottom
types encountered in the region. For instance, trawls target flatfish, crabs scallops, lobsters, and
shrimp in the Northeast (Stevenson et al., 2004), and shrimp, calico scallops, flounder and
butterfish in both state and Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GFMC FDEIS 2004).
Otter Trawls - Bottom trawls are towed at a variety of speeds, but average about 5.5
km/hr (3 knots or nmi/hr). There are three components of the otter trawl that come in contact
with the sea bottom: the doors, the ground cables and bridles, which attach the doors to the wings
of the net, and the sweep (or foot-rope) which runs along the bottom of the net mouth.
The traditional otter board door is a flat, rectangular wood structure with steel fittings and
a steel “shoe” along the bottom that prevents the bottom of the door from damage and wear as it
drags over the bottom. Other types include the V-type (steel), polyvalent (steel), oval (wood),
and slotted spherical otter board (steel) (Sainsbury, 1996). It is the spreading action of the doors
resulting from the angle at which they are mounted that creates the hydrodynamic forces needed
to push them apart. Steel cables are used to attach the doors to the wings of the net. The ground
cables run along the bottom from each door to two cables (the “bridle”) that diverge to attach to
the top and bottom of the net wing. The bottom portion of the bridle also contacts the bottom.
On smooth bottoms, the sweep may be a steel cable weighted with chain, or may be
merely rope wrapped with wire. On rougher bottoms, rubber discs (“cookies”) or rollers are
attached to the sweep to assist the trawl's passage over the bottom (Sainsbury, 1996). There are
two main types of sweep used in smooth bottom in New England (Mirarchi, 1998). In the
traditional chain sweep, loops of chain are suspended from a steel cable, with only 2-3 links of
the chain touching bottom. Streetsweeper gear is much heavier in the water due to the use of
steel cores in the brush components. Roller sweeps and rockhoppers are used on irregular
bottom (Carr and Milliken, 1998). Vertical rubber rollers rotate freely and are as large as 14.5
cm (36 inches) in diameter. In New England, the rollers have been largely replaced with
"rockhopper" gear that uses larger fixed rollers and are designed to “hop” over rocks as large as 1
meter in diameter. Small rubber “spacer” discs are placed in between the larger rubber discs in
both types of sweep.
In the Northeast, flatfish are primarily targeted with a mid-range mesh flat net that has
more ground rigging and is designed to get the fish up off the bottom. A high rise or fly net with
larger mesh is used to catch demersal fish that rise higher off the bottom than flatfish
(NREFHSC, 2002). Crabs, scallops, and lobsters are also harvested in large mesh bottom trawls.
Small mesh bottom trawls are used to capture northern and southern shrimp, whiting, butterfish
and squid and usually employ a light chain sweep. Small-mesh trawls are designed, rigged, and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-32

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

used differently than large-mesh fish trawls and are used to catch northern shrimp in the Gulf of
Maine. In the Southeast, bottom trawl fisheries target demersal species throughout the U.S.
Atlantic Ocean (Barnette, 2001, National Academy of Sciences, 2002). These activities are
managed under Federal fishery management plans.
Beam Trawls - The beam trawl is much like an otter trawl except the net is spread
horizontally by a steel beam that runs the horizontal width of the net rather than with otter
boards. The net is spread vertically by heavy steel trawl heads that generally have skid-type
devices with a heavy shoe attached (Sainsbury, 1996). It is believed that beam trawls are not
currently used in the Northeast United States (NREFHSC, 2002). A few beam trawls were used
in the 1970s to catch monkfish, but the fishery was unsuccessful. In the mid 1990’s, a number of
boats off New Bedford, MA used what were referred to as beam trawls, but the gear more
closely resembled a scallop dredge rather than the traditional, European beam trawls. There are
a few boats that are currently recorded as using beam trawls in the NMFS fishery landings
database, but it is believed these were most likely mis-characterized and are actually otter trawls
being deployed from the side of the vessels (NREFHSC, 2002). In the Southeast, beam trawls
are used for monkfish, shrimp, and other demersal species. These trawls are also used for
scientific sampling as the fixed mouth opening allows for consistent benthic sampling. In
Florida, roller frame trawls are used to harvest bait shrimp primarily in state waters (National
Academy of Sciences, 2002). These activities are managed under Federal fishery management
plans.
Dredges
Most dredges are used for clams, oysters and scallops and are primarily used in the
Northeastern region.
Hydraulic Clam Dredge - Hydraulic clam dredges have been used in the surfclam
(Spisula solidissima) fishery and in the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) fishery. These dredges
are highly sophisticated and are designed to: 1) be extremely efficient (80 to 95% capture rate);
2) produce a very low bycatch of other species; and 3) retain very few undersized clams
(NREFHSC, 2002). The typical dredge is 3.7 m (12 feet) wide and about 6.7 m (22 feet) long
and uses pressurized water jets to wash clams out of the seafloor. Towing speed at the start of
the tow is about 4.5 km/hr (2.5 knots or nmi/hr) and declines as the dredge accumulates clams.
The water jets penetrate the sediment in front of the dredge to a depth of about 20 - 25 cm (8 - 10
inches), depending on the type of sediment and the water pressure. The water pressure that is
required to fluidize the sediment varies from 50 pounds per square inch (psi) in coarse sand to
110 psi in finer sediments. The objective is to use as little water as possible since too much
pressure will blow sediment into the clams and reduce product quality. The “knife” (or “cutting
bar”) on the leading bottom edge of the dredge opening is 14 cm (5.5 inches) deep for surfclams
and 8.9 cm (3.5 inches) for ocean quahogs. This activity is managed under a Federal fishery
management plan.
Dredges are not fished in clay, mud, pebbles, rocks, coral, large gravel greater than one
half inch, or seagrass beds (NREFHSC, 2002). In the soft-clam (Mya arenaria ) fishery, the
dredge manifold and blade are located just forward of an escalator, or conveyor belt, that carries
the clams to the deck of the vessel. These vessels are restricted to water depths less than one­
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-33

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

half the length of the escalator and are typically operated from 15 m (49 ft) vessels in water
depths of 2-6 m (6.6 - 20 ft) (DeAlteris, 1998). The escalator dredge is not managed under
Federal fishery management plans.
Quahog Dredge - Ocean quahogs are also harvested in eastern Maine coastal waters
using a non-hydraulic dredge that is essentially a large metal cage on skis with 15 cm (6 inch)
long teeth projecting at an angle off the leading bottom edge. Maine state regulations limit the
length of the cutter bar to 91 cm (36 inches). The teeth rake the bottom and lift the quahogs into
the cage. This fishery takes place in small areas of sand and sandy mud found among bedrock
outcroppings in depths of 9 to > 76 m (30 - 250 ft) in state and Federal coastal waters. These
dredges are used on smaller boats, about 9 - 12 m long (30 to 40 ft) and are pulled through the
seabed using the boat’s engine (NREFHSC, 2002). This fishery is managed under the MAFMC
Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP (MAFMC).
Sea Scallop Dredges - The New Bedford (or “chain sweep”) dredge is the primary gear
used in the Northeast U.S. sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) fishery and is very different
than scallop dredges utilized in Europe and the Pacific because it is a toothless dredge. The
forward edge of the New Bedford dredge includes the cutting bar, which rides above the surface
of the substrate, creating turbulence that stirs up the substrate and kicks objects (including
scallops) up from the surface of the substrate into the bag. Shoes on the cutting bar are in contact
with and ride along the substrate surface (NREFHSC, 2002). A sweep chain is attached to each
shoe and to the bottom of the ring bag (Smolowitz, 1998). The bag is made up of metal rings
with chafing gear on the bottom and twine mesh on the top, and drags on the substrate when
fished. Tickler chains run from side to side between the frame and the ring bag and, in hard
bottom, a series of rock chains run from front to back to prevent large rocks from getting into the
bag (Smolowitz, 1998). New Bedford dredges are typically 4.3 m (14 feet) wide; two of them
are towed by a single vessel at speeds of 4 to 5 knots. Chain sweep dredges used along the
Maine coast are smaller. In the Northeast region, scallop dredges are used in high and low
energy sand environments, and high energy gravel environments. This activity is managed under
a Federal fishery management plan.
Other Non-Hydraulic Dredges
Oyster or Crab Dredge/Scrape/Mussel Dredge - The oyster dredge is a toothed dredge
consisting of a steel frame 0.5-2.0 m (1.6 -6.6 ft) in width, a tow chain or wire attached to the
frame, and a bag to collect the catch. The bag is constructed of rings and chain-links on the
bottom to reduce the abrasive effects of the seabed, and twine or webbing on top. The dredge is
towed slowly (<1 m/sec) in circles, from vessels 7 to 30 m (23 - 98 ft) in length (DeAlteris,
1998). Crabs are harvested with dredges similar to oyster dredges. Stern-rig dredge boats
(approximately 15 m (49 ft) in length) tow two dredges in tandem from a single chain warp. The
dredges are equipped with 10 cm (4 inch) long teeth that rake the crabs out of the bottom.
(DeAlteris, 1998). The toothed dredge is also used for harvesting mussels (Hayes, 1983). These
dredging activities are not managed under Federal fishery management plans.
Bay Scallop Dredge - Bay scallops usually reside on the bottom. The bay scallop dredge
may be 1 to 1.5 m (3.3 - 4.9 ft) wide and about twice as long. The simplest bay scallop dredge
can be just a mesh bag attached to a metal frame that is pulled along the bottom. For bay
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-34

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

scallops that are located on sand and pebble bottom, a small set of raking teeth are set on a steel
frame, and skids are used to align the teeth and the bag (Sainsbury, 1996). This dredging activity
is not managed under Federal fishery management plans.
Sea Urchin Dredge - Similar to a simple bay scallop dredge, the sea urchin dredge is
designed to avoid damaging the catch. It has an up-turned sled-like shape at the front that
includes several leaf springs tied together with a steel bar. A tow bail is welded to one of the
springs and a chain mat is rigged behind the mouth box frame. The frame is fitted with skids or
wheels. The springs act as runners, enabling the sled to move over rocks without hanging up.
The chain mat scrapes up the urchins. The bag is fitted with a codend for ease of emptying. This
gear is generally only used in waters up to 100 m (330 ft) deep (Sainsbury, 1996). This dredging
activity is not managed under Federal fishery management plans.
Clam “Kicking” - Clam kicking is a mechanical form of hard clam harvest practiced in
North Carolina, which involves the modification of boat engines so that the propeller is directed
downwards instead of backwards (Guthrie and Lewis, 1982). In shallow water the propeller
wash is powerful enough to suspend bottom sediments and clams into a plume in the water
column, which allows them to be collected in a trawl net towed behind the boat (Stephan et al.,
2000). This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Seines
Haul Seines - Haul seining is a general term describing operations where a net is set out
between the surface and seabed to encircle fish. It may be undertaken from the shore (beach
seining), or away from shore in the shallows of rivers, estuaries or lakes (Sainsbury, 1996).
Seines typically contact the sea bottom along the lead line. Additionally the net itself may scrape
along the bottom as it is dragged to shore or the recovery vessel. This activity is not managed
under a Federal fishery management plan.
Beach Haul Seines - The beach seine resembles a wall of netting of sufficient depth to
fish from the sea surface to the seabed, with mesh small enough that the fish do not become
gilled. A floatline runs along the top to provide floatation and a leadline with a large number of
weights attached ensures that the net maintains good contact with the bottom. Tow lines are
fitted to both ends. The use of a beach seine generally starts with the net on the beach. One end
is pulled away from the beach, usually with a small skiff or dory, and is taken out and around
and finally back in to shore. Each end of the net is then pulled in towards the beach,
concentrating the fish in the middle of the net. This is eventually brought onshore as well and
the fish are removed. This gear is generally used in relatively shallow inshore areas (Sainsbury,
1996). This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Long Haul Seines - The long haul seine is set and hauled in shallow estuarine and coastal
areas from a boat typically 15 m (49 ft) long. The net is a single wall of small mesh webbing
less than 5 cm (2 inches), and is usually greater than 400 m (1440 ft) in length and about 3 m
(9.8 ft) in depth. The end of the net is attached to a pole driven into the bottom, and the net is set
in a circle so as to surround fish feeding on the tidal flat. After closing the circle, the net is
hauled into the boat, reducing the size of the circle, and concentrating the fish. Finally, the live

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-35

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

fish are brailed or dip-netted out of the net. (DeAlteris, 1998). This activity is not managed
under Federal fishery management plans
Stop Seines - These are seines that are used in coastal embayments to close off the
opening to a small cove or bight. This method is used in Maine to harvest schools of juvenile
herring (Everhart and Youngs, 1981). This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery
management plan.
Danish and Scottish Seines - The Danish seine is a bag net with long wings, that includes
long warps set out on the seabed, enclosing a defined area. As the warps are retrieved, the
enclosed area (a triangle) reduces in size. The warps dragging along the bottom herd the fish
into a smaller area, and eventually into the net mouth. The gear is deployed by setting out one
warp, the net, then the other warp. On retrieval of the gear, the vessel is anchored. This
technique of fishing is aimed at specific schools of fish located on smooth bottom. In contrast to
Danish seining, if the vessel tows ahead while retrieving the gear, then this is referred to as
Scottish seining or fly-dragging. This method of fishing is considered more appropriate for
working small areas of smooth bottom, surrounded by rough bottom. This activity is managed
under a Federal fishery management plan.
Bottom Tending, Static Gear
Pots
Pots are portable, rigid devices that fish and shellfish enter through small openings, with
or without enticement by bait (Everhart and Youngs, 1981; Hubert, 1983). They are used to
capture lobsters, crabs, black sea bass, eels and other bottom dwelling species seeking food or
shelter (Everhart and Youngs, 1981; Hubert, 1983). Traps and pots are weighted to rest on the
bottom, marked with buoys at the surface, and are sometimes attached to numerous other trap
and one long line called a trot line. Pot fishing can be divided into two general classifications:
(1) inshore potting in estuaries, lagoons, inlets and bays in depths up to about 75 m (250 ft) and;
(2) Offshore potting using larger and heavier vessels and gear in depths up to 730 m (2400 ft) or
more (Sainsbury, 1996).
In the Southeast region, pots are used for a number of fish and invertebrates. In certain
areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, due to their use to harvest species associated with
coral and hardbottom habitat, traps and pots have been identified to impact and degrade habitat
(Barnette, 2001).
Lobster Pots - Lobster pots are typically rectangular and are divided into two sections,
the chamber and the parlor. The chamber has an entrance on both sides of the pot and is usually
baited. Lobsters then move to the parlor via a tunnel (Everhart and Youngs, 1981). Escape vents
are installed in both areas of the pot to minimize the retention of sub-legal sized lobsters
(DeAlteris, 1998). Lobster pots are fished as either 1) a single pot per buoy (although two pots
per buoy are used in Cape Cod Bay, and three pots per buoy in Maine waters), or 2) a “trawl” or
line with up to 100 pots. According to NREFHSC (2002) important features of lobster pots and
their use are the following:
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-36

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

• About 95% of lobster pots are made of plastic - coated wire.
• Floating mainlines may be up to 7.6 m (25 ft) off bottom.
• Sinklines are sometimes used where marine mammals are a concern – neutrally buoyant
lines may soon be required in Cape Cod Bay.
• Soak time depends on season and location - usually 1-3 days in inshore waters in warm
weather, to weeks in colder waters.
• Offshore pots are larger (more than 1 m (4 ft) long) and heavier (~ 100 lb or 45 kg), with
an average of ~ 40 pots/trawl and 44 trawls/vessel. They have a floating mainline and are
usually deployed for a week at a time.
• There has been a three-fold increase in lobster pots fished since the 1960’s, with more
than four million pots now in use.
• Although the offshore component of the fishery is regulated under Federal rules,

American lobster is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.

Fish Pots - Fish pots are similar in design to lobster pots. They are usually fished singly
or in trot lines of up to 25 pots, in shallower waters than the offshore lobster pots or red crab
pots. Pots may be set and retrieved 3-4 times/day when fishing for scup (NREFHSC, 2002).
Wire-mesh fish traps are one of the principal fishing gears used in coral reef areas in the
Caribbean (Appledorn et al., 2000). This activity is managed under a Federal fishery
management plan.
Hagfish pots (40 plastic gallon barrels) are fished in deep waters, on mud bottoms.
Cylindrical pots are typically used for capturing eels in Chesapeake Bay, however, half-round
and rectangular pots are also used and all are fished in a manner similar to that of lobster pots
(Everhart and Youngs, 1981). Hagfish and eel activities are not managed under a Federal fishery
management plan.
Crab Pots - Crabs are often fished with pots consisting of a wire mesh. A horizontal wire
partition divides the pot into an upper and lower chamber. The lower chamber is entered from
all four sides through small wire tunnels. The partition bulges upward in a fold about 20 cm (8
inches) high for about one third of its width. In the top of the fold are two small openings that
give access to the upper chamber (Everhart and Youngs, 1981).
Crab pots are always fished as singles and are hauled by hand from small boats, or with a
pot hauler on larger vessels. Crab pots are generally fished after an overnight soak, except early
and late in the season (DeAlteris, 1998). These pots are also effective for eels (Everhart and
Youngs, 1981). This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Deepsea red crab pots are typically wood and wire traps 1.2 m by 0.75 m (48 by 30
inches) with top entry. Pots are baited and soak for about 22 hours before being hauled.
Currently, vessels are using an average of 560 pots in trawls of 75- 180 pots per trawl along the
continental slope at depths from 400 to 800 m (1300 - 2600 ft). These vessels are typically 25 -

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-37

CHAPTER 10: EFH
T
HREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

41 m (90 - 150 ft) in length. Currently there are about 6 vessels engaged in this fishery
(NEFMC, 2002). This activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Traps
A trap is generally a large-scale device that uses the seabed and sea surface as boundaries
for the vertical dimension. The gear is installed at a fixed location for a season, and is passive, as
the animals voluntarily enter the gear. Traps are made of a leader or fence, that interrupts the
coast parallel migratory pattern of the target prey, a heart or parlor that leads fish via a funnel
into the bay or trap section that serves to hold the catch for harvest by the fishermen. The nonreturn device is the funnel linking the heart and bay sections (DeAlteris, 1998).
Fish Pound Nets - Pound nets are constructed of netting staked into the seabed by driven
piles (Sainsbury, 1996). Pound nets have three sections: the leader, the heart, and the pound.
The leader (there may be more than one) may be as long as 400 m (1300 ft) and is used to direct
fish into the heart(s). One or more hearts are used to further funnel fish into the pound and
prevent escapement. The pound may be 15 m (49 ft) square and holds the fish until the net is
emptied. These nets are generally fished in waters less than 50 m (160 ft) deep. Pound nets are
also used to catch crabs. This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Fyke and Hoop Nets - Constructed of wood or metal hoops covered with netting, hoop
nets are 2.5 to 5 m (8.2 - 16 ft) long, “Y-shaped” nets, with wings at the entrance and one or
more internal funnels to direct fish inside, where they become trapped. Occasionally, a long
leader is used to direct fish to the entrance. Fish are removed by lifting the rear end out of the
water and loosening a rope securing the closed end. These nets are generally fished to about 50
m (160 ft) deep (Sainsbury, 1996). A common fyke net is a long bag mounted on one or several
hoops which keep the net from collapsing as well as provide an attachment for the base of the net
funnels to prevent the fish from escaping. This gear is used in shallow water and extensively in
river fisheries (Everhart and Youngs, 1981). This activity is not managed under a Federal
fishery management plan.
Bag Nets – Bag nets are large nets that are kept vertically open by a frame, usually
constructed of wood, and are held horizontally stretched by the water current. Bag nets are
fished usually in deep water and are held in position by floats and anchors. This activity is not
managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Shallow Floating Traps - In New England, much of the shoreline and shallow subtidal
environment is rocky and stakes cannot be driven into the bottom. Therefore, the webbing of
these traps is supported by floats at the sea surface, and held in place with large anchors. These
traps are locally referred to as “floating traps.” The catch, design elements, and scale of these
floating traps is similar to pound nets (DeAlteris, 1998). The floating trap is designed to fish
from top to bottom, and is built especially to suit its location. The trap is held in position by a
series of anchors and buoys. The net is usually somewhat “T-shaped,” with the long portion of
the net (the leader net) designed to funnel fish into a box of net at the top of the “T.” The leader
net is often made fast to a ringbolt ashore (Sainsbury, 1996). This activity is not managed under
a Federal fishery management plan.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-38

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Weirs - A weir is a simple maze that intercepts species that migrate along the shoreline.
Brush weirs are used in the Maine sardine/herring fishery. These are built of wooden stakes and
saplings driven into the bottom in shallow waters. The young herring encounter the lead, which
they follow to deeper water, finally passing into an enclosure of brush or netting. The
concentrated fish are then removed with a small seine (Everhart and Youngs, 1981). This
activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan. However, there are a few
Federal permits for incidental catch of bluefin tuna using weirs in the Northeast. This activity is
managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Sink Gill Nets and Bottom Longlines
Sink/Anchor Gill Nets - Individual gill nets are typically 91 m (300 ft) long, and are
usually fished as a series of 5-15 nets attached end-to-end. Gill nets have three components:
leadline, webline and floatline. Fishermen are now experimenting with two leadlines. Leadlines
used in New England are ~65 lb (30 kg)/net, but in the Middle Atlantic leadlines may be heavier.
Weblines are monofilament, with the mesh size depending on the target species. Nets are
anchored at each end, using materials such as pieces of railroad track, sash weights, or Danforth
anchors, depending on currents. Anchors and leadlines have the most contact with the bottom.
Some nets may be tended several times/day, (e.g., when fishing for bluefish in the Middle
Atlantic). For New England groundfish, frequency of tending ranges from daily to biweekly
(NREFHSC, 2002).
Trammel Net - A trammel net is made up of two or more panels suspended from a float
line and attached to a single lead line. The outer panel(s) are of a larger mesh size than the inner
panel. Fish swim through the outer panel and hit the inner panel, which carries it through the
other outer panel, creating a bag and trapping the fish. Smaller and larger fish become wedged,
gilled, or tangled (Barnette, 2001). Trammel nets are primarily used in state waters, though they
are an authorized gear in the Caribbean for both the spiny lobster and shallow water reef fish
fisheries.
Strikenets - Vessels fishing in a strikenet fashion used nets 364.8 meters long, 30.4
meters deep, and with mesh size 22.9 cm. Strikenetting consists of using an additional smaller,
second vessel to actively set the net around a school of sharks. These nets are sometimes
referred to runaround drift gillnets. Nets used for sharks in the southeast region are typically 456
to 2,280 meters long and 6.1 to 15.2 meters deep, with stretched mesh from 12.7 to 22.9 cm.
This fishery is currently prohibited in the state waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida,
Texas and Louisiana thereby forcing some of these vessels to operate in deeper waters under
Federal jurisdiction, where gillnets are less effective. The entire process (set to haulback) takes
approximately 9 hours (Carlson and Baremore, 2002). These activities are managed under
Federal fishery management plans.
Stake Gill Nets - Generally a small boat is used inshore so that a gill net is set across a
tidal flow and is lifted at slack tide to remove fish. Wooden or metal stakes run from the surface
of the water into the sediment and are placed every few meters along the net to hold it in place.
When the net is lifted, the stakes remain in place. These nets are generally fished from the
surface to about 50 meters deep (Sainsbury, 1996). These activities are not managed under
Federal fishery management plans.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-39

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Runaround Drift Gillnet – see “Strikenets”.
Bottom Longlines - Longlining for bottom species on continental shelf areas and offshore
banks is undertaken for a wide range of species including cod, haddock, dogfish, skates, and
various flatfishes (Sainsbury, 1996). A 9.5 m (31 ft) vessel can fish up to 2,500 hooks a day with
a crew of one and double that with two crew members. Mechanized longlining systems fishing
off larger vessels up to 60 m (195 ft) can fish up to 40,000 hooks per day (Sainsbury, 1996).
In the Northeast, up to six individual longlines are strung together, for a total length of
about 460 m (1500 ft), and are deployed with 20-24 lb (9 - 11 kg) anchors. The mainline is
parachute cord or sometimes stainless steel wire. Gangions (lines from mainline to hooks) are 38
cm (15 inches) long and 1-2 m (3-6 ft) apart. The mainline, hooks, and gangions all come in
contact with the bottom. Circle hooks are potentially less damaging to habitat features than other
hook shapes. These longlines are usually set for only a few hours at a time (NREFHSC, 2002).
Longlines used for tilefish are deployed in deep water, may be up to 40 km (25 miles) long, are
stainless steel or galvanized wire, and are set in a zig-zag fashion (NREFHSC, 2002).
The Southeast bottom longline fishery targets both large coastal sharks (LCS) and small
coastal sharks (SCS) of sharks as well as reef fish. Bottom longline is the primary commercial
gear employed in the LCS and SCS fisheries in all regions. Gear characteristics vary by region,
but in general, an approximately ten-mile long bottom longline, containing about 600 hooks, is
fished overnight. Skates, sharks, or various finfishes are used as bait. The gear typically consists
of a heavy monofilament mainline with lighter weight monofilament gangions. Some fishermen
may occasionally use a flexible 1/16 inch wire rope as gangion material or as a short leader
above the hook. This activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Trot Lines – see “Pots” section
Pelagic Gear
Mid-Water Otter Trawl - The mid-water trawl is used to capture pelagic species that
school between the surface and the seabed throughout the water column. The mouth of the net
can range from 110 m to 170 m (360 - 560 ft) wide and requires the use of large vessels
(Sainsbury, 1996). Successful mid-water trawling requires the effective use of various electronic
aids to find the fish and maneuver the vessel while catching them (Sainsbury, 1996). This
activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan. This gear is not expected to have
contact with or impacts upon bottom habitats.
Paired Mid-Water Otter Trawl - Pair-trawling is used by smaller vessels, which herd
small pelagics such as herring and mackerel into the net (Sainsbury, 1996). Large pelagic
species are also harvested with a huge pelagic pair trawl towed at high speed near the surface.
The nets have meshes exceeding 10 m (33 ft) in length in the jibs and first belly sections, and
reduce to cod-end mesh sizes of 20 cm (8 inches) (DeAlteris, 1998). This activity is managed
under a Federal fishery management plan. This gear is not expected to have contact with or
impacts upon bottom habitats.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-40

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Purse Seines - Purse seines are very efficient for taking pelagic schooling species. The
purse seine is a continuous deep ribbon of web with corks on one side and leads on the other.
Rings are fastened at intervals to the lead line and a purse line runs completely around the net
through the rings (Everhart and Youngs, 1981). One end of the net is fastened to the vessel and
the other end to a skiff. The vessel then encircles a school of fish with the net, the net pursed and
hauled back to the vessel. Purse seines vary in size according to the vessel size, the size of the
mesh, the species sought and the depth to be fished. Tuna seines are nearly one kilometer (0.6
miles) long and fish from 55 - 640 m (180 - 2100 ft) (Everhart and Youngs, 1981). Due to the
large depth of the net for tuna purse seines, they have been shown to contact and interact with the
sea bottom when fishing in some shallow water locations such as Massachusetts Bay and vicinity
(NMFS, 2001). Purse seines are also utilized to harvest menhaden in the Gulf and South
Atlantic. Purse seines in the Gulf menhaden fishery frequently interact with the bottom,
resulting in sediment re-suspension (Barnette, 2001). Currently there are only five vessels
permitted to fish for tunas with purse seine gear. This activity is managed under a Federal
fishery management plan.
Lampara Net - The lampara net has a large central bunt, or bagging portion, and short
wings. The buoyed float line is longer than the weighted lead line so that as the lines are hauled,
the wings of the net come together at the bottom first, trapping the fish. As the net is brought in,
the school of fish is worked into the bunt and captured. In the Florida Keys, a modified lampara
net is used to harvest baitfish near the top of the water column. The wing is used to skim the
water surface as the net is drawn in and fish are herded into the pursing section to be harvested
with a dip net. This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan. This gear
is not expected to have contact with or impacts upon bottom habitats.
Drift Gill Nets - Gillnets operate principally by wedging and gilling fish, and secondarily
by entangling (DeAlteris, 1998). The nets are a single wall of webbing, with float and lead lines.
Drift gillnets are designed so as to float from the sea surface and extend downward into the water
column and are used to catch pelagic fish. In this case the buoyancy of the floatline exceeds the
weight of the leadline. Drift gillnets may be anchored at one end or set-out to drift, usually with
the fishing vessel attached at one end (DeAlteris, 1998). This activity is managed under a
Federal fishery management plan. This gear is not expected to have contact with or impacts
upon bottom habitats.
Pelagic Longline Gear - The pelagic or subsurface longline is a technique directed
mostly towards tunas, swordfish, sailfish, dolphin (dorado), and sharks. The gear is typically set
at depths from the surface to around 330 m (1100 ft). The gear can also be set with a main line
hanging in arcs below the buoy droplines to fish a band of depths (Sainsbury, 1996). The gear is
set across an area of known fish concentration or movement, and may be fished by day or night
depending upon the species being sought (Sainsbury, 1996). The length of the mainline can vary
up to108 km (67 miles) depending on the size of the vessel. If the mainline is set at a fixed
depth, then the leader or gangion lengths vary from 2-40 m (6.6 - 130 ft), so as to ensure the
hooks are distributed over a range of depths (DeAlteris, 1998). If a line-shooter is used to set the
mainline in a catenary shape with regard to depth, then the gangions are usually a single minimal
length, but are still distributed by depth (DeAlteris, 1998). Each gangion typically contains a
baited hook and chemical night-stick to attract the fish. Traditional or circle hooks may be used.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-41

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Swordfish vessels typically fish 20 to 30 hooks per 1.6 km (one mile) of mainline between 5 and
54 km (3 - 34 miles) in length (Sainsbury, 1996). This activity is managed under a Federal
fishery management plan. This gear is not expected to have contact with or impacts upon bottom
habitats.
Troll Lines - Trolling involves the use of a baited hook or lure maintained at a desired
speed and depth in the water (Sainsbury, 1996). Usually, two to four or more lines are spread to
varying widths by the use of outrigger poles connected to the deck by hinged plates. Line
retrieval is often accomplished by means of a mechanized spool. Each line is weighted to reach
the desired depth and may have any number of leaders attached, each with a hook and bait or
appropriate lure. This gear is generally fished from the surface to about 20 meters (Sainsbury,
1996). This activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan. This gear is not
expected to have contact with or impacts upon bottom habitats.
Other Gear
Rakes - A bull rake is manually operated to harvest hard clams and consists of a long
shaft with a rake and basket attached. The length of the shaft can be variable but usually does
not exceed three times the water depth. The length and spacing of the teeth as well as the
openings of the basket are regulated to protect juvenile clams from harvest (DeAlteris, 1998).
Rakes are typically fished off the side of a small boat. This activity is not managed under a
Federal fishery management plan.
Tongs - Tongs are a more efficient device than rakes for harvesting shellfish. Shaft-tongs
are a scissor-like device with a rake and basket at the end of each shaft. The fisherman stands on
the edge of the boat and progressively opens and closes the baskets on the bottom gathering the
shellfish into a mound. The tongs are closed a final time, brought to the surface, and the catch
emptied on the culling board for sorting. The length of the shaft must be adjusted for water
depth. Oysters are traditionally harvested with shaft tongs in water depths up to 6 m (21 ft), with
shaft tongs 8 m (29 ft) in length (DeAlteris, 1998).
Patent tongs are used to harvest clams and oysters and are opened and closed with a drop
latch or with a hydraulic ram and require a mechanized vessel with a mast or boom and a winch
(DeAlteris, 1998). Patent tongs are regulated by weight, length of teeth, and bar spacing in the
basket. This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Line Fishing/Handgear/Vertical Gear
Handlines/Hook and Line - The simplest form of hook and line fishing is the hand line. It
consists of a line, sinker, leader and at least one hook. The line is usually stored on a small spool
and rack and can vary in length. The line varies in material from a natural fiber to synthetic
nylon. The sinkers vary from stones to cast lead. The hooks are single to multiple arrangements
in umbrella rigs. An attraction device must be incorporated into the hook, usually a natural bait
and artificial lure (DeAlteris, 1998). Although not typically associated with bottom impacts, this
gear can be fished in such as manner so as to hit bottom and bounce or be carried by currents
until retrieved. This activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-42

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Electric or Hydraulic Reel - Mechanized line hauling systems have been developed to
allow more lines to be worked by smaller crews and use electrical or hydraulic power to work
the lines on the spools or jigging machines (Sainsbury, 1996). These reels, often termed bandits,
are mounted on the vessel bulwarks and have a spool around which the mainline is wound
(Sainsbury, 1996). Each line may have a number of branches and baited hooks, and the line is
taken from the spool over a block at the end of a flexible arm. This gear is used to target several
species of groundfish, especially cod and pollock, and it has the advantage of being effective in
areas where other gears cannot be used. Jigging machine lines are generally fished in waters up
to 600 m (2000 ft) deep (Sainsbury, 1996). This gear may also have the ability to contact the
bottom depending upon the method selected to fish. This activity is managed under a Federal
fishery management plan.
Bandit Gear – see “Electric or Hydraulic Reel.”
Rod and Reel – Rod and reel consists of a handheld fishing rod with a manually or
electronically operated reel attached. This gear may have the ability to contact the bottom. This
activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Hand Hoes - Intertidal flats are frequently harvested for clams and baitworms using
hand-held hoes. These are short handled rake-like devices, which are often modified gardening
tools (Creaser et al., 1983). Baitworm hoes have 5 to 7 tines, 21 to 22 cm (8.3 - 8.7 ft) in length
for bloodworms and 34 to 39 cm (13 – 15 inches) for sandworms. Clam hoes in Maine typically
have 4 to 5 tines, 15 cm (6 inches) long (Wallace, 1997). This activity is not managed under a
Federal fishery management plan.
Diving - By either free diving or using SCUBA, divers collect crustaceans, mollusks and
some reef fish in shallow water. Most often a support vessel is used to transport the diver(s) to
the fishing site and carry the landings to port. In deeper waters, helmet diving systems are used
and the diver is tethered to the vessel with air pumped from the surface. This method is most
often used by sea urchin divers and some lobster divers. Divers normally use small rakes or hoes
to scrape creatures off rocks or dig them out of the seabed. Generally, the catch is placed in
bags, which are either towed to the surface by the boat or floated to the surface using an air
source and a lift bag. Divers rarely work deeper than about 20 m (66 ft) (Sainsbury, 1996). This
activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Spears/Powerheads - Spears were initially hand-held, then thrown, then placed in
launching devices including cross-bows, spear guns for divers, etc. Spears with long shafts
(gigs) are used by fishermen in small boats at night in the Carolina Sounds for flounder, through
the ice for eels in New England bays, and by divers for fish in coastal waters (DeAlteris, 1998).
In the Southeast, reef fish such as grouper and snapper, as well as pelagic species such as dolphin
and mackerel, are targeted by divers (Barnette, 2001). Commercial divers sometimes employ a
shotgun shell known as powerhead at the shaft tip. This method is commonly used to harvest
large species such as amberjack (Barnette, 2001). This activity is not managed under a Federal
fishery management plan.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-43

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Harpoon – A harpoon consists of a pointed dart or iron attached to the end of a line
several hundred feet in length, the other end of which is attached to a flotation device. Harpoon
gear is attached to a pole that is propelled only by hand and not by mechanical means. This
activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Slurp Guns - Slurp guns are self-contained, handheld devices that capture tropical fish by
pulling in seawater that contains target fish. These are typically used on hard bottom substrates
and over coral reefs in state and Federal waters. This activity is not managed under a Federal
fishery management plan.
Allowable Chemical - Collectors of live tropical reef fish commonly employ anesthetics
such as quinaldine (Barnette, 2001). Quinaldine (2-methy quinoline, C10H9N) is the cheapest
and most available of several substituted quinolines (Goldstein, 1973). This activity is not
managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Barrier Net - Barrier nets are used in conjunction with small tropical nets or slurpguns to
collect tropical aquarium species. The net is deployed to surround a coral head or outcropping
and may or may not have a pocket or bag that fish are “herded” into for capture. Barrier nets
may be utilized by tropical fish collectors in both state and Federal waters (Barnette, 2001). This
activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Snare - Recreational divers pursuing spiny lobster often use a long, thin pole that has a
loop of coated wire on the end called a snare. The loop is placed around a lobster that may be
residing in a tight overhang or other inaccessible location, and then tightened by a pull toggle at
the base of the pole in order to capture and extract the lobster (Barnette, 2001). This activity is
managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Dip net/Bully Net - Widely utilized to catch baitfish, crabs, or lobster, varieties of dip nets
consist of a long pole with a bag of netting of varying mesh size that are lowered into the water.
Dip nets may also be employed to capture tropical reef fish, though these utilize a short handle
and very fine mesh. Additionally, landing nets or hand bully nets used to capture lobster can be
considered a form of dip net. Varieties of dip nets may be used both in state and Federal waters
(Barnette, 2001). This activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Cast Net - Used to capture baitfish and shrimp, cast nets are circular nets with a weighted
skirt that is thrown over a schooling target. Cast nets are primarily used in shallow areas such as
estuaries, though they may be used to catch baitfish offshore in Federal waters (Barnette, 2001).
This activity is managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
Drop Net - Drop nets are closed-bottom square or circular nets having a square or circular
frame attached to the open top of the net. A series of lines run from points on the frame to a
single hand line. This allows the net to be lowered into the water to sit flat on the bottom. Bait
can be attached to the bottom of the net or dropped onto the water’s surface above the net to
attract the target species. When the desired species is on or above the net, it is hauled up quickly,
presumably capturing the organism. The drop net is also known by the name “lift net”, which
seems more appropriate. These nets are generally fished in calmer waters with relatively flat
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-44

CHAPTER 10: EFH
THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

sand or mud bottoms in estuarine settings, and are used mostly to catch crabs (GULF FEIS,
2004). This activity is not managed under a Federal fishery management plan.
10.4.7 Summary
In summary, NMFS concludes that most HMS gears are having minimal to no impact on
HMS EFH or to other species’ EFH. Bottom longline gear is one of the only gear types that
could have a detrimental effect on the benthic environment, especially if placed in coral reef,
hard bottom or SAV habitats. However, bottom longline gear in HMS fisheries is primarily used
in sandy and/or muddy habitats where it is expected to have minimal to low impacts. NMFS is
aware of actions being taken by the Gulf and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils to
minimize fishing impacts in specific habitat areas described earlier. To provide consistency
between the Council regulations and HMS regulations, NMFS may consider similar alternatives
to prohibit HMS gears in those areas in a subsequent rulemaking. In addition, NMFS will
continue to collect the necessary data to determine if these potential adverse effects from bottom
longline could be more than minimal and not temporary on non-HMS EFH in a future document.
In general, NMFS has not detected adverse effects from non-HMS fishing gears on HMS
EFH. As outlined in Section 10.4.2.1, most HMS EFH is defined as the water column or
attributes of the water column (i.e., temperature gradients, frontal boundaries, etc.). Therefore,
there are little anticipated cumulative impacts that rise above the threshold of more than minimal
and not temporary from non-HMS fishing gears. The only exceptions are nearshore and
estuarine shark pupping grounds where bottom tending gears (i.e., trawls and dredges) that
dramatically altered the benthic environment and overlap with the EFH of these species may
have some negative impact on their EFH. However, habitat types associated with these species’
EFH, the degree of overlap between the various bottom tending gears and these species’ EFH,
the extent to which the habitat is altered by these gears, and the impact these gears have on the
EFH are all currently unknown. As data becomes available to NMFS, NMFS will make the
determination of whether or not these gears have adverse effects on HMS EFH and if those
effects are more than minimal and not temporary in nature.
10.5

Non-fishing Impacts to EFH

The EFH regulations require that FMPs identify non-fishing related activities that may
adversely affect EFH of managed species, either quantitatively or qualitatively, or both. In
addition, the regulations require that Federal agencies consult with NMFS on all actions, or
proposed actions that are permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency, and that may adversely
affect EFH. NMFS must then recommend conservation measures to conserve and enhance EFH
by avoiding, minimizing, mitigating, or otherwise offsetting the adverse effects to EFH.
Broad categories of activities that may adversely affect HMS EFH include, but are not
limited to: (1) actions that physically alter structural components or substrate, e.g., dredging,
filling, excavations, water diversions, impoundments and other hydrologic modifications; (2)
actions that result in changes in habitat quality, e.g., point source discharges; (3) activities that
contribute to non-point source pollution and increased sedimentation; (4) introduction of
potentially hazardous materials; or (5) activities that diminish or disrupt the functions of EFH. If
these actions are persistent or intense enough, they can result in major changes in habitat quantity
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-45

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

as well as quality, conversion of habitats, or in complete abandonment of habitats by some
species.
HMS EFH has been identified in estuarine, coastal, and offshore waters. Estuaries and
coastal embayments have been identified as particularly important shark nursery areas, while
offshore waters contain important spawning and feeding areas for HMS. All of these waters are
at one time or another used by humans for a variety of purposes that often result in degradation
of these and adjacent habitats, posing threats, either directly or indirectly, to the biota they
support. These effects, either alone in combination with (cumulative) effects from other
activities within the ecosystem, may contribute to the decline of some species or degradation of
the habitat. In some cases such effects may be demonstrated, but they are often difficult to
quantify.
Pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, oil and grease, excess nutrients, improperly treated human
and animal wastes, pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals) can be introduced into the aquatic
environment through a number of routes, including point sources, non-point sources, and
atmospheric deposition. These contaminants have been demonstrated to affect finfish and
invertebrates by altering the growth, visual acuity, swimming speed, equilibrium, feeding rate,
response time to stimuli, predation rate, spawning seasons, migration routes, and resistance to
disease and parasites. In addition to the introduction of contaminants that cause direct effects on
animal physiology, point and non-point source discharges also affect essential habitat
characteristics such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and other parameters that
affect habitat suitability for individuals, populations, and communities. The synergistic effects
of multiple discharge components such as heavy metals and various chemical compounds are not
well understood but are increasingly the focus of research efforts. More subtle effects of
contaminants, such as endocrine disruption in aquatic organisms and reduced ability to reproduce
or compete for food, are also being identified and investigated (Hanson et al., 2003).
Non-point source runoff, which is often difficult to detect, may have a more significant
impact on coastal water quality, resulting in tighter controls on point source discharges.
Activities that tend to increase the input of contaminants to aquatic environments through nonpoint sources include coastal development, urbanization, certain agriculture and silviculture
practices, marina and port development, commercial and recreational boating, and
hydromodification. Related activities, such as the use of septic systems and improper disposal or
treatment of wastes, can also contribute biological contaminants. Many of these activities can
result in large quantities of pesticides, nutrients, and bacteria or pathogens in coastal waters.
Excess nutrification is one of the greatest sources of coastal water contamination. Nutrient
enrichment can lead to noxious algal blooms, fish kills, and oxygen depletion (as hypoxic or
anoxic events). Researchers have found reduced or stressed fisheries populations to be common
in areas where hypoxia occurs (Hanson et al., 2003).
As required under the EFH regulations, the following discussion identifies non-fishing
activities that have the potential to adversely affect HMS EFH. In many cases these activities are
regulated under particular statutory authorities. As long as they are regulated within those
guidelines, their potential to adversely affect EFH may be reduced, although not necessarily
eliminated. Many of the standards that are used to regulate these activities are based on human
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-46

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

health needs and do not consider long-term impacts on fish and fish habitats. Additionally, if the
activity fails to meet, or is operated outside of, its permitted standards, it may adversely affect
EFH. The EFH regulations require NMFS and the Councils to identify actions with the potential
to adversely affect EFH, including its biological, chemical and physical characteristics. The
EFH regulations also recommend the examination of cumulative impacts to EFH, as it is possible
that multiple permitted actions, while each is operating within its respective regulatory bounds,
may, when combined with others, cause adverse impacts to EFH. The following sections
encompass a broad range of activities so as to ensure that their potential to adversely affect HMS
EFH has been identified.
The review of habitat use undertaken for HMS identified both benthic and water column
habitats in coastal, estuarine and offshore areas as EFH, although in many cases the particular
habitat characteristics that influence species habitat use are not clearly understood or identified.
Many of these factors appear to be related to water quality (e.g., temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen). Therefore, water quality degradation has been a primary focus in this section. When
analyzing the impacts that water quality changes can have on HMS EFH, it is important to
examine all habitats. EFH for HMS includes offshore areas, but even these distant habitats are
affected by actions that originate in coastal habitats (both terrestrial and aquatic) and adjacent
estuaries. Many of the HMS aggregate over submarine canyons or along river plumes; these
physiographic features can serve as conduits for currents moving from inshore out across the
continental shelf and slope, while carrying and redistributing contaminants from the nearshore
realm to offshore habitats. Until the precise zones of influence from various river and coastal
discharges can be delineated, a precautionary approach should be taken in order to protect the
integrity of HMS EFH and the sustainability of the HMS fisheries.
10.5.1.1 Land-based Activities That May Impact HMS EFH
Coastal Development
Coastal development activities include urban, suburban, commercial, and industrial
construction, along with development of corresponding infrastructure. These activities may
result in erosion and sedimentation, dredging and filling (see following sub-section), point and
non-point source discharges of nutrients, chemicals, and cooling water into streams, rivers,
estuaries and ocean waters. Industrial point source discharges result in the contamination of
water and degradation of water quality by introducing organics and heavy metals or altering
other characteristics such as pH and dissolved oxygen. Improperly treated sewage treatment
effluent has been shown to produce changes in water quality as a result of chlorination and
increased contaminant loading, including solids, phosphorus, nitrogen and other organics, and
human pathogens and parasites. Non-point source pollution - that which results from land
runoff, atmospheric deposition, drainage, groundwater seepage, or hydrologic modification results in the deposition of pathogens, nutrients, sediments, heavy metals, oxygen demanding
substances, road salts, hydrocarbons and other toxics.
Coastal development can also lead to the destruction of coastal wetlands, resulting in the
elimination of protective buffer zones that serve to filter sediments, nutrients, and contaminants ­
such as heavy metals and pesticides - that are transported to the coastal zone in ground and
surface waters. In addition, hydrological modifications associated with coastal development
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-47

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

alter freshwater inflow to coastal waters, resulting in changes in salinity, temperature, and
nutrient regimes, and thereby contributing to further degradation of estuarine and nearshore
marine habitats. The variety of pollutants and the severity of their effects from coastal
development activities depend upon a number of factors, such as the nature of the construction,
physical characteristics of the site involved, and proximity of the pollutant source to the
coastline. However, all of these factors ultimately serve to degrade estuarine and coastal water
quality to some degree in terms of dissolved oxygen levels, salinity concentrations, and
contaminants. The result can be losses of important flora and fauna.
Agriculture (and Silviculture)
Cropland, livestock rangeland, and commercial nursery grounds can be connected to
coastal waters and inland tributaries. Agricultural and silvicultural practices can affect estuarine,
coastal and marine water quality through nutrient enrichment and chemical contamination from
animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals via non-point source runoff or via
drainage systems that serve as conduits for contaminant discharge into natural waterways.
Pesticides can adversely affect EFH through direct toxicological impact on the health or
performance of exposed fish, an indirect impairment of the productivity of aquatic ecosystems,
and a loss of aquatic vegetation that provides physical shelter for fish. In addition, uncontrolled
or improper irrigation practices can contribute to non-point source pollution, and may exacerbate
contaminant flushing into coastal waters. Major impacts also include nutrient over-enrichment
with subsequent deoxygenation of surface waters; algal blooms, which can also produce hypoxic
or anoxic conditions and stimulation of toxic dinoflagellate growth. Excessively enriched waters
often will not support fish, and may also not support food web assemblages and other ecological
assemblages needed to sustain desirable species and populations. Agricultural activities also
increase soil erosion and associated sediment transport in adjacent water bodies, resulting in high
turbidity. Many of these same concerns may apply to silviculture as well.
10.5.1.2 Coastal and Offshore Activities That May Impact HMS EFH
Dredging and Disposal of Dredge Material
Dredging operations occur in estuaries, nearshore areas, and offshore in order to maintain
certain areas for activities such as shipping, boating, construction of infrastructure (e.g., offshore
oil and gas pipelines), and marine mining. Disposal of the dredged material takes place in
designated open water disposal areas, often near the dredge site. These operations result in
negative impacts on the marine environment. Of particular concern regarding HMS EFH is the
temporary degradation of water quality due to the resuspension of bottom materials, resulting in
water column turbidity, potential contamination due to the release of toxic substances (metals
and organics), and reduced oxygen levels due to the release of oxygen-consuming substances
(e.g., nutrients, sulfides). Even with the use of approved practices and disposal sites, ocean
disposal of dredged materials is expected to cause environmental harm since contaminants will
continue to be released, and localized turbidity plumes and reduced oxygen zones may persist.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-48

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

Aquaculture and Mariculture
Aquaculture is an expanding industry in the United States, with most facilities located in
farmland, tidal, intertidal and coastal areas. Aquaculture related impacts that adversely affect the
chemical and biological nature of coastal ecosystems include the discharge of excessive waste
products and the release of exotic organisms and toxic substances. Problems resulting from the
introduction of food and fecal wastes may be similar to those resulting from certain agricultural
activities. However, greater nutrient input and localized eutrophic conditions are currently the
most probable environmental effects of aquaculture activities. Extremely low oxygen levels and
fish kills, of both natural stocks and cultured fish, have been known to occur in impounded
wetlands where tidal and wind circulation are severely limited and the enclosed waters are
subject to solar heating. In addition, there are impacts related to the dredging and filling of
wetlands and other coastal habitats, as well as other modifications of wetlands and waters
through the introduction of pens, nets, and other containment and production devices.
Navigation
Navigation-related threats to estuarine, coastal, and offshore environments that have the
potential to affect HMS EFH include navigation support activities such as excavation and
maintenance of channels (including disposal of excavated sediments) which result in the
elevation of turbidity and resuspension of contaminants; construction and operation of ports,
mooring and cargo facilities; construction of ship repair facilities; and construction of channel
stabilization structures such as jetties and revetments. In offshore locations the disposal of
dredged material is the most significant navigation related threat, resulting in localized burial of
benthic communities and degradation of water quality. In addition, threats to both nearshore and
offshore waters are posed by vessel operation activities such as the discharge and spillage of oil,
other hazardous materials, trash and cargo, all of which may result in localized water quality
degradation and direct effects on HMS, especially eggs, larvae and neonates that may be present.
Wakes from vessel operation may also exacerbate shoreline erosion, effecting habitat
modification and potential degradation.
Marinas and Recreational Boating
Marinas and recreational boating are increasingly popular uses of coastal areas. As
marinas are located at the water’s edge, there is often no buffering of associated pollutants
released into the water column. Impacts caused by marinas include lowered dissolved oxygen,
increased temperatures, bioaccumulation of pollutants by organisms, toxic contamination of
water and sediments, resuspension of sediments and toxics during construction, eutrophication,
change in circulation patterns, shoaling, and shoreline erosion. Pollutants that result from marina
activities include nutrients, metals including copper released from antifouling paints, petroleum
hydrocarbons, pathogens, and polychlorinated biphenyls. Also, chemicals commonly used to
treat timber used for piers and bulkheads (e.g., creosote, copper, chromium, and arsenic salts) are
introduced into the water. Other potential impacts associated with recreational boating are the
result of improper sewage disposal, fuel and oil spillage, cleaning operations, and disposal of fish
waste. Propellers from boats can also cause direct damage to multiple life stages of organisms,
including eggs, larvae/neonates, juveniles and adults; destratification; elevated temperatures, and
increased turbidity and contaminants by resuspending bottom materials.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-49

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

Marine Sand and Minerals Mining
Mining for sand (e.g., for beach nourishment projects), gravel, and shell stock in
estuarine and coastal waters can result in water column effects by changing circulation patterns,
increasing turbidity, and decreasing oxygen concentrations at deeply excavated sites where
flushing is minimal. Ocean extraction of mineral nodules is a possibility for some non­
renewable minerals now facing depletion on land. Such operations are proposed for the
continental shelf and the deep ocean proper. Deep borrow pits created by mining may become
seasonally or permanently anaerobic. Marine mining also elevates suspended materials at
mining sites, creating turbidity plumes that may move several kilometers from these sites.
Resuspension of sediments can affect water clarity over wide areas, and could also potentially
affect pelagic eggs and larvae. In addition, resuspended sediments may contain contaminants
such as heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, and other toxins.
Offshore Oil and Gas Operations
Offshore oil and gas operations (exploration, development, production, transportation and
decommissioning) pose a significant level of potential threat to marine, coastal and estuarine
ecosystems. Exploration and recovery operations may cause substantial localized bottom
disturbance. However, more pertinent to HMS is the threat of contaminating operational wastes
associated with offshore exploration and development, the major operational wastes being
drilling muds and cuttings and formation waters. In addition, there are hydrocarbon products,
well completion and work-over fluids, spill clean-up chemicals, deck drainage, sanitary and
domestic wastes, ballast water, and the large volume of unrefined and refined products that must
be moved within offshore and coastal waters.
Potential major contaminants used in oil and gas operations may be highly saline; have
low pH; contain suspended solids, heavy metals, crude oil compounds, and organic acids; or may
generate high biological and chemical oxygen demands. Also, accidental discharges of oil crude, diesel and other oil products - and chemicals can occur at any stage of exploration,
development, or production, the great majority of these being associated with product
transportation activities. Blowouts and associated oil spills can occur at any operational phase
when improperly balanced well pressures result in sudden, uncontrolled releases of petroleum
hydrocarbons. To remove fixed platforms, explosives are frequently used. All of these activities
result in harmful effects on marine water quality as well as the biota in the vicinity.
In the Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas operations are
extending to deeper and deeper waters, throughout which HMS are known to range. Locations
such as the De Soto Canyon area in the northern Gulf and the Blake Plateau north of the
Bahamas repeatedly appear in the analysis of HMS EFH as highly productive areas important to
many of these species. Oil and gas production in these areas should be discouraged because of
the potential impact on HMS EFH in these areas.
Considerable documentation exist that highlights the benefits of offshore production
platforms as artificial reefs that attract numerous species of fishes, including HMS. It is likely
that the attraction of these species to the platforms increases the potential for exposure to
contaminants they may release into the aquatic environment.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-50

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

Liquid Natural Gas Development
Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is natural gas in its liquid form. By cooling natural gas to
minus 259° F (-161° C), it becomes a clear, colorless, odorless liquid. LNG is neither corrosive
nor toxic. Natural gas is primarily methane, with low concentrations of other hydrocarbons,
water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and some sulfur compounds. During the process known
as liquefaction, natural gas is cooled below its boiling point, removing most of these compounds.
The remaining natural gas is primarily methane with only small amounts of other hydrocarbons.
LNG weighs less than half the weight of water so it will float if spilled on water.
Ships unload LNG at specially designed terminals where the LNG is pumped from the
ship to insulated storage tanks at the terminal. LNG is also converted back to gas at the terminal,
which is connected to natural gas pipelines that transport the gas to where it is needed. Specially
designed trucks may also be used to deliver LNG to other storage facilities in different locations.
There has been an increase in the number of LNG terminals authorized for use in the Atlantic
Ocean including the Gulf of Mexico (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2005). Many of
the offshore proposals in the Gulf of Mexico propose the use of an open-loop, or once through,
regasification technology that may utilize 100 – 200 million gallons of seawater per day. These
facilities can subject early life stages of marine species to entrainment, impingement, thermal
shock, and water chemistry changes. Mortality caused by open-loop LNG facilities could affect
the health of some marine fisheries, including bluefin tuna.
Ocean Dumping
The disposal of dredged sediments and hazardous and/or toxic materials (e.g., industrial
wastes) containing concentrations of heavy metals, pesticides, petroleum products, radioactive
wastes, pathogens, etc., in the ocean degrades water quality and benthic habitats. These effects
may be evident not only within the immediate vicinity of the dumping activity, but also at farther
locations, as well, due to current transport and the potential influence of other hydrographic
features. The disposal of uncontaminated dredged material, including adverse effects on EFH
and appropriate conservation measures are addressed in Section 6.6.2.4 of this chapter. Disposal
of hazardous and toxic materials by U.S. flag vessels and vessels operating in the U.S. territorial
sea and contiguous zone is currently prohibited under the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), although under certain circumstances the Environmental Protection
Agency may issue emergency permits for dumping industrial wastes into the ocean. Major
dumping threats to the marine environment are therefore limited mostly to illegal dumping and
accidental disposal of material in unauthorized locations. However, given the amount of debris
that is deposited along the Nation’s beaches every year, including hazardous materials such as
medical wastes, it is evident that effects from such dumping may be substantial.
10.5.2 Cumulative Impacts
The EFH regulations suggest that cumulative impacts should be analyzed for adverse
effects to EFH. Cumulative impacts on the environment are those that result from the
incremental impact of actions added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. Such cumulative impacts generally occur in inshore and estuarine areas, and can result
from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-51

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

These impacts include water quality degradation due to nutrient enrichment, other organic and
inorganic contaminants associated with coastal development, activities related to marine
transportation, and loss of coastal habitats, including wetlands and sea grasses. The rate and
magnitude of these human-induced changes on EFH, whether cumulative, synergistic, or
individually large, is influenced by natural parameters such as temperature, wind, currents,
rainfall, salinity, etc. Consequently, the level of threat posed by a particular activity or group of
activities may vary considerably from location to location. These multiple effects can, however,
result in adverse impacts on HMS EFH.
Wetland loss is a cumulative impact that results from activities related to coastal
development: residential and industrial construction, dredging and dredge spoil placement, port
development, marinas and recreational boating, sewage treatment and disposal, industrial
wastewater and solid waste disposal, ocean disposal, marine mining, and aquaculture. In the late
1970s and early 1980s the country was losing wetlands at an estimated rate of 300,000 acres per
year. The Clean Water Act and state wetland protection programs have helped to decrease
wetland losses to 117,000 acres per year, between 1985 and 1995. Estimates of wetlands loss
vary according to the different agencies. The USDA estimates attributes 57 percent wetland loss
to development, 20 percent to agriculture, 13 percent to deepwater habitat, and ten percent to
forest land, rangeland, and other uses. Of the wetlands lost to uplands between 1985 and 1995,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 79 percent of wetlands were lost to upland
agriculture. Urban development, and “other” types of land use activities were responsible for six
percent and 15 percent, respectively.
Nutrient enrichment has become a major cumulative problem for many coastal waters.
Nutrient loading results from the individual activities of coastal development, non-point source
pollution, marinas and recreational boating, sewage treatment and disposal, industrial wastewater
and solid waste disposal, ocean disposal, agriculture, and aquaculture. Excess nutrients from
land based activities accumulate in the soil, pollute the atmosphere, pollute ground water, or
move into streams and coastal waters. Nutrient inputs are known to have a direct effect on water
quality. For example, in extreme conditions excess nutrients can stimulate excessive algal
blooms or dinoflagellate growth that can lead to increased turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen,
and changes in community structure, a condition known as eutrophication. Examples of such
dinoflagellates or algae include Gymnodinium breve, the dinoflagellate that causes neurotoxic
shellfish poisoning, dinoflagellates of the genus Alexandrium, which causes paralytic shellfish
poisoning, Aureococcus anophagefferens, the algae which causes “brown tides”, and diatoms of
the genus Pseudo-nitzschia which cause amnesic shellfish poisoning. Pfiesteria piscicida is a
recently-described toxic dinoflagellate that has been documented in the water column in coastal
areas of Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Another Pfiesteria-like organism has been
documented in St. John’s River, FL. This organism has been associated with fish kills in some
areas.
In addition to the direct cumulative effects incurred by development activities, inshore
and coastal habitats are also jeopardized by persistent increases in certain chemical discharges.
The combination of incremental losses of wetland habitat, changes in hydrology, and nutrient
and chemical inputs produced over time, can be extremely harmful to marine and estuarine biota,
resulting in diseases and declines in the abundance and quality of the affected resources.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-52

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

Future investigations will seek to analyze cumulative impacts within specific geographic
locations (certain estuarine, coastal and offshore habitats) in order to evaluate the cumulative
impacts on HMS EFH. Information and techniques that are developed for this process will be
used to supplement future revisions of these EFH provisions as the information becomes
available.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-53

CHAPTER 10: EFH
NON-FISHING IMPACTS TO EFH

CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES

NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks, NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver
Spring, MD. Public Document.
Swordfish
Govoni, J.J., B.W. Stender, and O. Pashuk. 2000. Distribution of larval swordfish Xiphias
gladius, and probable spawning off the southeastern United States. Fish. Bull. 98:64-74.
Govoni, J.J., E.H. Laban, and J.A. Hare. 2003. The early life history of swordfish (Xiphias
gladius) in the western North Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 101(4) 778-789.
McGowan, M.F., and W.J. Richards. 1989. Bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, larvae in the Gulf
Stream off the southeastern United States: satellite and shipboard observations of their
environment. Fish. Bull. 87:615-631.
Olson, D.B., G.L. Hitchcock, A.J. Mariano, C.J., Ashjian, G. Peng, R.W. Nero, and G.P.
Podesta. 1994. Life on the edge: marine life and fronts. Oceanography. 7:7:52-60.
Taylor, R.G. and M.D. Murphy. 1992. Reproductive biology of the swordfish Xiphias gladius in
the Straits of Florida and adjacent waters. Fish. Bull. 90:809-816.
Uchiyama, J.H., E.E. DeMartini, H.A. Williams. 1999. Length-weight interrelationships for
swordfish, Xiphias gladius L., caught in the central north Pacific. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS. December 1999.
Billfish
Luthy, S.A., R.K. Cowen, J.E. Serafy, J.R. McDowell. 2005. Towards distinguishing larval
sailfish, white marlin, and blue marlin in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull. 103:
588-600.
Prince, E.D., R.K. Cowen, E.S. Orbesen, S.A. Luthy, J.K. Llopiz, D.E. Richardson, and J.E.
Serafy. 2005. Movements and spawning of white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) and blue
marlin (Makaira nigricans) off Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Fish. Bull. 103: 659-669.
NMFS 2004. Atlantic billfish research plan. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. NMFS. Version
1.4. 44 pp.
Tunas
Alvarado Bremer, J.R., B. Stequert, N.W. Robertson, and B. Fly. Genetic evidence for interoceanic subdivision of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) populations. Mar. Bio. 132, 547-557.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-54

CHAPTER 10: EFH
REFERENCES

Au, D. 1986. Skipjack population dynamics: is it qualitatively different from that of other
tropical tunas? In E.K. Symons, P. Miyake and G. Sakagawa (editors), Proceedings of the
ICCAT International Conference on Skipjack Year Program, International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid. 388 pp.
Bakun, A. 1996. Patterns in the ocean. Ocean processes and marine population dynamics.
California Sea Grant/CIB, La Paz.
Block, B.A., S.L.H. Teo, A. Walli, A. Boustany, M.J.W. Stokesbury, C.J. Farwell, K.C. Weng,
H. Dewar, T.D. Williams. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin
tuna. Nature. Vol. 434. April 2005. 1121-1127.
Block, B.A. 2004. Electronic tagging of Bluefin Tuna, the Tag-A-Giant Campaign. Interim
report: August, 2002 – June, 2004.
Block, B.A., H. Dewar, S.B. Blackwell, T.D. Williams, E.D. Prince, C.J. Farwell, A. Boustany,
S.L.H. Teo, A. Seitz, A. Walli, and D. Fudge 2001. Migratory movements, depth
preferences, and thermal biology of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Science, Vol 293, Issue 5533,
1310-1314.
Colette, B.B. and C.I. Nauen. 1983. FAO Species catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world.
An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos, and related species
known to date. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Estrada, J. A., M.E. Lutcavage, S.R. Thorrold 2005. Diet and trophic position of Atlantic bluefin
tuna (Thunnus thynnus) inferred from stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis. Mar.
Bio. 147: 37-45.
ICCAT. 1997. Report for biennial period, 1997-1997. Part I (1996). Vol 2. International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid.
Lehodey, P., M. Bertignac, J. Hampton, A. Lewis, and J. Picaut. 1997. El Nino southern
oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389, 715-718.
Lutcavage, M.E., R.W. Brill, G.B. Skomal, B.C. Chase, and P.W. Howey 1999. Results of popup satellite tagging on spawning size class of fish in the Gulf of Maine: Do North Atlantic
bluefin tuna spawn in the mid-Atlantic? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 173-177.
Maury, O., D. Gascuel, F. Marsac, A. Fonteneau, and A.L. De Rosa. 2001. Hierarchical
interpretation of nonlinear relationships linking yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
distribution to the environment in the Atlantic Ocean. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 458-469.
Mendelssohn, R. and C. Roy. 1986. Environmental influences on the French, Ivory-Coast,
Senegalese and Morroccan tuna catches in the Gulf of Guinea. pgs. 170-188. In E.K.
Symons, P. Miyake and G. Sakagawa (editors), Proceedings of the ICCAT International
Conference on Skipjack Year Program, International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas, Madrid.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-55

CHAPTER 10: EFH
REFERENCES

Ramos, A.G., J. Santiago, P. Sangra and M. Canton. 1996. An application of satellite-derived sea
surface temperature data to the skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis Linnaeus, 1758) and
albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga Bonaterre, 1788) fisheries in the north-east Atlantic. Int.
J. Remote Sensing 17, 749-759.
Sharp, G. and A. Dizon. 1978. The physiological ecology of tunas. Academic Press, New York.
Sharks
Casey, J.G., N.E. Kohler, C.E. Stillwell, P.A. Turner, R. Briggs, H.W. Pratt and L.J. Natanson.
1995. A summary of shark tag-recapture data from the NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging
Program (1963-1993). American Fisheries Society 125th annual meeting abstracts: 126.
Casey, J.G. and T. Taniuchi. 1990. Recommendations for future shark tagging programs. In:
Elasmobranchs as Living Resources: Advances in the Biology, Ecology, Systematics, and
the Status of the Fisheries. (Eds. H.L. Pratt Jr., S.H. Gruber, and T. Taniuchi) pp. 511-512.
US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 90.
Carlson, J.K., D.M. Betha, A. Middlemiss, and I.E. Baremore. 2004. Shark Nursery Grounds and
Essential Fish Habitat Studies; GULFSPAN Gulf of Mexico-FY04. Report to NMFS,
Highly Migratory Species Office. NMFS, SEFSC, Panama City, FL.
Carlson, J.K., E. Cortés, and D.M. Bethea. 2003. Life history and population dynamics of the
finetooth shark (Carcharhinus isodon) in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull.
101(2) 281-292.
Hueter, R.E. and J.P. Tyminski. In review. Shark nurseries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and
southeast Atlantic coasts: overview of research by Mote Marine Laboratory’s Center for
Shark Research. In: Shark Nursery Grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast of
the United States (C. McCandless, ed.). Special Publication of the American Fisheries
Society.
Hueter, R.E. 1991a. The rise and fall of recreational “kill” tournaments for sharks in Florida:
Historical trends, research potential, and the conservation movement. J. Australian Marine
and Freshwater Research, Sharks Down Under Conference meeting abstracts, Sydney,
Australia.
Hueter, R.E. 1991b. Survey of the Florida recreational shark fishery utilizing shark tournament
and selected longline data. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report 232A (Final report to
Florida DNR, Project 6627); 94 pp.
Kerstetter, D.W. Pers. Com. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, VA. Manire,
C.A. and S.H. Gruber. 1991. The effect of M-type dart tags on field growth of juvenile
lemon sharks. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120(6): 776-780
McCandless, C.T., W.D. McElroy, N.E. Kohler, C. Jensen, G. Ulrich, D. Abel, C. Belcher, and
T. Curtis. 2004. 2003 Report of the Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery
(COASTSPAN) Survey. Apex Predators Program. NMFS, NEFSC, Narragansett, RI.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-56

CHAPTER 10: EFH
REFERENCES

McCandless, C.T., W.D. McElroy, C. Jensen, G. Ulrich, D. Abel, C. Belcher, T. Curtis and B.
DeAngelis. 2003-2004 Summary Report of the Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping
and Nursery (COASTSPAN) Survey. Apex Predators Program. NMFS, NEFSC,
Narragansett, RI. 43 pp.
Simpendorfer, C.A., G.G. Freitas, T.R. Wiley, and M.R. Heupel. 2005. Distribution and habitat
partitioning of immature bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) in a southwest Florida estuary.
Estuaries 28(1): 78-85.
Steve, C., J. Gearhart, D. Borggaard, L. Sabo, and A.A. Hohn. 2001. Characterization of
NorthCarolina commercial fisheries with occasional interactions with marine mammals.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-458.
Fishing Gears
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 2002. Western Atlantic Gastropod Database.
http://data.acnatsci.org/wasp/wasp.php/DistributionBimBah.
Appeldoorn, R.S., M. Nemeth, J. Vasslides, and M. Scharer. 2000. The effects of fish traps
onbenthic habitats off La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Report to the Caribbean Fishery
Management Council, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
Auster, P.J. and R.W. Langton. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. In: Fish habitat:
essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 22,
Bethesda, MD. pp. 150-187.
Barnette, M.C., 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and
theirpotential impacts on essential fish habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFSSEFSC-449.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to: Spiny Lobster Fishery Management
Plan, Queen Conch Fishery Management Plan, Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, Coral
Fishery Management Plan for the U.S. Caribbean. 497 pp.
CFMC. 2005. Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of the U.S.
Caribbean to address required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act.
Carlson, J.K. and I. Baremore. 2002. The directed shark gillnet fishery: non-right whale season,
2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City, FL. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution PCB-02/12. 10pp
Carr, H.A., and H. Milliken. 1998. Conservation engineering: Options to minimize fishing’s
impacts to the sea floor. pp. 100-103 In E.M. Dorsey and J. Pederson (editors), Effects of
Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston,
Massachusetts.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-57

CHAPTER 10: EFH
REFERENCES

Castro, J.I. 1993. The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a reiw of the shark
nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. Environ. Biol. Fishes 38(1): pp. 37­
48.
Creaser, E.P., Jr., D.A. Clifford, M.J. Hogan and D.B. Sampson. 1983. A commercial sampling
program for sandworms, Nereis virens Sars, and bloodworms, Glycera dibranchiata
Ehrens, harvested along Maine Tidal Coast. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-767. 56 p.
DeAlteris, J. 1998. Training Manual: Fisheries Science and Technology. Prepared for the NOAA
Corps Officer Program, University of Rhode Island, Dept. Fish., Kingston, RI. 34 pp.
Everhart, W.H. and W.D. Youngs. 1981. Principles of fishery science. 2nd edition. Cornell Univ.
Press, Ithaca, NY. 340 pp.
Goldstein, R.J. 1973 . Aquarist Goldstein states fear of drugged fish “all wet.” Marine Hobbyist
News 1(3):1-6.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GOMFMC). 1998. Generic Amendment for
addressing essential fish habitat requirements in the following Fishery Management plans
of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States waters; Red
Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coastal
Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerel) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone
Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coral
and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
3018 U.S. Highway301 N., Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33619.
GOMFMC. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat
Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM):
Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral
Reef Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic, Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic. 682 pp.
Guthrie, J.F. and C.W. Lewis. 1982. The clam-kicking fishery of North Carolina. Mar. Fish. Rev.
44: pp. 12-21.
Hamilton, Jr., A.N. 2000. Gear impacts on Essential Fish Habitat in the Southeast Region.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, MS.
Hayes, M.L. 1983. Active fish capture methods. In L. A. Nielson and D. L. Johnson, (eds.)
Fisheries techniques. p. 123-145. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD.
Hubert, W.A. 1983. Passive capture methods. In L. A. Nielson and D. L. Johnson, (eds.)
Fisheries techniques. p. 95-122. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD.
Johnson, K.A. 2002. A review of national and international literature on the effects of fishing on
benthic habitats. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA Fisheries-F/SPO-57. 72 pp.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-58

CHAPTER 10: EFH
REFERENCES

McCandless, C.T., H.L. Pratt, Jr., and N.E. Kohler. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of
Mexico and the East Coast water of the United States: an overview. NOAA Fisheries
Narragansett Lab, 28 Tarzell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882, 286 pp.
Mirarchi, F. 1998. Bottom trawling on soft substrates. In E. M. Dorsey and J. Pederson, (eds.)
Effect of fishing gear on the sea floor of New England. p. 80-84. Conserv. Law Found.,
Boston, MA. 160 pp.
Morgan, L.E., and R. Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of
fishing methods in U.S. waters. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 52 pp.
NMFS. 1999a. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks. NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver
Spring, MD. Public Document.
NMFS. 1999b. Final Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan. NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver
Spring, MD. Public Document.
NMFS. 2001. Environmental Assessment, incorporating a regulatory impact review for an
experimental fishery to allow tuna purse seine vessels to fish in the northeast multispeceis
Closed Area I on Georges Bank. Prepared by the East Coast Tuna Association in
consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, June 2001.
NMFS. 2003. Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish and Sharks. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory
Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document.
NMFS. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Minimizing Impacts of the Atlantic
Herring Fishery on Essential Fish Habitat. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service. 273 pp.
NEFMC. New England Fishery Management Council. 2002. Fishery Management Plan for deepsea red crab (Chacon quinquedens), including an environmental impact statement, an initial
regulatory flexibility act analysis, and a regulatory impact review. Vol. 1. March 2002.
NEFMC.
NEFMC. New England Fishery Management Council. 2005. Draft Amendment 1 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic herring. Including a Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement and Preliminary Regulatory Economic Evaluation.
Northeast Region Essential Fish Habitat Steering Committee. 2002. Workshop on the effects of
fishing gear on marine habitats off the northeastern United States, October 23-25, 2001.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 02-01. 86 p. National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-59

CHAPTER 10: EFH
REFERENCES

NPFMC. 1992. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory
ImpactReview/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of proposed Inshore/Offshore
Allocation Alternatives (Amendment 18/23) to the Fishery Management Plans for the
groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the gulf of Alaska. North
Pacific Fishery Management Council. Anchorage AK.
NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat.
National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 107 pp.
Rester, J.K. 2000. Annotated bibliography of fishing impacts on habitat. Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission. No. 73. Ocean Springs, MS. 168 pp.
Sainsbury, J.C. 1996. Commercial Fishing Methods, an Introduction to Vessels and Gear. Third
Edition. Fishing News Books. Osney Mead, Oxford, England. 360 p.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Comprehensive Amendment
Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic
Region, May 1998. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC.
Schleyer, M.H. and B.J. Tomalin. 2000. Damage on South African coral reefs and an assessment
of their sustainable diving capacity using a fisheries approach. Bull. Mar. Sci. 67(3): pp.
1025-1042.
Stephan, C.D., R.L. Peuser, and M.S. Fonseca. 2000. Evaluating fishing gear impacts to
submerged aquatic vegetation and determining mitigation strategies. Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series No.5, 38 p.
Stevenson, D.K., L.A. Chiarella, C.D. Stephan, R.N. Reid, J.E. McCarthy, and M. Pentony.
2004. Characterization of fishing practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the Northeast
U.S. Shelf, and an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on essential fish habitat.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-181.
Turner and Boesch. 1987. Aquatic animal production and wetland relationships: Insights gleaned
following wetland loss or gain, pp. 25-39, In D. Hooks (ed.), Ecology and Management of
Wetlands. Croon Helms, LTD, Beckenham, Kent, UK.
Wallace, D.E. 1997. The molluscan fisheries of Maine. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 127: pp. 63­
85.
Non-Fishing Impacts
Hanson, J., M. Helvey, and R., Strach (editors). 2004. Non-fishing impacts to essential fish
habitat and recommended conservation measures. National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries), version 1. Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA.
California Energy Commission. 2005. Frequently asked questions about LNG. June 22, 2005.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/faq.html#100
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2005. LNG – The Importance of LNG. June 22, 2005.
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/gen-info/import.asp
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

10-60

CHAPTER 10: EFH
REFERENCES

CHAPTERS 11-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapters 11-13 Table of Contents ...........................................................................................11-i

11.0
Other Considerations ................................................................................................. 11-1

11.1
National Standards .................................................................................................... 11-1

11.2
Ongoing Management and the Procedure for Adjusting Management Measures .. 11-11

11.3
Consideration of Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 304(g) Measures....................... 11-12

12.0 List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 12-1

13.0 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted and to Whom Copies

of the EIS Will Be Sent............................................................................................... 13-1

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-i

CHAPTER 11-13
TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.0

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

11.1

National Standards

The analyses in this document are consistent with the National Standards (NSs) and their
guidelines set forth in the 50 CFR part 600 regulations. The following descriptions are a
summary of how the preferred alternatives are consistent. More information can be found in
Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
NS 1 requires NMFS to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the
Optimum Yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. As summarized in Chapter
3, over the past years, NMFS has undertaken numerous management actions, including the 1999
FMP, Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP, and Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP, to address
overfishing and to rebuild HMS stocks. The preferred alternatives in this HMS FMP are
consistent with ongoing management efforts to rebuild, manage, and conserve target species and
with the NS 1 guidelines.
ƒ

The preferred measures in this action for workshops should support those ongoing
management efforts consistent with NS 1. While the preferred workshop alternatives
do not directly impact fishing effort, the HMS identification workshops for shark
dealers may improve the estimates of fishing mortality rates and MSY for sharks, and
thus, enhance management efforts aimed at preventing overfishing and achieving OY.

ƒ

The preferred Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures should support
efforts aimed at achieving OY for gag grouper and may have some minor positive
ancillary benefits for HMS. The preferred alternative to establish criteria for
time/area closures would clarify the process NMFS uses to consider the status of the
species before establishing or modifying time/area closures.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for northern albacore tuna would establish the foundation to
implement domestically an international rebuilding plan that the United States would,
during international negotiations, seek to develop in a manner that is consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for finetooth sharks would identify sources of fishing
mortality in order to implement appropriate management measures. Historically there
have been approximately five vessels “targeting” sharks with drift gillnets or
strikenets and observer data indicate that their landings comprise only a small portion
of the total finetooth shark landings. Observer coverage was recently expanded to
other gillnet vessels that catch sharks but target other species. These data indicate
that these vessels use variations of gillnet and are also responsible for finetooth shark
landings. As part of the plan to prevent overfishing, NMFS intends to collect more
detailed information on finetooth shark landings and then address this issue through
directed management measures and/or collaborative management with Regional
Fishery Management Councils, state, or other management entities. These data will

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-1

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

be used for future stock assessments and to develop effective management measures
to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks.
ƒ

The preferred alternatives for the directed Atlantic billfish fishery support
international management efforts aimed at preventing overfishing and rebuilding
billfish stocks by addressing the contribution of U.S. anglers to Atlantic-wide
landings and mortalities and implementing international recommendations.

ƒ

The preferred BFT alternatives would not increase overall fishing effort or the overall
U.S. quota allocation from ICCAT and are consistent with ICCAT’s western Atlantic
BFT rebuilding program. The adjustment of the fishing year is largely administrative
and would not likely impact fishing effort, catch, or age/size at harvest.

ƒ

The authorized fishing gear and regulatory housekeeping preferred alternatives would
not increase fishing effort on target species beyond domestic and/or ICCAT-adopted
quotas.

NS 2 requires that conservation and management measures be based on the best scientific
information available. The preferred alternatives in this HMS FMP are consistent with this NS.
ƒ

One of the goals for the workshop alternatives is to improve the quality of the
scientific information used in population assessments and in estimating bycatch and
bycatch mortality. Pelagic and bottom longline and gillnet owners and operators
would be trained to correctly identify protected species, thereby improving the quality
of logbook data. HMS permitted shark dealers would be trained to identify sharks,
either in whole or log form, thereby improving the accuracy of dealer reports.

ƒ

The time/area closure alternatives are based on up-to-date logbook and observer data
and were analyzed using models, which are based on generally accepted principles in
fisheries science, to analyze the range of potential impacts. Additionally, the
preferred alternative to establish criteria for time/area closures should help ensure that
the most up-to-date information and science is taken into account when new closures
are being considered.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for northern albacore tuna is based on the most recent stock
assessment results and the most up-to-date landings data submitted to ICCAT.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for finetooth sharks is based on the 2002 SCS stock
assessment, which constitutes the best available scientific information. As described
in Section 3.2.5.3, there was a lack of bycatch data and inconsistent catch series data
when this assessment was conducted. The preferred alternative seeks to gain
additional finetooth shark landings data through expanded observer coverage,
contacting states to obtain landings data and including finetooth sharks as a select
species for bycatch reporting in the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Trawl Fishery Observer
Program.

ƒ

The analyses and preferred measures for Atlantic billfish are based on the best
available scientific information, including the latest information available on the postrelease mortality of Atlantic white marlin and other species.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-2

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

ƒ

For BFT, the preferred alternatives consider the most recent biological information to
determine the availability of BFT both geographically and temporally. The
alternatives also consider current and historical harvest rates and fishing patterns to
establish the General category time periods and subquota allocations. The BFT quota
allocation recommended by ICCAT is based on the most recent stock assessment
(2002). BFT management measures, along with management measures for other
ICCAT species, may be reconsidered after the upcoming 2006 BFT stock assessment.

ƒ

The preferred alternative regarding the fishing year may slightly enhance the
availability and utility of scientific information for international stock assessments
and management reviews since the data would be reported in a way that would be
consistent with most other international information.

ƒ

The potential impacts of preferred authorized fishing gear alternatives and regulatory
housekeeping alternatives were analyzed using the best scientific information
available including logbook data.

NS 3 requires that, to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish be managed as a
unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish be managed as a unit or in close
coordination. The preferred alternatives in this HMS FMP are consistent with this NS.
ƒ

Many of the preferred alternatives – including the workshop, time/area closure,
fishing year, authorized gear, and regulatory housekeeping alternatives – do not
influence the HMS management units or the geographic scope of the fishery.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for finetooth sharks would ensure that finetooth sharks
continue to be managed within the SCS complex throughout their range, which
includes the south Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. NMFS intends to seek
collaborative efforts with states and Regional Fishery Management Councils in these
regions to address comprehensively finetooth shark fishing mortality throughout the
species’ range.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for northern albacore tuna and the directed billfish fishery
apply uniformly to albacore tuna and billfish stocks within those portions of their
ranges over which the United States has jurisdiction, thereby facilitating management
as a unit. In addition, the United States continues to participate at ICCAT to further
conservation and management of HMS species through international rebuilding
efforts.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives to change the time-period allocations for the BFT General
category ensure that the fishery is managed throughout the geographic scope of that
fishery.

NS 4 requires that conservation and management measures do not discriminate between
residents of different states. Furthermore, if it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing
privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation should be fair and equitable to all
fishermen; be reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and, should be carried out in such
a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-3

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

such privileges. The preferred alternatives in this HMS FMP are consistent with this NS.
ƒ

The workshop alternatives are consistent because they would apply to any individual
that owns or operates an HMS permitted vessel that uses longline or gillnet gear and
any Federally permitted shark dealers.

ƒ

With regard to time/area closures, while fishermen who live near a closure could be
affected more by the closure than fishermen in other states, as explained in the NS 8
discussion below, the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures are not
expected to have substantial economic impacts on HMS fishermen and would be
closed to all HMS fishermen other than those surface trolling from May to October,
regardless of what state they are from or how far they need to travel. The preferred
alternative to establish closure criteria would not have direct impacts on fishermen;
potential impacts of specific closures would be evaluated as those closures are
considered in the future.

ƒ

Under the preferred alternative for finetooth sharks, the current overall quota of 454
mt dw for SCS and the regional and/or trimester quota distributions applies to
residents of all states and would not be modified.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for Atlantic billfish and northern albacore tuna do not
discriminate between residents of different states or allocate or assign fishing
privileges. Any reductions in the fishing mortality rates for these species are
necessary throughout their ranges.

ƒ

The preferred BFT management measure to revise the General category time-period
subquotas consistent with recent trends in BFT availability along the coast would
ensure more opportunity for fishermen in all of the states to have access to the
resource when it is available in their area. Even if this action were to be considered
an allocation, it is fair and equitable because the fishery is a coast-wide fishery and
the action would promote access to the resource throughout the BFT range. In
addition, it is consistent with the BFT rebuilding program and ongoing conservation
and management efforts. The other preferred BFT alternatives (e.g., establishing
inseason criteria) would implement overall improvements in the BFT management
process with no differing impacts on residents of different states.

ƒ

The adjustment of the fishing year in conjunction with implementation of the ICCAT
marlin landings limit could have minor indirect impacts that may be slightly greater
in certain regions of the nation. However, none of the fishing year alternatives would
directly allocate or assign fishing privileges among various U.S. fishermen, and all
are intended to enhance conservation and management of the HMS fisheries.

ƒ

None of the authorized fishing gear and regulatory housekeeping preferred
alternatives discriminate between residents of different states or allocate or assign
fishing privileges.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-4

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

NS 5 requires that conservation and management measures should, where practicable,
consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources with the exception that no such measure
shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. The preferred alternatives in this HMS FMP
are consistent with this NS.
ƒ

The preferred workshop alternatives would not directly impact the efficiency in the
utilization of the fishery resources. To the extent that the workshops teach fishermen
how to remove protected resources from fishing gear in an efficient manner that
maximizes survival and improve species identification, the workshops could have
some benefits.

ƒ

The preferred Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures are not expected to
have significant economic impacts, and no direct impacts are expected from the
closure criteria. Neither this alternative nor the criteria alternative is expected to
change efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for northern albacore tuna and finetooth sharks would have
no impacts on efficiency in the short-term as they would not implement new
regulatory requirements on the fisheries at this time.

ƒ

The preferred billfish alternatives consider efficiency, where practicable, by tailoring
the circle hook and bait requirements, as opposed to applying them across the whole
fishery, and by proposing a mechanism for implementing inseason regulatory
adjustments.

ƒ

The preferred BFT inseason action alternative would consolidate criteria used for
inseason and annual adjustments, and thus, could increase consistency in the inseason
criteria and transparency in the management process. Having the flexibility to
modify the regulations in response to variation in the fishery and the resource could
also promote efficiency. One of the preferred BFT alternatives would ensure that
excessive amounts of quota do not accumulate in any particular domestic quota
category by allowing NMFS to limit the amount of underharvest that can be carried
forward, if warranted. Excess quota would be rolled over to the Reserve or to other
domestic quota categories. Thus, the alternative provides reasonable fishing
opportunities, while ensuring efficient use of the resource.

ƒ

The preferred fishing year alternative should improve efficiency and transparency of
managing HMS fisheries.

ƒ

The authorized fishing gear preferred alternatives consider efficiency, where
practicable, and would allow fishermen some flexibility in rigging gears for speargun
and buoy gear as well as flexibility in their choices of cockpit gear. This flexibility
should allow different segments of the HMS fisheries to choose or rig gears in ways
that maximize their efficiency in a particular area.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for regulatory housekeeping are not expected to impact the
efficiency of using the fishery resources. Requiring that the dorsal and anal fins
remain on the shark could alter the efficiency of the fishery slightly, but should
improve the data and conservation of the fishery and resource. In addition, the option

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-5

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

of submitting dealer reports over the internet, once such a system is available, could
provide a more efficient and flexible method of reporting.
NS 6 states that conservation and management measures shall take into account and
allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. The
preferred alternatives for this HMS FMP are consistent with this NS.
ƒ

The workshop alternatives provide that the workshop requirements could be adjusted
through a regulatory framework adjustment. Such adjustments would account for any
unexpected changes in the HMS fisheries attributable to fishing practices, gear, effort,
or the improved knowledge of safe-handling and release methods.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for time/area closure criteria specifically takes into account
variations in fisheries and fishery resources by providing criteria to be applied in
modifying or adding new closures either through the framework or FMP amendment
process. The Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures take variations in
fisheries into account by allowing surface trolling during prime fishing months.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for finetooth sharks and northern albacore tuna would not
affect any previous measures implemented to protect against social, economic, or
ecological uncertainties that may arise in HMS fisheries.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for the directed Atlantic billfish fishery provide needed
flexibility in allowable hooks and baits, as well as in both the mechanism for
implementing inseason regulatory adjustments, and the measures considered for
inseason adjustment.

ƒ

The preferred BFT management measures acknowledge the variation in the BFT
fishery, resource, and catches, and improve NMFS’ ability to account for these
variations and make changes to the management actions to ensure a reasonable
fishing opportunity throughout the management unit. The preferred management
measures also provide the industry with consistent baseline annual quotas from year
to year until ICCAT modifies the recommended U.S. BFT TAC. The preferred BFT
management measures continue to provide a reserve to compensate for uncertainty in
estimating domestic harvest, stock conditions, or environmental factors.
Furthermore, one of the preferred alternatives allows for the transfer of unharvested
quota to cover the overharvest of another gear category, compensating for the
uncertainties in these fisheries. The preferred inseason action criteria for BFT would
continue to allow NMFS to account for variability in the fishery or resource and
provide for greater consistency in the factors considered for all inseason actions.

ƒ

Changes in the management cycle timeframe would not impact existing regulations
that have been implemented to protect against social, economic, or ecological
uncertainties, consistent with ICCAT recommendations.

ƒ

The preferred authorized fishing gear alternatives would allow for variability in the
fishery and resource by allowing fishermen some flexibility in rigging gears for
speargun and buoy gear as well as flexibility in their choices of cockpit gears. This
flexibility would allow segments of the HMS fisheries to choose or rig gears

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-6

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

according to the current limits and season. Some of the regulatory housekeeping
alternatives allow for more flexibility and variation. For example, clarifying the
definitions for pelagic and bottom longline fishing gear should alleviate some
confusion regarding bottom longline fishing in pelagic longline closed areas. Most of
the preferred alternatives for regulatory housekeeping do not address variations or
contingencies in the fishery.
NS 7 states that conservation and management measures shall, where practicable,
minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. The preferred alternatives in this HMS FMP
duplicate other regulations.
ƒ

The costs associated with the preferred workshop alternatives include possible lost
fishing time or other opportunity costs and travel to the workshops. These costs
would be mitigated by holding workshops when fishing activity is anticipated to be
slow and in locations in the vicinity of the longline and gillnet communities as well as
in the vicinity of shark dealers. Nevertheless, time spent at these workshops will
provide valuable skills that may offset some of the costs associated with attending the
workshops. Linking the workshop certification to the permit renewal would facilitate
enforcement of the requirements. The workshop alternatives are not anticipated to
shift costs to another sector, such as a local government or the private sector. NMFS
considered the burden of training owners, operators, and crew of vessels using
longline and gillnet gear in the analysis of alternatives. However, the bycatch
mortality reduction benefit of training the larger universe of owners, operators, and
crew does not appear to outweigh the costs (e.g., administrative burden, lost fishing,
and time away from other responsibilities) of requiring everyone to attend. Thus,
NMFS is preferring to require just the owners and operators of those vessels, not the
crew, to attend the workshops. However, members of the larger universe other than
owners and operators would be allowed to attend workshops on a voluntary basis.
The same analyses were true for the HMS identification workshops. Training all of
the HMS dealers, anglers, and commercial vessel owners and operators versus just
the shark dealers would not improve the shark data collection enough to justify the
costs.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for time/area closures are expected to have minimal costs.
Few HMS commercial longline fishermen reported fishing in the complementary
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures and surface trolling would be
allowed during prime recreational fishing months. NMFS does not expect any costs
to be associated with the criteria for time/area closures.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for the directed Atlantic billfish fishery may result in
minor, short-term compliance costs, due to the initial purchase of circle hooks.
However, in the long-term, there may be de minimus economic benefits to
recreational fishermen because circle hooks typically cost less than J hooks.
Additionally, allowing the continued use of J-hooks outside of tournaments and with
artificial baits in tournaments minimizes costs by allowing fishermen to utilize their
existing stockpile of J-hooks. Delaying the effective date also provides recreational

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-7

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

fishermen a chance to utilize existing stockpiles of J-hooks, and allows fishermen to
replace J-hooks which they would have used with natural baits in tournaments with
lower cost circle hooks over time.
ƒ

The preferred BFT alternatives take into consideration recent trends in BFT
availability and attempt to provide greater fishing opportunities for all fishermen in
this coast-wide fishery. Further, the preferred alternatives are also aimed at
improving the efficient utilization of the available quota by improving NMFS’ ability
to make inseason adjustments and allowing NMFS to be responsive to the annual and
seasonal variability in the fishery. While there may be some costs associated with
revising the General category time-period and subquota allocations (e.g., less quota
would be available for fishermen in northern states), as discussed further under NS 8,
any economic impacts are expected to be minor.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for adjusting the fishing year appears to minimize costs
while maximizing benefits.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for northern albacore tuna, finetooth sharks, authorized
gears, and most of regulatory housekeeping do not impose any costs on the
fishermen. A few of the regulatory housekeeping alternatives would impose minimal
costs on fishermen. The requirement to leave the anal and second dorsal fin on the
shark could have some minor impact on the cost of fishing but these impacts would
be less than the impact of requiring all fins to remain on the shark.

NS 8 states that conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (including the prevention of
overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery
resources to fishing communities in order to provide for the sustained participation of such
communities, and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such
communities. The preferred alternatives for this HMS FMP are consistent with this NS.
ƒ

The preferred alternatives for workshops are not anticipated to have a negative impact
on the sustained participation of any HMS fishing communities. Workshops would
be held near these communities and at times when the fishing activities are slow in
order to minimize, to the extent practicable, any negative economic or social impacts.

ƒ

The preferred time/area closure alternatives of establishing criteria and implementing
complementary closures would not have significant, adverse economic impacts or
impacts on fishing communities. Few commercial sets have been reported set in the
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures in recent years and surface trolling
are allowed during prime recreational fishing months.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for finetooth sharks and northern albacore tuna are not
expected to result in any adverse social or economic impacts to fishing communities
because no new regulations are being implemented as a result of this action.

ƒ

While some communities may experience heightened localized impacts if angler
behavior substantially changes, the preferred alternatives for the directed billfish
fishery are anticipated to minimize any economic impacts on the fishery as a whole as
well as sustain participation in the directed Atlantic billfish fishery.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-8

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

ƒ

The Atlantic BFT management measures are designed to ensure a reasonable fishing
opportunity is provided throughout the BFT range. There may be some negative
economic impacts for fishermen participating in the early portion of the season
because this action would reduce the current General category time-period and
subquota allocations for the early season (e.g., when BFT are available for fishermen
off northern states) in order to provide for a winter fishery for fishermen off southern
states. However, any such impacts are expected to be minor, and NMFS, in
developing BFT alternatives, took into consideration traditional fishing patterns in
New England as well as recent trends in BFT availability. The other preferred
alternatives would adjust BFT management procedures and are not expected to have
any adverse economic or social impacts.

ƒ

Changing the fishing year for HMS fisheries to make them consistent with the
calendar year is not expected to have a negative impact on the sustained participation
of any HMS fishing communities. However, due to the combination of the 250-fish
limit on billfish and this preferred alternative, some communities may notice shortterm impacts and may need to adjust to either earlier tournaments, if possible, or
catch-and-release only tournament. Communities that rely on more than billfish
tournaments are unlikely to notice any impacts.

ƒ

Authorizing additional fishing gears and the preferred regulatory housekeeping
alternatives are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the sustained
participation of any HMS fishing community.

NS 9 states that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable,
minimize bycatch, and to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of
such bycatch. The NS 9 guidelines provide that, when determining whether actions minimize
bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, several factors should be considered,
consistent with other national standards and maximization of net benefits to the Nation. NMFS
has taken those factors into consideration throughout the HMS FMP.
ƒ

The protected species workshops for pelagic longline, bottom longline, and gillnet
fishermen are aimed at reducing the bycatch mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth
sawfish, and other non-target species. These workshops would train the owners and
operators of vessels using longline and gillnet gear in the safe release and
disentanglement protocols, enabling the owners and operators to return these species
to the sea alive, thus minimizing bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

ƒ

NMFS conducted extensive analyses of a wide range of alternatives to see if further
time/area closures or modifications of existing time/area closures would provide
ecological benefits to all bycatch species. However, the analyses indicated that
additional or modified closures would not provide benefits for all bycatch species;
closures or combinations of closures may benefit certain species with adverse impacts
on others. Additionally, the analyses are based on J-hook data (these hooks are no
longer allowed in the pelagic longline fishery) and NMFS is currently evaluating the
effect of circle hooks on all bycatch species. At this time, NMFS is preferring the
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures to complement existing measures

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-9

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

in the Gulf of Mexico, and a closure criteria alternative that would provide greater
transparency in the evaluation of new or modified closures. Complementary closures
are expected to minimize bycatch on gag grouper and other reef-dwelling species.
ƒ

The preferred alternative for northern albacore tuna is not expected to change bycatch
rates of any species because NMFS is not taking any regulatory actions in this FMP
for this issue.

ƒ

The preferred alternative for finetooth sharks would not result in any significant
modifications to fishing gear, effort, or practices currently employed for finetooth
sharks in the short term because NMFS is not taking any regulatory actions in this
FMP for this issue. Furthermore, the alternative would identify other fisheries that
may be contributing to bycatch of finetooth sharks, in which case the agency may
recommend measures or seek collaborative efforts to reduce this bycatch.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for the directed billfish fishery are not expected to increase
bycatch of Atlantic billfish, as Atlantic billfish released by anglers under the catchand-release program established for Atlantic billfish are not considered bycatch. The
preferred alternatives may substantially reduce the post-release mortality of Atlantic
billfish in the directed billfish fishery, consistent with the intent of NS 9. To the
extent that using circle hooks in tournaments reduces the bycatch of other species, the
preferred alternatives may minimize the bycatch of other fish or marine life.

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for BFT, for modifying the fishing year, and for
authorizing additional gears are not expected to modify the interaction with bycatch,
or to change the bycatch mortality associated with the Atlantic HMS fisheries
because overall effort across the fishery is not expected to change as a result of the
actions in this Consolidated HMS FMP. Due to the nature of the gear, NMFS expects
little to no bycatch in the recreational speargun fishery. Additionally, available
handline data indicate that buoy gear would likely have low bycatch and limited dead
discards.

ƒ

None of the preferred alternatives for regulatory housekeeping are expected to
increase or decrease bycatch rates substantially. The species composition
requirement in the definition between pelagic and bottom longline could increase
bycatch slightly if fishermen catch greater than five percent of a particular species
that is not on the list for the gear they are using. NMFS expects this scenario is
unlikely given reported landings and has modified the list of indicator species based
on public comment.

NS 10 states that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable,
promote the safety of human life at sea. The preferred alternatives in this HMS FMP are
consistent with this NS.
ƒ

No impact to safety of life at sea is anticipated to result from the workshop preferred
alternatives. While the preferred workshop alternatives do not require fishing vessels
to carry additional gear, the owner and operator would be trained in the proper
handling of the gear used for the safe-handling and disentanglement procedures for

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-10

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

protected resources. The safe-handling and release gear is light enough that it should
not have any impact on the stability of the vessel.

11.2

ƒ

The preferred alternatives for time/area closures, northern albacore tuna, finetooth
sharks, the directed billfish fishery, the fishing year modifications, and the regulatory
housekeeping items are not expected to have any effects on safety of human life at
sea. None of those preferred alternatives would require fishermen to travel greater
distances, fish in bad weather, or otherwise fish in an unsafe manner.

ƒ

The preferred management measures for Atlantic BFT are not anticipated to have an
impact on safety of life. The BFT General category is managed by time-period
subquotas in order to ensure that BFT is available according to traditional and
historical fishing patterns and to allow for a winter fishery in the South Atlantic. The
preferred alternatives provide an opportunity to fish throughout the BFT range when
the tuna are present and available and do not require fishing vessels to carry
additional gear. The preferred management alternative was designed to avoid
“derby” style fishing and reflects the historical fishing patterns for the New England
region and provides an opportunity for the South Atlantic tuna fishermen to
participate in the fishery when the tuna have migrated into the area.

ƒ

None of the authorized gear alternatives are expected to have an impact on safety of
life at sea, partly because fishermen are already using these gears in HMS or other
fisheries. However, these gears, such as speargun and secondary cockpit gears, can
be dangerous and may create additional hazards to fishermen because they have sharp
points and trailing lines that could entangle fishermen. Alternative H2 (authorize
recreational harvest of BAYS tunas with speargun gear) may result in fishermen
traveling greater distances to find productive fishing grounds, if the speargun and rod
and reel sectors compete for fishing areas. While AP members have expressed
concern for the safety of individuals using speargun gear, given the safety equipment
the fishermen use and their ability to use this gear safely in other fisheries around the
world, NMFS does not expect the authorization of this gear to create problems with
safety. Alternative H7 clarifies the allowable use of secondary cockpit gears. This
alternative would also promote safety at sea by allowing fishermen to use implements
specifically designed to gain control of, and subdue, large fish that were captured
with authorized primary gears when they are brought alongside the vessel.

Ongoing Management and the Procedure for Adjusting Management Measures

The 1999 FMP, Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP, and Amendment 1 to the Billfish
FMP outlined the process for amending or modifying regulations via regulatory
framework adjustment or FMP amendment. The actions that can be done via framework
adjustment are also listed in 50 CFR part 635.34, and currently the list includes:
ƒ

actions to implement ICCAT recommendations, as appropriate;

ƒ

domestic quotas;

ƒ

Atlantic tunas Purse Seine category cap on BFT quota;

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-11

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A
DJUSTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES

ƒ

commercial retention limits;

ƒ

recreational retention limits;

ƒ

maximum sustainable yield or optimum yield levels based on the latest stock
assessment or updates in the SAFE report;

ƒ

species size limits;

ƒ

permitting and reporting requirements;

ƒ

monitoring and tracking programs (e.g., landing tag);

ƒ

composition of the species groups;

ƒ

fishing year or season;

ƒ

time/area restrictions;

ƒ

target catch requirements;

ƒ

gear prohibitions, modifications, or use restrictions;

ƒ

effort restrictions;

ƒ

essential fish habitat;

ƒ

any shark species management group based on additions to or removals from the prohibited
species list;

ƒ

classification system within shark species groups;

ƒ

shark management regions and the regional quotas; and,

ƒ

quota allocations between shark fishing seasons.

Additions to the list as a result of this Final Consolidated HMS FMP would include:

11.3

ƒ

changes to the Atlantic blue and white marlin annual landings limit;

ƒ

additions, changes, or modifications to time/area closures; and

ƒ

workshop requirements.

Consideration of Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 304(g) Measures
Section 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets forth requirements specific to the
preparation and implementation of an FMP or FMP amendment for HMS. See 16 U.S.C.
1854(g) for full text. The summary of the requirements of Section 304(g) and an
explanation of how NMFS is consistent with these requirements are below. The impacts
of each of the preferred management measures and how they meet these requirements are
described in more detail in Chapters 2 and 4 of this document.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-12

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
CONSIDERATIONS OF M-S ACT SECTION 304(G)

1. Consult with and consider the views of affected Councils, Commissioners, and
advisory groups.
NMFS provided the five Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the Gulf and Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commissions, and members of the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels
copies of the Issues and Options Paper (released in April 2004), the Predraft of the Consolidated
HMS FMP (released in February 2005), and the draft Consolidated HMS FMP (released in
August 2005). Additionally, NMFS presented the Issues and Options paper to three of the
Regional Fishery Management Councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and
the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels; presented the Predraft to all five of the Atlantic Regional
Fishery Management Councils, both the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions,
and the Advisory Panels; and, presented the draft Consolidated HMS FMP to all five Atlantic
Regional Fishery Management Councils, the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commissions, and the Advisory Panels. NMFS also engaged in active dialog with some of the
Regional Fishery Management Councils during the public comment period on the draft
Consolidated HMS FMP. Written comments and comments received during the presentations
were considered at all stages when preparing this Final Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS will
send the Final Consolidated HMS FMP/FEIS to consulting parties including all five of the
Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Councils, both the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commissions, and the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels.
2. Establish an advisory panel for each FMP.
NMFS established the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels in 1997 as part of the process
for drafting the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and Amendment 1 to the
Atlantic Billfish FMP. As part of this Final Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS intends to combine
those Advisory Panels into one panel that would still provide representation between all user
groups and from different geographic locations.
3. Evaluate the likely effects, if any, of conservation and management measures on
participants in the affected fisheries and minimize, to the extent practicable, any
disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in relation to foreign competitors.
Throughout this document NMFS has described the effects of the management measures
and any impacts on U.S. fishermen. None of the preferred management measures in this Final
Consolidated HMS FMP are expected to disadvantage U.S. fishermen in relation to foreign
competitors. Some of the preferred alternatives could aid U.S. fishermen by providing a more
open and flexible fishing period (e.g., changes to BFT management adjustments) or authorizing
additional gear types (e.g., speargun or buoy gear). Some of the non-preferred alternatives may
provide potential economic benefits (e.g., modifying time/area closures) or, conversely, adverse
economic impacts (e.g., additional time/area closures or prohibition of pelagic longline gear) to
U.S. fishermen; however, NMFS has described the reasons why it is not preferring those
alternatives. If it becomes necessary to implement those alternatives or types of alternatives in
the future, NMFS will minimize, to the extent practicable, any disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in
relation to foreign competitors.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-13

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
CONSIDERATIONS OF M-S ACT SECTION 304(G)

4. With respect to HMS for which the United States is authorized to harvest an
allocation, quota, or fishing mortality level under a relevant international fishery
agreement, provide fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest such
allocation, quota, or at such fishing mortality level.
The preferred management measures should not prevent U.S. fishermen from a
reasonable opportunity to harvest the quota or landing limit allocated by ICCAT. In the case of
Atlantic billfish, NMFS prefers to implement the 250-marlin landing limit and require the use of
circle hooks by HMS permitted fishermen when deploying natural baits or natural bait/artificial
lure combinations in billfish tournaments. The final rule would codify the U.S. landing limit in
U.S. regulations, as established by ICCAT. The ICCAT marlin landing limit alternative was
specifically crafted in a manner to allow maximum utilization of the U.S. landing limit without
exceeding it and, thus, is both intended and anticipated to provide U.S. fishermen reasonable
opportunity to land the full 250 marlin landing limit. For BFT, NMFS prefers alternatives that
would ensure more opportunity for fishermen in all of the states to have access to the resource
and that would modify the manner in which inseason actions are taken to ensure the quota is
taken in an equitable fashion throughout the Atlantic. Regarding swordfish, the preferred
alternatives would clarify the definition of handline and authorize the use of buoy gear for
targeting swordfish. This could allow U.S. fishermen greater opportunities to harvest the
available quota. Unless effort in the swordfish fishery increases, it is unlikely that, in the near
future, the United States would catch the entire swordfish quota as adjusted for recent
underharvests. In addition, NMFS is not preferring any new time/area closures at this time
except for complementary time/area closures to protect gag grouper. These complementary
measures would affect all HMS fishermen; however, few HMS sets were reported in those areas.
Thus, NMFS does not expect the complementary closures to have any impact on the ability of
HMS fishermen to take their ICCAT quotas. Furthermore, NMFS is preferring criteria that
would allow NMFS to modify the existing closures and could allow for some of the areas to be
re-opened thus providing greater opportunity for U.S. pelagic longline fishermen to take ICCAT
quotas, in the future.
5. Review, on a continuing basis, and revise as appropriate, the conservation and
management measures included in the FMP.
NMFS continues to review the need for any revisions to the existing regulations for
HMS. This Final Consolidated HMS FMP is the culmination of one of those reviews.
6. Diligently pursue, through international entities, comparable international fishery
management measures with respect to HMS.
NMFS continues to work with ICCAT, and other international entities such as CITES, to
implement comparable international fishery management measures. To the extent that some of
the management measures are exportable, NMFS works to provide foreign nations with the
techniques and scientific knowledge to implement similar management measures or conduct
experiments to test similar gear modifications.
7. Ensure that conservation and management measures under this subsection:
a. Promote international conservation of the affected fishery;
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-14

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
CONSIDERATIONS OF M-S ACT SECTION 304(G)

b. Take into consideration traditional fishing patterns of fishing vessels of the
United States and the operating requirements of the fisheries;
c. Are fair and equitable in allocating fishing privileges among United States
fishermen and do not have economic allocation as the sole purpose; and
d. Promote, to the extent practicable, implementation of scientific research
programs that include the tagging and release of Atlantic HMS.
All of the objectives of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, particularly 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,
12, 14, and 16 (see Section 1.3), indicate how NMFS promotes the international conservation of
the affected fisheries in order to obtain optimum yield while maintaining traditional fisheries and
fishing gear and minimizing economic impacts on U.S. fishermen. All of the combined
management measures in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP are expected to meet these goals.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

11-15

C
HAPTER 11: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
CONSIDERATIONS OF M-S ACT SECTION 304(G)

12.0

LIST OF PREPARERS

The development of both the Draft and Final consolidated HMS FMP involved input
from many people within NMFS, NMFS contractors, and input from constituent groups
including the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels. Staff and contractors from the Highly
Migratory Species Management Division, in alphabetical order, who worked on this document or
the documents resulting in this one include:
Karyl Brewster-Geisz
Megan Caldwell
Mike Clark
Craig Cockrell
Carol Douglas
Joe Desfosse
Russ Dunn
Greg Fairclough

Othel Freeman
Kathy Goldsmith
Anthony Kaufman
Sari Kiraly
Brad McHale
Sarah McTee
Mark Murray-Brown
Rick Pearson
Chris Rilling

Ron Rinaldo
Christopher Rogers
Margo Schulze-Haugen
George Silva
Jeron Stannard
Dianne Stephan
Heather Stirratt
Jackie Wilson

The development of this document also involved considerable input from other staff
members and Offices throughout NOAA including, but not limited to:
• Other Divisions within the Office of Sustainable Fisheries (Barbara Comstock, John
Dunnigan, Peter Fricke, Myles Raizin, Alan Risenhoover);
• The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (Heather Balchowsky, Charles Bergmann,
Jose Castro, John Carlson, Enric Cortes, Sheryann Epperly, Eric Prince, John
Lamkin, Arietta Venizelos, John Watson);
• The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (Nancy Kohler, Cami McCandless, Lisa
Natanson);
• The Southeast Regional Office (David Bernhart, Vicki Cornish, Peter Hood, Dennis
Klemm, Juan Levesque, Jennifer Lee, Shelley Norton, Carolyn Sramek);
• The Pacific Islands Regional Office (Collen Bass, Lewis Van Fossen);
• The Office of Habitat Conservation (Karen Abrams, Andy LoSchiavo, David
McDuffee);
• The Office of Protected Resources in Silver Spring (David O’Brien);
• The Office of Law Enforcement (Sara Block, Jeff Radonski, Paul Raymond)
• NOAA General Counsel (Meggan Engelke-Ros, Mark Hodor, Adam Issenberg,
Caroline Park, Stacey Nathanson, Constance Sathre, Frank Sprtel);
• National Ocean Service (Gerry Hovis, Sean Legeer); and
• NMFS NEPA coordinator (John Hansel).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

12-1

C
HAPTER 12
LIST OF PREPARERS

13.0

LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED AND
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE EIS WILL BE SENT

Under 304(g)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to consult with
affected Fishery Management Councils, ICCAT Commissioners and advisory groups, and the
Advisory Panels established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act regarding amendments to the
HMS FMP. As described below, NMFS provided documents and met with the consulting parties
and to the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions at various stages throughout
the process. Hard copies and/or CDs of these documents were also provided to anyone who
requested copies.
NMFS announced its intent to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
amend the two current FMPs on July 9, 2003 (68 FR 40907). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23730),
NMFS announced the availability of an Issues and Options Paper and its intent to hold nine
scoping meetings (Gloucester, MA; Ocean City, MD; New Orleans, LA; Manteo, NC; San Juan,
PR; Destin, FL; Montauk, NY; Port Aransas, TX; and Cocoa Beach, FL). On May 26, 2004 (69
FR 29927), NMFS extended the comment period to July 23, 2004, and announced an additional
scoping meeting (Key West, FL). During this time, NMFS presented the Issues and Options
Paper to the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (69
FR 22006, April 23, 2004; 69 FR 31966, June 8, 2004; and 69 FR 36066, June 28, 2004,
respectively) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Council and Commission
members from any Council or Commission were invited to attend any of the scoping meetings
and to submit comments. A summary of the major comments received during scoping was
released in December 2004 and is available on the HMS Management Division webpage at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms. Hard copies can be requested at (301) 713-2347 or via fax
at (301) 713-1917.
In February 2005, NMFS released the combined Predraft to the Consolidated HMS FMP
and annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. NMFS presented the
Predraft document to the five Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Councils (February 9,
2005, 70 FR 6839; February 18, 2005, 70 FR 8345; March 1, 2005, 70 FR 9924; March 11,
2005, 70 FR 12204; April 4, 2005, 70 FR 17068), both the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commissions, and to the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels (August 25, 2004, 69 FR
52235). The comments received on the Predraft were summarized in a document released in
June 2005. The Predraft and a summary of the comments received on the Predraft are available
on the HMS webpage or hard copies can be requested at (301) 713-2347 or via fax at (301) 7131917. Comments received on both the Issues and Options Paper and the Predraft were
considered when drafting and analyzing the ecological, economic, and social impacts of the
alternatives presented in both the Draft and Final Consolidated HMS FMPs.
On August 19, 2005, NMFS released the draft Consolidated HMS FMP and its proposed
rule (70 FR 48704; 70 FR 48804). The comment period was expected to end on October 18,
2005 (60 days). Additionally, in the proposed rule, NMFS announced that 24 public hearings
would be held from Massachusetts to Texas and in the Caribbean. On September 7, 2005,
NMFS announced that the New Orleans, LA, and Orange Beach, AL, public hearings would be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

13-1

CHAPTER 13: EIS COPY DISTRIBUTION

postponed due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina (70 FR 53146). On September 12, 2005,
NMFS announced that the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels would meet in October 2005 to
discuss the draft Consolidated HMS FMP. On September 23, 2005, NMFS announced that the
Key West, FL, public hearing would be postponed due to the impact of Hurricane Rita (70 FR
55814). On October 5, 2005, NMFS announced that the comment period was extended until
March 1, 2006 (194 days in total), in order to ensure that entities affected by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita that could be impacted by the measures in the draft Consolidated HMS FMP would
have an adequate time period in which to provide comments (70 FR 58177). In this same notice,
NMFS announced that the Billfish and HMS Advisory Panels meeting scheduled for October
2005 would be delayed and that the Advisory Panels would meet instead on February 21 - 23,
2006. On December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76441), NMFS announced that the hearings that were
postponed would be held in January and February 2006. Due to the damage from the hurricanes,
the New Orleans, LA, hearing was moved to Houma, LA. In addition to the 24 public hearings,
NMFS also attended and presented the draft Consolidated HMS FMP to the five Atlantic
Regional Fishery Management Councils (July 29, 2005, 70 FR 43847; August 24, 2005, 70 FR
49567; September 6, 2005, 70 FR 52989; September 16, 2005, 70 FR 54714; and September 20,
2005, 70 FR 55112) and to both the Atlantic States and Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commissions. During the public comment period, NMFS received over 3,300 form letter
comments, which were mainly in regard to the proposed billfish measures, and over 200
individual written comments on all issues including the proposed billfish measures. A list of all
the entities that provided written comments is available upon request. The summary of the
comments and NMFS’ responses is provided in Appendix D and will also be in the final rule.
On December 16, 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a directive
requiring Federal Agencies to have “influential scientific information” and “highly influential
scientific assessments” peer reviewed. NMFS decided that certain sections of the Draft
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP could contain “influential scientific information,” which is
defined as: scientific information (factual inputs, data, models, analyses, technical information,
or scientific assessments) that the Agency reasonably can determine does have or will have a
clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. As such,
during the public comment period, NMFS requested three scientists who were not involved in
the drafting of the Consolidated HMS FMP to review certain sections of the HMS FMP.
Specifically, NMFS asked them to review the standardized bycatch reporting methodology
(Sections 3.8.2 through 3.8.5 of the draft HMS FMP), time/area closure analyses (Section 4.4.2
and Appendix A of the draft HMS FMP), and essential fish habitat (EFH) sections (Chapter 10
and Appendix B of the draft HMS FMP).
Per the OMB peer review bulletin, NMFS noted that such a peer review should evaluate
the clarity of hypotheses, the validity of the research design, the quality of data collection
procedures, the robustness of the methods employed, the appropriateness of the methods for the
hypotheses being tested, the extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and the
strengths and limitations of the overall product. The peer reviews were used, as appropriate, to
clarify assumptions, findings, and conclusions of the bycatch, time/area closure, and EFH
sections of this Final Consolidated HMS FMP. Their reviews and NMFS’ responses are
provided in Appendix E.
After the end of the comment period, NMFS reviewed the comments, the peer reviews,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

13-2

CHAPTER 13: EIS COPY DISTRIBUTION

and the analyses for the alternatives and made changes to the preferred alternatives and/or the
supporting analyses, as needed, in order to address the comments received and/or other concerns
that were raised during the comment period. All comments were considered when finalizing this
document. NMFS also received comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regarding the DEIS (March 31, 2006, 71 FR 16301). The DEIS received a rating of “LO,” which
means lack of objection. NMFS responds to EPA’s specific comments in Appendix D with the
other public comments received. Copies of this final document will be sent to the EPA regional
offices, the HMS consulting parties (the affected Regional Fishery Management Councils,
ICCAT Commissioners and advisory groups, and the Advisory Panels), the Atlantic and Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commissions, and other interested parties. An electronic version will
also be placed on the HMS Management Division’s webpage.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

13-3

CHAPTER 13: EIS COPY DISTRIBUTION

APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A Table of Contents ................................................................................................. A-i

Appendix A List of Tables......................................................................................................... A-i

Appendix A List of Figures ..................................................................................................... A-vi

A Appendix: Time/Area Closures: additional analyses and results ................................ A-1

APPENDIX A LIST OF TABLES
Table A.1

Table A.2

Table A.3

Table A.4

Table A.5

Table A.6

Table A.7

Table A.8

The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles and bluefin tuna
based on the various time/area closures. * excluding NED. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS logbook data 2001-2003.................................................... A-8
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles and bluefin tuna based
on the various time/area closure alternatives with and without redistribution of
effort. (* = was not analyzed). Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003) ..... A-10
The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of each retained species caught or
discarded based on the various time/area closure alternatives without
redistribution of effort. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)...................................................................... A-12
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the retained catch and discards based on
the various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution of effort. Source:
HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)...................................................................... A-13
The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of each retained species caught or
discarded based on the various time/area closure alternatives with redistribution of
effort. (* = was not calculated). 1 excluding the NED. Three year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................................. A-14
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the retained catch and discards based on
the various time/area closure alternatives with redistribution of effort. (* = was
not calculated). Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).............................. A-15
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the number of hooks set; discards of white
marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea
turtles based on various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution of
effort. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)............................................. A-16
Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtles, and bluefin tuna
kept and discards combined, based on various time/area closure alternatives
without redistribution of effort. Source: Pelagic Observer Program data (20012003). ................................................................................................................ A-17

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-i

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.9

Table A.10

Table A.11

Table A.12

Table A.13

Table A.14

Table A.15

Table A.16

Alternative B2(f). Temporal variation in effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico
time/area closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and bluefin tuna discards.
A negative sign indicates an increase in bycatch. *excluding the NED. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................... A-18
Alternative B2(g). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Northeast time/area
closure from June through October in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase
(+) of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and
other sea turtle discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source:
HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)...................................................................... A-19
Alternative B2(h). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Southeast time/area
closure closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle
discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001-2003)............................................................................................... A-20
Alternative B2(i). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure on the east
coast of Florida in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle
discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001-2003)............................................................................................... A-21
Alternative B2(j). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Gulf of Mexico
time/area closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle
discards. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
data (2001-2003)............................................................................................... A-22
Alternative B2(k). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Caribbean time/area
closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle discards.
Landings were only reported for the four months listed. *excluding the NED.
Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the
three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)................ A-23
Alternative B2(f). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Gulf of Mexico
time/area closure in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch.
*excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-24
Alternative B2(g). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Northeast time/area
closure from June through October closure in terms of percent reduction (-) in
discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown;

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-ii

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.17

Table A.18

Table A.19

Table A.20

Table A.21

Table A.22

Table A.23

Table A.24

one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three.
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................................................... A-25
Alternative B2(h). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure
from March through November closure in terms of percent reduction (-) in
discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown;
one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three.
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)......................................................... A-26
Alternative B2(i). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure of the east
Florida in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch.
*excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-27
Alternative B2(j). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure in
the Gulf of Mexico in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained
catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can
be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-28
Alternative B2(k). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure in
the Caribbean in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch.
*excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data
(2001-2003)....................................................................................................... A-29
Swordfish lengths (cm lower jaw fork length; LJFL) in the portion of the areas to
remain closed and the portion of the areas considered for reopening. The
minimum size limit for swordfish is 119 cm LJFL. The mature size is > 180 cm
LJFL. Significant differences are shaded. Source: Pelagic Observer Program
1992-1999. ........................................................................................................ A-33
Alternative B3(c) Florida East Coast modification. Discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles in the
portion of the area to remain closed and the portion of the area considered for
reopening. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook
1997-1999. ........................................................................................................ A-34
Alternative B3(d) Desoto Canyon modification. Discards of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles in the
portion of the area to remain closed and in the portion of the area considered for
reopening. Source HMS Logbook 1997-1999. *excluding the NED. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. .................................................................................................... A-35
Comparison of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles in the portion of the areas considered for
reopening. - = decrease + = increase. *excluding the NED. Four year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the four year total by four.
Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000.................................................................. A-36

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-iii

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.25

Table A.26

Table A.27

Table A.28 .

Table A.29

Table A.30

Table A.31

Table A.32

Table A.33

Comparison of catch of swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and
BAYS in the portion of the areas considered for reopening. *excluding the NED.
Four year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the
four year total by four. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000............................. A-37
Alternative B3(c) modification of East Florida Coast time/area closure. Catch and
discards of various species in the portion of the area to remain closed and in the
portion of the area considered for reopening. *excluding the NED. Three year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (1997-1999). ............................... A-38
Alternative B3(d) modification of the DeSoto Canyon time/area closure. Catch
and discards of various species in the portion of the area to remain closed and in
the portion of the area considered for reopening. *excluding the NED. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (1997-1999)......................... A-39
An example of the calculations for the redistribution of fishing effort model. This
example calculates the number of discards of loggerhead sea turtles considering
the redistribution of fishing effort for alternative B2(d). A negative sign indicates
an increase in discards. ..................................................................................... A-40
An example of how the modified redistribution of fishing effort was calculated.
This example calculates the number of discards of white marlin considering the
redistribution of fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and area 6 only for
alternative B2(c) from April through June. A negative sign indicates an increase
in discards, and a positive value indicates a decrease in discards. ................... A-41
An example of how the modified redistribution of fishing effort was calculated.
This example calculates the number of discards of white marlin considering the
redistribution of fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and area 6 only for
alternative B2(c) from April through June. A negative sign indicates an increase
in discards, and a positive value indicates a decrease in discards. ................... A-42
Comparison between the percent change of bycatch for different closures for
2001-2003 data (used in the draft Consolidated FMP) and 2001-2004 (first six
months of 2004 included) without redistribution of effort. A negative (-) sign
indicates a reduction in bycatch. Source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six
months of 2004). ............................................................................................... A-43
Comparison in the number of hooks, discards, and CPUEs (# discards/# hooks in
a particular area) between July through December of 2001-2003 and 2004 data.
The yearly averages for the 6 months in 2001-2003 for CPUEs, hooks, and
discards are shown in parentheses. Data source: HMS Logbook data July through
December 2001-2003 and 2004. ....................................................................... A-44
Comparison of the number of hooks, discards, species kept, and CPUEs
(#discards/#hooks or #kept/#hooks in a particular area) between July through
Dec. of 2001-2003 and 2004 data. The yearly averages for the 6 months in 20012003 for CPUEs, hooks, discards, and species kept are shown in parentheses. .
Data source: HMS Logbook data July through December 2001-2003 and 2004. A46

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-iv

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.34

Table A.35

Table A.36
Table A.37

Table A.38

Table A.40

Table A.41

Table A.42

Percent change in reported landings by area from July through December where:
a) 2001-03 vs. 1997-99; b) 2004 vs. 2001-03; and c) 2004 vs. 1997-99 (1997-99
and 2001-03 are mean reported landings). Source: HMS Logbook data......... A-48
Percent change in reported landings by area from July through December where:
a) 2001-03 vs. 1997-99; b) 2004 vs. 2001-03; and c) 2004 vs. 1997-99 (1997-99
and 2001-03 are mean reported landings). Source: HMS Logbook data......... A-50
Characteristics of vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and vessels moving out of
Gulf of Mexico.................................................................................................. A-55
Alternative B2(a) May through November. Cumulative number kept and
discarded (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution of effort in the Gulf
of Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus sign indicates a decrease. *excluding the
NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 20012004 (first six months of 2004)......................................................................... A-57
Alternative B2(b) June only. Cumulative number of discards (over 3 1/2 years)
with and without redistribution of effort in the Atlantic only. Minus signs indicate
a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS
Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004). ....................................... A-58
Alternative B2(b) June only. Cumulative number kept and discarded (over 3 1/2
years) with and without redistribution of effort in the Atlantic only. Minus signs
indicate a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are
shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data
source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004). ................. A-59
Alternative B2(c) BFT Petition April through June. Cumulative number of
discards (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution of effort in the Gulf of
Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus signs indicate a decrease. *excluding the
NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 2001 2004 (first six months of 2004)......................................................................... A-60
Alternative B2(c) BFT Petition April through June. Cumulative number of kept
and discarded (over 3 1/2 years) species with and without redistribution of effort
in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus sign indicates a decrease.
*excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages
can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data
2001-2004 (first six months of 2004). .............................................................. A-61

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-v

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

APPENDIX A LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A.1

Figure A.2
Figure A.3

Figure A.4

Figure A.5
Figure A.6

Figure A.7

Figure A.8

Figure A.9

Map showing time/area closure alternatives considered but not further analyzed at
this time (see Section 2.1.2) to reduce white marlin and other protected species
interactions.......................................................................................................... A-7
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures. Note: only
alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed.............................................. A-30
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures and juvenile
swordfish data (<180 cm LJFL). The minimum size limit for swordfish is 119 cm
LJFL. Note: only alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed. Source
Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999. ............................................................. A-31
Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures and adult
swordfish data from the Pelagic Observer Program. Note: only alternatives B2(a)
and (b) were further analyzed. Source Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999. A-32
Map showing the different areas that were used in the fleet mobility analysis.A-52
Map showing the number of vessels fishing in different areas with their respective
homeports listed. “FL east” signifies that a vessel’s homeport was in the east
coast of Florida. “FL west” signifies that a vessel’s homeport was in the west
coast of FL, and “FL east/west” signifies that the vessel’s homeport was in the
Florida Keys...................................................................................................... A-53
Map showing vessels originating from the Gulf of Mexico and fishing in Atlantic
Areas 2B through 6. The percentage of hooks represents the percentage of hooks
that moved out of the Gulf of Mexcio and into Areas 2B, 3, 4, 5, and 6.......... A-54
Map of pelagic longline sets within and outside of the U. S. EEZ. a) extent of
pelagic longline sets inside and outside U.S. EEZ, b) inset shows the size of B2(a)
and B2(c) relative to the scope of pelagic longline sets inside and outside of U. S.
EEZ, c) the distance pelagic longline vessels have made relative to the U. S.
coastline, d) the distance it would take a vessel to travel from the Gulf of Mexico
to the Mid-Atlantic Bight area. Source: HMS logbook data from January 2001 to
June 2004. ......................................................................................................... A-56
Map showing the overlap of bluefin tuna discards, white marlin discards, and sea
turtle interactions for pelagic longline sets from 2001 to 2003. Source: HMS
Logbook data 2001-2003. ................................................................................. A-62

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-vi

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

A

APPENDIX: TIME/AREA CLOSURES: ADDITIONAL ANALYSES AND
RESULTS

Introduction
As described in Chapter 4, NMFS evaluated the effectiveness of each of the time/area
closure alternatives by determining the percent reduction in bycatch of non-target HMS and
protected species for each month and cumulatively for the year based on both POP and HMS
logbook data for the combined years 2001-2003. NMFS also analyzed data to determine the
impact on catches of retained species such as swordfish, yellowfin, bigeye, and BAYS tunas.
Based on the comparison of the POP and HMS logbook data, NMFS initially considered a
number of alternatives for time/area closures. However, NMFS chose only a subset of the
alternatives for further analysis because of their potential greater ecological benefit in terms of
bycatch reduction potential for all species considered. Once a subset of alternatives was chosen
for further analysis, social and economic impacts were analyzed along with ecological impacts.
The social and economic impacts are not discussed in this Appendix.
This Appendix primarily serves as a summary of the potential benefits and impacts of all
the various alternatives considered. Discussion on each of the alternatives that were fully
analyzed (alternatives B2(a) – B2(e), B3(a) - B3(b), and B4 - B7) can be found in Chapter 4. A
brief discussion of each alternative that was not selected for further analysis (alternatives B2(f) –
B2(k) and B3(c) - B3(d)), can be found in Section 2.1.2. An overall summary of the predicted
reduction in the number of hooks set (fishing effort) and discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and bluefin tuna based on the
various time/area closure alternatives is given in Table A.1 and Table A.2. Similarly, Table A.3,
Table A.4, Table A.5, and Table A.6 summarize the predicted changes to swordfish, bluefin
tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and BAYS tuna kept and discarded under the different
alternatives according to 2001 – 2003 pelagic logbook data. Table A.7 and Table A.8 provide a
comparison of bycatch reduction based on HMS logbook data and pelagic observer data. Table
A.9 through Table A.20 give the temporal catch of bycatch and target species associated with
each alternative that was not further analyzed. Similar tables for alternatives that were further
analyzed can be found in Section 4.1.2. There are also summaries of bycatch and catch of target
species associated with the modification of current time/area closures (i.e., Table A.21 through
Table A.27). In addition, Table A.28 – Table A.30 demonstrate how different scenarios of
redistributed effort were calculated. Table A.31 - Table A.33 evaluate 2004 data where as Table
A.34 and Table A.35 demonstrate the effectiveness of current closures as well as the effect of
current closures and circle hooks. Finally, Table A.36 shows results from the fleet mobility
analysis described in Chapter 4, and Table A.37 - Table A.41 show the results of the different
scenarios of redistributed effort.
A number of figures highlight the different time/area closure alternatives that have been
considered (but have not been further analyzed; Figure A.1) as well as swordfish catch and
modifications to current time/area closures (Figure A.2,Figure A.3, and Figure A.4). Figure A.5
- Figure A.8 show different aspects of the fleet mobility analysis described in Chapter 4, and
Figure A.9 demonstrates the spatial overlap in discards of bluefin tuna, white marlin, and sea
turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. Monthly interactions for these different species (i.e., temporal
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-1

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

variability) in the Gulf of Mexico were considered in the redistribution of effort analyses and can
be seen in Table 4.10 and Table 4.13.
This section also describes the methodology for evaluating the ecological effects of the
redistribution of fishing effort model. NMFS used this model to determine the percent change in
total reported bycatch of sea turtles, non-target HMS, and retained species inside and outside of
the time/area closures in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS also evaluated several
different scenarios based on this model that had different assumptions regarding where effort
from a closed area would be redistributed. Examples (loggerhead sea turtles for alternative
B2(d) and white marlin for alternative B2(c)) of how the redistribution of effort calculations
were made is described in the following paragraphs and presented in Table A.28 – Table A.30.
Similar tables were generated for each species under each alternative that was fully analyzed in
Section 4.1.2. These individual species tables were not included in this document due to the
large number of tables. Instead, summary tables of redistributed fishing effort were included in
Section 4.1.2 as well as in this section.
Redistribution of effort analyses
NMFS examined monthly catches (number of each species) and effort (number of hooks)
in each of the time/area closures in comparison to all open areas of the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico, excluding the NED, based on HMS logbook data for the fishery. As explained in
Chapter 4, only HMS logbook data were used in the redistribution of effort analysis. The
number of each species caught in the open areas outside the considered time/area closures
(column E in the example of redistribution of effort table, Table A.28), was calculated by
subtracting the number caught in the potential closed area from the reported catch in the
combined Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (column B-column D in Table A.28). The catch-per-uniteffort (CPUE) for the species in the remaining open areas was calculated by dividing the number
of each species caught in the open areas (column E) by the number of hooks fished in the open
areas (calculated by subtracting the number of hooks in the closed area from those in the Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico; column A-column C in Table A.28). The number of hooks that were used
in the closed area were multiplied by the open area CPUE to determine the number of loggerhead
sea turtles, in this case, that would be caught in the open fishing areas by the displaced effort
(column C*column F). This was then added to the existing open areas’ catch (column E+column
G) to give a new open area total catch (column I in Table A.28). The estimated total catch
(column I) was subtracted from the original total number caught in the Atlantic and Gulf
(column B-column H) to estimate the change in number of turtles that would be caught as a
result of the relocated effort. Column J shows the cumulative number of turtles avoided by the
time/area closure by adding each month’s total to the preceding month’s total. Columns K and L
show the percentage reduction in overall catch by month and cumulatively as a result of the
closure, respectively. The total percent reduction in catch was calculated by dividing the sum of
column J (cumulative catch avoided by month) by the sum of column B (number of individuals
caught in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, excluding the NED). A positive result from the
redistribution of effort calculation would indicate a decrease in discards, and a negative result
would indicate an increase in discards.
In this example, the redistribution of fishing effort associated with alternative B2(d)
would result in an increase in loggerhead sea turtle interactions of 65 percent, or 117 individuals,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-2

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

over three years (Table A.28). This large increase in loggerhead sea turtle interactions may be
due to a number of factors. First, alternative B2(d) would be a large closure in an area that
represents approximately 90 percent of the fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and
approximately 50 percent of the total pelagic longline (PLL) fishing effort (Table 4.12 in Section
4.1.2). Therefore, closing such an area in the Gulf of Mexico could displace a large amount of
fishing effort to the Atlantic Ocean. Second, and more specific to loggerhead sea turtles, there
are fewer loggerhead sea turtles interactions in the Gulf of Mexico compared to the Atlantic
Ocean (Table 4.36 in Section 4.1.2); therefore, as effort increases in the Atlantic as a result of a
large closure in the Gulf of Mexico, and since loggerhead sea turtle numbers are higher in the
Atlantic Ocean compared to the Gulf of Mexico, the number of interactions would be expected to
increase. Thus, it is important to consider the ecological impacts of the redistribution of fishing
effort when considering time/area closures. Often the effects may be counter-intuitive and may
differ for the various species considered.
Finally, it is worth noting how the redistribution of effort was calculated for different
time/area closure combinations. When NMFS considered the redistribution of fishing effort
associated with the combination of time/area closures (e.g., B2(a) combined with B2(b) or B2(e)
combined with B2(d)), the closures were considered to be closed simultaneously. It was
assumed that all fishing effort within those areas would be redistributed to open areas (i.e., open
areas not including the combination of B2(a) and B2(b) or B2(e) and B2(d)), and the
redistribution of fishing effort was calculated according to the description outlined above. Thus,
the end result, in terms of resulting bycatch when accounting for the redistribution of fishing
effort, was not simply the sum of the bycatch associated with the individual closures. In cases
where the time/areas closures were seasonal (i.e., they were not year-round), then the time/area
closures were considered to be simultaneously closed during months of overlap (i.e., the month
of June for alternative B2(a) and B2(b) combination). Otherwise, they were considered to be
single time/area closures, and the redistribution of fishing effort was calculated as outlined
above.
Different redistribution of effort scenarios
Based on comments received and OMB peer reviews, NMFS evaluated different
scenarios of redistributed effort based on the redistribution of effort model explained above.
Each scenario addressed different assumptions regarding where fishing effort could be
redistributed into open areas (i.e., instead of assuming all fishing effort from a closed area would
be uniformly distributed to all open areas or just redistributed within the open areas of the Gulf
of Mexico). NMFS performed a fleet mobility analysis to determine where the PLL fleet has
been fishing from 2001-2004 (see Section 4.1.2). The analysis demonstrated that there was
limited movement from the eastern seaboard into the Gulf of Mexico, therefore, NMFS
redistributed fishing effort only to open areas along the eastern seaboard for B2(b). The mobility
analysis also showed that vessels with homeports in the Gulf of Mexico tended to fish in a
certain area of the Atlantic (Area 6). Therefore, for B2(a) and B2(c), NMFS redistributed fishing
effort in the open areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6. These different scenarios of
redistributed effort were used to determine the percent reduction or increase in total reported
bycatch of sea turtles, non-target HMS, and target species given particular catch rates in either
only open portions of the Atlantic (alternative B2(b)) or open portions of the Gulf of Mexico and
Area 6 (alternatives B2(a) and B2(c)). The methods used to calculate percent changes in catch
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-3

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

for each species with these different scenarios of redistribution of effort is discussed below. The
steps taken for the redistribution of effort analysis for white marlin for alternative B2(c) are
presented in separate tables as examples (Table A.29 and Table A.30).
NMFS examined monthly catches (number of each species) and effort (number of hooks)
for the closures B2(a), B2(b), and B2(c) in comparison to specific open areas of the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico, excluding the NED, based on logbook data for the fishery from January 2001
through June 2004. The following example is for the redistribution of white marlin from the
B2(c) closure; NMFS considered redistributing effort within the open areas of the Gulf of
Mexico and in Area 6 (see Figure A.5). This scenario of redistributed effort would also apply for
all species in the B2(a) and B2(c) closures. In this example, the number of white marlin caught
from April through June in the open areas of the Gulf of Mexico outside B2(c) (column E in
Table A.29) was first calculated by subtracting the number caught in the closed area from the
reported catch in the open of the Gulf of Mexico (column B-column D in Table A.29). The
CPUE for white marlin in the remaining open areas of the Gulf of Mexico (column F) was
calculated by dividing the number of white marlin caught in the open areas (column E) by the
number of hooks fished in the open areas (calculated by subtracting the number of hooks in the
closure from those in open portion of the Gulf of Mexico; column A-column C in Table A.29).
The number of hooks that were used in the closed area was then multiplied by the open area
CPUE (column C*column F) to determine the number of white marlin that would be caught in
the open fishing areas by the displaced effort (column G in Table A.29). This was then added to
the existing open areas’ catch (column E+column G) to give a new open area total catch (column
I in Table A.29). Note that a positive number from the redistribution of effort calculation
indicates a decrease in bycatch whereas a negative amount indicates an increase in bycatch.
Next, NMFS calculated any changes in bycatch associated with redistribution of effort in
Area 6. This was done by first calculating the CPUE in Area 6 for white marlin (column F in
Table A.30) by dividing the white marlin discards in Area 6 (column B in Table A.30) by the
number of hooks fished in Area 6 (column A in Table A.30). The number of discards in Area 6
as a result of displaced effort from B2(c) (column G in Table A.30) was calculated by
multiplying CPUE in Area 6 (column F in Table A.30) by the number of hooks displaced out of
B2(c) (column C in Table A.30). Again, a positive number indicates a decrease in bycatch
whereas a negative amount indicates an increase in bycatch. The total reduction or increase in
catch associated with the redistributed effort of the closure (column H in Table A.30) was found
by adding up the total number of discards avoided by the closure in the Gulf of Mexico (column
I in Table A.29) minus the total number of discards in Area 6 as a result of displaced effort from
B2(c) (column G in Table A.30). The total percent reduction in catch was calculated by dividing
column H in Table A.30 by the total number of white marlin discarded in all other open areas
(number of individuals caught between January 2001 through June 2004 in the Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico, excluding the NED; column I in Table A.30). The scenario of redistributed effort for
B2(b) was more straightforward. It only considered redistribution of effort in the open portions
of the Atlantic. Therefore, it was calculated according to the example laid out in Table A.28;
however, the numbers of hooks and discards were only considered for the Atlantic and not the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico as shown in Table A.28.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-4

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Analyses for the potential modifications to existing closed areas
For the analyses of modifications to existing closed areas, NMFS analyzed PLL logbook
and POP data from 1997 – 1999, the period prior to enactment of the closed areas. This time
period was selected since the current closures have been in place since 1999, and observer and
logbook data provide a record of the bycatch and species that were interacted with during this
time. A number of potential modifications to existing closures were examined, including the
East Florida Coast (Table A.22), DeSoto Canyon (Table A.23), Charleston Bump (Table 4.29),
and Northeastern U.S. closure (Table 4.30). NMFS mapped data from the PLL logbook and
POP using GIS and used oceanographic features such as the axis of the Gulf Stream, or natural
breaks in areas between high and low bycatch within the existing closure, to establish potential
new boundaries for each closed area. NMFS then calculated the total number and percent
bycatch of non-target HMS and protected species, as well as catch of target HMS, for the
modified closure compared to all other areas of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. These
calculations allowed NMFS to determine the potential impact on bycatch species in comparison
to all bycatch in the PLL fishery. Only after the analyses indicated that the Charleston Bump and
Northeastern U.S. closure modifications would result in minimal or no increase in bycatch of
non-target HMS and protected species did NMFS decide to further analyze these two areas. The
remaining areas were not further analyzed, but the data for both the East Florida Coast and
DeSoto Canyon modifications that resulted in increases in bycatch are presented in this
Appendix.
Analyses and the use of 2004 data
Data from 2004 were not available when the analyses for the Draft HMS FMP were
completed. However, during the public comment period, NMFS obtained the 2004 POP and
PLL data and analyzed a subset of the PLL dataset from 2001 – 2004 (first six months of 2004
only) to determine whether there were any substantial differences from the 2001 -2003 data
presented in the Draft HMS FMP. Since the circle hook requirement went into effect on June 30,
2004, in the NED (69 FR 40734), and in all remaining areas on August 6, 2004, NMFS analyzed
only the first six months of 2004 data with the 2001 – 2003 data. Therefore, these analyses were
all based on J-hook data. Since the second half of 2004 were based on circle hook data, NMFS
analyzed these data separately; a discussion of the preliminary findings of the possible effects of
circle hooks is given below.
Overall, the inclusion of the additional six months of data from 2004 did not substantially
alter any of the data presented in the Draft HMS FMP, or result in any changes to the overall
conclusions from the Draft HMS FMP to the Final HMS FMP (Table A.31). A few exceptions
can be seen. For alternative B2(b), there could be an overall decrease in bycatch reduction for
loggerhead sea turtles regardless of whether the year-round or June only closures is considered
with the inclusion of the 2004 data (-20.7 percent vs. -15.5 percent for the year-round closure
and -11.2 percent vs. -8.4 percent for the June only closures; Table A.31). For B2(c), in general,
there was potential for higher bycatch reduction and less kept targeted catch for all species
considered (except loggerhead sea turtles; Table A.31) with the inclusion of 2004 data. This
reduction could be due to increased effort seen in the Gulf of Mexico during the first half of 2004
(Table A.35). However, this trend was not seen for B2(d), the larger, year-round closure
proposed for the Gulf of Mexico, where less bycatch reduction could be gained for spearfish, but
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-5

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

fewer bluefin tuna discards may be seen with the inclusion of 2004 data (Table A.31). There
was also a slight decrease in potential bycatch reduction for loggerhead sea turtles, bluefin tuna
kept, and bluefin tuna discards with the inclusion of 2004 data for B2(e) (Table A.31). Given the
variability in results from the inclusion of this data, NMFS did not change any of the preferred
alternatives based on the additional six months of 2004 PLL data.
NMFS also preliminary examined the second half of the 2004 data to investigate the
potential effects that circle hooks may be having on bycatch and retained catch. However,
because only six months of circle hook data was available when these analyses were completed,
no definitive conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. Additionally, because this
preliminary investigation only uses six months of circle hook data, the seasonality of catch (catch
in January through June versus catch in July through December) cannot be determined for circle
hooks. Therefore, for this preliminary investigation, NMFS compared CPUEs as well as
absolute catch between the July through December of 2001-2003 PLL data with July through
December of 2004 PLL data (Table A.32 and Table A.33). The CPUEs were calculated as the
number of animals caught in a particular closure area divided by the number of hooks in that
particular closure area. Absolute numbers are shown for 2004, and the yearly averages for 20012003 are shown in parentheses in Table A.32 and Table A.33. In general, the number of hooks
increased slightly in the Gulf of Mexico in 2004 compared to 2001-2003 and decreased slightly
in the Northeast (Table A.35). The analysis showed that the CPUEs increased for all species
considered in the Gulf of Mexico in 2004 when compared to 2001-2003 (Table A.32 and Table
A.33). The number of HMS kept also increased in 2004 except for yellowfin tuna in the Gulf of
Mexico (Table A.33). The number of discards in the Gulf of Mexico increased in 2004 for all
species considered, except for yellowfin tuna, swordfish discards, and loggerhead sea turtle
interactions in B2(a) (Table A.32 and Table A.33). Leatherback sea turtle interactions decreased
in B2(c) and B2(d) in 2004 compared to 2001-2003 (Table A.32). In the Northeast, CPUEs in
2004 were variable across closures and species considered, but in general, the number of discards
and the number of species kept decreased (except for blue marlin and sailfish discards in B2(b)
and B2(e), LCS discards and yellowfin tuna kept and discarded in B2(e), and bigeye tuna and
BAYS discards in B2(b); Table A.32 and Table A.33). Overall, however, the catch associated
with circle hooks for July through December is variable across species and closure, making it
difficult to draw any definitive conclusions or identify any patterns on the effects of circle hooks.
This variability is most likely due to the short time series of data. NMFS will continue to
monitor retained catch, discards, and bycatch with circle hooks as that data become available.

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-6

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.1

Map showing time/area closure alternatives considered but not further analyzed at this time (see Section 2.1.2) to reduce white marlin
and other protected species interactions.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-7

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.1

The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead
sea turtles and bluefin tuna based on the various time/area closures. * excluding NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can
be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS logbook data 2001-2003.

Alternative

White
Blue
Bluefin
Number of Marlin
Marlin
Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Tuna
Hooks Set discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles discards
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

B2(a)
Year-round
May-Nov

3,810,282
2,347,180

-503
-463

-487
-432

-163
-146

-63
-48

-171
-76

-9
-6

-198
-75

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

991,205
184,435

-124
-12

-22
-4

-1
0

-2
0

-28
-10

-37
-20

-461
-365

2,844,335
10,020,757
2,127,510

-325
-1,487
-274

-244
-1,397
-40

-124
-642
-3

-35
-354
-8

-55
-285
-49

-7
-18
-65

-348
-439
0

B2(f) (May-Nov)

2,998,571

-633

-559

-197

-62

-91

-7

-92

B2(g) (June-October)

2,985,688

-481

-49

-11

-7

-40

-40

-60

B2(h) (March-Nov)

1,179,865

-139

-138

-134

-27

-10

-3

-2

B2(i) (Year-round)

1,175,504

-232

-316

-59

-20

-10

-20

-11

B2(j) (Year-round)

5,182,880

-519

-528

-444

-108

-90

-12

-181

22,321

-7

-14

0

0

0

0

0

1,029
424
21,148,706
3,143
2,449
WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

494

179

1,617

-99

27

128

B2(c) (April-June)
B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

B2(k) (Jan-April)
Total From All Areas*
B2(a)
Year-round
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

27

-98
A-8

11

17

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Alternative
(May-Nov)

White
Blue
Number of Marlin
Marlin
Hooks Set discards discards
-84
-178

Sailfish
discards
-8

Bluefin
Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Tuna
discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles discards
-9
-39
14
166

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

110
33

164
22

85
18

20
3

-8
-7

-33
-19

-437
-354

B2(c) (April-June)
B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

221
10
189

50
-497
360

45
-276
182

56
-311
38

-13
-105
-3

42
117
-60

158
614
-658

-150

-240

-19

-12

-45

20

219

B2(g) (June-October)

71

494

239

62

29

-26

-360

B2(h) (March-Nov)

52

-7

-73

-6

12

9

154

B2(i) (Year-round)

-118

-224

-27

7

21

-10

104

B2(j) (Year-round)

394

126

-241

-5

38

40

274

-5

-12

0

0

1

0

2

B2(f) (May-Nov)

B2(k) (Jan-April)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-9

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.2

Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles
and bluefin tuna based on the various time/area closure alternatives with and without redistribution of effort. (* = was not analyzed).
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)

Alternative

White
Blue
Number of Marlin
Marlin
Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Bluefin Tuna
Hooks Set discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles discards
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

B2(a)
Year-round
May-Nov

-18.0%
-11.1%

-16.0.%
-14.7%

-19.9%
-17.6%

-15.8%
-14.2%

-14.9%
-11.3%

-34.6%
-15.4%

-5.0%
-3.4%

-12.2%
-4.6%

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

-4.7%
-0.9%

-3.9%
-0.4%

-0.9%
-0.2%

-0.1%
0.0%

-0.5%
0.0%

-5.7%
-2.0%

-20.7%
-11.2%

-28.5%
-22.6%

B2(c) (April-June)
B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

-13.4%
-47.4%
-10.1%

B2(f) (May-Nov)

-14.2%

-20.1%

-22.8%

-19.1%

-14.6%

-18.4%

-3.9%

-5.7%

B2(g) (June-October)

-14.1%

-15.3%

-2.0%

-1.1%

-1.7%

-8.1%

-22.3%

-37.7%

B2(h) (March-Nov)

-5.6%

-4.4%

-5.6%

-13.0%

-6.4%

-2.0%

-1.7%

-0.12%

B2(i) (Year-round)

-5.6%

-7.4%

-12.9%

-5.7%

-4.7%

-2.0%

-11.2%

-0.7%

B2(j) (Year-round)

-24.5%

-16.5%

-21.6%

-43.1%

-25.5%

-18.2%

-6.7%

-11.1%

-0.2%
-0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-20.0%
-8.0%

15.0%
7.9%

7.9%
10.3%

B2(k) (Jan-April)
B2(a)
Year-round
(May-Nov)
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

-0.1%

-10.3%
-47.3%
-8.7%

0.9%
-2.7%

-10.0%
-57.0%
-1.6%

-4.0%
-7.3%

A-10

-12.1%
-62.4%
-0.3%

1.1%
-0.8%

-8.3%
-83.5%
-1.9%

4.0%
-2.1%

-11.1%
-57.5%
-9.9%

-3.9%
-10.1%
-36.3%

-21.5%
-27.1%
-43.3%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Alternative

White
Number of Marlin
Hooks Set discards

Blue
Marlin
discards

Sailfish
discards

Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Bluefin Tuna
discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles discards

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

3.5%
1.0%

6.7%
0.9%

8.3%
1.7%

4.8%
0.8%

-1.7%
-1.3%

-18.5%
-10.3%

-27.0%
-21.9%

B2(c) (April-June)
B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

7.0%
0.3%
6.0%

2.0%
-20.3%
14.7%

4.4%
-26.8%
17.7%

13.2%
-73.3%
9.1%

-2.6%
-21.3%
-0.6%

23.5%
65.5%
-33.3%

9.8%
38%
-40.7%

-4.7%

-9.8%

-1.8%

-2.8%

-9.1%

11.2%

13.5%

B2(g) (June-October)

2.3%

20.2%

23.2%

14.5%

5.9%

-14.5%

-22.3%

B2(h) (March-Nov)

1.7%

-0.29%

-7.1%

-1.4%

2.4%

5.0%

9.5%

B2(i) (Year-round)

-3.8%

-9.2%

-2.6%

1.6%

4.2%

-5.6%

6.4%

B2(j) (Year-round)

12.6%

5.1%

-23.4%

-1.2%

7.7%

22.3%

17%

B2(k) (Jan-April)

-0.2%

-0.5%

0%

0%

0.2%

0%

0.1%

B2(f) (May-Nov)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-11

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.3

The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of each retained species caught or discarded based on the various time/area closure
alternatives without redistribution of effort. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Alternative

Number of
Hooks Set

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye Bigeye tuna
tuna
tuna
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

B2(a)
Year-round
May-Nov

3,899,124
2,403,012

-8,369
-3,959

-5,445
-2,988

-133
-40

-198
-75

-36,897
-23,846

-1,310
-952

-684
-400

-5
-2

-37,938
-24,420

-1,586
-1,152

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

991,921
183851

-10,974
-1,867

-1,997
-256

-34
-11

-461
-365

-7,662
-505

-81
-11

-1,627
-557

-5
0

-10,713
-1,337

-97
-15

2,844,335
10,020,757

-3,594
-19,215

-3,621

-174

-348

-1,480

-90

-2

-33,176

-1,677

B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

2,127,510

-17,422

-11,579
-4,054

-321
-74

-439
-700

-33,053
106,941
-12,692

-3,641
-200

-1,299
-7,303

-19
-139

-108,923
-27,141

-4,661
-748

B2(f) (May-Nov)

2,997,124

-4,792

-3,553

-49

-92

-30,165

-1,141

-480

-3

-30,865

-1,436

B2(g) (June-October)

2,986,428

-21,799

-7,378

-84

-609

-27,023

-544

-10,729

-243

-48,317

-1,623

B2(h) (March-Nov)

1,118,725

-24,297

-4794

-5

-2

-3,508

-124

-427

-18

-4,148

-152

B2(i) (Year-round)

1,175,504

-8,104

-1,704

-35

-11

-3,690

-297

-8,412

-417

-14,631

-725

B2(j) (Year-round)

5,186,190

-13,469

-6,433

-181

-179

-53,854

-1,622

-400

-11

-54,579

-1,913

22,321

-321

-120

0

0

-4

0

-2

0

-8

0

21,148,706 127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

B2(c) (April-June)

B2(k) (Jan-April)
Total From All Areas*
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-12

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.4

Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the retained catch and discards based on the various time/area closure alternatives without
redistribution of effort. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Alternative

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye Bigeye tuna
tuna
tuna
Hooks Set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

B2(a)
Year-round
(May-Nov)

-18.4%
-11.4%

-6.6%
-3.1%

-14.8%
-8.1%

-22.2%
-6.7%

-12.2%
-4.6%

-22.1%
-14.3%

-23.9%
-17.4%

-1.8%
-1.1%

-0.5%
-0.2%

-16.8%
-10.8%

-17.6%
-12.8%

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

-4.7%
-0.9%

-8.6%
-1.5%

-5.4%
-0.7%

-5.7%
-1.8%

-28.5%
-22.6%

-4.6%
-0.3%

-1.5%
-0.2%

-4.4%
-1.5%

-0.5%
0.0%

-4.7%
-0.6%

-1.1%
-0.2%

B2(c) (April-June)
B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

-13.4%
-47.4%
-10.1%

-2.8%
-15.1%
-13.7%

-9.9%
-31.5%
-11.0%

-29.0%
-53.6%
-12.4%

-21.5%
-27.1%
-43.3%

-19.8%
-64.0%
-7.6%

-27.0%
-66.4%
-3.6%

-0.2%
-3.5%
-19.7%

-0.2%
-1.9%
-13.8%

-14.7%
-48.2%
-12.0%

-18.7%
-51.8%
-8.3%

B2(f) (May-Nov)

-13.4%

-3.8%

-9.7%

-8.1%

-5.7%

-18.0%

-20.8%

-1.3%

-0.3%

-13.6%

-16.0%

B2(g) (June-October)

-14.1%

-17.1%

-20.1%

-14.0%

-37.7%

-16.2%

-9.9%

-28.9%

-24.2%

-21.4%

-18.1%

B2(h) (March-Nov)

-5.3%

-19.1%

-13.0%

-0.8%

-0.1%

-2.1%

-2.3%

-1.1%

-1.8%

-1.8%

-1.7%

B2(i) (Year-round)

-5.6%

-6.4%

-4.6%

-5.8%

-0.7%

-2.2%

-5.4%

-22.7%

-41.5%

-6.5%

-8.1%

B2(j) (Year-round)

-24.5%

-10.6%

-17.5%

-30.2%

-11.1%

-32.2%

-29.6%

-1.1%

-1.1%

-24.1%

-21.3%

-0.1%

-0.3%

-0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

B2(k) (Jan-April)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-13

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.5

The decrease (-) or increase (+) in the number of each retained species caught or discarded based on the various time/area closure
alternatives with redistribution of effort. (* = was not calculated). 1 excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003)

Alternative

Number of
Hooks Set

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye Bigeye tuna
tuna
tuna
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

B2(a)
Year-round
May-Nov

19,485
11,590

2,001
1,635

-24
20

128
166

-7,615
-1,881

-381
166

7,880
4,393

210
117

5,187
5,897

126
-4

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

-6,993
-1,033

-697
-21

-21
-7

-437
-354

2,247
1,516

222
61

-170
-449

57
3

1,480
859

407
77

B2(c) (April-June)
B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

26,931
79,633
-8,623

2,218
11,718
-1,061

-110
-72
-45

158
614
-658

-18,314
-49,789
9,264

-1,001
-1,955
455

4,240
29,930
-4,417

18
853
-25

-12,260
-1,259
-723

-1,064
-616
369

B2(f) (May-Nov)

15,552

2,081

25

219

-3,126

-408

5,465

150

6,507

-29

B2(g) (June-October)

*

*

*

-360

*

*

*

*

*

*

B2(h) (March-Nov)

*

*

*

154

*

*

*

*

*

*

B2(i) (Year-round)

*

*

*

104

*

*

*

*

*

*

B2(j) (Year-round)

*

*

*

274

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

2

*

*

*

*

*

*

127,500

36,748

599

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

B2(k) (Jan-April)
1

Total From All Areas

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

21,148,706

A-14

1,617

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.6

Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the retained catch and discards based on the various time/area closure alternatives with
redistribution of effort. (* = was not calculated). Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Alternative

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye Bigeye tuna
tuna
tuna
Hooks Set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
WITH REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

BAYS
kept

BAYS
discards

B2(a)
Year-round
May-Nov

15.3%
9.1%

5.4%
4.4%

-3.9%
3.4%

7.9%
10.3%

-4.6%
-1.1%

-6.9%
3.0%

21.2%
2.6%

20.8%
11.6%

2.3%
2.6%

1.4%
-0.04%

B2(b)
Year-round
June only

-5.5%
-0.8%

-1.9%
-0.1%

-3.5%
-1.2%

-27.0%
-21.9%

1.3%
0.9%

4.1%
1.1%

-0.5%
-1.2%

5.6%
0.3%

0.7%
0.4%

4.5%
0.9%

B2(c) (April-June)
B2(d) (Year-round)
B2(e) (Year-round)

21.1%
62.5%
-6.8%

6.0%
31.9%
-2.9%

-18.3%
-12.1%
-7.6%

9.8%
38.0%
-40.7%

-11.0%
-29.8%
5.5%

-18.3%
-35.6%
8.3%

11.4%
80.6%
-11.9%

1.7%
84.8%
-2.5%

-5.4%
-0.6%
-0.3%

-11.8%
-6.9%
4.1%

B2(f) (May-Nov)

12.2%

5.7%

4.2%

13.6%

-1.9%

-7.4%

14.7%

14.9%

2.9%

-0.3%

B2(g) (June-October)

*

*

*

-22.3%

*

*

*

*

*

*

B2(h) (March-Nov)

*

*

*

9.5%

*

*

*

*

*

*

B2(i) (Year-round)

*

*

*

6.4%

*

*

*

*

*

*

B2(j) (Year-round)

*

*

*

17%

*

*

*

*

*

*

B2(k) (Jan-April)

*

*

*

0.1%

*

*

*

*

*

*

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-15

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.7

Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in the number of hooks set; discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback,
loggerhead, and other sea turtles based on various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution of effort. Source: HMS
Logbook data (2001-2003).

Alternative
Alternative B2(a)
Alternative B2(a)
(May-Nov)

White
Number of Marlin
Hooks Set discards

Blue
Marlin
discards

Sailfish
discards

Spearfish
discards

Bluefin
Tuna Leatherback Loggerhead Other Sea
discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles

-18.0%

-16.0%

-19.9%

-15.8%

-14.9%

-12.2%

-34.6%

-5.0%

-45.5%

-11.4%

-14.7%

-17.6%

-14.2%

-11.3%

-4.6%

-15.4%

-3.4%

0.0%

-4.7%

-3.9%

-0.9%

-0.1%

-0.5%

-28.5%

-5.7%

-20.7%

0.0%

-0.9%

-0.4%

-0.2%

0.0%

0.0%

-22.6%

-2.0%

-11.2%

0.0%

-13.4%

-10.3%

-10.0%

-12.1%

-8.3%

-21.5%

-11.1%

-3.9%

-18.2%

-47.4%

-47.3%

-57.0%

-62.4%

-83.5%

-27.1%

-57.5%

-10.1%

-45.5%

-10.1%

-8.7%

-1.6%

-0.3%

-1.9%

-43.3%

-9.9%

-36.3%

0.0%

-22.8%

-21.7%

-25.3%

-21.5%

-20.3%

-38.3%

-5.6%

-45.5%

-21.7%

-14.1%

-15.3%

-2.0%

-1.1%

-1.7%

-37.7%

-8.1%

-22.3%

0.0%

-5.6%

-4.4%

-5.6%

-13.0%

-6.4%

-2.0%

-1.7%

-5.6%

0.0%

-5.6%

-7.4%

-12.9%

-5.7%

-4.7%

-0.7%

-2.0%

-11.2%

0.0%

-24.5%

-16.5%

-21.6%

-43.1%

-25.5%

-11.1%

-18.2%

-6.7%

-9.1%

-0.1%

-0.2%

-0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Alternative B2(b)
Alternative B2(b)
(June only)
Alternative B2(c)
Alternative B2(d)
Alternative B2(e)
Alternative B2(f)
Alternative B2(g)
Alternative B2(h)
Alternative B2(i)
Alternative B2(j)
Alternative B2(k)

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-16

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.8

Alternative
Alternative B2(a)
(year-round)
Alternative B2(a)
(May-Nov)
Alternative B2(b)
(year-round)

Percent reduction (-) or increase (+) in discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish,
spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtles, and bluefin tuna kept and discards
combined, based on various time/area closure alternatives without redistribution of effort.
Source: Pelagic Observer Program data (2001-2003).
White
Marlin
discards

Alternative B2(d)
(year-round)
Alternative B2(e)
(year-round)

Sailfish Spearfish
discards discards

Bluefin Leatherback Loggerhead Other Sea
Tuna Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles

-14.6%

-11.1%

-20.9%

-4.5%

-12.2%

-18.9%

-7.0%

-25.0%

-13.2%

-9.3%

-19.6%

-4.5%

-7.0%

-11.3%

-4.0%

0.0%

-1.4%

-0.7%

0.0%

0.0%

-16.2%

-0.6%

-9.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-15.4%

0.0%

-6.0%

0.0%

-8.4%

-11.1%

-14.2%

-2.3%

-18.4%

-15.1%

-7.0%

-25.0%

-38.8%

-26.8%

-52.0%

-15.9%

-24.3%

-52.8%

-14.0%

-75.0%

-3.3%

-1.1%

0.0%

-2.3%

-44.3%

-6.9%

-16.0%

0.0%

-19.6%

-17.1%

-25.7%

-4.5%

-17.6%

-25.8%

-8.0%

-25.0%

-12.7%

-1.8%

-0.0%

-2.3%

-49.5%

-10.1%

-20.0%

-25.0%

-3.3%

-9.3%

-24.3%

-2.3%

-0.3%

-10.7%

-4.0%

0.0%

-16.0%

-34.3%

-8.8%

-45.5%

-1.1%

-6.9%

-17.0%

0.0%

-20.3%

-8.2%

-33.1%

-2.3%

-10.8%

-29.6%

-9.0%

-50.0%

-0.7%

-3.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Alternative B2(b)
(June only)
Alternative B2(c)
(April-June)

Blue
Marlin
discards

Alternative B2(f)
Alternative B2(g)
Alternative B2(h)
Alternative B2(i)
Alternative B2(j)
Alternative B2(k)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-17

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.9

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Decrease
without
redistribution
of effort
No. discards
with
redistribution
of effort
% Decrease
with
redistribution
of effort

Alternative B2(f). Temporal variation in effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico time/area closure in
terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback, loggerhead, and bluefin tuna discards. A negative sign indicates an increase in
bycatch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).
Number
of hooks
set
464,535
248,436
310,044
391,152
579,566
459,183
393,868
452,158
319,796
400,189
393,811
414,240

White
Marlin
discards
14
3
6
8
50
151
216
86
55
43
32
18

Blue
Marlin
discards
17
4
8
16
36
104
202
77
59
55
26
16

Sailfish
discards
9
2
3
6
22
29
57
30
29
15
15
4

Spearfish
discards
9
0
4
5
7
14
15
7
4
11
4
6

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
10
11
17
17
10
12
15
13
8
19
14
43

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
1
0
1
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
1

Bluefin
tuna
discards
2
3
60
97
84
5
0
0
1
1
1
1

4,826,978

682

620

221

86

189

10

255

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

494

179

1,617

-22.8%

-21.7%

-25.3%

-21.5%

-20.3%

-38.3%

-5.6%

-15.8%

-3

-122

4

14

-96

39

153

-0.1%

-5.0%

0.4%

3.3%

-19.4%

21.8%

9.4%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-18

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.10

Alternative B2(g). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Northeast time/area closure
from June through October in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin,
blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle discards.
*excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing
the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Total

Number
of hooks
set
94,685
63,028
70,714
83,255
143,876
295,480
524,941
594,372
595,391
554,844
420,660
197,429
3,638,675

White
Marlin
discards
0
0
0
2
9
23
101
215
119
17
6
1
493

Blue
Marlin
discards
1
0
1
2
2
4
5
22
16
1
1
0
55

Sailfish
discards
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
2
2
2
0
0
12

Spearfish
discards
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
1
2
0
8

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
0
0
0
0
0
9
7
11
3
5
5
1
41

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
1
3
1
0
0
14
9
6
3
5
3
1
46

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

June-Oct

2,985,688

481

49

11

7

40

40

0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

494

179

11

-14.1%

-15.3%

-2.0%

-1.1%

-1.7%

-8.1%

-22.3%

-0.0%

71

494

239

62

29

-26

1

2.3%

20.2%

23.2%

14.5%

5.9%

-14.8%

12.5%

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

All Areas*
% Decrease
without
redistribution of
effort
No. discards
with
redistribution of
effort
% Decrease
with
redistribution of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-19

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.11

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
March-Nov
All Areas*
% Decrease
without
redistribution
of effort
No. discards
with
redistribution
of effort
% Decrease
with
redistribution
of effort

Alternative B2(h). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Southeast time/area closure
closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish,
spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle discards. *excluding the NED. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three.
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).
Number
of hooks
set
125,740
110,101
72,215
66,124
418,879
263,124
98,264
82,603
55,952
58,866
63,838
68,986

White
Marlin
discards
2
10
10
12
66
48
2
0
0
1
0
6

Blue
Marlin
discards
9
3
6
11
44
19
26
20
7
2
3
3

Sailfish
discards
7
3
0
0
29
31
20
41
5
4
4
1

Spearfish
discards
0
0
3
1
12
6
1
3
0
0
1
2

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
4
3
0
2
5
1
1
0
0
0
1
1

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1

Other Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1,484,692
1,179,865
21,148,706

157
139
3,143

153
138
2,449

145
134
1,029

29
27
424

18
10
494

6
3
179

0
0
11

-5.6%

-4.4%

-5.6%

-13.0%

-6.4%

-2.0%

-1.7%

-0.0%

54

-6

-73

-5

12

7

1

1.7%

-0.24%

-7.1%

-1.2%

2.4%

4.0%

5.4%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-20

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.12

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Decrease
without
redistribution
of effort
No. discards
with
redistribution
of effort
% Decrease
with
redistribution
of effort

Alternative B2(i). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure on the east coast of
Florida in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish,
spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle discards. *excluding the NED. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three.
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).
Number
of hooks
set
112,722
156,047
330,536
296,975
16,112
33,315
40,765
52,825
43,461
38,108
26,115
28,523

White
Marlin
discards
35
12
74
92
7
8
0
3
1
0
0
0

Blue
Marlin
discards
21
24
104
69
6
17
16
34
19
4
1
1

Sailfish
discards
4
4
10
10
1
6
7
14
3
0
0
0

Spearfish
discards
2
5
4
6
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
2
0
4
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
3
2
12
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

Other Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1,175,504

232

316

59

20

10

20

0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

494

179

11

-5.6%

-7.4%

-12.9%

-5.7%

-4.7%

-2.0%

-11.2%

0.0%

-118

-224

-27

7

21

-10

1

-3.8%

-9.2%

-2.6%

1.6%

4.2%

-5.4%

9.5%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-21

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.13

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Decrease
without
redistribution of
effort
No. discards
with
redistribution of
effort
% Decrease
with
redistribution of
effort

Alternative B2(j). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Gulf of Mexico time/area
closure in terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish,
spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle discards. *excluding the NED. Three
year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three.
Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).
Number
of hooks
set
345,996
264,179
270,055
480,977
585,789
514,852
653,844
642,913
437,233
343,804
317,848
325,390

White
Marlin
discards
11
5
1
13
31
64
191
121
42
17
10
13

Blue
Marlin
discards
13
2
2
13
19
50
192
108
75
26
12
16

Sailfish
discards
6
4
0
9
29
92
145
75
55
13
13
3

Spearfish
discards
2
0
2
2
6
10
38
15
17
8
4
4

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
2
1
3
2
6
7
17
8
7
1
4
32

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
1
0
0
0
3
1
2
1
0
0
1
3

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5,182,880

519

528

444

108

90

12

1

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

494

179

11

-24.5%

-16.5%

-21.6%

-43.1%

-25.5%

-18.2%

-6.7%

-9.1%

394

126

-241

-5

38

40

2

12.6%

5.1%

-23.4%

-1.2%

7.7%

22.1%

17.0%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-22

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.14

Alternative B2(k). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Caribbean time/area closure in
terms of percent reduction (-) or increase (+) of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish,
leatherback, loggerhead, and other sea turtle discards. Landings were only reported for the
four months listed. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction
without
redistribution of
effort
% Reduction
with
redistribution of
effort

Number
of hooks
set
6,160
826
13,735
1,600

White
Marlin
discards
3
0
3
1

Blue
Marlin
discards
11
0
2
1

Sailfish
discards
0
0
0
0

Spearfish
discards
0
0
0
0

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
0
0
0
0

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
0
0
0
0

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
0

22,321

7

14

0

0

0

0

0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

1,029

424

494

179

11

-0.1%

-0.2%

-0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.7%

-1.8%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-23

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.15

Alternative B2(f). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Gulf of Mexico time/area closure in terms of percent reduction (-) in
discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction
without
redistribution of
effort

Number of
hooks set
464,535
247,536
310,044
392,186
577,866
456,786
394,518
454,358
319,796
399,389
394,411
415,190

Swordfish
kept
1,495
1,062
852
590
677
721
573
786
530
704
801
1,269

Swordfish
discards
678
433
588
665
1,077
616
413
360
325
421
341
584

Bluefin
tuna
kept
15
16
38
37
37
10
0
0
0
0
2
11

Bluefin
tuna
discards
2
3
60
97
84
5
0
0
1
1
1
1

Yellowfin
tuna kept
4,613
1,174
2,097
4,022
5,831
5,499
5,042
4,277
2,855
3,532
3,129
3,873

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
121
48
49
127
386
272
118
105
47
149
64
130

Bigeye
tuna
kept
153
54
17
11
9
40
45
53
47
134
152
144

Bigeye
tuna
discards
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1

BAYS
kepts
4,820
1,244
2,119
4,035
5,856
5,539
5,094
4,350
2,907
3,724
3,395
4,182

BAYS
discards
128
50
61
136
403
307
156
147
97
183
143
195

4,826,615

10,060

6,501

166

255

45,944

1,616

859

9

47,265

2,006

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

-22.8%

-7.9%

-17.7%

-27.7%

-15.8%

-27.5%

-29.5%

-2.3%

-0.9%

-20.9%

-22.3%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-24

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.16

Alternative B2(g). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the Northeast time/area closure from June through October closure in terms
of percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
June-Oct
All Areas*

Number
of hooks
set
94,685
63,028
70,714
83,255
143,876
294,380
525,481
596,472
596,671
551,664
421,760
197,429

Swordfish
kept
1,156
734
561
576
615
1,617
3,711
3,613
4,788
4,489
3,581
1,773

Swordfish
discards
790
369
212
219
134
284
654
963
1,360
2,244
1,873
847

Bluefin
tuna
kept
0
1
0
0
1
12
16
5
2
16
33
3

Bluefin
tuna
discards
2
0
79
40
18
233
66
8
46
61
195
14

Yellowfin
tuna kept
126
31
148
912
2,084
2,814
3,089
4,252
6,364
6,388
4,116
1,029

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
25
0
4
52
41
20
63
79
190
110
82
20

Bigeye
tuna
kept
14
6
11
61
185
486
549
1,270
2,651
2,894
2,879
1,368

Bigeye
tuna
discards
0
0
0
1
3
3
5
60
76
71
28
6

BAYS
kept
164
40
164
977
2,270
3,461
4,033
6,543
10,530
13,721
10,029
3,532

BAYS
discards
31
0
13
55
44
29
80
165
308
415
626
227

3,639,415
2,986,428

27,214
21,799

9,949
7,378

89
84

762
609

31,353
27,023

686
544

12,374
10,729

253
243

55,464
48,317

1,993
1,623

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

-14.1%

-17.1%

-20.1%

-14.0%

-37.7%

-16.2%

-9.9%

-28.9%

-24.2%

-21.4%

-18.1%

% Reduction without
redistribution of
Effort: June-Oct.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-25

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.17

Alternative B2(h). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure from March through November closure in terms of
percent reduction (-) in discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained
by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Number of Swordfish Swordfish
hooks set
kept
discards
125,740
1,762
480
110,101
1,115
329
72,215
471
65
65,324
547
78
418,879
9,016
2,073
263,124
4,128
778
97,924
1,941
321
82,603
1,977
475
55,952
1,833
314
58,866
2,165
296
63,838
2,219
394
68,986
1,355
283

Bluefin Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna
tuna
tuna
tuna
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
0
0
502
30
12
1
0
1
619
29
96
3
1
0
278
18
214
0
1
0
161
11
59
3
1
1
561
24
8
0
2
1
401
11
8
1
0
0
434
24
37
8
0
0
367
9
36
0
0
0
283
6
28
3
0
0
613
9
16
0
0
0
410
12
21
3
0
0
283
7
19
1

BAYS
BAYS
kept
discards
516
31
823
32
638
18
268
16
574
25
413
14
471
33
405
10
313
9
632
9
434
18
305
8

Total
March-Nov

1,483,552
1,118,725

28,529
24,297

5,886
4794

5
5

3
2

4,912
3,508

190
124

554
427

23
18

5,792
4,148

223
152

All Areas*

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

-7.0%

-22.4%

-16.0%

-0.8%

-0.2%

-2.9%

-3.5%

-1.5%

-2.3%

-2.6%

-2.5%

-5.3%

-19.1%

-13.0%

-0.8%

-0.1%

-2.1%

-2.3%

-1.1%

-1.8%

-1.8%

-1.7%

% Reduction without
redistribution of
effort
% Reduction without
redistribution of
Effort: March-Nov

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-26

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.18

Alternative B2(i). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the closure of the east Florida in terms of percent reduction (-) in discards
and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*

Number
of hooks
set
112,722
156,047
330,536
296,975
16,112
33,315
40,765
52,825
43,461
38,108
26,115
28,523

Swordfish
kept
726
1,132
1,862
1,592
106
232
379
636
383
486
316
254

Swordfish
discards
213
263
329
174
19
20
120
234
152
101
54
25

Bluefin
tuna
kept
1
1
6
26
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

Bluefin
tuna
discards
1
0
2
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0

Yellowfin
tuna kept
345
235
515
986
32
149
300
278
152
288
162
248

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
11
9
26
28
0
1
74
125
0
7
3
13

Bigeye
tuna
kept
930
1,165
2,610
1,457
40
113
205
476
413
393
382
228

Bigeye
tuna
discards
35
33
62
17
0
0
111
114
20
7
3
15

BAYS
kept
1,606
1,924
4,188
2,825
87
280
516
778
606
712
582
527

BAYS
discards
46
44
89
45
0
1
185
241
20
16
7
31

1,175,504

8,104

1,704

35

11

3,690

297

8,412

417

14,631

725

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

-5.6%

-6.4%

-4.6%

-5.8%

-0.7%

-2.2%

-5.4%

-22.7%

-41.5%

-6.5%

-8.1%

% Reduction without
redistribution of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-27

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.19

Alternative B2(j). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure in the Gulf of Mexico in terms of percent reduction (-)
in discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three
year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*

Number
of hooks
set
346,896
264,179
270,055
482,677
587,439
512,512
653,044
643,863
437,233
344,604
318,248
325,440

Swordfish
kept
1,302
2,226
1,989
1,615
1,305
885
754
793
536
747
608
709

Swordfish
discards
571
765
749
689
892
588
436
462
316
340
283
342

Bluefin
tuna
kept
14
15
18
52
47
7
3
0
19
0
1
5

Bluefin
tuna
discards
0
1
7
92
69
4
0
5
1
0
0
0

Yellowfin
tuna kept
3,765
1,072
1,454
4,114
5,807
7,171
9,096
7,948
4,550
3,295
2,441
3,141

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
79
29
73
236
187
170
261
191
101
108
78
109

Bigeye
tuna
kept
76
23
3
15
9
12
26
23
28
49
86
50

Bigeye
tuna
discards
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
5
0
0

BAYS
kept
3,914
1,104
1,464
4,131
5,819
7,183
9,129
7,991
4,600
3,375
2,588
3,281

BAYS
discards
97
34
74
237
220
207
294
213
118
134
122
163

5,186,190

13,469

6,433

181

179

53,854

1,622

400

11

54,579

1,913

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

-24.5%

-10.6%

-17.5%

-30.2%

-11.1%

-32.2%

-29.6%

-1.1%

-1.1%

-24.1%

-21.3%

% Reduction without
redistribution of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-28

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.20

Alternative B2(k). Temporal variation in effectiveness of the time/area closure in the Caribbean in terms of percent reduction (-) in
discards and retained catch. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year
total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (2001-2003).

Month
1
2
3
4
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction without
redistribution of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Number of Swordfish Swordfish
hooks set
kept
discards
6,160
76
47
826
16
0
13,735
211
69
1,600
18
4

Bluefin Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna
tuna
tuna
tuna
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

BAYS
BAYS
kept
discards
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0

22,321

321

120

0

0

4

0

2

0

8

0

21,148,706

127,500

36,748

599

1,617

167,203

5,486

37,133

1,006

226,156

8,990

-0.1%

-0.3%

-0.3%

-0.0%

-0.0%

-0.0%

-0.0%

-0.0%

-0.0%

-0.0%

-0.0%

A-29

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.2

Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures. Note: only alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-30

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.3

Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures and juvenile swordfish data (<180 cm LJFL). The minimum size
limit for swordfish is 119 cm LJFL. Note: only alternatives B3(a) and (b) were further analyzed. Source Pelagic Observer Program 19971999.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-31

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.4

Map showing areas considered for modifications to existing closures and adult swordfish data from the Pelagic Observer Program.
Note: only alternatives B2(a) and (b) were further analyzed. Source Pelagic Observer Program 1997-1999.

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-32

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.21

Swordfish lengths (cm lower jaw fork length; LJFL) in the portion of the areas to remain
closed and the portion of the areas considered for reopening. The minimum size limit for
swordfish is 119 cm LJFL. The mature size is > 180 cm LJFL. Significant differences are shaded.
Source: Pelagic Observer Program 1992-1999.

Closed Area

Portion
Considered
for
Reopening

Sample
Size

B3(a) Charleston Bump
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
B3(c) East Florida Coast
B3(d) DeSoto Canyon

124
96
119
106

3,374
1695
2,744
634

B3(a) Charleston Bump
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
B3(c) East Florida Coast
B3(d) DeSoto Canyon

125
112
120
116

2,067
409
1,094
152

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-33

Portion to
Remain
Closed
1992-1999
125
71
124
101
1997-1999
126
71
125
108

Sample
Size

t-test

1,664
2
679
314

P = 0.37
P = 0.34
P < 0.0001
P = 0.50

455
2
527
55

P = 0.10
P = 0.05
P < 0.0001
P = 0.03

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.22

Alternative B3(c) Florida East Coast modification. Discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles in the portion of the area to
remain closed and the portion of the area considered for reopening. *excluding the NED.
Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by
three. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-1999.
Number
of hooks
set

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

81,708
68,328
107,962
134,487
161,558
100,117
100,942
74,005
43,040
62,900
79,128
101,843

Total
All Areas*
% of All Areas

1,116,018
21,148,706
5.3%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

16,421
14,664
15,385
23,746
30,905
48,306
38,439
24,495
38,590
34,168
22,008
22,560

Total
All Areas*
% of All Areas

329,687
21,148,706
1.6%

White
Marlin
discards

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

4
4
5
16
34
4
9
7
4
3
5
21

Blue
Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead
Marlin
Sea Turtles
Sea Turtles
discards discards discards
PORTION OF AREA TO REMAIN CLOSED
20
16
1
1
1
12
11
4
0
0
14
41
0
1
0
12
24
0
0
1
41
129
2
1
0
13
61
2
0
0
16
62
1
1
1
16
41
3
0
0
7
15
3
1
0
4
8
1
0
0
8
16
2
0
0
23
33
1
0
0

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

116
186
457
20
5
494
3,143
2,449
1,029
424
3.7%
7.6%
44.4%
4.7%
1.0%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING
1
11
1
2
0
4
4
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
7
3
1
1
0
8
5
9
0
0
8
10
21
1
0
1
8
14
0
0
1
13
23
3
0
2
16
14
1
0
0
7
4
0
0
9
8
7
1
0
7
9
4
0
0

3
179
1.7%

0
11
0.0%

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

48
3,143
1.5%

2
179
1.1%

0
11
0.0%

98
2,449
4.0%

99
1,029
9.6%

A-34

9
424
2.1%

0
494
0.0%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.23

Alternative B3(d) Desoto Canyon modification. Discards of white marlin, blue marlin,
sailfish, spearfish, leatherback, loggerhead and other sea turtles in the portion of the area to
remain closed and in the portion of the area considered for reopening. Source HMS Logbook
1997-1999. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained
by dividing the three year total by three.

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% of All Areas

207,076
21,148,706
1.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Total
All Areas*
% of All Areas

White
Blue
Other
Number of Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead Sea
hooks set discards discards discards discards Sea Turtles Sea Turtles Turtles
PORTION OF AREA TO REMAIN CLOSED
20,270
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
18,321
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
41,625
3
4
1
0
0
0
0
7,592
3
3
2
0
0
0
0
15,324
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
25,752
3
7
6
0
0
0
0
22,582
8
6
3
0
0
0
0
10,235
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
8,860
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,185
12
2
3
0
0
0
0
8,040
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
10,290
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

30,678
17,681
4,703
23,053
81,097
92,064
86,779
61,128
50,612
45,009
11,768
4,496
509,068
21,148,706
2.4%

C
ONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

40
26
19
0
0
1
3,143
2,449
1,029
424
494
179
1.3%
1.1%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
10
3
1
1
0
0
7
14
20
2
0
0
12
21
107
1
0
0
6
14
5
0
0
0
3
3
1
0
0
0
6
8
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
3,143
1.5%

65
2,449
2.7%

145
1,029
14.1%

A-35

4
424
0.9%

2
494
0.4%

0
179
0.0%

1
11
9.1%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0.0%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.24

Comparison of discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles in the portion of the
areas considered for reopening. - = decrease + = increase. *excluding the NED. Four year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the four year total by four. Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000.
Area

B3(a) Charleston Bump (Feb-Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern U.S. (June)
B3(c) East Florida Coast
B3(d) Desoto Canyon
All Areas*
B3(a) Charleston Bump (Feb-Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
B3(c) East Florida Coast
B3(d) Desoto Canyon

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Number
of hooks
set
108,403
2,400
329,687
509,068

White
Blue
Marlin
Marlin
Sailfish Spearfish Leatherback Loggerhead
discards discards discards discards
Sea Turtles
Sea Turtles
PORTION OF AREAS CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING
19
17
10
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
98
99
9
0
2
48
65
145
4
2
0

21,148,706

3,143

2,449

0.3%
0.01%
1.6%
2.4%

0.6%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%

0.7%
0.0%
4.0%
2.7%

A-36

1,029
424
% of All Areas
1.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
9.6%
2.1%
14.1%
0.9%

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
0

494

179

11

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%

0.6%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.25

Comparison of catch of swordfish, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and BAYS in the portion of the areas considered for
reopening. *excluding the NED. Four year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the four year total by four.
Source: HMS Logbook 1997-2000.

Area
B3(a) Charleston Bump
(Feb-Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
(June)
B3(c) East Florida Coast
B3(d) DeSoto Canyon
All Areas*
B3(a) Charleston Bump
(Feb-Apr)
B3(b) Northeastern U.S.
(June)
B3(c) East Florida Coast
B3(d)Desoto Canyon

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Number of
hooks set

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Yellowfin
tuna
Bigeye
tuna
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
PORTION OF AREAS CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING

108,403

1,371

548

0

2,400
329,687
509,068
21,148,706

3
5,313
985
127,500

0
2,150
647
36,748

0
0
12
599

0.51%

1.1%

1.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.01%
1.6%
2.4%

0.002%
4.2%
0.8%

0.0%
5.9%
1.8%

0.0%
0.0%
2.0%

0.06%
0.19%
0.06%

A-37

0

BAYS
kepts

BAYS
discards

275

19

8

1

297

21

1
1
3
1,247
22
8,091
1,617
167,203
% of All Areas

0
60
206
5,486

0
405
45
37,133

0
25
1
1,006

1
1,676
8,170
226,156

0
89
287
8,990

0.16%

0.35%

0.02%

0.1%

0.13%

0.23%

0.001%
0.75%
4.8%

0.0%
1.1%
3.8%

0.0%
1.1%
0.12%

0.0%
2.5%
0.1%

0.0004%
0.75%
3.6%

0.0%
0.01%
3.2%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.26

Alternative B3(c) modification of East Florida Coast time/area closure. Catch and discards of various species in the portion of the area
to remain closed and in the portion of the area considered for reopening. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (1997-1999).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
tuna
tuna
tuna
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
hooks set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
PORTION OF AREA TO REMAIN CLOSED
81,708
1,535
922
1
0
14
0
1
0
68,328
1,222
801
0
0
7
0
3
1
107,962
1,870
1,188
0
0
37
1
10
5
134,487
1,802
979
1
0
32
4
46
0
161,558
2,485
976
5
18
157
6
60
0
100,117
2,096
740
4
1
150
1
19
1
100,942
1,833
823
0
0
106
1
23
0
74,005
1,561
777
0
0
68
0
24
0
43,040
1,305
666
0
0
33
0
19
0
62,900
1,776
936
0
0
54
2
6
0
79,128
2,245
819
0
0
52
2
11
0
101,843
2,340
1,052
0
0
38
1
9
2
1,116,018
22,070
10,679
11
19
748
18
231
9
21,148,706 127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
5.3%
17.3%
29.1%
1.8%
1.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.6%
0.9%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING
16,421
184
190
0
0
35
5
9
2
14,664
72
37
0
0
29
2
9
3
15,385
187
87
0
0
8
0
10
0
23,746
237
98
0
0
36
2
19
3
30,905
213
52
0
0
43
4
15
0
48,306
632
163
0
3
94
0
43
0
38,439
603
177
0
0
107
3
83
1
24,495
442
158
0
0
102
7
105
0
38,590
798
301
0
0
391
23
51
3
34,168
1,094
400
0
0
201
2
9
0
22,008
527
284
0
0
135
11
34
9
22,560
324
203
0
0
66
1
18
4
329,687
5,313
2,150
0
3
1,247
60
405
25
21,148,706 127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
1.6%
4.2%
5.9%
0.0%
0.2%
0.7%
1.1%
1.1%
2.5%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-38

BAYS
kepts

BAYS
discards

15
10
55
91
229
172
129
92
52
60
63
47
1,015
226,156
0.4%

1
1
8
6
6
3
1
0
0
2
3
3
34
8,990
0.4%

44
38
18
56
60
142
195
212
445
213
169
84
1,676
226,156
0.7%

7
5
0
5
4
4
4
7
26
2
20
5
89
8,990
1.0%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.27

Alternative B3(d) modification of the DeSoto Canyon time/area closure. Catch and discards of various species in the portion of the
area to remain closed and in the portion of the area considered for reopening. *excluding the NED. Three year totals are shown; one year
averages can be obtained by dividing the three year total by three. Source: HMS Logbook data (1997-1999).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
All Areas*
% Reduction

Bluefin
Yellowfin
Bigeye
Number of Swordfish Swordfish Bluefin
tuna
Yellowfin
tuna
Bigeye
tuna
hooks set
kept
discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards tuna kept discards
PORTION OF AREA TO REMAIN CLOSED
20270
278
63
0
0
2
0
0
0
16515
348
254
0
0
0
0
0
0
38760
497
216
0
0
10
0
0
0
6611
77
42
0
3
17
0
0
0
15324
165
123
1
0
372
16
1
0
25752
368
169
0
1
343
6
0
0
19832
189
107
0
0
75
5
1
0
10235
222
83
0
0
54
4
0
0
8860
40
35
0
0
118
0
0
0
18185
309
133
0
0
115
0
0
0
7415
101
36
0
0
28
0
0
0
10290
259
149
0
0
2
0
0
0
198,049
2,853
1,410
1
4
1,136
31
2
0
21,148,706 127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
0.9%
2.2%
3.8%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
0.6% 0.005%
0.0%
PORTION OF AREA CONSIDERED FOR REOPENING
30,678
122
57
1
0
351
0
13
0
17,681
183
37
1
0
191
0
9
0
4,703
25
59
2
0
74
0
0
0
23,053
94
77
1
7
317
4
0
0
81,097
56
13
5
11
1,529
47
7
0
92,064
195
175
2
4
1,766
67
2
1
86,779
149
99
0
0
1,285
21
4
0
61,128
99
91
0
0
601
2
2
0
50,612
17
9
0
0
1,179
38
3
0
45,009
22
18
0
0
649
27
3
0
11,768
4
5
0
0
59
0
2
0
4,496
19
7
0
0
90
0
0
0
509,068
985
647
12
22
8,091
206
45
1
21,148,706 127,500
36,748
599
1,617 167,203
5,486
37,133
1,006
2.4%
0.8%
1.8%
2.0%
1.4%
4.8%
3.8%
0.1%
0.01%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-39

BAYS
kepts

BAYS
discards

4
0
10
17
373
343
76
54
118
119
28
2
1,144
226,156
0.5%

2
0
0
0
16
10
5
4
4
2
0
0
43
8,990
0.5%

364
200
74
317
1,542
1,768
1,294
608
1,199
652
61
91
8,170
226,156
3.6%

0
1
0
13
61
87
22
8
45
47
3
0
287
8,990
3.2%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.28 .

An example of the calculations for the redistribution of fishing effort model. This example calculates the number of discards of loggerhead
sea turtles considering the redistribution of fishing effort for alternative B2(d). A negative sign indicates an increase in discards.
A

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total

Number of
hooks in the
Atlantic &
Gulf of
Mexico
1,647,194
1,265,512
1,632,848
1,865,601
2,000,083
2,035,950
2,253,513
2,256,917
1,707,630
1,670,686
1,528,728
1,284,044

B

C

Number of Number of
discards in hooks in the
Atl.& Gulf time/area
of Mexico
closure
9
739,191
30
488,238
21
546,944
11
825,627
15
1,085,255
35
978,848
13
1,136,250
9
1,125,483
7
820,167
10
828,954
725,772
11
8
720,028

21,148,706

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

179

10,020,757

D

E

Number of
discards in
the
potential
time/area
closure
1
0
1
0
6
1
3
1
1
0
1
3
18

F

Number of
discards in
open Atl.
& GOM
(B-D)
8
30
20
11
9
34
10
8
6
10
10
5
161

G

H

Number of
additional
dicards in
CPUE in open Atl.
the open & GOM by
Atl. & Gulf displaced
effort
of Mexico
(C*F)
(E/(A-C))
8.81E-06
6.5
3.86E-05
18.8
1.84E-05
10.1
1.06E-05
8.7
9.84E-06
10.7
3.22E-05
31.5
8.95E-06
10.2
7.07E-06
8.0
6.76E-06
5.5
1.19E-05
9.8
1.25E-05
9.0
8.86E-06
6.4
1.74E-04

A-40

135

I

J

K

L

Discards
Cumulative
from open
percent of
Atl. & Number of Cumulative Percent of
total
discards
total
GOM with dicards
discards
displaced avoided by avoided by discards by avoided by
area
month
month
fishing
closure
closure (B- (Cumulative (I/Sum of (J/Sum of
effort
H)
sum of I) Column B) Column B)
(E+G)
15
-6
-6
-3.1%
-3.1%
49
-19
-24
-10.5%
-13.6%
30
-9
-33
-5.1%
-18.7%
20
-9
-42
-4.9%
-23.6%
20
-5
-47
-2.6%
-26.2%
65
-30
-77
-17.0%
-43.2%
20
-7
-84
-4.0%
-47.2%
16
-7
-91
-3.9%
-51.1%
12
-5
-96
-2.5%
-53.6%
20
-10
-106
-5.5%
-59.1%
19
-8
-114
-4.5%
-63.6%
11
-3
-117
-1.9%
-65.5%
296

-117

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.29

An example of how the modified redistribution of fishing effort was calculated. This example calculates the number of discards of white
marlin considering the redistribution of fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and area 6 only for alternative B2(c) from April through June. A
negative sign indicates an increase in discards, and a positive value indicates a decrease in discards.
A

Month
4
5
6
Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Number
of hooks
in the
Gulf of
Mexico
1,285,615
1,644,111
1,499,224
4,428,950

B

Number
of
discards
in Gulf of
Mexico
111
223
329
663

C

D

E

Number
of hooks
in the
time/area
closure
1,139,144
1,454,636
1,308,060
3,901,840

Number
of
discards
in the
time/area
closure
102
201
293
596

Number
of
discards
in open
GOM (BD)
9
22
36
67

A-41

F

CPUE in
the open
Gulf of
Mexico
(E/(A-C))
6.14E-05
1.16E-04
1.88E-04
3.66E-04

G
Number
of
additional
dicards in
open
GOM by
displaced
effort
(C*F)
70.0
168.9
246.3
485

H
Discards
from
open
GOM
with
displaced
fishing
effort
(E+G)
79
191
282
552

I

Number
of
dicards
avoided
by area
closure
(B-H)
32
32
47
111

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.30

An example of how the modified redistribution of fishing effort was calculated. This example calculates the number of discards of white
marlin considering the redistribution of fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico and area 6 only for alternative B2(c) from April through June. A
negative sign indicates an increase in discards, and a positive value indicates a decrease in discards.

Month
4
5
6
Total

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A

B

C

Number of
hooks in Areas 6
311,464
109,736
77,284
498,484

Number
of
discards
in Areas
6
56
49
35
140

Number
of hooks
displaced
out of
Gulf
28,198
14,615
2,600
45,413

F

G

CPUE in
the Area
6
1.80E-04
4.47E-04
4.53E-04
1.08E-03

Number of
discards in
Area 6 as a
result of
displaced effort
(C*F)
5.1
6.5
1.2
13

A-42

H

I

Total number
of discards
avoided by the
area closure
111-13=98

Cumulative
percent of total
discards
avoided by
closure
98/3747=2.6%

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.31

Comparison between the percent change of bycatch for different closures for 2001-2003 data (used in the draft Consolidated FMP) and
2001-2004 (first six months of 2004 included) without redistribution of effort. A negative (-) sign indicates a reduction in bycatch. S ource:
HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004).

Alternative

Blue
Number White
of Hooks Marlin Marlin Sailfish Spearfish Leather Logger
discards discards discards discards
Set
back
head
WITHOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT

Bluefin
Tuna
Kept

Bluefin Pelagic
Tuna
Shark
LCS
discards discards discards

2001-2003
B2(a)
2001-2003: Year-round
2001-2004: Year-round
2001-2003: May-Nov
2001-2004: May-Nov

-18.0%
-20.4%
-11.1%
-12.4%

-16.0%
-17.1%
-14.7%
-14.8%

-19.9%
-20.1%
-17.6%
-16.5%

-15.8%
-16.5%
-14.2%
-12.9%

-14.9%
-15.1%
-11.3%
-10.5%

-34.6%
-32.8%
-15.4%
-14.0%

-5.0%
-3.8%
-3.4%
-2.5%

-22.2%
-22.0%
-6.7%
-5.8%

-12.2%
-11.9%
-4.6%
-4.8%

-0.6%
-2.0%
-0.3%
-0.6%

-2.5%
-3.8%
-1.3%
-2.0%

B2(b)
2001-2003: Year-round
2001-2004: Year-round
2001-2003: June only
2001-2004: June only

-4.7%
-4.2%
-0.9%
-0.8%

-3.9%
-3.4%
-0.4%
-0.3%

-0.9%
-0.8%
-0.2%
-0.2%

-0.1%
-0.7%
0.0%
-0.2%

-0.5%
-0.8%
0.0%
-0.6%

-5.7%
-4.8%
-2.0%
-1.7%

-20.7%
-15.5
-11.2%
-8.4%

-5.7%
-4.1%
-1.8%
-1.2%

-28.5%
-21.0%
-22.6%
-16.6%

-14.9%
-13.7%
-3.8%
-13.7%

-2.5%
-2.1%
-0.0%
-2.1%

B2(c) (April-June)
2001-2003
2001-2004

-13.4%
-15.7%

-10.3%
-15.9%

-10.0%
-14.6%

-12.1%
-19.2%

-8.3%
-12.0%

-11.1%
-14.7%

-3.9%
-2.9%

-29.0%
-51.4%

-21.5%
-35.8%

-0.8%
-3.8%

-3.7%
-8.4%

B2(d) (Year-round)
2001-2003
2001-2004

-47.4%
-47.7%

-47.3%
-49.2%

-57.0%
-58.1%

-62.4%
-62.3%

-83.5%
-48.0%

-57.5%
-57.2%

-10.1%
-7.6%

-53.6%
-51.7%

-27.1%
-35.8%

-2.2%
-6.5%

-12.9%
-18.3%

B2(e) (Year-round)
2001-2003
2001-2004

-10.1%
-9.1%

-8.7%
-7.8%

-1.6%
-1.6%

-0.3%
-1.1%

-1.9%
-1.9%

-9.9%
-9.9%

-36.3%
-28.2%

-12.4%
-8.8%

-43.3%
-33.8%

-31.6%
-29.1%

-2.5%
-4.2%

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-43

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.32

Comparison in the number of hooks, discards, and CPUEs (# discards/# hooks in a particular area) between July through December of
2001-2003 and 2004 data. The yearly averages for the 6 months in 2001-2003 for CPUEs, hooks, and discards are shown in
parentheses. Data source: HMS Logbook data July through December 2001-2003 and 2004.

Alternative
B2(a) (Gulf of Mexico)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean # discards
2004: # discards
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (646,380)
2004: 627,527
B2(b) (Northeast)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean # discards
2004: # discards
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (268,707)
2004: 160,461

B2(c) (Gulf of Mexico)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean # discards
2004: # discards

White Marlin Blue Marlin
discards
discards

Sailfish
discards

Spearfish
discards

Leatherback
Sea Turtles

Loggerhead Pelagic Shark Large Coastal
Sea Turtles
discards
Shark discards

(0.00034)
0.00075
(105.3)
72

(0.00037)
0.00045
(113.3)
48

(0.00012)
0.00023
(36.8)
27

(0.000041)
0.00012
(13)
12

(0.00010)
0.000061
(31.7)
9

(0.000002)
0.0
(0.67)
0.0

(0.000081)
0.00012
(26.3)
14

(0.00017)
0.0004
(54)
43

(0.00017)
0.00079
(37.3)
28

(0.000031)
0.00069
(6)
23

(0.000001)
0.000089
(0.33)
3

(0.000003)
0.0
(0.67)
0.0

(0.00037)
0.0
(6)
0.0

(0.00025)
0.0
(5.67)
0.0

(0.019)
0.0083
(1,249.3)
125

(0.00056)
0.0016
(112.3)
55

(0.00038)
0.00061
(370.3)
189

(0.00036)
0.00044
(350)
123

(0.00013)
0.00019
(123)
59

(0.000048)
0.000091
(45)
33

(0.000090)
0.000033
(77.7)
12

(0.000003)
0.000008
(3)
3

(0.00011)
0.00037
(95.7)
75

(0.00030)
0.00074
(248.3)
231

Number of hooks
2001-2003: (1,753,421)
2004: 1,773,489

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-44

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Alternative
B2(d) (Gulf of Mexico)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean # discards
2004: # discards
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (1,786,085)
2004: 1,779,789
B2(e) (Northeast)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean # discards
2004: # discards
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (616,743)
2004: 370,990

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

White Marlin Blue Marlin
discards
discards

Sailfish
discards

Spearfish
discards

Leatherback
Sea Turtles

Loggerhead Pelagic Shark Large Coastal
Sea Turtles
discards
Shark discards

(0.0003)
0.00061
(376.7)
189

(0.00036)
0.00044
(365.7)
123

(0.00015)
0.00091
(153.3)
60

(0.000088)
0.000090
(86.7)
33

(0.000076)
0.000033
(64.7)
12

(0.000003)
0.000008
(3)
3

(0.00011)
0.00034
(97)
79

(0.00038)
0.00079
(342.3)
248

(0.00020)
0.00053
(86)
51

(0.000029)
0.00035
(11.7)
36

(0.000002)
0.000074
(1)
6

(0.000005)
0.000012
(2.3)
1

(0.000064)
0.000016
(12.3)
1

(0.000045)
0.000089
(11.3)
7

(0.012)
0.020
(2,863.3)
851

(0.00057)
0.0049
(228.3)
391

A-45

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.33

Alternative
B2(a) (Gulf of Mexico)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean #
discards/kept
2004: # discards/kept
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (646,380)
2004: 513,188
B2(b) (Northeast)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean #
discards/kept
2004: # discards/kept
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (268,707)
2004: 160,462

Comparison of the number of hooks, discards, species kept, and CPUEs (#discards/#hooks or #kept/#hooks in a particular area)
between July through Dec. of 2001-2003 and 2004 data. The yearly averages for the 6 months in 2001-2003 for CPUEs, hooks,
discards, and species kept are shown in parentheses. . Data source: HMS Logbook data July through December 2001-2003 and 2004.

Swordfish Kept

Swordfish Bluefin Tuna Bluefin Tuna
Discards
Kept
Discards

YFT Kept

YFT Discards BET Kept BET Discards BAYS Kept

BAYS
Discards

(0.0040)
0.031

(0.0020)
0.0049

(0.000011)
0.00016

(0.0000021)
0.00019

(0.020)
0.056

(0.00053)
0.00070

(0.00051)
0.0071

(0.0000030)
0.00012

(0.021)
0.068

(0.00077)
0.0015

(1,311.3)
3,161

(646)
529

(3.6)
16

(0.67)
27

(6,319.7)
6,174

(172.7)
75

(170.3)
916

(1)
13

(6,588)
7,706

(249.7)
180

(0.024)
0.029

(0.0087)
0.0053

(0.00013)
0.00023

(0.00030)
0.000030

(0.015)
0.056

(0.00011)
0.00060

(0.0080)
0.0079

(0.0000070)
0.000056

(0.028)
0.068

(0.00016)
0.00094

(3,033.3)
1,022

(580.3)
202

(7.7)
8

(32)
1

(2,385.7)
1,958

(23.3)
24

(356.7)
244

(1.67)
3

(3,125.3)
2,344

(27.3)
180

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-46

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Alternative
B2(c) (Gulf of Mexico)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean #
discards/kept
2004: # discards/kept
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (1,753,421)
2004: 1,773,489
B2(d) (Gulf of Mexico)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean #
discards/kept
2004: # discards/kept
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (1,786,085)
2004: 1,779,789
B2(e) (Northeast)
2001-2003: Mean CPUE
2004: CPUE
2001-2003: Mean #
discards/kept
2004: # discards/kept
Number of hooks
2001-2003: (616,743)
2004: 370,990

Swordfish Kept

Swordfish Bluefin Tuna Bluefin Tuna
Discards
Kept
Discards

YFT Kept

YFT Discards BET Kept BET Discards BAYS Kept

BAYS
Discards

(0.0030)
0.034

(0.0018)
0.0084

(0.000016)
0.00019

(0.000005)
0.00049

(0.021)
0.058

(0.00059)
0.0013

(0.00038)
0.011

(0.000003)
0.0012

(0.022)
0.076

(0.00088)
0.0039

(2,591)
9,042

(1,543)
2,081

(12.7)
63

(4)
165

(19,304)
16,764

(535.7)
380

(299.3)
2,991

(2.67)
346

(19,776)
21,548

(789.7)
1,184

(0.0031)
0.035

(0.0018)
0.0085

(0.000016)
0.00019

(0.000005)
0.00048

(0.021)
0.059

(0.00059)
0.0013

(0.00037)
0.011

(0.000003)
0.0012

(0.022)
0.076

(0.00088)
0.0039

(2,633.3)
9,157

(1,552)
2,105

(13)
63

(4)
165

(300.3)
3,002

(2.67)
348

(20,114)
21,625

(799.3)
1,184

(0.015)
0.024

(0.0041)
0.0062

(0.000088)
0.00013

(0.00037)
0.00026

(0.011)
0.0086

(0.00016)
0.000063

(0.034)
0.063

(0.0017)
0.0014

(4,987.7)
2,035

(1,219.7)
511

(20.3)
16

(85.3)
17

(2,165)
539

(46)
6

(8,354.7)
4,948

(241.7)
122

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

(19,641)
16,830

(0.012)
0.048
(3,975.7)
4,060

A-47

(542.3)
380

(0.00019)
0.0011
(61)
97

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.34

Area
CAR
%
Change

GOM
%
Change

FEC
%
Change

SAB
%
Change

MAB
%
Change

Year
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c

Percent change in reported landings by area from July through December where: a) 2001-03 vs. 1997-99; b) 2004 vs. 2001-03; and c)
2004 vs. 1997-99 (1997-99 and 2001-03 are mean reported landings). Source: HMS Logbook data.
Pelagic
Sharks
Kept
14.3
1.3
3
-90.7
125.0
-79.1
108.7
51
134
-53.1
162.7
23.3
60.7
23
4
-62.1
-82.6
-93.4
58.3
23
17
-60.6
-26.1
-70.9
773.3
823.3
1050
6.5
27.5
35.8

Pelagic
Sharks
Discarded
132.3
39
12
-70.5
-69.2
-90.9
163.3
111.3
59
-31.8
-47.0
-63.9
209.7
30.7
11
-85.4
-64.1
-94.8
213.3
80.7
86
-62.2
6.6
-59.7
11114.3
2957.3
3803
-73.4
28.6
-65.8

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Large
Coastal
Sharks
Kept
1.3
0.3
0
-75.0
-100.0
-100.0
173.7
37
76
-78.7
105.4
-56.2
137
37.7
4
-72.5
-89.4
-97.1
287
148.7
180
-48.2
21.1
-37.3
1560.3
2693.3
654
72.6
-75.7
-58.1

Large
Coastal
Sharks
Discarded
18.3
11.3
6
-38.2
-47.1
-67.3
597.3
299
757
-49.9
153.2
26.7
469.3
84.3
144
-82.0
70.8
-69.3
898.7
422
274
-53.0
-35.1
-69.5
504.7
625.3
710
23.9
13.5
40.7

Dolphin
Kept
130.7
158.7
12
21.4
-92.4
-90.8
3545.3
2920.7
3054
-17.6
4.6
-13.9
383
216
51
-43.6
-76.4
-86.7
398.3
297
244
-25.4
-17.8
-38.7
2348.3
1370
1588
-41.7
15.9
-32.4

Dolphin
Discarded
3.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
74
64.7
56
-12.6
-13.4
-24.3
14.3
1.3
0
-90.7
-100.0
-100.0
9.3
40
32
328.6
-20.0
242.9
29.3
6.3
14
-78.4
121.1
-52.3

A-48

Wahoo
Kept
45
15.3
0
-65.9
-100.0
-100.0
2514
2276.7
3050
-9.4
34.0
21.3
69.3
17
10
-75.5
-41.2
-85.6
95.7
22.7
44
-76.3
94.1
-54.0
51.3
37.3
90
-27.3
141.1
75.3

Wahoo
Discarded
1.7
0.3
0
-80.0
-100.0
-100.0
67.7
20.7
21
-69.5
1.6
-69.0
1
1
0
0.0
-100.0
-100.0
1
0.3
2
-66.7
500.0
100.0
1
12.3
0
1133.3
-100.0
-100.0

Blue
Marlin
Discarded
29.3
19
2
-35.2
-89.5
-93.2
297.7
387.3
242
30.1
-37.5
-18.7
76
27.3
11
-64.0
-59.8
-85.5
69.7
20
39
-71.3
95.0
-44.0
31.7
13.7
19
-56.8
39.0
-40.0

White
Marlin
Discarded
11.3
14.7
0
29.4
-100.0
-100.0
279.3
399.7
267
43.1
-33.2
-4.4
36.3
1.7
0
-95.4
-100.0
-100.0
19.7
2.3
28
-88.1
1100.0
42.4
246.7
115
124
-53.4
7.8
-49.7

Sailfish
Discarded
49
9
0
-81.6
-100.0
-100.0
347.7
162
118
-53.4
-27.2
-66.1
86
8.7
8
-89.9
-7.7
-90.7
79.3
24.3
21
-69.3
-13.7
-73.5
4.3
2
0
-53.8
-100.0
-100.0

Spearfish
Discarded
1.7
0.3
3
-80.0
800.0
80.0
26.3
44
56
67.1
27.3
112.7
9
1
5
-88.9
400.0
-44.4
5.3
2.3
1
-56.3
-57.1
-81.3
2.7
2
0
-25.0
-100.0
-100.0

Sea Turtle
Interactions
1
1.7
0
66.7
-100.0
-100.0
1
68.3
23
6733.3
-66.3
2200.0
1.7
1
0
-40.0
-100.0
-100.0
3
2
2
-33.3
0.0
-33.3
20.7
8
25
-61.3
212.5
21.0

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Area
NEC
%
Change

NED
%
Change

SAR
%
Change

NCA
%
Change

SAT
%
Change

Year
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c

Pelagic
Sharks
Kept
334.3
371.3
411
11.1
10.7
22.9
462.7
230.3
596
-50.2
158.8
28.8
0
4.3
3
---30.8
--16.7
15.3
0
-8.0
-100.0
-100.0
81.3
28.7
0
-64.8
-100.0
-100.0

Pelagic
Sharks
Discarded
11597.3
2317
1497
-80.0
-35.4
-87.1
12300.7
10497
16454
-14.7
56.7
33.8
10.7
17.7
40
65.6
126.4
275.0
118.3
1144.7
0
867.3
-100.0
-100.0
364
7.7
0
-97.9
-100.0
-100.0

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Large
Coastal
Sharks
Kept
42.3
43.7
24
3.1
-45.0
-43.3
0
0
0
------0
0.3
0
---100.0
--0.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
12.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Large
Coastal
Sharks
Discarded
67.3
192.7
388
186.1
101.4
476.2
0.7
0.7
0
0.0
-100.0
-100.0
0.7
6.3
6
850.0
-5.3
800.0
0
40.3
0
---100.0
--8.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Dolphin
Kept
2621.7
1458
304
-44.4
-79.1
-88.4
85
57.3
2
-32.5
-96.5
-97.6
12.3
69
6
459.5
-91.3
-51.4
45
13.7
0
-69.6
-100.0
-100.0
142.7
1.3
0
-99.1
-100.0
-100.0

Dolphin
Discarded
42.3
37.3
2
-11.8
-94.6
-95.3
2.3
11.3
3
385.7
-73.5
28.6
0.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
3.7
2
0
-45.5
-100.0
-100.0
3.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

A-49

Wahoo
Kept
22
18
21
-18.2
16.7
-4.5
0.3
0
2
-100.0
--500.0
1.7
0.7
1
-60.0
50.0
-40.0
3.7
1.7
0
-54.5
-100.0
-100.0
42
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Wahoo
Discarded
0.3
0.3
0
0.0
-100.0
-100.0
0.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
0
0
0
------0.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
2
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Blue
Marlin
Discarded
48
9.7
11
-79.9
13.8
-77.1
2
1.3
1
-33.3
-25.0
-50.0
0
0.7
0
---100.0
--6.3
1.7
0
-73.7
-100.0
-100.0
28
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

White
Marlin
Discarded
287.3
63.7
26
-77.8
-59.2
-91.0
7.7
4
2
-47.8
-50.0
-73.9
3.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
11.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
15.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Sailfish
Discarded
2.3
1
0
-57.1
-100.0
-100.0
0.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
0
0
0
------0.7
0.3
0
-50.0
-100.0
-100.0
7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Spearfish
Discarded
3.7
1
1
-72.7
0.0
-72.7
0.3
1
1
200.0
0.0
200.0
0.3
2
11
500.0
450.0
3200.0
2.7
3
0
12.5
-100.0
-100.0
5
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Sea Turtle
Interactions
57.7
19.7
10
-65.9
-49.2
-82.7
417
200.7
137
-51.9
-31.7
-67.1
0.3
0
1
-100.0
--200.0
2.7
1.7
0
-37.5
-100.0
-100.0
4.7
6.3
0
35.7
-100.0
-100.0

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.35

Area
CAR

% Change

GOM

% Change

FEC

% Change

SAB

% Change

MAB

% Change

Percent change in reported landings by area from July through December where: a) 2001-03 vs. 1997-99; b) 2004 vs. 2001-03; and c)
2004 vs. 1997-99 (1997-99 and 2001-03 are mean reported landings). Source: HMS Logbook data.

Year
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c

Hooks Set
70440
43263
11061
-38.6
-74.4
-84.3
1616703
1866738
1870880
15.5
0.2
15.7
259498.7
90403.3
58013
-65.2
-35.8
-77.6
214421
140263.7
128637
-34.6
-8.3
-40.0
1028022
680704.3
669797
-33.8
-1.6
-34.8

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Swordfish
Kept
929
872.3
141
-6.1
-83.8
-84.8
3889
3283.3
2964
-15.6
-9.7
-23.8
4943.7
929.3
577
-81.2
-37.9
-88.3
6015.7
3782.3
3179
-37.1
-16.0
-47.2
3429
3839
3665
12.0
-4.5
6.9

Swordfish
Discarded
219
137.7
17
-37.1
-87.7
-92.2
1315.3
1655.3
1561
25.8
-5.7
18.7
2236.7
263
143
-88.2
-45.6
-93.6
2162.7
704.3
532
-67.4
-24.5
-75.4
2244.7
1970.3
1728
-12.2
-12.3
-23.0

Bluefin
Tuna Kept
0.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
15.3
12
10
-21.7
-16.7
-34.8
1.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
1
0.3
2
-66.7
500.0
100.0
33.7
23.7
58
-29.7
145.1
72.3

Bluefin
Tuna
Discarded
0.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
2
4
13
100
225
550.0
0.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
0.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
92
76.7
241
-16.7
214.3
162.0

A-50

Yellowfin
Tuna Kept
400.3
51.7
16
-87.1
-69.0
-96.0
22656.7
20562.7
16841
-9.2
-18.1
-25.7
686
523.7
523
-23.7
-0.1
-23.8
1108.3
822.3
716
-25.8
-12.9
-35.4
8820.7
5985
11930
-32.1
99.3
35.3

Yellowfin
Tuna
Discarded
22.7
1
0
-95.6
-100.0
-100.0
605.3
578.7
335
-4.4
-42.1
-44.7
38.3
78.3
3
104.3
-96.2
-92.2
66.7
19
1
-71.5
-94.7
-98.5
317.3
138
465
-56.5
237.0
46.5

Bigeye
Tuna
Kept
109.3
70
4
-36.0
-94.3
-96.3
214.3
313
273
46.0
-12.8
27.4
1033.3
793
546
-23.3
-31.1
-47.2
48.7
31.3
34
-35.6
8.5
-30.1
7013.3
3653.7
5000
-47.9
36.8
-28.7

Bigeye
Tuna
Discarded
15.3
3
0
-80.4
-100.0
-100.0
3
2.7
3
-11.1
12.5
0.0
53.7
94
1
75.2
-98.9
-98.1
5
3
0
-40.0
-100.0
-100.0
357
82.3
381
-76.9
362.8
6.7

BAYS
Kept
523.3
127
24
-75.7
-81.1
-95.4
22980.7
21039.7
17347
-8.4
-17.6
-24.5
1807.7
1389.7
1117
-23.1
-19.6
-38.2
1172
866.3
765
-26.1
-11.7
-34.7
19335.3
12802.3
20601
-33.8
60.9
6.5

BAYS
Discarded
40
5
0
-87.5
-100
-100.0
762.7
893.7
829
17.2
-7.2
8.7
94
176
4
87.2
-97.7
-95.7
73
22.7
2
-68.9
-91.2
-97.3
792
547.3
1096
-30.9
100.2
38.4

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Area
NEC

% Change

NED

% Change

SAR

% Change

NCA

% Change

SAT

% Change

Year
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c
1997-99
2001-03
2004
a
b
c

Hooks Set
791638.3
504159
363358
-36.3
-27.9
-54.1
435483
405723.3
455862
-6.8
12.4
4.7
7330
18061.3
28464
146.4
57.6
288.3
56764.3
36240
0
-36.2
-100.0
-100.0
78901.7
22783.3
1200
-71.1
-94.7
-98.5

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Swordfish
Kept
3301
4363.3
3162
32.2
-27.5
-4.2
11651.3
7948.7
8015
-31.8
0.8
-31.2
119.3
206.7
327
73.2
58.2
174.0
1010.7
433
0
-57.2
-100.0
-100.0
731.3
119.3
0
-83.7
-100.0
-100.0

Swordfish
Discarded
1445.7
927
339
-35.9
-63.4
-76.6
1762.7
923.3
719
-47.6
-22.1
-59.2
9.3
12.3
22
32.1
78.4
135.7
74.3
18.7
0
-74.9
-100.0
-100.0
144
23.7
0
-83.6
-100.0
-100.0

Bluefin
Tuna Kept
17.3
11.7
29
-32.7
148.6
67.3
13.7
28
51
104.9
82.1
273.2
0.3
1.3
6
300.0
350.0
1700.0
1.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
0.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

A-51

Bluefin
Tuna
Discarded
86.3
68
113
-21.2
66.2
30.9
3.7
69.7
26
1800.0
-62.7
609.1
0
0.3
1
--200.0
--0
0
0
------0.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Yellowfin
Tuna
Kept
7140.3
3539.3
8093
-50.4
128.7
13.3
28.3
60
2
111.8
-96.7
-92.9
61
11
42
-82.0
281.8
-31.1
77.7
66.3
0
-14.6
-100.0
-100.0
623.7
50
35
-92.0
-30.0
-94.4

Yellowfin
Tuna
Discarded
257.3
43
30
-83.3
-30.2
-88.3
3.3
1.7
0
-50.0
-100.0
-100.0
0
0
10
------2
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
19.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

Bigeye
Tuna
Kept
4888
1363.7
451
-72.1
-66.9
-90.8
1468.3
852
133
-42.0
-84.4
-90.9
17
43
83
152.9
93.0
388.2
75
136.3
0
81.8
-100.0
-100.0
254.3
277.7
0
9.2
-100.0
-100.0

Bigeye
Tuna
Discarded
135.3
15
2
-88.9
-86.7
-98.5
254
46.3
4
-81.8
-91.4
-98.4
2.3
0
11
-100.0
--371.4
7.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
12.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

BAYS
Kept
13774.3
6132.7
8832
-55.5
44.0
-35.9
1763.3
1142.7
157
-35.2
-86.3
-91.1
90.7
88.7
198
-2.2
123.3
118.4
209.3
353.3
0
68.8
-100.0
-100.0
945
361
35
-61.8
-90.3
-96.3

BAYS
Discarded
417.7
69.7
33
-83.3
-52.6
-92.1
372.3
107.3
29
-71.2
-73.0
-92.2
2.3
0
22
-100.0
--842.9
9.7
0
0
-100.0
---100.0
34.3
0
0
-100.0
---100.0

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.5

Map showing the different areas that were used in the fleet mobility analysis.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-52

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.6

Map showing the number of vessels fishing in different areas with their respective homeports listed. “FL east” signifies that a vessel’s
homeport was in the east coast of Florida. “FL west” signifies that a vessel’s homeport was in the west coast of FL, and “FL east/west”
signifies that the vessel’s homeport was in the Florida Keys.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-53

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.7

Map showing vessels originating from the Gulf of Mexico and fishing in Atlantic Areas 2B through 6. The percentage of hooks
represents the percentage of hooks that moved out of the Gulf of Mexcio and into Areas 2B, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-54

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.36

Characteristics of vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and vessels moving out of Gulf of Mexico.
a) Horsepower
Mean
Boats fishing in Gulf
of Mexico
Boats moving out of
Gulf of Mexico
b) Vessel Length
Boats fishing in Gulf
of Mexico
Boats moving out of
Gulf of Mexico

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

372.2

Standard error
20.3

395.7

Mean (ft)
61.65

41.1

Standard error
1.26

64.79

2.38

A-55

Range
0-1200

n
92

170-800

14

Range (ft)
32-88

n
92

45-78

14

P
0.66

P

0.35

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

a)

a)

b)

c)

d)

1,500 miles

4,000 miles

Figure A.8

Map of pelagic longline sets within and outside of the U. S. EEZ. a) extent of pelagic longline sets inside and outside U.S. EEZ, b) inset
shows the size of B2(a) and B2(c) relative to the scope of pelagic longline sets inside and outside of U. S. EEZ, c) the distance pelagic
longline vessels have made relative to the U. S. coastline, d) the distance it would take a vessel to travel from the Gulf of Mexico to the
Mid-Atlantic Bight area. Source: HMS logbook data from January 2001 to June 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-56

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.37
Alternative B2(a) May through November. Cumulative number kept and discarded (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution
of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus sign indicates a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one
year averages can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004).

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Number
of hooks
set
485,204
323,489
365,398
453,515
510,446
425,506
304,242
351,376
281,104
337,578
351,773
356,739

Swordfish
kept
2,187
1,936
1,606
1,004
1,189
842
414
602
452
635
733
1,098

Swordfish
discards
794
542
692
752
1,214
617
241
239
262
396
316
484

Bluefin
tuna
kept
14
31
37
58
38
13
0
0
0
0
2
9

Bluefin
tuna
discards
3
7
57
88
76
29
0
0
1
0
0
1

Yellowfin
tuna kept
4,109
1,486
2,528
4,607
4,385
5,245
3,978
3,184
2,515
3,053
2,860
3,369

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
112
31
88
149
350
207
103
85
45
139
69
77

Bigeye
tuna
kept
178
205
104
34
22
34
33
46
34
121
147
130

Bigeye
tuna
discards
1
16
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1

BAYS
kepts
4,376
1,852
2,683
4,657
4,437
5,318
4,017
3,249
2,553
3,226
3,097
3,622

BAYS
discards
124
50
99
168
365
243
120
96
80
166
147
140

Total
Total MayNov

4,546,370

12,698

6,549

202

262

41,319

1,455

1,088

21

43,087

1,798

2,562,025

4,867

3,285

53

106

25,220

998

437

3

25,897

1,217

All Areas*

24,811,867

151,756

42,325

917

2,210

192,252

6,351

38,589

1,069

253,842

10,379

-10.3%

-3.2%

-7.8%

-5.8%

-4.8%

-13.1%

-15.7%

-1.1%

-0.3%

-10.2%

-11.7%

0.1%

-1.8%

-0.3%

1.6%

1.7%

-1.9%

-1.7%

0.0%

0.9%

0.7%

105

-767

-2

35

3,297

-123

-664

0

2,284

70

May-Nov
decrease
without
redistribution
of effort
May-Nov
decrease
with
redistribution
of effort
No. reduced
with redist.
of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-57

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.38

Alternative B2(b) June only. Cumulative number of discards (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution of effort in the Atlantic
only. Minus signs indicate a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by
dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004).

Month
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
June
All Areas*

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
0
20
9
3
3
1
0
1

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Pelagic
Shark
discards
36
1,315
1,720
645
603
457
310
13

Large
Coastal
Shark
discards
54
7
196
85
41
13
2
0

28
10

37
20

0
0

5,099
1,315

398
7

516

586

238

13

37,244

19,116

-0.2%

-0.6%

-1.7%

-8.4%

0.0%

-3.5%

0.0%

0.9%

1.6%

0.5%

-0.8%

-5.9%

0.0%

-1.1%

3.3%

26

21

3

-4

-14

0

-419

634

Number
of hooks
set
485,204
323,489
365,398
453,515
510,446
425,506
304,242
351,376

White
Marlin
discards
4
12
31
49
26
6
0
0

Blue
Marlin
discards
0
5
3
6
7
2
0
0

Sailfish
discards
5
3
0
0
1
0
0
0

Spearfish
discards
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
0
10
7
5
1
0
4
1

3,219,176
323,489

128
12

23
5

9
3

4
3

24,811,867

3,747

2,831

1,303

-1.3%

-0.3%

-0.2%

2.0%

73

June %
Decrease
without
redistribution
of effort
June %
Decrease
with
redistribution
of effort
No. reduced
with redist.
of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-58

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.39

Alternative B2(b) June only. Cumulative number kept and discarded (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution of effort in the
Atlantic only. Minus signs indicate a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year totals are shown; one year averages can be
obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2004 (first six months of 2004).

Month
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
June
All Areas*

% Reduction
without
redistribution
of effort

Number
of hooks
set
29,318
196,341
256,598
235,512
225,096
78,630
10,086
1,500

Swordfish
kept
228
1,888
2,712
2,327
2,875
1,076
85
25

Swordfish
discards
36
275
394
499
509
207
124
8

Bluefin
tuna
kept
4
11
14
3
2
1
3
0

Bluefin
tuna
discards
2
367
43
2
48
0
3
0

Yellowfin
tuna kept
148
641
552
2,625
3,407
524
39
10

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
30
12
5
12
51
2
0
0

1,033,081
196,341

11,216
1,888

2,052
275

38
11

465
367

7,946
641

24,811,867

151,756

42,325

917

2,210

0.8%

1.2%

0.6%

1.2%

-0.3%

-0.03%

-474

-11

% Reduction
with
redistribution
of effort
No. reduced
with redist.
of effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Bigeye
tuna
kept
3
559
197
157
373
180
159
4

Bigeye
tuna
discards
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0

BAYS
kepts
151
1,476
929
3,019
4,167
980
266
15

BAYS
discards
30
16
8
16
54
3
1
0

112
12

1,632
559

5
0

11,003
1,476

128
16

192,252

6,351

38,589

1,069

253,842

10,379

16.6%

0.3%

0.2%

1.4%

0.0%

0.6%

0.2%

-0.2%

-15.1%

0.3%

0.2%

-1.0%

0.5%

-0.1%

0.2%

-2

-333

662

14

-367

5

-147

25

A-59

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.40

Alternative B2(c) BFT Petition April through June. Cumulative number of discards (over 3 1/2 years) with and without redistribution
of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus signs indicate a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three and one half year
totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 2001 - 2004 (first six
months of 2004).

Loggerhead
Sea Turtles
1
0
1
0
6
1
3
1
1
0
1
3

Other
Sea
Turtles
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

Pelagic
Shark
discards
273
166
255
193
563
665
58
52
41
60
30
46

Large
Coastal
Shark
discards
244
206
317
275
817
506
123
102
96
132
228
64

335
86

18
7

5
2

2,402
1,421

3,110
1,598

516

586

238

13

37,244

19,116

-19.2%

-12.0%

-14.7%

-2.9%

-15.4%

-3.8%

-8.4%

0.7%

21.7%

2.0%

-1.3%

0.0%

-15.4%

-1.4%

12.8%

20

283

10

-8

0

-2

-535

2,454

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Number
of hooks
set
963,895
717,192
810,044
1,139,144
1,454,636
1,308,060
1,102,300
1,101,773
807,867
818,964
715,282
714,878

White
Marlin
discards
43
41
31
102
201
293
545
248
111
120
54
37

Blue
Marlin
discards
53
30
39
76
118
218
548
187
146
92
45
35

Sailfish
discards
32
13
22
57
77
116
178
110
71
42
20
5

Spearfish
discards
28
7
13
9
24
29
59
23
26
13
7
9

Leatherback
Sea Turtles
15
15
25
33
29
24
47
21
14
26
19
67

Total
Total April-June

11,654,035
3,901,840

1,826
596

1,587
412

743
250

247
62

All Areas*
April-June %
Decrease
without
redistribution of
effort

24,811,867

3,747

2,831

1,303

-15.7%

-15.9%

-14.%

-2.6%

-98

Month

April-June %
Decrease with
redistribution of
effort
No. reduced
with redist. of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-60

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Table A.41

Alternative B2(c) BFT Petition April through June. Cumulative number of kept and discarded (over 3 1/2 years) species with and
without redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 combined. Minus sign indicates a decrease. *excluding the NED. Three
and one half year totals are shown; one year averages can be obtained by dividing the totals by 3.5. Data source: HMS Logbook data 20012004 (first six months of 2004).
Number
of hooks
set
963,895
717,192
810,044
1,139,144
1,454,636
1,308,060
1,102,300
1,101,773
807,867
818,964
715,282
714,878

Swordfish
kept
4,519
4,366
3,596
3,133
3,993
2,583
1,294
1,412
1,002
1,132
1,186
1,747

Swordfish
discards
1,600
1,226
1,508
1,702
2,317
1,294
994
752
663
726
600
894

Bluefin
tuna
kept
35
59
68
141
91
39
3
0
20
0
2
13

Bluefin
tuna
discards
6
14
106
239
193
222
0
5
1
1
4
1

Yellowfin
tuna kept
9,367
3,635
5,574
10,156
14,429
16,743
15,432
13,612
8,615
7,728
5,745
6,780

Yellowfin
tuna
discards
308
137
206
417
697
704
528
300
147
234
163
235

Bigeye
tuna
kept
392
310
188
107
52
110
84
76
77
198
264
199

Bigeye
tuna
discards
20
21
5
2
0
4
0
1
0
5
1
1

BAYS
kepts
9,950
4,316
5,854
10,301
14,552
16,902
15,545
13,716
8,715
7,992
6,166
7,194

BAYS
discards
355
184
232
449
794
891
714
436
254
340
281
344

Total
Total Apr-Jun

11,654,035
3,901,840

29,963
9,709

14,276
5,313

471
271

792
654

117,816
41,328

4,076
1,818

2,057
269

60
6

121,203
41,755

5,274
2,134

All Areas*
April-June %
Decrease
without
redistribution
of effort

24,811,867

151,756

42,325

917

2,210

192,252

6,351

38,589

1,069

253,842

10,379

-15.7%

-6.4%

-12.6%

-29.6%

-29.6%

-21.5%

-28.6%

-0.7%

-0.6%

-16.4%

-20.6%

12.5%

5.0%

-8.9%

-19.3%

-4.7%

-9.1%

0.3%

0.6%

-3.6%

-5.2%

18,940

2,109

-81

-426

-9,105

-578

112

7

-9,160

-540

Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

April-June %
Decrease with
redistribution
of effort
No. reduced
with redist. of
effort

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-61

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

Figure A.9

Map showing the overlap of bluefin tuna discards, white marlin discards, and sea turtle interactions for pelagic longline sets from 2001
to 2003. Source: HMS Logbook data 2001-2003.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

A-62

APPENDIX A
TIME/AREA CLOSURES

APPENDIX B TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix B Table of Contents.................................................................................................. B-i

Appendix B List of Tables........................................................................................................ B-ii

Appendix B List of Figures ..................................................................................................... B-iii

B Appendix: Essential Fish Habitat.................................................................................... B-1

B.1
Life History Accounts and Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions................................. B-1

B.1.1
Tuna ........................................................................................................................ B-1

B.1.1.1 Atlantic Albacore Tuna....................................................................................... B-1

B.1.1.2 Atlantic Bigeye Tuna .......................................................................................... B-2

B.1.1.3 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna ......................................................................................... B-3

B.1.1.4 Atlantic Skipjack Tuna ....................................................................................... B-6

B.1.1.5 Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna ..................................................................................... B-7

B.1.2
Swordfish ................................................................................................................ B-9

B.1.3
Billfish................................................................................................................... B-11

B.1.3.1 Blue Marlin ....................................................................................................... B-11

B.1.3.2 White Marlin..................................................................................................... B-15

B.1.3.3 Sailfish .............................................................................................................. B-17

B.1.3.4 Longbill Spearfish............................................................................................. B-19

B.1.4
Large Coastal Sharks ............................................................................................ B-20

B.1.4.1 Basking Sharks.................................................................................................. B-20

B.1.4.2 Hammerhead Sharks ......................................................................................... B-21

B.1.4.3 Mackerel Sharks................................................................................................ B-23

B.1.4.4 Nurse Sharks ..................................................................................................... B-24

B.1.4.5 Requiem Sharks ................................................................................................ B-26

B.1.4.6 Sand Tiger Sharks ............................................................................................. B-39

B.1.4.7 Whale Sharks .................................................................................................... B-40

B.1.4.8 Small Coastal Shark.......................................................................................... B-41

B.1.4.9 Hammerhead Sharks ......................................................................................... B-42

B.1.4.10 Requiem Sharks ................................................................................................ B-43

B.1.5
Pelagic Sharks....................................................................................................... B-47

B.1.5.1 Cow sharks........................................................................................................ B-47

B.1.5.2 Mackerel Shark ................................................................................................. B-49

B.1.5.3 Requiem Sharks ................................................................................................ B-51

B.1.5.4 Thresher Sharks ................................................................................................ B-54

Appendix B References......................................................................................................... B-196

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-i

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

APPENDIX B LIST OF TABLES

Table B.1
Table B.2
Table B.3
Table B.4
Table B.5
Table B.6
Table B.7
Table B.8

1999 FMP size ranges for different life stages of sharks.................................. B-56

Size ranges used in this Amendment for mapping distribution data for different

life stages of sharks........................................................................................... B-60

Blacktip shark (Carcharinus limbatus) Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

From Amendment 1 to the FMP. ...................................................................... B-64

Dusky shark (Carcharinus obscurus) Life History and Habitat Characteristics. . B­
66

Sandbar shark (Carcharinus plumbeus) Life History and Habitat CharacteristicsB­
67

Nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

........................................................................................................................... B-69

Essential fish habitat maps by species. ............................................................. B-70

List of abbreviations and acronyms for EFH data sources used in the maps. .. B-71

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-ii

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

APPENDIX B LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B.1
Figure B.2
Figure B.3
Figure B.4
Figure B.5
Figure B.6
Figure B.7
Figure B.8
Figure B.9
Figure B.10
Figure B.11
Figure B.12
Figure B.13
Figure B.14
Figure B.15
Figure B.16
Figure B.17
Figure B.18
Figure B.19
Figure B.20
Figure B.21
Figure B.22
Figure B.23
Figure B.24
Figure B.25
Figure B.26
Figure B.27
Figure B.28
Figure B.29
Figure B.30
Figure B.31
Figure B.32
Figure B.33
Figure B.34
Figure B.35
Figure B.36
Figure B.37
Figure B.38

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae..................................... B-72

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Juvenile. .................................................................... B-73

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Adult.......................................................................... B-74

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ....................................... B-75

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Juvenile......................................................................... B-76

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Adult............................................................................. B-77

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ...................................... B-78

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Juveniles. ..................................................................... B-79

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Adults........................................................................... B-80

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. .................................... B-81

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Juvenile. ..................................................................... B-82

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Adult. ......................................................................... B-83

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. .................................. B-84

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Juvenile.................................................................... B-85

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Adult. ....................................................................... B-86

Atlantic Swordfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ........................................... B-87

Atlantic Swordfish: Juvenile............................................................................. B-88

Atlantic Swordfish: Adult. ................................................................................ B-89

Blue Marlin: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ...................................................... B-90

Blue Marlin: Juvenile........................................................................................ B-91

Blue Marlin: Adult............................................................................................ B-92

White Marlin: Spawning, Eggs, and larvae. ..................................................... B-93

White Marlin: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-94

White Marlin: Adult.......................................................................................... B-95

Sailfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. ............................................................. B-96

Sailfish: Juvenile............................................................................................... B-97

Sailfish: Adult. .................................................................................................. B-98

Spearfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae. .......................................................... B-99

Spearfish: Juvenile. ......................................................................................... B-100

Spearfish: Adult. ............................................................................................. B-101

Basking Shark: Neonate.................................................................................. B-102

Basking Shark: Juvenile.................................................................................. B-103

Basking Shark: Adult...................................................................................... B-104

Great Hammerhead: Neonate.......................................................................... B-105

Great Hammerhead: Juvenile.......................................................................... B-106

Great Hammerhead: Adult.............................................................................. B-107

Scalloped Hammerhead: Neonate................................................................... B-108

Scalloped Hammerhead: Juvenile.................................................................. B-109

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-iii

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.39
Figure B.40
Figure B.41
Figure B.42
Figure B.43
Figure B.44
Figure B.45
Figure B.46
Figure B.47
Figure B.48
Figure B.49
Figure B.50
Figure B.51
Figure B.52
Figure B.53
Figure B.54
Figure B.55
Figure B.56
Figure B.57
Figure B.58
Figure B.59
Figure B.60
Figure B.61
Figure B.62
Figure B.63
Figure B.64
Figure B.65
Figure B.66
Figure B.67
Figure B.68
Figure B.69
Figure B.70
Figure B.71
Figure B.72
Figure B.73
Figure B.74
Figure B.75
Figure B.76
Figure B.77
Figure B.78
Figure B.79

Scalloped Hammerhead: Adult. ...................................................................... B-110

Smooth Hammerhead: Neonate. ..................................................................... B-111

Smooth Hammerhead: Juvenile. ..................................................................... B-112

Smooth Hammerhead: Adult. ......................................................................... B-113

White Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................... B-114

White Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-115

White Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................ B-116

Nurse Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................... B-117

Nurse Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-118

Nurse Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................ B-119

Bignose Shark: Neonate.................................................................................. B-120

Bignose Shark: Juvenile.................................................................................. B-121

Bignose Shark: Adult...................................................................................... B-122

Blacktip Shark: Neonate. ................................................................................ B-123

Blacktip Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................................ B-124

Blacktip Shark: Adult. .................................................................................... B-125

Bull Shark: Neonate........................................................................................ B-126

Bull Shark: Juvenile........................................................................................ B-127

Bull Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................... B-128

Caribbean Reef Shark: Neonate...................................................................... B-129

Caribbean Reef Shark: Juvenile...................................................................... B-130

Caribbean Reef Shark: Adult. ......................................................................... B-131

Dusky Shark: Neonate. ................................................................................... B-132

Dusky Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................................... B-133

Dusky Shark: Adult......................................................................................... B-134

Lemon Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................. B-135

Lemon Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................. B-136

Lemon Shark: Adult........................................................................................ B-137

Night Shark: Neonate...................................................................................... B-138

Night Shark: Juvenile...................................................................................... B-139

Night Shark: Adult.......................................................................................... B-140

Sandbar Shark: Neonate.................................................................................. B-141

Sandbar Shark: Juvenile.................................................................................. B-142

Sandbar Shark: Adult...................................................................................... B-143

Sandbar Shark Habitat Area of Particular Concern. ....................................... B-144

Silky Shark: Neonate. ..................................................................................... B-145

Silky Shark: Juvenile. ..................................................................................... B-146

Silky Shark: Adult........................................................................................... B-147

Spinner Shark: Neonate. ................................................................................. B-148

Spinner Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................................. B-149

Spinner Shark: Adult....................................................................................... B-150

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-iv

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.80
Figure B.81
Figure B.82
Figure B.83
Figure B.84
Figure B.85
Figure B.86
Figure B.87
Figure B.88
Figure B.89
Figure B.90
Figure B.91
Figure B.92
Figure B.93
Figure B.94
Figure B.95
Figure B.96
Figure B.97
Figure B.98
Figure B.99
Figure B.100
Figure B.101
Figure B.102
Figure B.103
Figure B.104
Figure B.105
Figure B.106
Figure B.107
Figure B.108
Figure B.109
Figure B.110
Figure B.111
Figure B.112
Figure B.113
Figure B.114
Figure B.115
Figure B.116
Figure B.117
Figure B.118
Figure B.119
Figure B.120

Tiger Shark: Neonate. ..................................................................................... B-151

Tiger Shark: Juvenile. ..................................................................................... B-152

Tiger Shark: Adult. ......................................................................................... B-153

Sand Tiger Shark: Neonate. ............................................................................ B-154

Sand Tiger Shark: Juvenile. ............................................................................ B-155

Sand Tiger Shark: Adult. ................................................................................ B-156

Angel Shark: Neonate. .................................................................................... B-157

Angel Shark: Juvenile. .................................................................................... B-158

Angel Shark: Adult. ........................................................................................ B-159

Bonnethead Shark : Neonate........................................................................... B-160

Bonnethead Shark: Juvenile............................................................................ B-161

Bonnethead Shark: Adult................................................................................ B-162

Altantic Sharpnose: Neonate........................................................................... B-163

Atlantic Sharpnose: Juvenile........................................................................... B-164

Atlantic Sharpnose Shark: Adult. ................................................................... B-165

Blacknose Shark: Neonoate. ........................................................................... B-166

Blacknose Shark: Juvenile. ............................................................................. B-167

Blacknose Shark: Adult. ................................................................................. B-168

Finetooth Shark: Neonate. .............................................................................. B-169

Finetooth Shark: Juvenile. .............................................................................. B-170

Finetooth Shark: Adult.................................................................................... B-171

Smalltail Shark: All Life Stages. .................................................................... B-172

Bigeye Sixgill Shark: All Life Stages............................................................. B-173

Sevengill Shark: All Life Stages..................................................................... B-174

Sixgill Shark: All Life Stages. ........................................................................ B-175

Longfin Mako Shark: Neonate........................................................................ B-176

Longfin Mako Shark : Juvenile....................................................................... B-177

Longfin Mako Shark: Adult............................................................................ B-178

Porbeagle Shark: Neonate............................................................................... B-179

Porbeagle Shark: Juvenile............................................................................... B-180

Porbeagle Shark: Adult. .................................................................................. B-181

Shortfin Mako Shark: Neonate. ...................................................................... B-182

Shortfin Mako Shark: Juvenile. ...................................................................... B-183

Shortfin Mako Shark: Adult............................................................................ B-184

Blue Shark: Neonate. ...................................................................................... B-185

Blue Shark: Juvenile. ...................................................................................... B-186

Blue Shark: Adult. .......................................................................................... B-187

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Neonate................................................................... B-188

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Juvenile................................................................... B-189

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Adult....................................................................... B-190

Bigeye Thresher Shark: Juvenile. ................................................................... B-191

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-v

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.121
Figure B.122
Figure B.123
Figure B.124

Bigeye Thresher Shark: Adult. ....................................................................... B-192

Thresher Shark: Neonate................................................................................. B-193

Thresher Shark: Juvenile................................................................................. B-194

Thresher Shark: Adult..................................................................................... B-195

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-vi

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

B

APPENDIX: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

B.1

Life History Accounts and Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions
B.1.1 Tuna
B.1.1.1

Atlantic Albacore Tuna

Atlantic Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) Albacore tuna is a circumglobal species. In the
west, Atlantic albacore range from 40 to 45EN to 40ES. It is an epipelagic, oceanic species
generally found in surface waters with temperatures between 15.6E and 19.4EC, although larger
individuals have a wider depth and temperature range (13.5E to 25.2EC). Albacore may dive into
cold water (9.5EC) for short periods and can be found at depths up to 600 m in the Atlantic.
However, they do not tolerate oxygen levels lower than two milliliter/liter (ml/l). Albacore
undergo extensive horizontal movements. Aggregations are composed of similarly sized
individuals with groups comprised of the largest individuals making the longest journeys.
Aggregations of albacore may include other tuna species such as skipjack, yellowfin and bluefin
tuna. North Atlantic and south Atlantic stocks are considered separate, with no evidence of
mixing between the two (ICCAT, 1997; Collette and Nauen, 1983).
Predator-prey relationships: A wide variety of fishes and invertebrates have been
found in the few stomachs of albacore tuna that have been examined. As with other tuna,
albacore probably exhibit opportunistic feeding behavior, with little reliance on specific prey
items (Dragovich, 1969; Matthews et al., 1977).
Life history: Albacore spawn in the spring and summer in the western tropical Atlantic
(ICCAT, 1997). Larvae are also taken in the Mediterranean Sea and historically in the Black Sea
(Vodyanitsky and Kazanova, 1954).
Fisheries: For assessment purposes, three stocks of albacore are assumed: north and
south Atlantic stocks (separated at 5EN) and a Mediterranean stock (SCRS, 1997). In the north
Atlantic albacore are taken by surface and longline fisheries. Surface fisheries target juveniles at
50 to 90 cm fork length (FL), and longlines catch sub-adult and adult fish at 60 to120 cm FL.
U.S. Fishery Status: North Atlantic albacore is overfished with overfishing occurring; South
Atlantic albacore is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring.
Growth and mortality: The maximum size of albacore has been reported at 127 cm FL
(Collette and Nauen, 1983). For both sexes sexual maturity is reached at five years at 90 to 94
cm FL (Collette and Nauen, 1983; ICCAT, 1997). Mortality is higher for females (Collette and
Nauen, 1983).
Essential Fish Habitat for Albacore Tuna:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: At this time, available information is insufficient for
the identification of EFH for this life stage within the U.S. EEZ (Figure B.1).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-1

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Juveniles (<90 cm FL): In surface waters with temperatures between 15.6° and
19.4°C, offshore the U.S. east coast in the Mid-Atlantic Bight from the 50 m isobath
to the 2,000 m isobath with 71°W as the northeast boundary and 38°N as the
southwest boundary (Figure B.2).

•

Adults ($90 cm FL): In surface waters with temperatures between 13.5° and
25.2°C, offshore the U.S. eastern seaboard between the 100 and 2,000 m isobaths
from southeastern Georges Bank at 41.25°N, south to 36.5°N, offshore the
Virginia/North Carolina border; also, in the Blake Plateau and Spur region, from
79°W east to the EEZ boundary and 29°N south to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.3).

B.1.1.2

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus) Scientific knowledge of Atlantic bigeye tuna
is limited. Its range is almost the entire Atlantic from 50°N to 45°S. It is rarely taken in the Gulf
of Mexico, and some of the points currently included in the EFH maps may require further
validation (J. Lamkin, pers. comm.). Although its distribution with depth in the water column
varies, it is regularly found in deeper waters than are other tuna, descending to 300–500 m and
then returning regularly to the surface layer (Musyl et al., 2003). Smaller fish are probably
restricted to the tropics, while larger individuals migrate to temperate waters. There is probably
one population in the Atlantic (ICCAT, 1997). Young bigeye tuna form schools near the sea
surface, mixing with other tuna such as yellowfin and skipjack tuna (Collette and Nauen, 1983).
Predator-prey relationships: The diet of bigeye tuna includes fishes, cephalopods and
crustaceans (Dragovich, 1969; Matthews et al., 1977). Predators include large billfishes and
toothed whales (Collette and Nauen, 1983).
Life history: Bigeye tuna probably spawn between 15°N and 15°S. A nursery area is
known to exist in the Gulf of Guinea (Richards, 1967) off the coast of Africa where larvae have
been collected below the 25°C isotherm (Richards and Simmons, 1971). Peak spawning here
occurs in January and February, whereas in the northwestern tropical Atlantic spawning occurs
in June and July (SCRS, 1978, 1979). The collection of larvae in U.S. waters has not been
confirmed.
Fisheries: The bigeye tuna stock has been exploited by three major gear types - longline,
baitboat, and purse seine - and by many countries throughout its range of distribution. ICCAT
currently recognizes one stock for management purposes, based on time/area distribution of fish
and movements of tagged fish. However, other possibilities such as distinct northern and
southern stocks should not be disregarded (SCRS, 1997). U.S. Fishery Status: Overfished and
overfishing is occurring.
Growth and mortality: Growth rate for bigeye tuna is believed to be rapid. Sexual
maturity is attained in the fourth year, at approximately 100 cm FL (SCRS, 1997).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-2

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Habitat associations: Juvenile bigeye form schools near the surface, mostly mixed with
other tuna such as yellowfin and skipjack. These schools often associate with floating objects,
whale sharks and sea mounts (SCRS, 1997).
Essential Fish Habitat for Bigeye Tuna:
•

Spawning, eggs and larvae: Information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage within the U.S. EEZ; although it can not be identified as EFH
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it is located outside the U.S. EEZ, the
Gulf of Guinea, off the coast of Africa, is identified as important habitat for
spawning adults, eggs and larvae (Figure B.4).

•

Juveniles (<100 cm FL): In surface waters from southeastern Georges Bank to the
boundary of the EEZ to Cape Hatteras, NC at 35°N from the 200 m isobath to the
EEZ boundary; also, in the Blake Plateau region off Cape Canaveral, FL, from 29°N
south to the EEZ boundary (28.25°N) and from 79°W east to the EEZ boundary
(approximately 76.75°W) (Figure B.5).

•

Adults ($100 cm FL): In pelagic waters from the surface to a depth of 250 m;
from southeastern Georges Bank at the EEZ boundary to offshore Delaware Bay at
38°N, from the 100 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; from offshore Delaware Bay
south to Cape Lookout, NC (approximately the region off Cape Canaveral, FL),
from 29°N south to the EEZ boundary (28.25°N), and from 79° W east to the EEZ
boundary (76.75° W) (Figure B.6).

B.1.1.3

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) In the western north Atlantic, bluefin tuna
range from 45EN to 0E (Collette and Nauen, 1983). However, they have recently been found up
to 55° N in the West Atlantic (Vinnichenko, 1996). Bluefin tuna move seasonally from spring
(April to June) spawning grounds in the Gulf of Mexico through the Straits of Florida to feeding
grounds off the northeast U.S. coast (Mather et al., 1995; Block et al., 2005). It is believed that
there is a single stock which ranges from Labrador and Newfoundland south into the Gulf of
Mexico and the Caribbean, and also off Venezuela and Brazil. The Labrador Current may
separate this western stock from that found in the east Atlantic (Tiews, 1963; Mather et al., 1995;
ICCAT, 1997).
From November to January bluefin tuna are concentrated into two separate groups, one in
the northwest and the other in the north central Atlantic. In February, the central Atlantic
aggregation breaks up, with some fish moving southeast to the Azores and some moving
southwest (Suda, 1994). Southerly movements from the feeding grounds off the northern United
States and wintering areas are not well understood. A three-way movement between spawning,
feeding, and wintering areas is assumed for mature fish and a shorter, two-way feeding-to­
wintering movement for juveniles (Mather et al., 1995).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-3

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Bluefin tuna distributions are probably constrained by the 12EC isotherm, although
individuals can dive to 6E to 8EC waters to feed (Tiews, 1963). Year-to-year variations in
movements have been noted (Mather et al., 1995). While bluefin tuna are epipelagic and usually
oceanic, they do come close to shore seasonally (Collette and Nauen, 1983). They often occur
over the continental shelf and in embayments, especially during the summer months when they
feed actively on herring, mackerel and squids in the north Atlantic. Larger individuals move into
higher latitudes than do smaller fish. Bluefin tuna are often found in mixed schools with
skipjack tuna, these schools consisting of similarly sized individuals (Tiews, 1963).
Predator-prey relationships: Bluefin tuna larvae initially feed on zooplankton but
switch to a piscivorous diet at a relatively small size. Small bluefin tuna larvae prey on other
larval fishes and are subject to the same predators as these larvae, primarily larger fishes and
gelatinous zooplankton (McGowan and Richards, 1989). Adults are opportunistic feeders,
preying on a variety of schooling fish, cephalopods, and benthic invertebrates, including silver
hake, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic herring, krill, sandlance, and squid (Dragovich, 1969, 1970a;
Mathews et al., 1977; Estrada et. al., 2005). Predators of adult bluefin tuna include toothed
whales, swordfish, sharks and other tuna (especially of smaller individuals) (Tiews, 1963; Chase,
1992).
Life history: Western north Atlantic bluefin tuna spawn from April to June in the Gulf
of Mexico and in the Florida Straits (McGowan and Richards, 1989; Block et. al., 2005).
Although individuals may spawn more than once a year, it is assumed that there is a single
annual spawning period. Larvae have been confirmed from the Gulf of Mexico and off the
Carolinas (Richards, 1991). Most of the larvae found were located around the 1,000 fathom
curve in the northern Gulf of Mexico, with some sporadic collections off Texas. In the Florida
Straits they are primarily collected along the western edge of the Florida Current, suggesting
active transport from the Gulf of Mexico. This would also explain their occasional collection off
the southeast United States. Atlantic bluefin tuna have not been observed spawning (Richards,
1991).
It is not believed that much spawning occurs outside the Gulf of Mexico (McGowan and
Richards, 1989; Richards, 1991). Also, it appears that larvae are generally retained in the Gulf
until they grow into juveniles; in June, young-of-the-year begin movements in schools to
juvenile habitats (McGowan and Richards, 1989) thought to be located over the continental shelf
around 34EN and 41EW in the summer and further offshore in the winter. Also, they have been
identified from the Dry Tortugas area in June and July (Richards, 1991; ICCAT, 1997).
Juveniles migrate to nursery areas located between Cape Hatteras, NC and Cape Cod, MA
(Mather et al., 1995).
Fisheries: Atlantic bluefin tuna are caught using a wide variety of gear types, including
longlines, purse seines, traps, and various handgears. ICCAT recognizes two management units of
Atlantic bluefin, one in the east and one in the West Atlantic; however, some mixing is probably
occurring, as fish tagged in one location have been retrieved in the other (Block et. al., 2005).
These management units are divided as follows: North of 10EN they are separated at 45EW;
below the equator they are separated at 25EW, with an eastward shift between those parallels

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-4

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

(SCRS, 1997). The effects of reduced stock size on distribution and habitat use is unknown at this
time. U.S. Fishery Status: Overfished, and overfishing is occurring.
Growth and mortality: Bluefin tuna can grow to more than 650 kg in weight and 300
cm in length, with no apparent difference between the growth rates of males and females (Mather
et al., 1995). Maximum age is estimated to be more than 20 years, with sexual maturity reached
at approximately 196 cm (77 inches) FL and a weight of approximately 145 kg (320 lb). This
size is believed to be reached in the West Atlantic at eight years, as opposed to five years in the
east Atlantic. Not only do bluefin tuna in the West Atlantic mature more slowly than those in the
east Atlantic, but they also are believed to grow more slowly and reach a larger maximum size
(SCRS, 1997). The rapid larval growth rate is estimated as one mm/day up to 15 mm, the size at
transformation (McGowan and Richards, 1989).
Habitat associations: It is believed that there are probably certain features of the bluefin
tuna larval habitat in the Gulf of Mexico which determine growth and survival rates, and that
these features show variability from year to year, perhaps accounting for a significant portion of
the fluctuation in yearly recruitment success (McGowan and Richards, 1989). The habitat
requirements for larval success are not known, but larvae are collected within narrow ranges of
temperature and salinity - approximately 26° C and 36 ppt. Along the coast of the southeastern
United States onshore meanders of the Gulf Stream can produce upwelling of nutrient rich water
along the shelf edge. In addition, compression of the isotherms on the edge of the Gulf Stream
can form a stable region which, together with upwelling nutrients, provides an area favorable to
maximum growth and retention of food for the larvae (McGowan and Richards, 1989). Size
classes used for habitat analysis for bluefin tuna are based on the sizes at which they shift from a
schooling behavior to a more solitary existence. Bluefin have traditionally been grouped by
small schooling, large schooling, and giant. Future analyses should more fully evaluate habitat
differences between the traditional size classes, if the data are available.
Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: In pelagic and near coastal surface waters from the
North Carolina/South Carolina border at 33.5° N, south to Cape Canaveral, FL from
15 miles from shore to the 200 m isobath; all waters from offshore Cape Canaveral
at 28.25° N south around peninsular Florida to the U.S./Mexico border from 15
miles from shore to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.7).

•

Juveniles (<145 cm TL): All inshore and pelagic surface waters warmer than 12°
C of the Gulf of Maine and Cape Cod Bay, MA from Cape Ann, MA (~42.75° N)
east to 69.75° W (including waters of the Great South Channel west of 69.75° W),
continuing south to and including Nantucket Shoals at 70.5° W to off Cape Hatteras,
NC (approximately 35.5° N), in pelagic surface waters warmer than 12° C, between
the 25 and 200 m isobaths; also in the Florida Straits, from 27° N south around
peninsular Florida to 81° W in surface waters from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ
boundary (Figure B.8).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-5

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults ($145 cm TL): In pelagic waters of the Gulf of Maine from the 50 m
isobath to the EEZ boundary, including the Great South Channel, then south of
Georges Bank to 39° N from the 50 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; also, south of
39° N, from the 50 m isobath to the 2,000 m isobath to offshore Cape Lookout, NC
at 34.5° N. In pelagic waters from offshore Daytona Beach, FL (29.5° N) south to
Key West (82° W) from the 100 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; in the Gulf of
Mexico from offshore Terrebonne Parish, LA (90° W) to offshore Galveston, TX
(95° W) from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.9).

B.1.1.4

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Skipjack tuna are circumglobal in
tropical and warm-temperate waters, generally limited by the 15° C isotherm. In the west
Atlantic skipjack range as far north as Newfoundland (Vinnichenko, 1996) and as far south as
Brazil (Collette and Nauen, 1983). Skipjack tuna are an epipelagic and oceanic species and may
dive to a depth of 260 m during the day. Skipjack tuna is also a schooling species, forming
aggregations associated with hydrographic fronts (Collette and Nauen, 1983). There has been no
trans-Atlantic recovery of tags; eastern and western stocks are considered separate (ICCAT,
1997).
Predator-prey relationships: Skipjack tuna is an opportunistic species which preys
upon fishes, cephalopods and crustaceans (Dragovich, 1969, 1970b; Dragovich and Potthoff,
1972; Collette and Nauen, 1983; ICCAT, 1997). Predators include other tuna and billfishes
(Collette and Nauen, 1983). Skipjack tuna are believed to feed in surface waters down to a depth
of five meters. Stomach contents often include Sargassum or Sargassum associated species
(Morgan et al., 1985).
Life history: Skipjack tuna spawn opportunistically in equatorial waters throughout the
year, and in subtropical waters from spring to early fall (Collette and Nauen, 1983). Larvae have
been collected off the east coast of Florida from October to December (Far Seas Fisheries
Research Lab, 1978) and in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Straits from June to October.
However, most spawning takes place during summer months in the Caribbean, off Brazil (with
the peak in January through March), in the Gulf of Mexico (April to May), and in the Gulf of
Guinea (throughout the year) (Richards, 1967; SCRS, 1978/79).
Fisheries: This fishery is almost exclusively a surface gear fishery, although some
skipjack tuna are taken as longline bycatch. Most skipjack tuna are taken in the east Atlantic and
off the coast of Brazil, most recently with the use of floating objects to attract them. ICCAT
assumes two management units for this species (eastern and western) due to the development of
fisheries on both sides of the Atlantic and to the lack of transatlantic tag recoveries. U.S.
Fishery Status: Unknown.
Growth and mortality: Maximum size of the species is reported at 108 cm FL and a
weight of 34.5 kg. Size at sexual maturity is 45 cm (18 inches) for males and 42 cm for females.
This size is believed to correspond to about 1 to 1.5 years of age, although significant variability
in interannual growth rates makes size-to-age relationships difficult to estimate (Collette and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-6

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Nauen, 1983; ICCAT, 1997). Growth rate is variable and seasonal, with individuals from the
tropical zone having a higher growth rate than those from the equatorial zone (SCRS, 1997).
Life span is estimated to be eight to 12 years (Collette and Nauen, 1983).
Habitat associations: Aggregations of skipjack tuna are associated with convergences
and other hydrographic discontinuities. Also, skipjack tuna associate with birds, drifting objects,
whales, sharks and other tuna species (Colette and Nauen, 1983). The optimum temperature for
the species is 27° C, with a range from 20° to 31° C (ICCAT, 1995).
Essential Fish Habitat for Skipjack Tuna:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: In offshore waters, from the 200 m isobath out to the
EEZ boundary, from 28.25° N south around peninsular Florida and the Gulf Coast to
the U.S./Mexico border (Figure B.10).

•

Juveniles/subadults (<45 cm FL): In pelagic surface waters from 20° to 31° C
in the Florida Straights off southeastern Florida, from the 25 m isobath to the 200 m
isobath, from 27.25° N south to 24.75° N southwest of the coast of Key Largo, FL
(Figure B.11).

•

Adults ($45 cm FL): In pelagic surface waters from 20° to 31° C in the MidAtlantic Bight, from the 25 m isobath to the 200 m isobath, from 71° W, off the
coast of Martha=s Vineyard, MA, south and west to 35.5° N, offshore Oregon Inlet,
NC (Figure B.12).

B.1.1.5

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacres) Atlantic yellowfin tuna are circumglobal
in tropical and temperate waters. In the West Atlantic they range from 45° N to 40° S.
Yellowfin tuna is an epipelagic, oceanic species, found in water temperatures between 18° and
31° C. It is a schooling species, with juveniles found in schools at the surface, mixing with
skipjack and bigeye tuna. Larger fish are found in deeper water and also extend their ranges into
higher latitudes. All individuals in the Atlantic probably comprise a single population, although
movement patterns are not well known (Collette and Nauen, 1983; SCRS, 1997). There are
possible movements of fish spawned in the Gulf of Guinea to more coastal waters off Africa,
followed by movements toward the U.S. coast, at which time they reach a length of 60 to 80 cm
(ICCAT, 1977). In the Gulf of Mexico yellowfin tuna occur beyond the 500-fathom isobath
(Idyll and de Sylva, 1963).
Predator-prey relationships: Atlantic yellowfin tuna are opportunistic feeders. Stomachs
have been found to contain a wide variety of fish and invertebrates (Dragovich, 1969, 1970b;
Dragovich and Potthoff, 1972; Matthews et al., 1977). Stomach contents of yellowfin from St.
Lucia and the Caribbean contained squid and the larvae of stomatopods, crabs and squirrelfish
(Idyll and de Sylva, 1963). Stomach contents often contain Sargassum or Sargassum associated
fauna. Yellowfin tuna are believed to feed primarily in surface waters down to a depth of 100 m
(Morgan et al., 1985).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-7

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Life history: Spawning occurs throughout the year in the core areas of the species=
distribution - between 15° N and 15° S - and also in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, with
peaks occurring in the summer (ICCAT, 1994). Yellowfin tuna are believed to be multiple
spawners, and larval distribution appears to be limited to water temperatures above 24° C and
salinity greater than 33 ppt (Richards and Simmons, 1971). Larvae have been collected near the
Yucatan peninsula and during September in the northern Gulf of Mexico along the Mississippi
Delta (ICCAT, 1994).
Fisheries: Yellowfin tuna are caught by surface gears (purse seine, baitboat, troll, and
handline) and with sub-surface gears (longline). A single stock is assumed for the Atlantic,
based on transatlantic tag recaptures, time/area size frequency distribution, etc. (SCRS, 1997).
U.S. Fishery Status: Approaching an overfished condition.
Growth and mortality: The maximum size of yellowfin tuna is over 200 cm FL
(Collette and Nauen, 1983). Sexual maturity is reached at about three years of age, at 110 cm
FL, and a weight of 25 kg. Although it is not known if there is a differential growth rate between
males and females (ICCAT, 1994), males are predominant in catches of larger sized fish (SCRS,
1997). Natural mortality is 0.8 for fish less than 65 cm in length, and 0.6 for fish greater than 65
cm. Mortality is higher for females of this size (ICCAT, 1994).
Habitat associations: Adult yellowfin tuna are confined to the upper 100 m of the water
column due to their intolerance of oxygen concentrations of less than 2 ml/l (Collette and Nauen,
1983). Association with floating objects has been observed, and in the Pacific larger individuals
often school with porpoises (Collette and Nauen, 1983). Juveniles are found nearer to shore than
are adults (SCRS, 1994). In the Gulf of Mexico adults usually occur 75 km or more offshore,
while in the Caribbean they are found closer to shore. Although there appears to be a year-round
population in the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico (Idyll and de Sylva, 1963), in June there
appears to be some movement from the southern to the northern part of the Gulf of Mexico,
resulting in greater catches in the northern part of the Gulf of Mexico from July to December.
Essential Fish Habitat for Yellowfin Tuna:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: In offshore waters, from the 200 m isobath out to the
EEZ boundary, from 28.25° N south around peninsular Florida and the Gulf Coast to
the U.S./Mexico border, especially associated with the Mississippi River plume and
the Loop Current. Also, all U.S. waters in the Caribbean from the 200 m isobath to
the EEZ boundary (Figure B.13).

•

Juveniles/subadults (<110 cm FL): Pelagic waters from the surface to 100 m deep
between 18° and 31° C from offshore Cape Cod, MA (70° W) southward to Jekyll
Island, GA (31° N), between 500 and 2,000 m; off Cape Canaveral, FL from 29° N
south to the EEZ boundary (approximately 28.25° N) and from 79° W east to the
EEZ boundary (approximately 76.75° W); in the Gulf of Mexico from the 200 m
isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.14).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-8

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults ($110 cm FL): (Identical to juveniles/subadults EFH) Pelagic waters from
the surface to 100 m deep between 18° and 31° C from offshore Cape Cod, MA (70°
W) southward to Jekyll Island, GA (31° N), between 500 and 2,000 m; off Cape
Canaveral, FL from 29° N south to the EEZ boundary (approximately 28.25° N) and
from 79° W east to the EEZ boundary (approximately 76.75° W); in the Gulf of
Mexico from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.15).

B.1.2 Swordfish
Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Swordfish are circumglobal, ranging through tropical,
temperate and sometimes cold water regions. Their latitudinal range is from 50° N to 40-45° S
in the west Atlantic, and 60° N to 45-50° S in the east Atlantic (Nakamura, 1985). The species
moves from spawning grounds in warm waters to feeding grounds in colder waters. In the
western north Atlantic two movement patterns are apparent: some fish move northeastward
along the edge of the U.S. continental shelf in summer and return southwestward in autumn;
another group moves from deep water westward toward the continental shelf in summer and
back into deep water in autumn (Palko et al., 1981). Swordfish are epipelagic to meso-pelagic,
and are usually found in waters warmer than 13° C. Their optimum temperature range is
believed to be 18° to 22° C but they will dive into 5° to 10° C waters at depths of up to 650 m
(Nakamura, 1985). Swordfish migrate diurnally, coming to the surface at night (Palko et al.,
1981). Arocha (1997) observed different diel migrations in two groups of fish: swordfish in
neritic (shallow, near-coastal) waters of the northwest Atlantic were found in bottom waters
during the day, and then they moved to offshore surface waters at night. Swordfish in oceanic
waters migrated vertically from a daytime depth of 500 m to 90 m at night.
Predator-prey relationships: Adult swordfish are opportunistic feeders, having no
specific prey requirements. They feed at the bottom as well as at the surface, in both shallow and
deep waters. In waters greater than 200 m deep, they feed primarily on pelagic fishes including
small tunas, dolphinfishes, lancetfish (Alepisaurus), snake mackerel (Gempylus), flyingfishes,
barracudas and squids such as Ommastrephes, Loligo, and Illex. In shallow water they prey upon
neritic fishes, including mackerels, herrings, anchovies, sardines, sauries, and needlefishes. In
deep water swordfish may also take demersal fishes such as hakes, pomfrets (Bromidae), snake
mackerels, cutlass fish (trichiurids), lightfishes (Gonostomatidae), hatchet fishes
(Sternoptychidae), redfish, lanternfishes, and cuttlefishes (Nakamura, 1985).
In the Gulf of Mexico swordfish were found to feed primarily on cephalopods - 90
percent of stomach contents consisted of 13 species of teuthoid squids, most of which were Illex,
and two species of octopus (Toll and Hess, 1981). Stillwell and Kohler (1985) found that 80
percent of the stomach contents of swordfish taken off the northeast coast of the United States
consisted of cephalopods, of which short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) made up 26.4 percent.
Adult swordfish in neritic waters will feed inshore near the bottom during the daytime and head
seaward to feed on cephalopods at night. The movement of larger individuals into higher
latitudes in the summer and fall may be in part to allow those individuals access to high
concentrations of Illex (Arocha, 1997). Predators of adult swordfish are probably restricted to
sperm whales (Physeter catodon), killer whales (Orcinus orca) and large sharks, such as mako
(Isurus spp).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-9

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Typically, swordfish larvae less than 9.0 mm in length consume small zooplankton, those
9.0 to 14.0 mm feed on mysids, phyllopods and amphipods, and at sizes greater than 21 mm they
begin to feed on the larvae of other fishes. Juveniles feed on squids, fishes, and some pelagic
crustaceans (Palko et al., 1981). Larvae are preyed upon by other fishes, and juveniles fall prey
to predatory fishes, including sharks, tunas, billfishes, and adult swordfish (Palko et al., 1981).
Life history: First spawning for north Atlantic swordfish occurs at four to five years of
age (74 kg) in females. Fifty percent maturity in females is reached at 179 to 182 cm LJFL, and
in males at 112 to 29 cm LJFL (21 kg) at approximately 1.4 years of age (Palko et al., 1981;
Nakamura, 1985; Arocha, 1997). Most spawning takes place in waters with surface temperatures
above 20° to 22° C, between 15° N and 35° N (Palko et al., 1981; Arocha, 1997;). In the western
north Atlantic spawning occurs in distinct locations at different times of the year: south of the
Sargasso Sea and in the upper Caribbean spawning occurs from December to March, while off the
southeast coast of the United States it occurs from April through August (Arocha, 1997). Major
spawning grounds are probably located in the Straits of Yucatan and the Straits of Florida (Grall
et al., 1983; Govoni et. al., 2000, 2003). Larvae have been found in largest abundance from the
Straits of Florida to Cape Hatteras, NC and around the Virgin Islands. Larvae are associated with
surface temperatures between 24° and 29°C. The Gulf of Mexico is believed to serve as a nursery
area (Palko et al., 1981). Grall et al., (1983) found larvae ten mm and larger to be abundant in the
Caribbean, the Straits of Florida and the Gulf Stream north of Florida from December to
February. In the western Gulf of Mexico, large larvae were found from March to May and from
September to November; many larvae of all sizes were collected in the Caribbean and were also
present year-round in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, and the Gulf Stream.
Juvenile fish are frequently caught in the pelagic longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Atlantic coast of Florida, and near the Charleston Bump regions that may serve as nurseries for
north Atlantic swordfish (Cramer and Scott, 1998).
Fisheries: Swordfish in the Atlantic are taken by a directed longline fishery and as
bycatch of the tuna longline fishery. There are also seasonal harpooning and driftnetting efforts
off Nova Scotia (harpooning), off the northeast U.S. coast, and on the Grand Banks (driftnetting)
(Arocha, 1997). The effect of this reduction in stock size on habitat use and species distributions
is unknown. In January 1999, NMFS prohibited the use of driftnets for the swordfish fishery. In
March 1999, NMFS instituted a program requiring all swordfish imported into the United States
to have a certificate of eligibility specifying the origin of the fish. If the swordfish is from the
Atlantic it must meet the 33-lb dw minimum size requirement of ICCAT.
U.S. Fishery Status: North Atlantic swordfish overfished, overfishing is not occurring,
stock is in recovery. South Atlantic swordfish fully fished, overfishing may be occurring.
Growth and mortality: Swordfish reach a maximum length of 445 cm total length (TL)
and a maximum weight of 540 kg. Males and females have different growth rates, with females
longer and heavier at any given age (Nakamura, 1985). Natural mortality rate was estimated at
0.21 to 0.43 by Palko et al., (1981), but ICCAT presently uses an estimate of 0.2 (Arocha, 1997).
Berkeley and Houde (1981) found a higher growth rate for females than males over two years of
age, and also found males to have a higher mortality rate than females.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-10

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Habitat associations: In the winter in the north Atlantic, swordfish are restricted to the
warmer waters of the Gulf Stream, while in the summer their distribution covers a larger area.
Distribution is size and temperature related, with few fish under 90 kg found in waters with
temperatures less than 18° C. Larvae are restricted to a narrow surface temperature range, and
are distributed throughout the Gulf of Mexico, in areas of the Caribbean, and in the Gulf Stream
along the U.S. coast as far north as Cape Hatteras, NC. Concentrations of adult swordfish seem
to occur at ocean fronts between water masses associated with boundary currents, including the
Gulf Stream and Loop Current of the Gulf of Mexico (Arocha, 1997, Govoni et al., 2003).
Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Swordfish:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: From offshore Cape Hatteras, NC (approximately
35° N) extending south around peninsular Florida through the Gulf of Mexico to the
U.S./Mexico border from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; associated with
the Loop Current boundaries in the Gulf and the western edge of the Gulf Stream in
the Atlantic; also, all U.S. waters of the Caribbean from the 200 m isobath to the
EEZ boundary (Figure B.16).

•

Juveniles/subadults (<180 LJFL): In pelagic waters warmer than 18° C from the
surface to a depth of 500 m, from offshore Manasquan Inlet, NJ at 40° N, east to 73°
N, and south to the waters off Georgia at 31.5° N, between the 25 and 2,000 m
isobaths; offshore Cape Canaveral, FL (approximately 29° N) extending from the
100 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (south and east) around peninsular Florida; in
the Gulf of Mexico from Key West to offshore Galveston, TX (95° W) from the
200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary, with the exception of the area between 86° W
and 88.5° W, where the seaward boundary of EFH is the 2,000 m isobath (Figure
B.17).

•

Adults ($180 LJFL): In pelagic waters warmer than 13° C from the surface to
500 m deep, offshore the U.S. east and Gulf coasts from the intersection of the
100 m isobath and the EEZ boundary southeast of Cape Cod, MA to south and
offshore Biscayne Bay, FL at 25.5° N, from the 100 to 2,000 m isobath or the EEZ
boundary, which ever is closer to land; from offshore Tampa Bay, FL at 85° N to
offshore Mobile Bay, AL at 88° N between the 200 and 2,000 m isobaths; from
offshore south of the Mississippi River delta, 89° N to offshore waters south of
Galveston, TX, 95° N from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.18).

B.1.3 Billfish
B.1.3.1

Blue Marlin

Blue Marlin (Mokaira nigricans) Blue marlin inhabit the tropical and subtropical
waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Their geographic range is from 45E N to 35E
S. In the Atlantic two seasonal concentrations occur: January to April in the southwest Atlantic
from 5E to 30E S, and from June to October in the northwest Atlantic between 10E N and 35E N.
May, November and December are transitional months (Rivas, 1975). This species is epipelagic
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-11

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

and oceanic, generally found in blue water with a temperature range of 22 to 31E C. In the
northern Gulf of Mexico fishermen tend to catch more blue marlin when white marlin catches
are lowest and vice versa; this probably reflects differences in habitat preferences rather than any
interaction between the species. Blue marlin are generally solitary, and do not occur in schools
or in coastal waters (Nakamura, 1985). It had been believed that the North and South Atlantic
contains two separate spawning populations, but recent evidence, including genetic data,
suggests there is intermingling of the two groups. Consistent with SCRS recommendations, this
amendment considers there to be a single stock of Atlantic blue marlin. Tag-recapture data from
the northern Gulf of Mexico and the Bahamas suggest seasonal movements between the former
in summer and the latter in winter, and also two-way movements between the Caribbean Islands
and Venezuela and the Bahamas, and at least one-way movements from St. Thomas to West
Africa. Blue marlin from this study traveled up to 7,000 km (4,350 mi) and have remained atlarge (i.e., from tagging until recapture) for up to eight years (Witzell and Scott, 1990).
As part of the Cooperative Tagging Center (CTC) program, a total of 21,547 blue marlin
have been tagged and released over the last 43 years, with the recapture of 147 tagged fish
reported (0.68 percent of all releases) over the 23-year collaborative tagging effort (Jones et al.,
1997). Most tagging activity has taken place off the U.S. east coast, Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean, generally during the months of July through September. The majority of blue marlin
was recaptured in the general area of their release, traveling an average distance of 488 nm.
Some individuals have exhibited extended movement patterns, and strong seasonal patterns of
movement of individuals between the United States and Venezuela are evident (SCRS, 1997). A
blue marlin released off Delaware and recovered off the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean
represents the only documented inter-ocean movement of a highly migratory species in the
history of the CTC. The minimum straight-line distance traveled for this fish was 9,100 nm in
1,108 days-at-large (roughly three years). Other extensive movements include trans-equatorial
movements and trans-Atlantic migrations (5.4 percent of CTC recaptures; Jones et al., 1997).
Predator-prey relationships: Blue marlin feed near the surface but also are known to
feed in deeper waters than the other istiophorids. They feed primarily on tuna-like fishes, squid,
and on a wide size range of other organisms, from 38 mm postlarval surgeonfish to 50 lb. bigeye
tuna. Stomach contents have also included deep-sea fishes, such as chiasmodontids. Other
important prey species vary by location and include dolphinfishes, especially bullet tuna (Auxis
sp.) around the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica, and dolphinfishes and scombrids in the Gulf
of Mexico. Octopods are also prey items (Rivas, 1975; Davies and Bortone, 1976; Nakamura,
1985). Predators of blue marlin are relatively unknown. Sharks will attack hooked billfish, but
it is not known if they attack free-swimming, healthy individuals.
Reproduction and Early Life History: Although recent evidence indicates mixing
between the two geographic areas, there are probably two separate spawning “events” (or
populations); one in the north Atlantic with spawning from July to September (July to October
according to de Sylva and Breder, 1997; May to November, according to Prince et al., 1991) and
one in the South Atlantic from February to March. May and June are the peak spawning months
for fish off Florida and the Bahamas, and there is a protracted spawning period off northwest
Puerto Rico from May to November. Females taken off Cape Hatteras, NC in June were found
to have recently spawned (Rivas, 1975). Very few larvae have been collected in the western
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-12

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Atlantic, but some have been found off Georgia, in the Gulf of Mexico, off Cat Cay, Bahamas,
and in the mid- north Atlantic (Ueyanagi et al., 1970; Nakamura, 1975). A few juveniles have
been identified off Jamaica (Caldwell, 1962) and one from the Gulf of Mexico.
Blue marlin are sexually mature by 2 to 4 years of age (SCRS, 1997). Female blue
marlin begin to mature at approximately 104 to 134 lb, while males mature at smaller weights,
generally from 77 to 97 lb. Analysis of egg (ova) diameter frequency suggests that blue marlin,
white marlin, and sailfish spawn more than once, and possibly up to four times a year (de Sylva
and Breder, 1997). During the spawning season blue marlin release from one million to ten
million small (1 to 2 mm), transparent pelagic planktonic eggs (Yeo, 1978). The number of eggs
has been correlated to interspecific sizes among billfish and size of individuals within the same
species. Ovaries from a 324 lb female blue marlin from the northwest Atlantic were estimated to
contain 10.9 million eggs, while ovaries of a 275 lb female were estimated to contain
approximately 7 million eggs.
Fisheries: Blue marlin are targeted as a recreational fishery in the United States and
Caribbean, and are also caught as bycatch of tropical tuna longline fisheries which use shallow
gear deployment. They are also caught by offshore longline fisheries which target swordfish,
especially in the western Atlantic, as well as by directed artisanal fisheries in the Caribbean.
U.S. Fishery Status: Overfished, and overfishing is occurring. The effect of reduced stock size
on habitat use, migrations or distribution is unknown but should be investigated in future
research.
Growth and mortality: Blue marlin are believed to be one of the fastest growing of all
teleosts in the early stages of development, and weigh between 30 and 45 kg by age 1 (SCRS,
1997). Based on analyses of daily otolith ring counts, they reach 24 cm LJFL (lower jaw fork
length) in about 40 days, and about 190 cm LJFL in 500 days, with a maximum growth rate of
approximately 1.66 cm/day occurring at 39 cm LJFL (Prince et al., 1991). Fish larger than 190
cm LJFL tend to add weight more than length, making the application of traditional growth curve
models, in which length or weight are predicted as a function of age, difficult for fish in these
larger size categories. Females grow faster and reach much larger maximum sizes than males.
Examination of sagitta (otolith) weight, body weight, and length/age characteristics indicate that
sex-related size differences are related to differential growth between the sexes and not to
differential mortality (Wilson et al., 1991). Sexually dimorphic growth variation (weight only)
in blue marlin appears to begin at 140 cm LJFL (Prince et al., 1991). Somatic growth of male
blue marlin slows significantly at about 220 lb, while females continue substantial growth
throughout their lifetime (Wilson et al., 1991). Male blue marlin usually do not exceed 350 lb,
while females can exceed 1,200 lb.
Blue marlin are estimated to reach ages of at least 20 to 30 years, based on analysis of
dorsal spines (Hill et al., 1990). Although this spine ageing technique has not been validated,
longevity estimates are supported by tagging data. The maximum time at liberty recorded of a
tagged individual was 4,024 days (about 11 years) for a blue marlin that was estimated to weigh
65 pounds at the time of release (SCRS, 1996b). Sagitta otolith weight is suggested to be
proportional to age, indicating that both sexes are equally long-lived, based on the maximum
otolith weight observed for each sex (Wilson et al., 1991). Additionally, predicting age from
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-13

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

length or weight is imprecise due to many age classes in the fishery (SCRS, 1996b). Estimates
of natural mortality rates for billfish would be expected to be relatively low, generally in the
range of 0.15 to 0.30, based on body size, behavior, and physiology (SCRS, 1996b).
Habitat associations: Adults are found primarily in the tropics within the 24EC
isotherm, and make seasonal movements related to changes in sea surface temperatures. In the
northern Gulf of Mexico they are associated with the Loop Current and are found in blue waters
of low productivity rather than in more productive green waters. Off Puerto Rico the largest
numbers of blue marlin are caught during August, September and October. Equal numbers of
both sexes occur off northwest Puerto Rico in July and August, with larger males found there in
May and smaller males in September (Rivas, 1975). Very large individuals, probably females,
are found off the southern coast of Jamaica in the summer and off the northern coast in winter,
where males are caught in December and January.
Essential Fish Habitat for Blue Marlin:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: Offshore Florida, identical to adult EFH in that area:
from offshore Ponce de Leon Inlet (29.5E N) south to offshore Melbourne, FL from
the 100 m isobath to 50 mi seaward (79.25E W); from offshore Melbourne, FL south
to Key West from the100 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; also, off the northwest
coast of Puerto Rico (from Arecibo to Mayaguez), bounded by the 2000 m isobath
to the north and 18E N to the south (Figure B.19).

•

Juveniles/Subadults (20-189 cm LJFL): Pelagic surface waters not less than 24E
C, offshore Delaware Bay to Cape Lookout, NC from the 100 to the 2000 m isobath,
and grading further offshore to 73.25E W at 35E N; continuing south from offshore
Cape Lookout to Cumberland Island, GA (30.75E N), from the 200 to 2000 m
isobath; offshore St. Augustine, FL (30E N) south to 26E N, (Ft Lauderdale, FL)
from the 100 m isobath offshore an additional 30 miles to 29E N, then south of 29E
N, seaward from the 100 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; off southwest Florida from
24.5E N between the 200 m isobath and the EEZ boundary, north to 28EN, west to
86.25E W, and south to the EEZ boundary; offshore Choctawhatchee Bay to
Terrebonne Parish, LA, from the 100 to the 2000 m isobath, continuing west along
the 200 m isobath to the Texas/Mexico border out to 2000 meters (Figure B.20).

•

Adults ($ 190 cm LJFL): Pelagic surface waters not less than 24E C, from
offshore Delaware Bay (38.5E N) south to offshore Wilmington, NC (33.5E N)
between the100 and 2000 m isobaths; offshore Charleston, SC (32° N) from 100 m
to 78E W to offshore the Georgia/Florida border (30.75E N); from offshore Ponce de
Leon Inlet (29.5E N) south to offshore Melbourne, FL from the 100 m isobath to 50
mi seaward (79.25E W); from offshore Melbourne, FL south to Key West from the
100 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; from offshore Choctawhatchee Bay (86E W) to
offshore Terrebonne Parish, LA (90E W) between the 100 and 2000 m isobaths;
from Terrebonne Parish, LA south to offshore Galveston, TX (95E W) between the
200 and 2000 m isobaths; Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: from 65.25E W
east and south to the EEZ northern boundary along the 100 m isobath. Also, off the

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-14

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

northern shore of Puerto Rico out to the 2000 m isobath from 65.5E W west to the
EEZ boundary, and along the southern coast of Puerto Rico out to the 2000 m
isobath, east to 66.5E W (Figure B.21).
B.1.3.2

White Marlin

White Marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) White marlin is an oceanic, epipelagic species that
occurs in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean waters. It inhabits almost the entire
Atlantic from 45EN to 45ES in the western Atlantic and 45EN to 35ES in the eastern Atlantic. In
the tropics white marlin usually occur above the thermocline in deep (depths greater than 100 m),
blue waters with surface temperatures above 22EC and salinities of 35 to 37 ppt. They are
usually in the upper 20 to 30 m of the water column but may go to depths of 200 to 250 m where
the thermocline is deep. In higher latitudes, such as between New Jersey and Virginia, they are
found commonly in shallow coastal waters (de Sylva and Davis, 1963). White marlin are found
at the higher latitudes of their range only in the warmer months. Although they are generally
solitary, they sometimes are found in small, usually same-age groups. White marlin spawn in
tropical and sub-tropical waters and move to higher latitudes during the summer (Mather et al.,
1975; Nakamura, 1985). Catches in some areas may include a rare species, Tetrapturus georgei,
which is superficially similar to white marlin. The so-called “hatchet marlin” (Pristas, 1980)
may also represent T. georgei and has been caught occasionally in the Gulf of Mexico. The
similarity between species indicates some reported catches have the potential for error.
This species undergoes extensive movements, although not as extreme as those of the
bluefin tuna and albacore. The longest distance traveled by a tagged and recaptured specimen,
which had been at-large for 1.4 years, was 3,509 km. The longest time at-large recorded for a
white marlin is 11.8 years. Transequatorial movements have not been documented for the species
(Bayley and Prince, 1993). There have been 29,751 white marlin tagged and released by the
CTC program, with 540 reported recaptures (1.8 percent of all releases). The majority of
releases took place in the months of July through September, in the western Atlantic off the east
coast of the United States. Releases of tagged white marlin also occurred off Venezuela, in the
Gulf of Mexico, and in the central West Atlantic. As noted for blue marlin, the majority of
recoveries occurred in the same general area as the original capture. The mean straight-line
distance of recaptured white marlin is 455 nm. A substantial number of individuals moved
between the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States and the northeast coast of South America.
Overall, 1.1 percent of documented white marlin recaptures have made trans-Atlantic
movements. The longest movement was for a white marlin tagged during July 1995 off the east
coast near Cape May, NJ and recaptured off Sierra Leone, West Africa in November 1996. The
fish traveled a distance of at least 3,519 nm over 476 days (1.3 years; Jones et. al., 1997).
Predator–prey relationships: The most important prey items of adult white marlin, at
least in the Gulf of Mexico, are squid, dolphinfishes (Coryphaena) and hardtail jack (Caranx
crysos), followed by mackerels, flyingfishes, and bonitos. Other food items found inconsistently
and to a lesser degree include cutlassfishes, puffers, herrings, barracudas, moonfishes,
triggerfishes, remoras, hammerhead sharks, and crabs. Along the central Atlantic coast food
items include round herring (Etrumerus teres) and squid (Loligo pealei). Carangids and other
fishes are consumed as well (Nakamura, 1985). Davies and Bortone (1976) found the most
frequent stomach contents in 53 specimens from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, off Florida
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-15

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

and off Mississippi to include little tunny (Euthynnus sp.), bullet tuna (Auxis sp.), squid, and
moonfish (Vomer setapinnis). They also found white marlin to feed on barracuda and puffer
fish. The only predators of adult white marlin may be sharks and possibly killer whales (Mather
et al., 1975).
Reproduction and Early Life History: Sexual maturity of female white marlin is
reached at about 61 inches LJFL (44 lb). Mature females probably spawn more than once a year
and possibly up to four times during the spawning season. The spawning season probably occurs
only once a year, from March to June (de Sylva and Breder, 1997). It is believed there are at
least three spawning areas in the western north Atlantic: northeast of Little Bahama Bank off the
Abaco Islands, northwest of Grand Bahama Island, and southwest of Bermuda. Larvae have also
been collected from November to April (Mather et al., 1975; Nakamura, 1985), but these may
have been sailfish larvae (Istiophorus platypterus), as the two cannot readily be distinguished.
Fisheries: White marlin are targeted as a recreational fishery in the United States and
Caribbean, and are also caught as bycatch of tropical tuna longline fisheries which use shallow
gear deployment. They are also caught by offshore longline fisheries which target swordfish,
especially in the western Atlantic, as well as by directed artisanal fisheries in the Caribbean.
U.S. Fishery Status: Overfished, overfishing is occurring. The effect of reduced stock size on
habitat use, migrations or distribution is unknown but should be investigated in future research.
Growth and mortality: Adult white marlin grow to over 280 cm TL (total length) and
82 kg. White marlin exhibit sexually dimorphic growth patterns; females grow larger than males
(Mather et al., 1975; Nakamura, 1985), but the dimorphic growth differences are not as extreme
as noted for blue marlin (SCRS, 1997). A minimum estimate of longevity can be calculated
from the longest time at liberty for a tagged white marlin, 4,305 days (11.8 years). The
individual was estimated to weigh 50 lb at the time of first capture, resulting in a minimum age
estimate of 14 to15 years (SCRS, 1996b).
Habitat associations: The world’s largest sport fishery for the species occurs in the
summer from Cape Hatteras, NC to Cape Cod, MA especially between Oregon Inlet, NC and
Atlantic City, NJ. Successful fishing occurs up to 80 miles offshore at submarine canyons,
extending from Norfolk Canyon in the mid-Atlantic to Block Canyon off eastern Long Island
(Mather, et al., 1975). Concentrations are associated with rip currents and weed lines (fronts),
and with bottom features such as steep dropoffs, submarine canyons and shoals (Nakamura,
1985). The spring peak season for white marlin sport fishing occurs in the Straits of Florida,
southeast Florida, the Bahamas, and off the north coasts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
In the Gulf of Mexico summer concentrations are found off the Mississippi River Delta, at
DeSoto Canyon, and at the edge of the continental shelf off Port Aransas, TX, with a peak off the
Delta in July, and in the vicinity of DeSoto Canyon in August. In the Gulf of Mexico adults
appear to be associated with blue waters of low productivity, being found with less frequency in
more productive green waters. While this is also true of the blue marlin, there appears to be a
contrast in the factors controlling blue and white marlin abundances, as higher numbers of blue
marlin are caught when catches of white marlin are low and vice versa (Rivas, 1975; Nakamura,
1985). It is believed that white marlin prefer slightly cooler temperatures than blue marlin.
Spawning occurs in early summer, in subtropical, deep oceanic waters with high surface
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-16

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

temperatures and salinities (20 to 29EC and over 35 ppt). Spawning concentrations occur off the
Bahamas, Cuba, and the Greater Antilles, probably beyond the U.S. EEZ, although the locations
are unconfirmed. Concentrations of white marlin in the northern Gulf of Mexico and from Cape
Hatteras to Cape Cod are probably related to feeding rather than spawning (Mather et al., 1975).
Essential Fish Habitat for White Marlin:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: At this time the available information is insufficient
to identify EFH for this life stage (Figure B.22).

•

Juvenile (20-158 cm LJFL): Pelagic waters warmer than 22EC, from offshore the
U.S. east coast from the 50 to the 2000 m isobath from the EEZ at Georges Bank at
41EN, south to offshore Miami, FL at 25.25EN; off the west coast of Florida,
between the 200 and 2000 m isobath from 24.75E N to 27.75EN; then continuing
between the 200 and 2000 m isobath west from 86EW to 93.5EW, then off the coast
of Texas from west of 95.5EW to the 50 m isobath and south to the EEZ boundary
(Figure B.23).

•

Adults ($159 cm LJFL): Pelagic waters warmer than 22EC, from offshore the
northeast U.S. coast from the 50 to the 2000 m isobath from 33.75° N to 39.25EN,
then extending along 39.25EN out to the EEZ boundary; off the coast of South
Carolina in the Charleston Bump area, in the region starting from the 200 m isobath
at 32.25EN, east to 78.25EW, south to 31EN, west to 79.5EW and north to the 200 m
isobath; offshore Cape Canaveral, FL from the 200 m isobath, east at 29EN to the
EEZ boundary, south along the 200 m isobath and out to the EEZ boundary to
82EW, in the vicinity of Key West, FL; in the Gulf of Mexico, from 86.5EW to the
EEZ boundary, along the 50 m isobath near De Soto canyon, then along the 100 m
isobath west to the EEZ boundary offshore the United States/Mexico border (Figure
B.24).

B.1.3.3

Sailfish

Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) Sailfish have a circumtropical distribution (Post,
1998). They range from 40EN to 40ES in the western Atlantic and 50EN to 32ES in the eastern
Atlantic. Sailfish are epipelagic and coastal to oceanic, and are usually found above the
thermocline at a temperature range of 21 to 28EC, but may dive into deeper, colder water. These
are the least oceanic of the Atlantic billfish, often moving to inshore waters. They are found
over the shelf edge, and are associated with land masses. However, they have been found to
travel farther offshore than was previously thought.
A total of 62,740 sailfish have been tagged and released through the efforts of the CTC
program, with reported recapture of 1,090 sailfish (1.7 percent of all releases). Most releases
occurred off southeast Florida, from north Florida to the Carolinas, the Gulf of Mexico,
Venezuela, Mexico, the northern Bahamas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. One tagged and
recaptured specimen traveled from Juno, FL to the mid-Atlantic, a distance of 2,972 km (Bayley
and Prince, 1993). The longest movement tracked by tagging was 3,509 km, with this specimen
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-17

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

at-large for 1.4 yrs. The longest period a recaptured tagged animal was found to be at-large was
10.9 years (Bayley and Prince, 1993). During the winter sailfish are restricted to the warmer
parts of their range and move farther from the tropics during the summer (Beardsley et al., 1975;
Nakamura, 1985). The summer distribution of sailfish does not extend as far north as for
marlins. Tag-and-recapture efforts have recovered specimens only as far north as Cape Hatteras,
NC. Few transatlantic or transequatorial movements have been documented using tag-recapture
methods (Bayley and Prince, 1993).
Predator-prey relationships: Early larvae feed on copepods, but shift to eating fish
when they reach 6.0 mm in size. The diet of adult sailfish caught around Florida consists mainly
of pelagic fishes such as little thunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), halfbeaks (Hemiramphus spp.),
cutlassfish (Trichiurus lepturus), rudderfish (Strongylura notatus), jacks (Caranx ruber), pinfish
(Lagodon rhomboides), and squids, including Argonauta argo and Ommastrephes bartrami
(Nakamura, 1985). Sailfish are opportunistic feeders, and there is unexpected evidence that they
may feed on demersal species such as sea robin (Triglidae), cephalopods, and gastropods found
in deep water. Sailfish in the western Gulf of Mexico have been found to contain a large
proportion of shrimp in their stomachs (Beardsley et al., 1975; Nakamura, 1985). Davies and
Bortone (1976) report that the stomach contents of 11 sailfish from the Gulf of Mexico most
frequently contained little thunny, bullet tuna (Auxis sp.), squid, and Atlantic moonfish (Vomer
setapinnis). Adult sailfish are probably not preyed upon often, but predators include killer
whales (Orcinus orca), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops turncatus), and sharks (Beardsley et al.,
1975).
Reproduction and Early Life History: Spawning has been reported to occur in shallow
waters (30-40 ft) around Florida, from the Keys to the region off Palm Beach on the east coast.
Spawning is also assumed, based on presence of larvae, offshore beyond the 100 m isobath from
Cuba to the Carolinas, from April to September. However, the spawning has not been observed.
Sexual maturity occurs in the third year, with females at a weight of 13 to18 kg and males at 10
kg (de Sylva and Breder, 1997). Sailfish are multiple spawners, with spawning activity moving
northward in the western Atlantic as the summer progresses. Larvae are found in Gulf Stream
waters in the western Atlantic, and in offshore waters throughout the Gulf of Mexico from March
to October (Beardsley et al., 1975; Nakamura, 1985; de Sylva and Breder, 1997).
Fisheries: Sailfish are primarily caught in directed sportfisheries and as bycatch of the
commercial longline fisheries for tunas and swordfish. Historically, nearly all sailfish from
commercial catches have been reported as Atlantic sailfish; however, nearly all of these represent
longbill spearfish (and perhaps other spearfish), and it is probable that very few sailfish are taken
commercially in offshore waters of the Atlantic. Thus, it is impossible to determine historical
trends in sailfish catches since at least two species have been combined. U.S. Fishery Status:
Unknown.
Growth and mortality: Most sailfish examined that have been caught off Florida are
under three years of age. Mortality is estimated to be high in this area, as most of the population
consists of only two year classes (Beardsley et al., 1975). Sailfish are probably the slowest
growing of the Atlantic istiophorids. Sexual dimorphic growth is found in sailfish, but it is not
as extreme as with blue marlin (SCRS, 1997). An individual sailfish that was recaptured after
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-18

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

5,862 days (16 years) at liberty can be used to estimate minimum age of longevity.
Unfortunately, the size at release is not available for this fish (SCRS, 1996b). The maximum age
can be 13 to15 or more years. Growth rate in older individuals is very slow - 0.59 kg/yr (Prince
et al., 1986).
Habitat associations: In the winter sailfish are found in schools around the Florida Keys
and eastern Florida, in the Caribbean, and in offshore waters throughout the Gulf of Mexico. In
the summer they appear to diffuse northward along the U.S. coast as far north as the coast of
Maine, although there is a population off the east coast of Florida all year long. During the
summer some of these fish move north along the inside edge of the Gulf Stream. After the
arrival of northerlies in the winter they regroup off the east coast of Florida. Sailfish appear to
spend most of their time above the thermocline, which occurs at depths of 10 to 20 m to 200 to
250 m, depending on location. The 28EC isotherm appears to be the optimal temperature for this
species. Sailfish are mainly oceanic but migrate into shallow coastal waters. Larvae are
associated with the warm waters of the Gulf Stream (Beardsley et al., 1975; Nakamura, 1985;
Post, 1998).
Essential Fish Habitat for Sailfish:
•

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: From 28.25EN south to Key West, FL, associated
with waters of the Gulf Stream and Florida Straits from 5 mi offshore out to the EEZ
boundary (Figure B.25).

•

Juveniles/Subadults (20-142 cm LJFL): In pelagic and coastal surface waters
between 21 and 28EC, from 32EN south to Key West, FL in waters from 5 mi
offshore to125 mi offshore, or the EEZ boundary, whichever is nearer to shore; west
of Key West, FL, all waters of the Gulf of Mexico from the 200 to the 2000m
isobath or the EEZ boundary, whichever is nearer to shore (Figure B.26).

•

Adults ($143 cm LJFL): In pelagic and coastal surface waters between 21 and
28EC, offshore of the U.S. southeast coast from 5 mi off the coast to 2000 m, from
36EN to 34EN, then from 5 mi offshore to 125 mi offshore, or the EEZ boundary,
whichever is nearer to shore, south to Key West, then from the 200 m isobath to the
2000 m isobath. Additional EFH is delineated in the Gulf of Mexico near DeSoto
Canyon up to the 50 m isobath, and areas 5 mi offshore southeast Texas, from
Corpus Christy to the EEZ boundary, or the 2000 m isobath, whichever is closer
(Figure B.27).

B.1.3.4

Longbill Spearfish

Longbill Spearfish (Tetrapturus pfluegeri) Only relatively recently (1963) has the
longbill spearfish been reported as a new (distinct) species. It is known, but rare, from off the
east coast of Florida, the Bahamas and the Gulf of Mexico, and from Georges Bank to Puerto
Rico. More recently it has been observed to be more widely distributed, mostly in the western
Atlantic. The range for this species is from 40EN to 35ES. It is an epipelagic, oceanic species,
usually inhabiting waters above the thermocline (Robins, 1975; Nakamura, 1985). The species is
generally found in offshore waters.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-19

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Predator-prey relationships: The diet of the longbill spearfish consists of pelagic fishes
and squids. However, little data for diet specific to fish in the north Atlantic is available.
Life history: Spawning is thought to occur in widespread areas in the tropical and
subtropical Atlantic (Nakamura, 1985) in the winter from November to May (de Sylva and
Breder, 1997). There are a few records of larvae caught near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from
December to February, and in the Caribbean (Ueyanagi et al., 1970; de Sylva and Breder, 1997)
Fisheries: Longbill spearfish is not a target species, but is taken in the recreational
fishery; the sportfishery catches only about 100 individuals per year. It is, however, taken as
bycatch of the tuna longline fishery. U.S. Fishery Status: Unknown.
Growth and mortality: The maximum weight of females at first maturity is
approximately 45 kg (de Sylva and Breder, 1997).
Habitat associations: The species ranges farther offshore than sailfish. Nothing is known
about its habitat associations.
Essential Fish Habitat for Longbill Spearfish:
• Spawning, eggs, and larvae: At this time available information is insufficient to
describe and identify EFH for this life stage (Figure B.28).
• Juvenile/Subadult (~20-182 cm LJFL): Offshore North Carolina, from 36.5EN to
35EN, from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.29).
•

Adults ($183 cm LJFL): The Charleston Bump area of the South Atlantic Bight
from 78EW to 79EW, and from 37EN to 31EN; and southwest of the U.S. Virgin
Islands from 65E W east to the EEZ boundary or the 2000 m isobath, whichever is
nearer to shore (Figure B.30).

B.1.4 Large Coastal Sharks
B.1.4.1

Basking Sharks

Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) The basking shark is the second largest fish in
the world, its size exceeded only by the whale shark. Like the whale shark, it is a filter-feeding
plankton eater. It is a migratory species of the subpolar and cold temperate seas throughout the
world, spending the summer in high latitudes and moving into warmer water in winter (Castro,
1983). In spite of its size and local abundance in summer, its habits are very poorly known.
Sims and Quayle (1998) have shown that basking sharks forage along thermal fronts and seek
the highest densities of zooplankton. During the European autumn basking sharks disappear and
are not seen until the following summer, when they return after giving birth. Distribution data
for the basking shark is incomplete largely because the species is not commonly taken by
fisheries. According to one OMB reviewer, EFH for the basking shark may need to include
waters east of the Great South Channel and the Gulf of Maine to the Bay of Fundy. Pertinent
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-20

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

information on life history and distribution of the basking shark in the North Atlantic may be
found in Templeman (1963), Owen (1984), Kenney et al. (1985), Sims and Merrett (1997), Sims
and Quayle (1998), Sims (1999), Sims et al. (2000), Skomal et al. (2004), and Wilson (2004).
Reproductive potential: Little is known about basking shark reproductive processes.
Males are believed to reach maturity between 460 and 610 cm (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1948), at
an estimated age of four to five years (Parker and Stott, 1965). However, these age estimates
have not been validated. Females mature at 810 to 980 cm (Compagno, 1984). It is believed
that female basking sharks give birth to young measuring about 180 cm total length (TL),
probably in high latitudes. There are no modern reports on the size of litters or data on
reproductive cycles.
Impact of fisheries: Fishing for the basking shark is prohibited in U.S. waters, although
basking sharks are common off the east coast in winter.
Essential Fish Habitat for Basking Shark:
•

Neonate ($182 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.31).

•

Juveniles (183 to 809 cm TL): Offshore the mid-Atlantic United States south of
Nantucket Shoals at 70°W to the north edge of Cape Hatteras, NC at 35.5°N in
waters 50 to 200 m deep; associated with boundary conditions created by the
western edge of the Gulf Stream (Figure B.32).

•

Adults ($810 cm TL): Offshore southern New England, west of Nantucket Shoals
at 70°W to Montauk, Long Island, NY at 72°W, out to the continental shelf in
waters 50 to 200 m deep, where water column physical conditions create high
abundances of zooplankton (Figure B.33).

B.1.4.2

Hammerhead Sharks

Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) This shark found both in open oceans and
shallow coastal waters. One of the largest sharks, the great hammerhead is circum-tropical in
warm waters (Castro, 1983). It is usually a solitary fish, unlike the more common scalloped
hammerhead which often forms very large schools.
Reproductive potential: In Australian waters males mature at about 210 to 258 cm TL
and females mature usually at 210 to 220 cm TL (Stevens and Lyle, 1989). Pups measure about
67 cm TL at birth (Stevens and Lyle, 1989) and litters consist of 20 to 40 pups (Castro, 1983).
The gestation period lasts about 11 months (Stevens and Lyle, 1989). The reproductive cycle is
biennial (Stevens and Lyle, 1989). There are few reports and little data on its nurseries. Hueter
(CSR data) found small juveniles from Yankeetown, FL to Charlotte Harbor, FL from May to
October at temperature of 23.9 to 28.9°C and salinities of 21.9 to 34.2 ppt.
Impact of fisheries: Great hammerheads are caught in coastal longline shark fisheries as
well as in pelagic tuna and swordfish longline fisheries. Its fins bring the highest prices in the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-21

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

shark fin market. Although finning is prohibited in the Atlantic, in many fishing operations
elsewhere the fins are removed while the carcasses are discarded at sea. The great hammerhead
is vulnerable to overfishing because of its biennial reproductive cycle and because it is caught
both in directed fisheries and as bycatch in tuna and swordfish fisheries.
Essential Fish Habitat for Great Hammerhead:
•

Neonate (#74 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.34).

•

Juveniles (71 to 209 cm TL): Off the Florida coast, all shallow coastal waters out
to the 100 m isobath from 30°N south around peninsular Florida to 82.5°W,
including Florida Bay and adjacent waters east of 81.5°W (north of 25°N), and east
of 82.5°W (south of 25°N) (Figure B.35).

•

Adults ($210 cm TL): Off the entire east coast of Florida, all shallow coastal
waters out to the 100 m isobath, south of 30°N, including the west coast of Florida
to 85.5°W (Figure B.36).

Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) This is a very common, large, schooling
hammerhead of warm waters. It is the most common hammerhead in the tropics and is readily
available in abundance to inshore artisanal and small commercial fisheries as well as offshore
operations (Compagno, 1984). It migrates seasonally north-south along the eastern United
States. Additional life history information can be found in Lessa et al. (1998), Hazin et al.
(2001), and Bush and Holland (2002).
Reproductive potential: Males in the Atlantic mature at about 180 to 185 cm TL
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1948), while those in the Indian Ocean mature at 140 to 165 cm TL
(Bass et al., 1973). Females mature at about 200 cm TL (Stevens and Lyle, 1989). The young
are born at 38 to 45 cm TL, litters consisting of 15 to 31 pups (Compagno, 1984). The
reproductive cycle is annual (Castro, 1993b), and the gestation period is nine to ten months
(Stevens and Lyle, 1989). Castro (1993b) found nurseries in the shallow coastal waters of South
Carolina; Hueter (CSR data) found small juveniles from Yankeetown to Charlotte Harbor on the
west coast of Florida, in temperatures of 23.2° to 30.2 °C, salinities of 27.6 to 36.3 ppt, and DO
of 5.1 to 5.5 ml/l.
Impact of fisheries: Because the scalloped hammerhead forms very large schools in
coastal areas, it is targeted by many fisheries for its high priced fins. The scalloped hammerhead
is considered vulnerable to overfishing because its schooling habit makes it extremely vulnerable
to gillnet fisheries and because scalloped hammerheads are actively pursued in many fisheries
throughout the world.
Essential Fish Habitat for Scalloped Hammerhead:
•

Neonate (#62 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters of the South Atlantic Bight, off the
coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, west of 79.5°W and north of 30°N,

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-22

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

from the shoreline out to 25 miles offshore. Additionally, as displayed on Figure 6­
10e: shallow coastal bays and estuaries less than 5 m deep, from Apalachee Bay to
St. Andrews Bay, FL (Figure B.37).
•

Juveniles (63 to 227 cm TL): All shallow coastal waters of the U.S. Atlantic
seaboard from the shoreline to the 200 m isobath from 39° N, south to the vicinity of
the Dry Tortugas and the Florida Keys at 82° W; also in the Gulf of Mexico, in the
area of Mobile Bay, AL and Gulf Islands National Seashore, all shallow coastal
waters from the shoreline out to the 50 m isobath (Figure B.38).

•

Adults ($228cm TL): In the South Atlantic Bight from the 25 to 200 m isobath
from 36.5°N to 33°N, then continuing south from the 50 m isobath offshore to the
200 m isobath to 30°N, then from the 25 m isobath to the 200 m isobath from 30°N
south to 28°N; also, in the Florida Straights between the 25 and 200 m isobaths,
from 81.5°W west to 82.25°W in the vicinity of Key West and the Dry Tortugas
(Figure B.39).

Smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) This is an uncommon hammerhead of
temperate waters. Fisheries data for hammerheads includes this species and the scalloped and
great hammerheads; however, there is little data specific to the species.
Essential Fish Habitat for Smooth Hammerhead:
•

Neonate (#66 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.40).

•

Juveniles (67 t0 283 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for
the identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.41).

•

Adults ($284 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.42).

B.1.4.3

Mackerel Sharks

White shark (Carcharodon carcharias) The white shark is the largest of the lamnid, or
mackerel, sharks. It is a poorly known apex predator found throughout temperate, subtropical,
and tropical waters. Its presence is usually sporadic throughout its range, although there are a
few localities (e.g., off California, Australia, and South Africa) where it is seasonally common.
Large adults prey on seals and sea lions and are sometimes found around their rookeries. The
white shark is also a scavenger of large dead whales. It has been described as the most voracious
of the fish-like vertebrates and has been known to attack bathers, divers, and even boats.
According to one OMB reviewer, EFH for the white shark may need to be modified. The review
by Casey and Pratt (1985) is a comprehensive size-specific examination of white shark
distribution, life history, and nursery habitat in the western North Atlantic. Preliminary estimates
of age and growth of this species were recently conducted by Natanson (2002). Estrada et al. (in

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-23

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

press) present new information on the trophic ecology of this species in the western North
Atlantic based on stable isotopes.
Reproductive potential: Very little is known of its reproductive processes because only
two gravid females have been examined by biologists in modern times. Both specimens
contained seven embryos. Recent observations show that white sharks carry seven to ten
embryos that are born at 120 to 150 cm TL (Francis, 1996; Uchida et al., 1996). The lengths of
the reproductive and gestation cycles are unknown. White sharks are believed to mature at
between 370 and 430 cm at an estimated age of nine to ten years (Cailliet et al., 1985). Cailliet
et al., (1985) estimated growth rates of 25.0 to 30.0 cm/year for juveniles and 21.8 cm/year for
older specimens, and gave the following von Bertalanffy parameters: n = 21, L4 = 763.7 cm, K
= 0.058, to = -3.53. They estimated that a 610 cm TL specimen would be 13 to 14 years old.
The types of habitats and locations of nursery areas are unknown. It is likely that the nurseries
will be found in the warmer parts of the range in deep water.
Impact of fisheries: The white shark is a prized game fish because of its size. It is
occasionally caught in commercial longlines or in near-shore drift gillnets, but it must be
released in a manner which maximizes its survival. Its jaws and teeth are often seen in
specialized markets where they bring high prices. Preliminary observations (Strong et al., 1992)
show that populations may be small, highly localized, and very vulnerable to overexploitation.
The white shark has been adopted as a symbol of a threatened species by some conservation
organizations, and has received protected status in South Africa, Australia, and the State of
California. In 1997, the Unites States implemented a catch-and-release only recreational fishery
for the white shark, while prohibiting possession of the species. There are no published
population assessments, or even anecdotal reports, indicating any population decreases of the
white shark. Nevertheless, it is a scarce apex predator and a long-lived species of a limited
reproductive potential that is vulnerable to longlines.
Essential Fish Habitat for White Shark:
•

Neonate (#166 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.43).

•

Juveniles (167 to 479 cm TL): Offshore northern New Jersey and Long Island, NY
in pelagic waters from the 25 to 100 m isobath in the New York Bight area, bounded
to the east at 71.5°W and to the south at 39.5°N; also, offshore Cape Canaveral, FL
between the 25 and 100 m isobaths from 29.5° N south to 28°N (Figure B.44).

•

Adults ($480 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.45).

B.1.4.4

Nurse Sharks

Nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum The nurse shark inhabits littoral waters in both
sides of the tropical and subtropical Atlantic, ranging from tropical West Africa and the Cape
Verde Islands in the east, and from Cape Hatteras, NC to Brazil in the west. It is also found in
the east Pacific, ranging from the Gulf of California to Panama and Ecuador (Bigelow and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-24

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Schroeder, 1948). It is a shallow water species, often found lying motionless on the bottom
under coral reefs or rocks. It often congregates in large numbers in shallow water (Castro, 1983;
Pratt and Carrier, 2002).
Reproductive potential: The nurse shark matures at about 225 cm total length
(Springer, 1938). Litters consist of 20 to 30 pups, the young measuring about 30 cm total length
at birth. The gestation period is about five to six months and reproduction is biennial (Castro,
2000). The age at maturity is unknown, but the nurse shark is a long-lived species. Clark (1963)
reported an aquarium specimen living up to 24 years in captivity.
Its nurseries are in shallow turtle grass (Thalassia) beds and shallow coral reefs (Castro,
2000; Pratt and Carrier 2002). However, juveniles are also found around mangrove islands in
south Florida. Hueter and Tyminski (2002) found numerous juveniles along the west coast of
Florida, in temperatures of 17.5° to 32.9°C, salinities of 28.0 to 38.5 ppt, and DO of 3.1 to 9.7
mg/l. Large numbers of nurse sharks often congregate in shallow waters off the Florida Keys
and the Bahamas at mating time in June and July (Fowler, 1906; Gudger, 1912; Pratt and Carrier,
2002). A small area has been set up for protection of mating sharks at Fort Jefferson in the Dry
Tortugas. It is not certain, however, whether this area is a primary mating ground or a refuge for
mated females.
Impact of fisheries: In North America and the Caribbean the nurse shark has often been
pursued for its hide, which is said to be more valuable than that of any other shark (Springer,
1950a). The fins have no value, and the meat is of questionable value (Springer, 1979). The
U.S. commercial bottom longline fleet catches few nurse sharks.
Essential Fish Habitat for Nurse Shark:
•

Neonate (# 36 cm total length): Areas of shallow coastal areas from West Palm
Beach, FL, south to the Dry Tortugas in waters less than 25 m deep, including
Charlotte Harbor, FL at 82°W and 26.8°N in waters less than 25 m deep (Figure
B.46).
Juvenile (37 to 221 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters from the shoreline to
the 25 m isobath off the east coast of Florida from south of Cumberland Island, GA
(at 30.5°N) to the Dry Tortugas; also shallow coastal waters from Charlotte Harbor,
FL (at 26°N) to the north end of Tampa Bay, FL (at 28°N); also, off southern Puerto
Rico, shallow coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath from 66.5°W to the southwest
tip of the island. Areas in the northeast Gulf of Mexico (Apalachee Bay,
Apalachicola Bay, and Crooked Island Sound, FL) (Figure B.47).

•

Adults ($ 221 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters from the shoreline to the
25 m isobath off the east coast of Florida from south of Cumberland Island, GA (at
30.5°N) to the Dry Tortugas; also, shallow coastal waters from Charlotte Harbor, FL
(at 26°N) to the north end of Tampa Bay, FL (at 28°N); also, off southern Puerto
Rico, shallow coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath from 66.5°W to the southwest
tip of the island (Figure B.48).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-25

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

B.1.4.5 Requiem Sharks
Bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus) The bignose shark is a poorly known, bottom
dwelling shark of the deeper waters of the continental shelves. It is found in tropical and
subtropical waters throughout the world (Castro, 1983).
Reproductive potential: The smallest mature specimens recorded by Springer (1960)
were a 213 cm TL male and a 221 cm TL female. Springer (1950c) reported litters of seven to
eight pups, while Stevens and McLoughlin (1991) noted from three to 15 pups. Birth size is
probably around 70 cm TL based on the largest embryos (65 to 70 cm TL) reported by
Fourmanoir (1961), and free swimming specimens with fresh umbilical scars seen by Bass et al.,
(1973). The lengths of the gestation period and of the breeding cycle have not been reported.
The location of the nurseries is unknown.
Impact of fisheries: Springer (1950c) stated that the bignose shark appeared to be the
most common large shark of the edges of the continental shelves in the West Indian region, and
that the species made up a substantial portion of the catch in the Florida shark fishery of
the1940s. In some areas bignose sharks are mistaken for sandbar sharks.
Essential Fish Habitat for Bignose Shark:
•

Neonate (#67 cm TL): From offshore the Delmarva Peninsula at 38°N, to offshore
Bull=s Bay, SC at 32°N, between the 100 and 200 m isobaths (Figure B.49).

•

Juveniles (68 to 225 cm TL): From offshore the Delmarva Peninsula at 38°N, to
offshore Bull=s Bay, SC at 32°N, between the 100 and 500 m isobaths; also, from St.
Augustine, FL at 30°N, south to offshore West Palm Beach, FL at 27°N, between
the 100 and 500 m isobaths (Figure B.50).

•

Adults ($226 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.51).

Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) The blacktip shark is circumtropical in
shallow coastal waters and offshore surface waters of the continental shelves. In the
southeastern United States it ranges from Virginia to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. Garrick
(1982), on examining a large number of museum specimens, believed it to be a single worldwide
species. Dudley and Cliff (1993), working off South Africa, and Castro (1996), working on
blacktip sharks off the southeastern United States, showed that there were significant differences
among the various populations. For example, the median size for blacktip sharks in the Atlantic
is 126.6 cm fork length, whereas the median size in the Gulf region is 117.3 cm fork length. The
blacktip shark is a fast moving shark that is often seen at the surface, frequently leaping and
spinning out of the water. It often forms large schools that migrate seasonally north-south along
the coast. This species is much sought after in the eastern United States because of the quality of
its flesh. The blacktip and the sandbar shark are the two primary species in the U.S. commercial
fisheries. In the markets of the United States Ablacktip@ has become synonymous with good
quality shark; therefore, many other species are also sold under that name.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-26

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Additional information on blacktip shark nursery habitat can be found in Heupel and
Hueter (2002), Heupel and Simpfendorfer (2002), Keeney et al. (2003), Heupel et al. (2004),
Keeney et al. (2005), and Heupel and Simpfendorfer (2005a; 2005b).
Reproductive potential: Off the southeastern United States males mature at between
142 and 145 cm total length and females at about 156 cm total length (Castro, 1996). According
to Branstetter and McEachran (1986), in the western north Atlantic males mature at 139 to 145
cm total length at four to five years and females at 153 cm total length at six to seven years. A
similar pattern is evident in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, with larger size at maturity in the
Atlantic than in the Gulf region. However, these ages are unvalidated and based on a small
sample. Branstetter and McEachran (1986) estimated the maximum age at ten years, and gave
the von Bertalanffy parameters for combined sexes as: L4 = 171, K= 0.284, to= -1.5.
The young are born at 55 to 60 cm total length in late May and early June in shallow
coastal nurseries from Georgia to the Carolinas (Castro, 1996), and in Bay systems in the Gulf of
Mexico (Carlson, 2002; Parsons, 2002), and the Texas coast (Jones and Grace, 2002) Litters
range from one to eight pups (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1948) with a mean of four. The gestation
cycle lasts about a year; the reproductive cycle is biennial (Castro, 1996).
According to Castro (1993b), the nurseries are on the seaward side of coastal islands of
the Carolinas, at depths of two to four meters. Carlson (2002) found neonates in depths of 2.1 to
6.0 m under a variety of habitat conditions. Castro (1993b) found neonates over muddy bottoms
off Georgia and the Carolinas, while Hueter found them over seagrass beds off west Florida
(unpublished Mote Laboratory CSR data). Neonates and juveniles were found off west Florida
(from the Florida Keys to Tampa Bay) at temperatures of 18.5o to 33.6oC, salinities of 15.8 to
37.0 ppt, and DO of 3.5 to 9.0 mg/l. The neonates were found from April to September, while
juveniles were found there nearly year-round.
Impact of fisheries: The blacktip shark is caught in many diverse fisheries throughout
the world. Off the southeastern United States it is caught in commercial longlines set in shallow
coastal waters, but it is also pursued as a gamefish. There are localized gillnet fisheries in
Federal waters off Florida that target blacktips during their migrations, when the schools are
close to shore in clear waters. Aircraft are often used to direct net boats to the migrating schools,
often resulting in the trapping of large schools. The species is pursued commercially throughout
its range and is targeted because it is often found in shallow coastal waters. Their habit of
migrating in large schools along shorelines makes it extremely vulnerable to organized drift
gillnet fisheries.
Essential Fish Habitat for Blacktip Shark
•

Neonate (# 69 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters to the 25 m isobath, from
Bull=s Bay, SC at 33.5°N, south to Cape Canaveral, FL at 28.5°N; also, on the west
coast of Florida from Thousand Islands at 26°N to Cedar Key, FL at 29°N,
especially Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor, FL. Additionally, shallow coastal

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-27

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

waters with muddy bottoms less than five meters deep on the seaward side of coastal
islands from Apalachee Bay to St. Andrews Bay, FL.
EFH areas are identified above with the following modifications from Amendment
1. EFH includes shallow coastal waters south of the Thousand Islands, FL at 26°N
south to Key West, FL at 24.5°N; also the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (Apalachee
Bay, Apalachicola Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Crooked Island Sound and St Andrew Bay)
at 85°W to the mouth of St. Louis Bay and the Terrebonne Timbalier Bay System,
LA at 91.2°W; also, all major bay systems along the Gulf coast of Texas from
Sabine Lake to Lower Laguna Madre (Figure B.52).
Juvenile (69 to 155 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters from the shoreline to
the 25 m isobath: from Cape Hatteras, NC at 35.25°N to 29°N at Ponce de Leon
Inlet; the west coast of Florida, including the Florida Keys and Florida Bay, north to
Cedar Key at 29°N; from Cape San Blas, FL north of 29.5°N to the east coast of the
Mississippi River delta north of 29°N; also, the west coast of Texas from Galveston,
west of 94.5°N, to the U.S./Mexico border. Areas from the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico (Apalachee Bay, Apalachicola Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Crooked Island Sound
and St Andrew Bay) to the mouth of St. Louis Bay and the Terrebonne Timbalier
Bay System, LA; also, all major bay systems along the Gulf coast of Texas from
Sabine Lake to Lower Laguna Madre (Figure B.53).
•

Adult ($ 155 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters of the Outer Banks, NC
from the shoreline to the 200 m isobath between 36°N and 34.5°N; shallow coastal
waters offshore to the 50 m isobath from St. Augustine, FL (30°N) to offshore Cape
Canaveral, FL (28.5°N); on the west coast of Florida, shallow coastal waters to the
50 m isobath from 81°W in Florida Bay, to 85°W, east of Cape San Blas, FL.
Areas north of St. Augustine, FL at 30°N to Cumberland Island, GA at 30.9°N, but
excludes areas south from Apalachicola Bay to Tarpon Springs at 28.2°N (Figure
B.54).

Bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) The bull shark is a large, shallow water shark that is
cosmopolitan in warm seas and estuaries (Castro, 1983). It often enters fresh water, and may
penetrate hundreds of kilometers upstream.
Reproductive potential: Males mature at 210 to 220 cm TL or 14 to 15 years of age,
while females mature at >225 cm TL or 18+ years of age (Branstetter and Stiles, 1987). Growth
parameters have been estimated by Branstetter and Stiles (1987) as L4 = 285 cm TL, K= 0.076, to
= -3.0 yr. Thorson and Lacy (1982) estimated that females reached Atheir larger size at
approximately 16 years and that males of maximum size were 12 years old.” The pups measure
about 75 cm TL at birth (Clark and von Schmidt, 1965). Jensen (1976) stated that litters ranged
from one to ten pups and that the average size was 5.5 pups. The gestation period is estimated at
ten to eleven months (Clark and von Schmidt, 1965). The length of the reproductive cycle has
not been published, but it is probably biennial. In the United States the nursery areas are in lowsalinity estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico Coast (Castro, 1983) and the coastal lagoons of the east
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-28

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

coast of Florida (Snelson et al., 1984). Hueter (CSR data), working off the Florida west coast,
found neonates in Yankeetown, Tampa Bay, and Charlotte Harbor from May to August. The
neonates were in temperatures of 28.2° to 32.2°C, with salinities of 18.5-28.5 ppt. Hueter (CSR
data) found juveniles off the west coast of Florida in temperatures of 21.0° to 34.0°C, salinities
of 3.0 to 28.3 ppt, and DO of 3.7 to 8.4 ml/l.
Additional information on bull shark life history and nursery habitat can be found in
Tremain et al. (2004), Neer et al. (2005), and Simpfendorfer et al. (2005).
Impact of fisheries: The bull shark is a common coastal species that is fished in both
artisanal and industrial/modern fisheries. Clark and von Schmidt (1965) found it to be the most
common shark caught in their survey of the sharks of the central Gulf coast of Florida,
accounting for 18 percent of the shark catch. Dodrill (1977) reported it to be the seventh most
commonly taken shark at Melbourne Beach, Florida, composing 8.6 percent of all longline
landings. Thorson (1976) recorded a marked decline of the Lake Nicaragua-Rio, San Juan
population from 1963 to1974, resulting from a small-scale, but sustained commercial fishing
operation. This fishery intensified in 1968, and by 1972 bull sharks in the area had become so
scarce that Thorson (1976) predicted that any other developments would eliminate the bull shark
from Lake Nicaragua. Russell (1993) indicated that the bull shark constituted three percent of
the shark catch in the directed shark fishery in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Castillo (1992) referred
to the species in Mexico as Aintensely exploited in both coasts.” The bull shark is vulnerable to
overfishing because of its slow growth, limited reproductive potential, and because it is pursued
in numerous fisheries.
Essential Fish Habitat for Bull Shark:
•

Neonate (#83 cm TL): In shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries in waters less
than 25 m deep: from just north of Cape Canaveral, FL at 29°N to just south of Cape
Canaveral, FL at 28°N; from just south of Charlotte Harbor, FL at 26.5°N north to
Cedar Key, FL at 29°N; the mouth of Mobile Bay, AL from 87.75°W to 88.25°W;
the mouth of Galveston Bay, TX from 94.5°W to 95°W; from South Padre Island,
TX south of 28.5°N to Laguna Madre, TX at 27°N (Figure B.55).

•

Juveniles (84 to 225 cm TL): In shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries in
waters less than 25 m deep: from Savannah Beach, GA at 32°N southward to the
Dry Tortugas, FL; from Ten Thousand Islands, FL at 26°N north to northern Cedar
Key, FL at 29°N; from Apalachiacola, FL at 85°W to the Mobile Bay, AL area at
88.5°W; from just east of Galveston Bay, TX at 94.5°W to the U.S./Mexico border
(Figure B.56).

•

Adults ($226 cm TL): In shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries in waters less
than 25 m deep: from just south of Charlotte Harbor, FL at 26.5°N to Anclote Key,
FL at 28°N (Figure B.57).

Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezi) The Caribbean reef shark inhabits the
southeast coast of Florida, the Caribbean, and the west Atlantic south to Brazil. This is a poorly
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-29

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

known, bottom-dwelling species that inhabits shallow coastal waters, usually around coral reefs
(Castro, 1983).
Reproductive potential: Males mature about 170 cm TL and females at about 200 cm
TL. Pups are born at about 70 cm TL, litters consisting of four to six pups. The reproductive
cycle is biennial (Castro, unpub.). The nurseries have not been described.
Essential Fish Habitat for Caribbean Reef Shark:
•

Neonate (#66 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.58).

•

Juveniles (67 to 199 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters of the Florida Keys less than
25 m deep from Key Largo to the Dry Tortugas (Figure B.59).

•

Adults ($200 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.60).

Dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus). The dusky shark is common in warm and
temperate continental waters throughout the world. It is a migratory species which moves northsouth with the seasons. This is one of the larger species found from inshore waters to the outer
reaches of continental shelves. It used to be important as a commercial species and a game fish,
but is currently prohibited.
Reproductive potential: Males mature at 290 cm total length and reach at least 340 cm
total length. The females mature at about 300 cm total length and reach up to 365 cm total
length. The dusky shark matures at about 17 years and is considered a slow growing species
(Natanson, 1990). Litters consist of six to14 pups, which measure 85 to 90 cm total length at
birth (Castro, 1983). The gestation period is believed to be about 16 months (Clark and von
Schmidt, 1965), but this has not been confirmed. Natanson (1990) gave the following
parameters for males Lmax= 351 cm FL (420 cm total length), K= .047, to = !5.83; and females at
Lmax= 316 cm total length (378 cm total length), K= .061, to=-4.83. The growth rate is believed
to be about ten cm/yr for the young and five cm/yr for the adults. Age and growth information
can also be found in Natanson et al. (1995).
The nursery areas are in coastal waters. Castro (1993c) reported that dusky sharks gave birth in
Bulls Bay, SC in April and May. Musick and Colvocoresses (1986) stated that the species gives
birth in the Chesapeake Bay, MD in June and July, however, Grubbs and Musick (2002) note
that they use nearshore waters in VA as nursery areas but rarely enter estuaries.
Impact of fisheries: The dusky shark has played an important role in the coastal shark
fisheries for flesh and fins and is taken as bycatch in the swordfish and tuna fisheries. The dusky
shark is one of the slowest growing requiem sharks and is often caught on both bottom and
pelagic longlines, making it highly vulnerable to overfishing. Dusky sharks are currently
prohibited and are a candidate for listing under the ESA.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-30

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Essential Fish Habitat for Dusky Shark:
•

Neonate (# 110 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries to
the 25 m isobath from the eastern end of Long Island, NY at 72°W south to Cape
Lookout, NC at 34.5°N; from Cape Lookout south to West Palm Beach, FL
(27.5°N), shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries and offshore areas to the 90 m
isobath. Areas out to the 200 m isobath off the states of Maryland south to North
Carolina, and out to the 70 m isobath off New Jersey north to Long Island, NY
(Figure B.61).

•

Juvenile (110 to 299 cm total length): Areas off the coast of southern New
England from 70°W west and south, coastal and pelagic waters between the 25 and
200 m isobaths; shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries to the 200 m isobath
from Assateague Island at the Virginia/Maryland border (38°N) to Jacksonville, FL
at 30°N; shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries to the 500 m isobath
continuing south to the Dry Tortugas, FL at 83° W (Figure B.62).
Adult ($ 299 cm total length): Pelagic waters offshore the Virginia/North Carolina
border at 36.5°N south to Ft. Lauderdale, FL at 28°N between the 25 and 200 m
isobaths, includes coastal waters offshore from the Virginia/North Carolina border at
36.5°N south to Cape Romain, NC out to the 25 m isobath; also, coastal waters
offshore from the Georgia/Florida border at 30.8°N to Cape Canaveral at 28.5°N
(Figure B.63).

Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis) The Galapagos shark is circumtropical in
the open ocean and around oceanic islands (Castro, 1983). It is very similar to the dusky shark
and is often mistaken for it, although the dusky prefers continental shores (Castro, 1983). The
Galapagos shark is very seldom seen in the continental United States. A few Galapagos sharks
are undoubtedly caught off the east coast every year, but they can be easily misidentified as
dusky sharks.
Reproductive potential: Males reach maturity between 205 and 239 cm TL and females
between 215 and 245 cm TL (Wetherbee et al., 1996). Pups are born at slightly over 80 cm TL,
and litters range from four to16 pups, the average being 8.7. The gestation cycle is estimated to
last about a year (Wetherbee et al., 1996), but the length of the reproductive cycle is not known.
Essential Fish Habitat for Galapagos Shark:
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults ($215 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-31

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) The lemon shark is common in the American
tropics, inhabiting shallow coastal areas, especially around coral reefs. It is reported to use
coastal mangroves as some of its nursery habitats, although this is not well documented in the
literature. The primary population in continental U.S. waters is found off south Florida, although
adults stray north to the Carolinas and Virginia in the summer. Additional life history
information can be found in Sundstrom et al. (2001) and Barker et al. (2005).
Reproductive potential: Lemon sharks mature at about 228 cm TL (Springer, 1950b).
Brown and Gruber (1988) estimated an age at maturity of 11.6 years for males and 12.7 years for
females, showing the species to be slow growing and long lived. Brown and Gruber reported the
von Bertalanffy parameters as: L4 =317.65, K= .057, and to= -2.302. Litters consist of five to 17
pups, which measure about 64 cm TL at birth (Springer, 1950b; Clark and von Schmidt, 1965).
Its reproductive cycle is biennial (Castro, 1993c), and gestation lasts ten (Springer, 1950b) to12
months (Clark and von Schmidt, 1965). Its nurseries are in shallow waters around mangrove
islands (Springer 1950b) off tropical Florida and the Bahamas. Hueter (CSR data) found lemon
shark neonates in Tampa Bay, FL during the month of May, at temperatures of 22.0° to 25.4°C,
salinities of 26.8 to 32.6 ppt, and DO of 5.9 to 9.6 ml/l. He also found juveniles over a wider
area off western Florida and in a wider range of temperatures and salinities.
Impact of fisheries: The lemon shark is caught throughout its range, although it is not a
primary commercially important species along the Atlantic coast. Anecdotal evidence indicates
that lemon sharks are vulnerable to local depletions.
Essential Fish Habitat for Lemon Shark:
•

Neonate (#68cm TL): Shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries out to the 25 m
isobath from Savannah, GA at 32°N, south to Indian River Inlet, FL at 29°N;
shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries from Miami around peninsular Florida
to Cape Sable at 25.25°N including the Keys in waters less than 25 m deep; waters
of Tampa Bay, FL including waters immediately offshore the mouth of the bay;
shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries from South Padre Island, TX at 95.5°N
south to the U.S./Mexico border in waters less than 25 m deep (Figure B.64).

•

Juveniles (69 to 235 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries offshore
to the 25 m isobath, west of 79.75°W from Bull=s Bay, SC to south of Cape
Canaveral (West Palm Beach), FL at 28°N; Shallow coastal waters, inlets and
estuaries offshore to the 25 m isobath from Miami at 25.5°N, around peninsular
Florida to Tampa Bay, FL (including the Keys) to 28°N; shallow coastal waters,
inlets and estuaries offshore to the 25 m isobath off the south coast of Puerto Rico
from 66°W to 67°W (Figure B.65).

•

Adults ($236 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries offshore to the
25 m isobath from Cumberland Island, GA at 31°N to St. Augustine, FL at 31°N;
from West Palm Beach, FL at 27°N around peninsular Florida to 28.5° N near
Anclote Key in shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries and offshore to the 25 m
isobath (Figure B.66).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-32

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Narrowtooth shark (Carcharhinus brachyurus) This is a coastal-pelagic species of
widespread distribution in warm temperate waters throughout the world. In general, it is a
temperate shark, absent or rare in tropical waters (Bass et al., 1973). Although the species has
been reported for the California coast by Kato et al., (1967) as C. remotus, and for the
southwest Atlantic, few data exist for the western north Atlantic.
Reproductive potential: Males mature between 200 and 220 cm TL, and females
mature below 247 cm TL. The young are born at about 60 to 70 cm TL. Six pregnant females
averaged 16 embryos, with a range of 13 to 20 pups per litter (Bass et al., 1973). Walter and
Ebert (1991) calculated age at sexual maturity at 13 to 19 years for males and 19 to 20 years for
females. Gestation is believed to last a year (Cliff and Dudley, 1992). The length of the
reproductive cycle is not known, but it is probably biennial as it is for most large carcharhinid
sharks.
Impact of fisheries: Because it appears to be a very slow growing carcharhinid (based
on the unvalidated ages by Walter and Ebert (1991)), the narrowtooth shark is probably
vulnerable to overfishing.
Essential Fish Habitat for Narrowtooth Shark:
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

Night shark (Carcharhinus signatus) This carcharhinid shark inhabits the waters of the
western north Atlantic from Delaware to Brazil and the west coast of Africa. It is a tropical
species that seldom strays northward. It is usually found at depths greater than 275 to 366 m
during the day and about 183 m at night (Castro, 1983).
Reproductive potential: There is little information on night shark reproductive
processes. Litters usually consist of 12 to 18 pups which measure 68 to 72 cm TL at birth
(Castro, 1983). Length at maturity has been reported for females as 150 cm FL (178 cm TL)
(Compagno, 1984). The nurseries remain undescribed. Hazin et al. (2000) and Santana and
Lessa (2004) provide additional information on reproduction and age and growth, respectively.
Impact of fisheries: The night shark was abundant along the southeast coast of the
United States and the northwest coast of Cuba before the development of the swordfish fishery
of the 1970s. Martinez (1947) stated that the Cuban shark fishery relied heavily on the night
shark, which constituted 60 to 75 percent of the total shark catch, and that the average annual
catch for 1937 to1941 was 12,000 sharks. Guitart Manday (1975) documented a precipitous
decline in night shark catches off the Cuban northwest coast during the years 1971 to 1973.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-33

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Berkeley and Campos (1988) stated that this species represented 26.1 percent of all sharks
caught in swordfish fisheries studied by them along the east coast of Florida from 1981 to 1983.
Anecdotal evidence from commercial swordfish fishermen also indicates that in the late 1970s it
was not unusual to have 50 to 80 dead night sharks, usually large gravid females, in every set
from Florida to the Carolinas. During the 1970s sports fishermen in south Florida often resorted
to catching night sharks when other more desirable species (marlins) were not biting. The
photographic record of sport fishing trophies landed shows that large night sharks were caught
daily and landed at the Miami docks in the 1970s. Today, the species is rare along the southeast
coast of the United States. The decline of the night shark may be an example of how a species
can decline due to bycatch mortality.
Essential Fish Habitat for Night Shark:
•

Neonate (#70 cm TL): At this time, the information available is insufficient to
identify EFH for this life stage (Figure B.67).

•

Juveniles (71 to 177 cm TL): From offshore Assateague Island, MD at 38°N south
to offshore Cape Fear at 33.5°N, from the 100 to 2,000 m isobath (Figure B.68).

•

Adults ($178 cm TL): In the South Atlantic Bight, from the 100 m isobath to
either the 2,000 m isobath, 100 miles from shore, or the EEZ boundary, whichever is
nearest, from 36°N offshore Oregon Inlet, NC to 25.5°N, off the coast of Miami, FL
(Figure B.69).

Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) The sandbar shark is cosmopolitan in
subtropical and warm temperate waters. It is a common species found in many coastal habitats.
It is a bottom-dwelling species most common in 20 to 55 m of water, but occasionally found at
depths of about 200 m.
Reproductive potential: The sandbar shark is a slow growing species. Both sexes reach
maturity at about 147 cm total length or approximately 5 feet (Merson, 1998). Estimates of age
at maturity range from 15 to 16 years (Sminkey and Musick, 1995) to 29 to 30 years (Casey and
Natanson, 1992), although 15 to 16 years is the commonly accepted age of maturity. The von
Bertalanffy growth parameters were proposed for combined sexes are L4= 186 cm FL (224 cm
total length; 168 cm PCL), K= 0.046, to= -6.45 by Casey and Natanson (1992); and re-evaluated
by Sminkey and Musick (1995) as L4= 164 cm PCL (219 cm total length; 182 cm Fl), K= 0.089,
and to= -3.8. Young are born at about 60 cm total length (smaller in the northern parts of the
North American range) from March to July. Litters consist of one to 14 pups, with nine being
the average (Springer, 1960). The gestation period lasts about a year and reproduction is
biennial (Musick et al., 1993). Hoff (1990) used an age at maturity of 15 years, a life span of 35
years, and a two-year reproductive cycle to calculate that each female may reproduce only ten
times. New maturity estimates and the increased mortality in the fishery may reduce that
reproductive potential much further.
In the United States the sandbar shark has its nurseries in shallow coastal waters from
Cape Canaveral, FL (Springer, 1960), to Great Bay, NJ (Merson and Pratt, 2002). Delaware
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-34

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Bay, DE (McCandless et al., 2002), Chesapeake Bay, MD (Grubbs and Musick, 2002), and the
waters off Cape Hatteras, NC (Jensen et al., 2002) are important primary and secondary
nurseries. Juveniles return to Delaware Bay after a winter absence around May 15, and are
found as far north as Martha=s Vineyard, MA in the summer. Neonates have been captured in
Delaware Bay in late June. Young of the year were present in Delaware Bay until early October
when the temperature fell below 21°C. Another nursery may exist along the west coast of
Florida and along the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Hueter and Tyminski (2002) found neonates off
Yankeetown, FL from April to July, in temperatures of 25.0° to 29.0°C and salinities of 20.4 to
25.9 ppt. Neonate sandbar sharks were found in an area between Indian Pass and St. Andrew
Sound, FL in June when the temperature had reached 25°C (Carlson 2002).
Impact of fisheries: The sandbar shark is one of the most important commercial species
in the shark fishery of the southeastern United States, along with blacktip sharks. It is a
preferred species because of the high quality of its flesh and large fins. Commercial longline
fishermen pursue sandbar stocks in their north-south migrations along the coast; their catches can
be as much as 80 to 90 percent sandbar sharks in some areas. Musick et al. (1993) have
documented a severe decline in CPUE of the sandbar shark in the Chesapeake Bay area. It is
considered highly vulnerable to overfishing because of its slow maturation and heavy fishing
pressure, as evidenced in the catch per unit effort (CPUE) declines in U.S. fisheries.
Essential Fish Habitat for Sandbar Shark:
• Neonate (# 71 cm total length): Shallow coastal areas to the 25 m isobath from
Montauk, NY at 72°W, south to Cape Canaveral, FL at 80.5°W (all year); nursery
areas in shallow coastal waters from Great Bay, NJ to Cape Canaveral, FL, especially
Delaware and Chesapeake Bays (seasonal-summer); also shallow coastal waters to up
to a depth of 50 m on the west coast of Florida and the Florida Keys from Key Largo
at 80.5°W north to south of Cape San Blas, FL at 85.25°W. Typical parameters:
salinity-greater than 22 ppt; temperatures-greater than 21°C. Also on the west coast
of Florida from the 50 m isobath to the 30 m isobath and approximately 20 miles
offshore from the Virginia/Maryland border at 37.8°N south to Pamlico Sound, NC at
35.4°N (Figure B.70).
• Juvenile (71 to 147 cm total length): Areas offshore southern New England and
Long Island, NY, all waters, coastal and pelagic, north of 40°N and west of 70°W;
also, south of 40°N at Barnegat Inlet, NJ, to Cape Canaveral, FL (27.5° N), shallow
coastal areas to the 25 m isobath; also, in the winter, from 39°N to 36°N, in the MidAtlantic Bight, at the shelf break, benthic areas between the 90 and 200 m isobaths;
also, on the west coast of Florida, from shallow coastal waters to the 50 m isobath,
from Florida Bay and the Keys at Key Largo north to Cape San Blas, FL at 85.5°W.
Includes Cape Poge Bay, MA around Chappaquiddick Island, MA, and off the south
shore of Cape Cod, MA (Figure B.71).
• Adult ($ 147 cm total length): Areas on the east coast of the U.S., shallow coastal
areas from the coast to the 50 m isobath from Nantucket, MA, south to Miami, FL;
also, shallow coastal areas from the coast to the 90 m isobath around peninsular
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-35

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Florida to the Florida panhandle at 85.5°W, near Cape San Blas, FL, including the
Keys and saline portions of Florida Bay (Figure B.72).
• Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC): Important nursery and pupping
grounds have been identified in shallow areas and at the mouth of Great Bay, NJ, in
lower and middle Delaware Bay, DE, lower Chesapeake Bay, MD, and near the Outer
Banks, NC, and in areas of Pamlico Sound and adjacent to Hatteras and Ocracoke
Islands, NC, and offshore of those islands (Figure B.73).
Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) The silky shark inhabits warm, tropical, and
subtropical waters throughout the world. Primarily, the silky is an offshore, epipelagic shark, but
juveniles venture inshore during the summer. The silky shark is one of the most abundant large
sharks in the world.
Reproductive potential: Data on the silky shark are variable. There is a strong
possibility that different populations may vary in their reproductive potential. Litters range from
six to 14 pups, which measure 75 to 80 cm TL at birth (Castro, 1983). According to Bonfil et al.
(1993), the silky shark in the Campeche Bank, Mexico, has a 12-month gestation period, giving
birth to ten to 14 pups, with an average of 76 cm TL during late spring and early summer,
possibly every two years. Males mature at 225 cm TL (about ten years) and females at 232-245
cm TL (>12 yrs of age). The von Bertanffy parameters estimated by Bonfil et al. (1993) are: L4
= 311 cm TL, K= 0.101, and to= -2.718 yr. Maximum ages were 20+ years for males and 22+
years for females (Bonfil et al., 1993). Springer (1967) describes reefs on the outer continental
shelf as nursery areas. Bonfil et al, (1993) mentions the Campeche Bank as a prime nursery area
in the Atlantic.
Impact of Fisheries: The silky shark is caught frequently in swordfish and tuna
fisheries. Berkeley and Campos (1988) found it to constitute 27.2 percent of all sharks caught in
swordfish vessels off the east coast of Florida from 1981 to1983. Bonfil et al, (1993) considered
that the life-history characteristics of slow growth, late maturation, and limited offspring may
make it vulnerable to overfishing. In all probability, local stocks of this species cannot support
sustained heavy fishing pressure.
Essential Fish Habitat for Silky Shark:
•

Neonate (#85 cm TL): Waters off Cape Hatteras, NC between the 100 and 2,000
m isobaths; plus shallow coastal waters just north and immediately west of Cape
Hatteras; waters off St. Augustine, FL south to off Miami in depths 25 to 1,000 m,
(likely along the west edge of the Gulf Stream); off northwest FL- De Soto Canyon
area between the 200 and 2,000 m isobaths (Figure B.74).

•

Juveniles (86 to 231 cm TL): Waters off the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, MD
south to waters offshore west of the North Carolina/South Carolina border from the
50 to 2,000 m isobath; from the North Carolina/South Carolina border south to Key
West paralleling the 200 m isobath; the area northwest of Key West to west of Ten
Thousand Islands between the 50 and 2,000 m isobaths (Figure B.75).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-36

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults ($232 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient for the
identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.76).

Spinner shark (Carcharhinus brevipinna) The spinner shark is a common, coastalpelagic, warm-temperate and tropical shark of the continental and insular shelves (Compagno,
1984). It is often seen in schools, leaping out of the water while spinning. It is a migratory
species, but its patterns are poorly known. Off eastern North America it ranges from Virginia to
Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Reproductive potential: Males mature at 130 cm TL or four to five years, females
mature at 150 to 155 cm TL or seven to eight years (Branstetter, 1987). According to Branstetter
(1987), males reach maximum size at ten to 15 years and females at 15 to 20 years. However, he
added the caveat that as sharks near their maximum size, their growth is slower, therefore, their
maximum ages may be much greater. Branstetter (1987) gave von Bertalanffy parameters for
both sexes were: L4 = 214 cm, K= 0.212, to = -1.94 yr. The ages have not been validated.
According to Garrick (1982), the species reaches 278 cm TL. The young are born at 60 to 75 cm
TL in late May and early June. The litters usually consist of six to 12 pups (Castro, 1983). It has
a biennial reproductive cycle (Castro, 1993c). In the Carolinas the nursery areas are in shallow
coastal waters (Castro, 1993c); however, the extent of the nursery areas is unknown. Hueter
(CSR data) found juveniles along the west coast of Florida in temperatures of 21.9° to 30.1° C,
salinities of 21.0 to 36.2 ppt, and DO 3.5 to 5.0 ml/l. Additional life history information on the
spinner shark can be found in Allen and Wintner (2002), Capape et al. (2003), Bethea et al.
(2004), Carlson and Baremore (2005), and Joung et al. (2005).
Impact of fisheries: Unknown. The spinner shark is similar in reproductive potential
and habits to the blacktip shark, and its vulnerability to fisheries is probably very similar to that
of the blacktip. In fact, the blacktip-spinner complex is a commonly used category that
combines the landings of these two species because of species similarities and difficulties in
distinguishing the two species.
Essential Fish Habitat for Spinner Shark:
•

Neonate (#71 cm TL): Along the coast of the southeastern United States and the
west coast of Florida, shallow coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath, from Cape
Hatteras, NC at 35.25° N around Florida including Florida Bay and the Florida
Keys, and north to 29.25° N. Additionally, as displayed in Figure 6-25e: shallow
coastal waters with muddy bottoms less than five meters deep, on the seaward side
of coastal islands, and in shallow bays along seagrass beds from Apalachee Bay to
St. Andrews Bay, FL (Figure B.77).

•

Juveniles (72 to 184 cm TL): Off the east coast from the Florida/Georgia border at
30.7° N south to 28.5° N, from shallow coastal waters to the 200 m isobath (Figure
B.78).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-37

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults ($185 cm TL): Off the east coast of Florida, from shallow coastal waters
out to the 100 m isobath, from 30° N to 28.5° N offshore Cape Kennedy (Figure
B.79).

Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri). The tiger shark inhabits warm waters in both deep
oceanic and shallow coastal regions (Castro, 1983). It is one of the larger species of sharks,
reaching over 550 cm TL and over 900 kg. Its characteristic tiger-like markings and unique teeth
make it one of the easiest sharks to identify. It is one of the most dangerous sharks and is
believed to be responsible for many attacks on humans (Castro, 1983).
Reproductive potential: Tiger sharks mature at about 290 cm TL (Castro, 1983;
Simpfendorfer, 1992). The pups measure 68 to 85 cm TL at birth. Litters are large, usually
consisting of 35 to 55 pups (Castro, 1983). According to Branstetter et al. (1987), males mature
in seven years and females in ten years, and the oldest males and females were 15 and 16 years
of age. The ages have not been validated. Branstetter et al, (1987) gave the growth parameters
for an Atlantic sample as L4 = 440 cm TL, K= 0.107, and to= -1.13 years, and for a Gulf of
Mexico sample as L4 = 388 cm TL, K= 0.184, and to= -0.184. There is little data on the length
of the reproductive cycle. Simpfendorfer (1992) stated that the females do not produce a litter
each year. The length of the gestation period is also uncertain. Clark and von Schmidt (1965)
stated that the gestation period may be slightly over a year. While this estimate has not been
confirmed, it is probably correct, given that many large carcharhinid sharks have biennial
reproduction and year-long gestation periods. The nurseries for the tiger shark appear to be in
offshore areas, but they have not been described. More recent age and growth information on the
tiger shark can also be found in Natanson et al. (1999) and Wintner and Dudley (2000).
Impact of Fisheries: This species is frequently caught in coastal shark fisheries but is
usually discarded due to low fin and meat value.
Essential Fish Habitat for Tiger Shark:
•

Neonate (#90cm TL): From shallow coastal areas to the 200 m isobath from Cape
Canaveral, FL north to offshore Montauk, Long Island, NY (south of Rhode Island);
and from offshore southwest of Cedar Key, FL north to the Florida/Alabama border
from shallow coastal areas to the 50 m isobath (Figure B.80).

•

Juveniles (91 to 296 cm TL): Shallow coastal areas from Mississippi Sound (just
west of Mississippi/Alabama border) to the 100 m isobath south to the Florida Keys;
around the peninsula of Florida to the 100 m isobath to the Florida/Georgia border;
north to Cape Lookout, NC from the 25 to100 m isobath; from Cape Lookout north
to just south of the Chesapeake Bay, MD from inshore to the 100 m isobath; north of
the mouth of Chesapeake Bay to offshore Montauk, Long Island, NY (to south of
Rhode Island between the 25 and 100 m isobaths; south and southwest coasts of
Puerto Rico from inshore to the 2,000 m isobath (Figure B.81).

•

Adults ($297 cm TL): Offshore from Chesapeake Bay, MD south to Ft.
Lauderdale, FL to the western edge of the Gulf Stream; from Cape San Blas, FL to

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-38

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Mississippi Sound between the 25 and 200 m isobaths; off the south and southwest
coasts of Puerto Rico from inshore to the 2,000 m isobath (Figure B.82).
B.1.4.6 Sand Tiger Sharks
Bigeye sand tiger (Odontaspis noronhai) This is one of the rarest large sharks. Its large
eyes and uniform dark coloration indicate that it is a deep-water species. The few catch records
that exist indicate that it frequents the upper layers of the water column at night. The species
was originally described based on a specimen from Madeira, FL (?). A few specimens were
caught at depths of 600-1,000 m off Brazil (Compagno, 1984). A 321 cm TL immature female
was caught in the Gulf of Mexico, about 70 miles east of Port Isabel, TX in 1984. Another
specimen was caught in the tropical Atlantic (5° N; 35° W) at a depth of about 100 m where the
water was about 3,600 m deep. These appear to be all the records for the species. Nothing is
known of its habits. Possession of this species is prohibited in Atlantic waters of the United
States.
Essential Fish Habitat for Bigeye Sand Tiger Shark:
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

Sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) The sand tiger is a large, coastal species found in
tropical and warm temperate waters throughout the world. It is often found in very shallow
water (4 m) (Castro, 1983). It is the most popular large shark in aquaria, because, unlike most
sharks, it survives easily in captivity. It has been fished for its flesh and fins in coastal longline
fisheries; although possession of this species in Atlantic waters of the United States is now
prohibited.
Reproductive potential: According to Gilmore (1983), males mature at about 191.5 cm
TL. According to Branstetter and Musick (1994), males reach maturity at 190 to 195 cm TL or
four to five years and females at more than 220 cm TL or six years. The largest immature female
seen by J. Castro was 225 cm TL and the smallest gravid female was 229 cm TL, suggesting that
maturity is reached at 225 to 229 cm TL. The oldest fish in Branstetter and Musick=s (1994)
sample of 55 sharks was 10.5 years old, an age that has been exceeded in captivity (Govender et
al., 1991). The von Bertalanffy parameters, according to Branstetter and Musick (1994), are for
males: Lmax= 301 cm, K= 0.17, and to= -2.25; and for females: Lmax= 323 cm, K= 0.14, and to= ­
2.56 yrs. Gilmore (1983) gave growth rates of 19 to 24 cm/yr for the first years of life of two
juveniles born in captivity. The sand tiger has an extremely limited reproductive potential,
producing only two young per litter (Springer, 1948). In North America the sand tiger gives
birth in March and April to two young that measure about 100 cm TL. Parturition (birth of the
young) is believed to occur in winter in the southern portions of its range, and the neonates
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-39

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

migrate northward to summer nurseries. The nursery areas are the following Mid-Atlantic Bight
estuaries: Chesapeake, Delaware, Sandy Hook, and Narrangansett Bays as well as coastal
sounds. Branstetter and Musick (1994) suggested that the reproductive cycle is biennial, but
other evidence suggests annual parturition. Additional information on the sand tiger shark may
be found in Gelsleichter et al. (1999) and Lucifora et al. (2002).
Impact of fisheries: The species is extremely vulnerable to overfishing because it
congregates in coastal areas in large numbers during the mating season. These aggregations are
attractive to fishermen, although the effects of fishing these aggregations probably contribute to
local declines in the population abundance. Its limited fecundity (two pups per litter) probably
contributes to its vulnerability. In the United States there was a very severe population decline in
the early 1990s, with sand tigers nearly disappearing from North Carolina and Florida waters.
Musick et al., (1993) documented a decrease in the Chesapeake Bight region of the U.S. MidAtlantic coast. In 1997, NMFS prohibited possession of this species in U.S. Atlantic waters.
Essential Fish Habitat for Sand Tiger Shark:
•

Neonate (#117cm TL): Shallow coastal waters from Barnegat Inlet, NJ south to
Cape Canaveral, FL to the 25 m isobath (Figure B.83).

•

Juveniles (118 to 236 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient
for the identification of EFH for this life stage (Figure B.84).

•

Adults ($237 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters to the 25 m isobath from Barnegat
Inlet, NJ to Cape Lookout; from St. Augustine to Cape Canaveral, FL (Figure B.85).

B.1.4.7 Whale Sharks
Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) The whale shark is a sluggish, pelagic filter feeder,
often seen swimming on the surface. It is the largest fish in the oceans, reaching lengths of 1210
cm TL and perhaps longer. It is found throughout all tropical seas, usually far offshore (Castro,
1983). Possession of this species in Atlantic waters of the United States is now prohibited.
Reproductive potential: For many years the whale shark was believed to be oviparous,
based on a presumably aborted egg case trawled from the Gulf of Mexico many years ago.
Recent discoveries (Joung et al., 1996) proved the whale shark to be viviparous and the most
prolific of all sharks. The only gravid female examined carried 300 young in several stages of
development. The embryos measured 580 to 640 mm TL, the largest appearing ready for birth.
The length of the reproductive cycle is unknown, but is probably biennial such as the closely
related nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and most other large sharks (Castro, 1996).
Based on unpublished information on the growth rate of one surviving embryo from a female
reported by Joung et al., (1996), the whale shark may be the fastest growing shark. Only a
handful of small juveniles have ever been caught, probably because of the extremely fast growth
rate or high mortality rate of juveniles. The location of the whale shark nurseries is unknown
and remains as one of the interesting mysteries of shark biology. Additional life history
information can be found in Chang et al. (1997), Colman (1997), and Wintner (2000).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-40

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Impact of fisheries: There are very few observations of aggregations of whale sharks.
The range of the whale shark may be extremely vast, perhaps encompassing entire ocean basins.
Thus it may be necessary to consider whale shark fisheries on an ocean-wide perspective. There
have been a few small fisheries for whale sharks in India, the Philippines, and Taiwan, but it is of
little commercial importance elsewhere. The whale shark used to be fished for its flesh, but
presently the fins and oil are also used. Generally, the size of the whale shark safeguards it from
most fisheries. Records of the Taiwanese fishery demonstrate that whale sharks, like most
elasmobranchs, are susceptible to overfishing. In 1997, NMFS prohibited possession of this
species in U.S. Atlantic waters.
Essential Fish Habitat for Whale Shark:
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

B.1.4.8Small Coastal Shark
Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumerili) The angel shark is a flattened shark that
resembles a ray. It inhabits coastal waters of the United States from Massachusetts to the Florida
Keys, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. It is common from southern New England to the
Maryland coast (Castro, 1983).
Reproductive potential: Maturity is probably reached at a length of 90 to 105 cm TL.
The pups measure 28 to 30 cm TL at birth. Up to 16 pups in one litter have been observed
(Castro, 1983). Very little is known about its biology.
Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Angel Shark:
•

Neonate (#31 cm TL): Off the coast of southern New Jersey, Delaware, and
Maryland from 39° N to 38° N, in shallow coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath,
including the mouth of Delaware Bay (Figure B.86).

•

Juveniles (32 to 113 cm TL): (Identical to neonate EFH) Off the coast of southern
New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland from 39° N to 38° N, in shallow coastal
waters out to 25 m isobath, including the mouth of Delaware Bay (Figure B.87).

•

Adults ($113 cm TL): (Identical to neonate EFH) Off the coast of southern New
Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland from 39° N to 38° N, in shallow coastal waters out
to the 25 m isobath, including the mouth of Delaware Bay (Figure B.88).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-41

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

B.1.4.9 Hammerhead Sharks
Bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo) The bonnethead is a small hammerhead that inhabits
shallow coastal waters where it frequents sandy or muddy bottoms. It is confined to the warm
waters of the western hemisphere (Castro, 1983).
Reproductive potential: Males mature at about 70 cm TL, and females at about 85 cm
TL (Parsons, 1993). Litters consist of eight to12 pups, with the young measuring 27 to 35 cm
TL at birth (Castro, 1983; Parsons, 1993). Parsons (1993) estimated the gestation period of two
Florida populations at 4.5 to 5 months, one of the shortest gestation periods known for sharks.
The reproductive cycle is annual (Castro, pers. obs.). Hueter (CSR data) found young of the year
and juveniles in the west coast of Florida at temperatures of 16.1° to 31.5° C, salinities of 16.5 to
36.1 ppt, and DO of 2.9 to 9.4 ml/l. Additional life history information can be found in Cortes et
al. (1996), Cortes and Parsons (1996), Cortes et al. (1996), Carlson and Parsons (1997), Lessa
and Almeida (1998), Marquez-Farias et al. (1998), Carlson et al. (1999), and Lombardi-Carlson
et al. (2003).
Impact of fisheries: The bonnethead is at a lesser risk of overfishing because it is a fast
growing species that reproduces annually and, due to its small size, is generally not targeted by
commercial fisheries. Although bonnetheads are caught as bycatch in gillnet fisheries operating
in shallow waters of the southeastern United States, many of these fisheries have been prohibited
by various states and therefore forced into deeper Federal waters where gillnets are less effective.
Bonnethead bycatch in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery seems to have remained stable
over the last twenty years, from 1974 to 1994 (Pellegrin, 1996).
Essential Fish Habitat for Bonnethead Shark:
•

Neonate (#38 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries less than 25 m
deep from Jekyll Island, GA to just north of Cape Canaveral, FL; in shallow waters
on the Gulf-side of the Florida Keys as far north as Cape Sable in water less than 25
m deep. Additionally, as displayed on Figure 6-31e: shallow coastal bays and
estuaries less than five meters deep, from Apalachee Bay to St. Andrews Bay, FL
(Figure B.89).

•

Juveniles (39 to 82 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries from Cape
Fear, NC southward to West Palm Beach, FL in waters less than 25 m deep; shallow
coastal waters, inlets and estuaries from Miami around peninsular Florida as far
north as Cedar Key in waters less than 25 m deep; shallow coastal waters, inlets and
estuaries from the Mississippi River westward to the Rio Grande River
(Texas/Mexico border) (Figure B.90).

•

Adults ($83 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters, inlets and estuaries from Cape Fear,
NC to Cape Canaveral, FL; shallow waters around the Florida Keys; shallow coastal
waters from Mobile Bay, AL west to South Padre Island, TX from inshore to the 25
m isobath (Figure B.91).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-42

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

B.1.4.10

Requiem Sharks

Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) The Atlantic sharpnose shark
is a small coastal carcharhinid, inhabiting the waters of the northeast coast of North America. It
is a common year-round resident along the coasts of South Carolina, Florida, and in the Gulf of
Mexico and an abundant summer migrant off Virginia. Frequently, these sharks are found in
schools of uniform size and sex (Castro, 1983).
Reproductive potential: The male Atlantic sharpnose sharks mature at around 65 to 80
cm TL and grow to 103 cm TL. The females mature at 85 to 90 cm TL and reach a length of 110
cm TL. Litters range from four to seven pups, which measure 29 to 32 cm TL (Castro, 1983).
Mating is in late June; the gestation period is about 11 to 12 months (Castro and Wourms, 1993).
The von Bertalanffy growth parameter estimates for the species are L4 = 108, K= 0.359, and to= ­
0.985 yr (Branstetter, 1987). Cortés (1995) calculated the population=s intrinsic rate of increase
was, at best, r= .044, or a finite increase of er = 1.045. Off South Carolina the young are born in
late May and early June in shallow coastal waters (Castro and Wourms, 1993). Hueter (CSR
data) found neonates off the west coast of Florida at Yankeetown and Anclote Key during the
months of May to July. These neonates were found in temperatures of 24.0° to 30.7° C,
salinities of 22.8 to 337 ppt, and DO of 5.7 ml/l. Larger juveniles were also found in the area in
temperatures of 17.2° to 33.3° C, salinities of 22.8 to 35.5 ppt, and DO of 4.5 to 8.6 ml/l.
Additional life history information can be found in Cortes (1995), Marquez-Farias and CastilloGeniz (1998), Gelsleichter et al. (1999), Carlson and Baremore (2003), Hoffmayer and Parsons
(2003), Loefer and Sedberry (2003), and Bethea et al. (2004).
Impact of fisheries: Large numbers of sharpnose are taken as bycatch in the U.S.
shrimp trawling industry. The Texas Recreational Survey, NMFS Headboat Survey, and the
U.S. Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey have estimated a slow increase in the
sharpnose fishery. The Atlantic sharpnose is a fast-growing species that reproduces yearly. In
spite of being targeted by recreational fisheries and the large bycatch in the shrimp industry, the
populations seem to be maintaining themselves.
Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Sharpnose:
•

Neonate (#40 cm TL): Shallow coastal areas including bays and estuaries out to the
25 m isobath from Galveston Island south to the Rio Grande (Texas/Mexico border);
from Daytona Beach north to Cape Hatteras, NC. Additionally, as displayed on Fig.
32e: shallow coastal bays and estuaries less than five meters deep, from Apalachee
Bay to St. Andrews Bay, FL (Figure B.92).

•

Juveniles (41 to 78 cm TL): Shallow coastal areas including bays and estuaries out
to the 25 m isobath from Galveston Island south to the Rio Grande (Texas/Mexico
border); off Louisiana from the Atchafalya River to Mississippi River Delta out to
the 40 m isobath; from Daytona Beach, FL north to Cumberland Island, GA; Hilton
Head Island, SC north to Cape Hatteras, NC out to the 25 m isobath (slightly deeper
- to the 50 m isobath off North Carolina) (Figure B.93).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-43

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults ($79 cm TL): From Cape May, NJ south to the North Carolina/South
Carolina border; shallow coastal areas north of Cape Hatteras, NC to the 25 m
isobath; south of Cape Hatteras between the 25 and 100 m isobaths; offshore St.
Augustine, FL to Cape Canaveral, FL from inshore to the100 m isobath, Mississippi
Sound from Perdido Key to the Mississippi River Delta to the 50 m isobath; coastal
waters from Galveston to Laguna Madre, TX to the 50 m isobath (Figure B.94).

Blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus) The blacknose shark is a common coastal
species that inhabits the western north Atlantic from North Carolina to southeast Brazil (Bigelow
and Schroeder, 1948). It is very abundant in coastal waters from the Carolinas to Florida and the
Gulf of Mexico during summer and fall (Castro, 1983). Schwartz (1984) hypothesized that there
are two separate populations in the West Atlantic.
Reproductive potential: Maturity is reached at about 100 cm TL. Litters consist of
three to six pups, which measure 50 cm TL at birth (Castro, 1983). Dodrill (1977) estimated the
gestation period to be ten to eleven months and suggested that the breeding cycle was biennial.
Schwartz (1984) estimated that the largest adult male captured was 164 cm TL and was 9.6 years
old, while an adult female 154 cm TL was also 9.6 years old. Castro (1983) stated that in South
Carolina nursery areas were in shallow waters. The species is common throughout the year off
Florida, suggesting that part of the population may be non-migratory and that nursery areas may
exist in Florida as well. Hueter (CSR data) found 13 neonates in the Ten Thousand Islands and
off Sarasota in June and July at temperatures 29° to 30.1° C, salinities of 32.2 to 37.0 ppt, and
DO of 6.5 ml/l. He also found young of the year and juveniles at temperatures of 17.3° to 34° C,
salinities of 25.0 to 37.0 ppt, and DO of 4.8 to 8.5 ml/l. Additional life history information can
be found in Carlson et al. (1999), Hazin et al. (2002), and Driggers et al. (2004a; 2004b).
Impact of fisheries: Large numbers of blacknose sharks are caught in shallow coastal
waters of the southeastern United States. The species is vulnerable to overfishing because it has
typical carcharhinid characteristics such as biennial reproductive cycle, and it is targeted in the
shark fisheries in the southeastern United States.
Essential Fish Habitat for Blacknose Shark:
•

Neonate (#52 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters to the 25 m isobath from North
Carolina/South Carolina border south to Cape Canaveral, FL; shallow waters to the
25 m isobath from Ten Thousand Islands north to just south of Tampa Bay, FL
(Figure B.95).

•

Juveniles (53 to 106 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters to the 25 m isobath from the
Georgia/Florida border south to West Palm Beach, FL; shallow waters to the 25 m
isobath from the Florida Keys north to the mouth of Tampa Bay, FL. Additionally,
as displayed on Figure 6-33e: shallow coastal bays and estuaries less than five
meters deep with expanses of seagrasses, from Apalachee Bay to St. Andrews Bay,
FL (Figure B.96).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-44

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults ($107 cm TL): Shallow coastal waters to the 25 m isobath from St.
Augustine south to Cape Canaveral, FL; shallow waters to the 25 m isobath from the
Florida Keys north to Cedar Key, FL; Mississippi Sound from Mobile Bay, AL to
the waters off Terrebonne Parish, LA in waters 25 to100 m deep (Figure B.97).

Caribbean sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon porosus) The Atlantic sharpnose and the
Caribbean sharpnose sharks are cognate species, separable only by having different numbers of
precaudal vertebrae (Springer, 1964). However, they have non-overlapping ranges - the
Caribbean sharpnose shark inhabits the Atlantic from 24° N to 35° S, while the Atlantic
sharpnose is found at latitudes higher than 24° N. Their biology is very similar.
Essential Fish Habitat for Caribbean Sharpnose:
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

Finetooth shark (Carcharhinus isodon) This is a common inshore species of the west
Atlantic. It ranges from North Carolina to Brazil. It is abundant along the southeastern United
States and the Gulf of Mexico (Castro, 1983). Sharks captured in the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico ranged in size from 48 to 150 cm total length were generally found in water temperatures
averaging 27.3°C and depths of 4.2 m (Carlson, 2002). Important nursery habitat is also located
in South Carolina (Ulrich and Riley, 2002), Louisiana (Neer et al., 2002), and the coast of Texas
(Jones and Grace, 2002).
Reproductive potential: Males mature at about 130 cm total length and females mature
at about 135 cm total length. The young measure 48 to 58 cm total length at birth. Litters range
from two to six embryos, with an average of four. The gestation period lasts about a year, and
the reproductive cycle is biennial. Some of the nurseries are in shallow coastal waters of South
Carolina (Castro, 1993b). Additional life history information can be found in Carlson et al.
(2003), Hoffmayer and Parsons (2003), and Bethea et al. (2004).
Impact of fisheries: According to the SCS stock assessment, finetooth sharks are caught
commercially almost exclusively in the South Atlantic region and mostly with gillnets
(approximately 80 percent of finetooth landings) and longlines (approximately 20 percent). The
SCS stock assessment estimates 16,658 finetooth sharks were landed commercially in 2000, and
of these, only 8 percent were from HMS fisheries. The majority of the catch thus appears to
come from fishermen in non-HMS fisheries. The species is vulnerable to overfishing because of
its biennial reproductive cycle and small brood size.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-45

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Essential Fish Habitat for Finetooth Shark:
Neonate (# 65 cm total length): The 1999 HMS FMP identified EFH for neonates
(#90 cm total length) as shallow coastal waters of South Carolina, Georgia, and
Florida out to the 25 m isobath from 33° N to 30° N. Additionally, shallow coastal
waters less than five meters deep with muddy bottoms, and on the seaward side of
coastal islands from Apalachee Bay to St. Andrews Bay, FL, especially around the
mouth of the Apalachicola River. Includes coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath
from Mobile Bay, AL to Bay St. Louis, MS from 88° W to 89.5° W, and from near
Sabine Pass, TX to Laguna Madre, TX (Figure B.98).
Juvenile (65 to 135 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters of South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida out to the 25 m isobath from 33° N to 30° N. Additionally,
shallow coastal waters less than five meters deep with muddy bottoms, and on the
seaward side of coastal islands from Apalachee Bay to St. Andrews Bay, FL,
especially around the mouth of the Apalachicola River. Includes coastal waters out
to the 25 m isobath from Mobile Bay, AL to Atchafalaya Bay, LA from 88° W to
91.4° W, and from near Sabine Pass, TX at 94.2° W to Laguna Madre, TX at 26° N;
also, coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath from South Carolina north to Cape
Hatteras, NC at 35.5° N (Figure B.99).
Adult ($ 135 cm total length): Shallow coastal waters of South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida out to the 25 m isobath from 33°N to 30° N. Additionally, shallow
coastal waters less than five meters deep with muddy bottoms, and on the seaward
side of coastal islands from Apalachee Bay to St. Andrews Bay, FL, especially
around the mouth of the Apalachicola River. Includes areas identical to those for
juveniles: coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath from Mobile Bay, AL to
Atchafalaya Bay, LA from 88° W to 91.4° W, and from near Sabine Pass, TX at
94.2° W to Laguna Madre, TX at 26° N; also, coastal waters out to the 25 m isobath
from South Carolina north to Cape Hatteras, NC at 35.5° N (Figure B.100).
Smalltail shark (Carcharhinus porosus) This is a small, tropical, and subtropical shark
that inhabits shallow coastal waters and estuaries in the West Atlantic, from the Gulf of Mexico
to south Brazil, and the east Pacific from the Gulf of California to Peru (Castro, 1983). A few
specimens have been caught in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana and Texas.
Reproductive potential: There is almost no published data on its reproductive
processes. Females observed in Trinidad were in different stages of gestation, suggesting a wide
breeding season. Embryos up to 35 cm TL were observed. The reproductive cycle appears to be
annual. Additional life history information can be found in Lessa and Santana (1998) and Lessa
et al. (1999b).
Impact of fisheries: The species is marketed in many areas of Central America;
Springer (1950a) stated that large numbers were sold in the Trinidad market.
Essential Fish Habitat for Smalltail Shark (Figure B.101):
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-46

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

B.1.5 Pelagic Sharks
B.1.5.1 Cow sharks
Bigeye sixgill shark (Hexanchus vitulus) This is a poorly known deep-water shark that
was not described until 1969. Most specimens have been accidental captures at depths of 400 m
in tropical waters (Castro, 1983). In North America most catches have come from the Bahamas
and the Gulf of Mexico.
Essential Fish Habitat for Bigeye Sixgill Shark (Figure B.102):
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

Sevengill shark (Heptranchias perlo) This is a deep-water species of the continental
slopes, where it appears to be most common at depths of 180 to 450 m. It has a world-wide
distribution in deep tropical and warm temperate waters. In the United States the sevengill shark
ranges from South Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico.
Reproductive potential: Maturity is reached at about 85-90 cm TL. Litters consist of
nine to 20 pups, which measure about 25 cm TL at birth (Castro, 1983). According to Tanaka
and Mizue (1977), off Kyushu, Japan the species reproduces year round. The lengths of the
reproductive and gestation cycles are unknown. The location of the nurseries is unknown.
Impact of fisheries: The sharpnose sevengill shark is sometimes caught in large numbers
as bycatch in fisheries using bottom trawls or longlines (Compagno, 1984). In North America it
is occasionally seen in small numbers as bycatch of tilefish longlines (Castro, unpublished).
Essential Fish Habitat for Sevengill Shark (Figure B.103):
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-47

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

Sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus) One of the largest sharks, the sixgill is a common,
bottom-dwelling, species usually reported from depths of 180 to 1,100 m, in deep, tropical, and
temperate waters throughout the world (Castro, 1983). It often comes close to the surface at
night, where it may take longlines set for other species. Juveniles stray into very shallow cool
waters.
Reproductive potential: Very few mature sixgill sharks have been examined by
biologists; thus the reproductive processes are poorly known. Ebert (1986) reported a 421-cm
TL female to be gravid with term embryos. Harvey-Clark (1995) stated that males mature at 325
cm TL, without providing any evidence for this. The species has not been aged. It is probably
long-lived, as the Greenland shark, another deep-water giant shark. The pups measure 60 to 70
cm TL at birth. Litters are large - up to 108 pups have been reported (Castro, 1983). Juveniles
are often caught in coastal waters, suggesting that the nurseries are in waters much shallower
than those inhabited by the adults. Nothing else is known about its nurseries. Additional life
history information can be found in Ebert (2002) and McFarlane et al. (2002).
Impact of fisheries: Although juveniles are common in deep continental shelf waters and
often enter coastal waters, the adults are seldom taken (Springer and Waller, 1969; Ebert, 1986).
Apparently, adults are in waters deeper than those regularly fished, or perhaps these very large
animals break the gear and escape. Thus, the very deep habitat of the adults or perhaps their large
size seems to convey some measure of protection from most fisheries. According to Harvey-Clark
(1995), in 1991 the sixgill shark became the target of a directed, subsidized, longline fishery off
British Columbia, Canada. At about the same time, the species also became of interest as an
ecotourism resource, with several companies taking diving tourists out to watch sixgill sharks in
their environment. The fishery was unregulated and lasted until 1993, when the commercial
harvest of sixgill sharks was discontinued due to conservation and management concerns.
According to Harvey-Clark (1995), diver observations of sharks decreased in 1993, and it was
unclear at the time whether the fishery or the ecotourism could be sustained. It is difficult to
evaluate the vulnerability of the sixgill shark because of the lack of fisheries or landings data. The
only fishing operations on record collapsed in a few years, suggesting that the species may be very
vulnerable to overfishing.
Essential Fish Habitat for Sixgill Shark (Figure B.104):
•

Neonate: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-48

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults: At this time, available information is insufficient for the identification of
EFH for this life stage.

B.1.5.2 Mackerel Shark
Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) This is a deep dwelling lamnid shark found in
warm waters. The species was not described until 1966 and it is very poorly known.
Reproductive potential: There is very little data on the reproductive processes of the
longfin mako. Litters consist of two to eight pups, which may reach 120 cm TL at birth (Castro,
unpublished).
Impact of fisheries: The longfin mako is a seasonal bycatch of the pelagic tuna and
swordfish fisheries. Possession of this species in Atlantic waters of the United States is now
prohibited.
Essential Fish Habitat for Longfin Mako Shark:
Note: At this time, insufficient data is available to differentiate EFH by size classes,
therefore, EFH is the same for all life stages.
•

Neonate (#149 cm TL): Off the northeast U.S. coast from the 100 m isobath out to
the EEZ boundary, from south Georges Bank to 35° N; from 35° N south to 28.25°
N off Cape Canaveral, FL, from the 100 m isobath to the 500 m isobath; from
28.25° N south around peninsular Florida and west to 92.5° W in the Gulf of
Mexico, from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.105).

•

Juveniles (150 to 244 cm TL): (Identical to neonate EFH) Off the northeast U.S.
coast from the 100 m isobath out to the EEZ boundary, from south Georges Bank to
35° N; from 35° N south to 28.25° N off Cape Canaveral, FL, from the 100 m
isobath to the 500 m isobath; from 28.25° N south around peninsular Florida and
west to 92.5° W in the Gulf of Mexico, from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary
(Figure B.106).

•

Adults ($245 cm TL): (Identical to neonate EFH) Off the northeast U.S. coast
from the 100 m isobath out to the EEZ boundary, from south Georges Bank to 35°
N; from 35° N south to 28.25° N off Cape Canaveral, FL, from the 100 m isobath to
the 500 m isobath; from 28.25° N south around peninsular Florida and west to 92.5°
W in the Gulf of Mexico, from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure
B.107).

Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) The porbeagle is a lamnid shark common in deep, cold
temperate waters of the north Atlantic, south Atlantic and south Pacific Oceans. It is highly
esteemed for its flesh. There have been fisheries for this species in the north Atlantic for many
years.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-49

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Reproductive potential: Very little is known about its reproductive processes. Aasen
(1963) estimated that maturity was reached at 150 to 200 cm TL for males and 200 to 250 cm TL
for females. Castro (year or unpublished?) estimated that porbeagles reach 20 years of age and
possibly 30. Shann (1911) reported an embryo 61 cm TL, and estimated that porbeagles were
probably born at about 76 cm TL. Bigelow and Schroeder (1948) recorded a free swimming
specimen at 76 cm TL. Gauld (1989) gave 3.7 as the mean number of embryos in a sample of 12
females. The frequency of reproduction is not known. According to Aasen (1963), the
porbeagle probably reproduces annually, but there is no evidence to support this claim. The
nurseries are probably in continental shelf waters. More recent life history information can be
found in Francis and Stevens (2000), Jensen et al. (2002), Joyce et al. (2002), Natanson et al.
(2002), Campana and Joyce (2004), and Francis and Duffy (2005).
Impact of fisheries: The porbeagle is presently targeted in northern Europe and along
the northeast coast of North America. Whether the porbeagles in the north Atlantic constitute
one or more separate stocks is not known. A small porbeagle fishery resumed in the early 1990s
in the northeastern United States, after being practically non-existent for decades. Intensive
fisheries have depleted the stocks of porbeagles in a few years wherever they have existed,
demonstrating that the species cannot withstand heavy fishing pressure.
Essential Fish Habitat for Porbeagle Shark:
•

Neonate (#79 cm TL): From the 100 m isobath to the EEZ boundary from offshore
Cape May, NJ, approximately 39° N to approximately 42° N (west of Georges
Bank) (Figure B.108).

•

Juveniles (80 to 209 cm TL): From the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; from
offshore Great Bay, approximately 38° N to approximately 42° N (west of Georges
Bank) (Figure B.109).

•

Adults ($210 cm TL): From offshore Portland, ME south to Cape Cod, MA along
the 100 m isobath out to the EEZ boundary and from Cape Cod south to the 2,000 m
isobath out to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.110).

Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) The shortfin mako is found in warm and
warm-temperate waters throughout all oceans. It is an oceanic species at the top of the food
chain, feeding on fast-moving fishes such as swordfish, tuna, and other sharks (Castro, 1983). It
is considered one of the great game fish of the world, and its flesh is considered among the best
to eat.
Reproductive potential: According to Pratt and Casey (1983), females mature at about
7 years of age. Cailliet et al. (1983) estimated the von Bertalanffy parameters (n= 44) for the
shortfin as: L4 = 3210 mm, K= .072, and to= -3.75. Cailliet and Mollet (1997) estimated that a
female mako lives for approximately 25 years, matures at four to six years, has a two-year
reproductive cycle, and a gestation period of approximately 12 months. The litters range from
12 to 20 pups, although only a handful have been examined (Castro, unpubl.). There is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-50

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

circumstantial evidence that the nursery areas are in deep tropical waters. The life span of the
species has been estimated at 11.5 years (Pratt and Casey, 1983). Additional life history
information can be found in Stillwell and Kohler (1982), Pratt and Casey (1983), Heist et al.
(1996), Mollet et al. (2000), Campana et al. (2002), Estrada et al. (2003), Francis and Duffy
(2005), Loefer et al. (2005), and MacNeil et al. (2005).
Impact of fisheries: The shortfin mako is a common bycatch in tuna and swordfish
fisheries. Because of their high market value, shortfin mako are usually the only sharks retained
in some pelagic fleets with high shark bycatch rates. Off the northeast coast of North America,
most of the catch consists of immature fish (Casey and Kohler, 1992). The index of abundance
for shortfin makos in the commercial longline fishery off the Atlantic coast of the United States
shows a steady decline (Cramer, 1996a). The few indices available (ICES, 1995; Cramer, 1996a;
Holts et al., 1996) indicate substantial population decreases. Because the species is commonly
caught in widespread swordfish and tuna operations, it is reasonable to assume that similar
decreases are occurring in areas for which there are limited data.
Essential Fish Habitat for Shortfin Mako:
•

Neonate (#85 cm TL): Between the 50 and 2,000 m isobaths from Cape Lookout,
NC, approximately 35° N, north to just southeast of Georges Bank (approximately
42° N and 66° W) to the EEZ boundary; and between the 25 and 50 m isobaths from
offshore the Chesapeake Bay (James River) (North Carolina/Virginia border) to a
line running west of Long Island, NY to just southwest of Georges Bank,
approximately 67° W and 41° N (Figure B.111).

•

Juveniles (108 to 262 cm TL): Between the 25 and 2,000 m isobaths from offshore
Onslow Bay, NC north to Cape Cod, MA; and extending west between 38° N and
41.5° N to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.112).

•

Adults ($263 cm TL): Between the 25 and 2,000 m isobaths from offshore Cape
Lookout, NC north to Long Island, NY; and extending west between 38.5° N and
41° N to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.113).

B.1.5.3 Requiem Sharks
Blue shark (Prionace glauca) One of the most common and widest-ranging of sharks,
the blue shark is cosmopolitan in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters. It is a pelagic
species that inhabits clear, deep, blue waters, usually in temperatures of 10° to 20° C, at depths
greater than 180 m (Castro, 1983). Its migratory patterns are complex and encompass great
distances, but are poorly understood. The biology, migrations, and the impact of fisheries on the
blue shark must be considered on the basis of entire ocean basins. Males and females are known
to segregate in many areas (Strasburg, 1958; Gubanov and Grigoryev, 1975). Strasburg (1958)
showed that blue sharks are most abundant in the Pacific between latitudes of 40° N and 50° N.
Reproductive potential: Although some authors have examined very large numbers of
blue sharks, the data on its size at maturity are imprecise. This may be due to poor criteria for
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-51

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

maturity, incomplete samples, samples that did not include animals of all sizes, or some
peculiarities of the blue shark. Pratt (1979) used different criteria for determining maturity of
males and gave a range of 153 to 183 cm FL for male maturity, but when he used the standard
criterion of clasper calcification, he observed that the males reached maturity at 183 cm FL (218
cm TL). Bigelow and Schroeder (1948) suggested that females mature at 213 to 243 cm TL.
Strasburg (1958) stated that the smallest gravid female seen by him measured 214 cm TL.
Nakano (1994) used data from 105,600 blue sharks and stated that females matured at 140 to160
cm (166 and 191 cm TL, using the regression of Pratt), and males at 130 to 160 cm PCL, based
on clasper development.
This is probably the most prolific of the larger sharks; litters of 28 to 54 pups have been reported
often (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1948; Pratt, 1979), but up to 135 pups in a litter have also been
reported (Gubanov and Grigoryev, 1975). Nakano (1994) observed 669 pregnant females in the
North Pacific and stated that the number of embryos ranged from one to 62, with an average of
25.6 embryos. Strasburg (1958) gave the birth size as 34 to 48 cm TL. Suda (1953) examined
115 gravid females from the Pacific Ocean and concluded that gestation lasts nine months and
that birth occurs between December and April. Pratt (1979) examined 19 gravid females from
the Atlantic and used data from 23 other Atlantic specimens to arrive at a gestation period of 12
months. Nakano (1994) stated that gestation lasts about a year, based on length frequency
histograms, but did not state how many gravid animals had been observed nor showed any data.
The length of the reproductive cycle is believed to be annual. Nakano (1994) gave the age at
maturity as four or five years for males and five or six years for females, based on growth
equations. According to Cailliet et al, (1983), blue sharks become reproductively mature at six
or seven years of age and may reach 20 years. The nursery areas appear to be in open oceanic
waters in the higher latitudes of the range. Strasburg (1958) attributed the higher CPUE in the
30° N to 40° N zone of the Pacific Ocean in summer to the presence of newborn blue sharks, and
commented on the absence of small blue sharks in the warmer parts of the range. Nakano (1994)
also stated that parturition occurred in early summer between latitudes of 30° N to 40° N of the
Pacific Ocean. Additional life history and ecological information can be found in Kenney et al.
(1985), Estrada et al. (2003), and Skomal and Natanson (2003).
Impact of fisheries: Although finning is now prohibited in U.S. Atlantic waters, blue
sharks have historically been finned and discarded because of the low value of their flesh. Large
numbers of blue sharks are caught and discarded yearly in pelagic tuna and swordfish fisheries.
The blue shark is one of the most abundant large vertebrates in the world, yet it may be
vulnerable to overfishing because it is caught in tremendous numbers as bycatch in numerous
longline fisheries. Preliminary catch rate information for some areas suggests that this species
may be declining.
Essential Fish Habitat for Blue Shark:
•

Neonate (#60 cm TL): North of 40E N from Manasquan Inlet, NJ to Buzzards Bay,
MA in waters from 25 m to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.114).

•

Juveniles (61 to 183 cm TL): From 45EN (offshore Cape Hatteras, NC) in waters
from the 25 m isobath to the EEZ boundary (Figure B.115).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-52

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

•

Adults ($184 cm TL): From 45EN (offshore Cape Hatteras, NC) in waters from
the 25 m isobath to the EEZ boundary; extending around Cape Cod, MA to include
the southern part of the Gulf of Maine (Figure B.116).

Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) The oceanic whitetip is one of the
most common large sharks in warm oceanic waters (Castro, 1983). It is circumtropical and
nearly ubiquitous in water deeper than 180 m and warmer than 21° C.
Reproductive potential: Both males and females appear to mature at about 190 cm TL
(Bass et al., 1973). The young are born at about 65-75 cm TL (Castro, 1983). The number of
pups per litter ranges from two to ten, with a mean of six (Backus et al., 1956; Guitart Manday,
1975). The length of the gestation period has not been reported, but it is probably ten to 12
months as for most large carcharhinids. The reproductive cycle is believed to be biennial
(Backus et al., 1956). Although the location of nurseries has not been reported, preliminary
work by Castro indicates that very young oceanic whitetip sharks are found well offshore along
the southeastern United States in early summer, suggesting offshore nurseries over the
continental shelves. Additional life history information can be found in Lessa et al. (1999a),
Lessa et al. (1999c), and Whitney et al. (2004).
Impact of fisheries: Large numbers of oceanic whitetip sharks are caught as bycatch
each year in pelagic tuna and swordfish fisheries. Strasburg (1958) reported that the oceanic
whitetip shark constituted 28 percent of the total shark catch in exploratory tuna longline fishing
south of 10° N in the central Pacific Ocean. According to Berkeley and Campos (1988), oceanic
whitetip sharks constituted 2.1 percent of the shark bycatch in the swordfish fishery along the
east coast of Florida in 1981 to1983. Guitart Manday (1975) demonstrated a marked decline in
the oceanic whitetip shark landings in Cuba from 1971 to1973. The oceanic whitetip shark is
probably vulnerable to overfishing because of its limited reproductive potential, and because it is
caught in large numbers in various pelagic fisheries and in directed fisheries. There are no data
on populations or stocks of the species in any ocean.
Essential Fish Habitat for Oceanic Whitetip Shark:
•

Neonate (#83 cm TL): In the vicinity of the Charleston Bump, from the 200 m
isobath to the 2,000 m isobath, between 32.5° N and 31° N (Figure B.117).

•

Juveniles (84 to 136 cm TL): Offshore the southeast U.S coast from 32° N to 26°
N, from the 200 m isobath to the EEZ boundary, or 75° W, whichever is nearer
(Figure B.118).

•

Adults ($137 cm TL): Offshore the southeast U.S. coast from the 200 m isobath
out to the EEZ boundary, from 36° N to 30° N; also, in the Caribbean, south of the
U.S. Virgin Islands, from east of 65° W to the EEZ boundary or the 2,000 m isobath,
whichever is nearer (Figure B.119).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-53

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

B.1.5.4 Thresher Sharks
Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) The bigeye thresher is cosmopolitan in
warm and warm-temperate waters. It is a deep-water species which ascends to depths of 35 to
150 m at night. It feeds on squid and small schooling fishes (Castro, 1983), which it stuns with
blows from its tail. This is one of the larger sharks, reaching up to 460 cm TL (Nakamura,
1935).
Reproductive potential: Males mature at about 270 cm TL and females at about 340 cm
TL (Moreno and Moron, 1992). Litters consist of two pups, one in each uterus. Gestation
probably lasts about a year, but there is no evidence to support this. The length of the
reproductive cycle and the location of nursery areas are unknown. Additional life history
information can be found in Chen et al. (1997), Liu et al. (1998), and Weng and Block (2004).
Impact of fisheries: The bigeye thresher is often caught as bycatch of swordfish
fisheries. A shark will often dislodge several baits before impaling or hooking itself. The flesh
and fins of the bigeye thresher shark are of poor quality, thus it is usually discarded dead in
swordfish and tuna fisheries. Possession of this species in Atlantic waters of the United States is
now prohibited.
Essential Fish Habitat for Bigeye Thresher Shark:
•

Neonate (#116 cm TL): At this time, available information is insufficient to
identify EFH for this life stage.

•

Juveniles (117 to 340 cm TL): Offshore North Carolina, from 36.5° N to 34° N,
between the 200 and 2,000 m isobaths (Figure B.120).

•

Adults ($341 cm TL): Offshore North Carolina, from 35.5° N to 35° N, between
the 200 and 2,000 m isobaths (Figure B.121).

Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) The common thresher shark is cosmopolitan in
warm and temperate waters. It is found in both coastal and oceanic waters, but according to
Strasburg (1958) it is more abundant near land. It is a large shark that uses its tremendously
large tail to hit and stun the small schooling fishes upon which it feeds.
Reproductive potential: According to Strasburg (1958), females in the Pacific mature
at about 315 cm TL. According to Cailliet and Bedford (1983), males mature at about 333 cm
TL. Cailliet and Bedford (1983) stated that the age at maturity ranges from three to seven years.
Litters consist of four to six pups, which measure 137 to 155 cm TL at birth (Castro, 1983).
According to Bedford (1985), gestation lasts nine months and female threshers give birth
annually every spring (March to June). New age and growth information can be found in
Gervelis (2005).
Impact of fisheries: Thresher sharks are caught in many fisheries. The most detailed
data available are for the California drift gillnet fishery which started in 1977 for thresher sharks,
shortfin makos, and swordfish, extending from the Mexican border to San Francisco, CA
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-54

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

(Hanan, 1984). After 1982, the fishery expanded northward yearly, ultimately reaching the
states of Oregon and Washington (Cailliet et al., 1991). Thresher shark landings peaked in 1982,
and the thresher shark resource quickly began to decline after that year (Bedford, 1987). Catches
have continued to decline and the average size has remained small in spite of numerous
regulations restricting fishing (Hanan et al., 1993). Cailliet et al., (1991) summarized the
condition of the resource by stating, “The coastwise fishery for this once abundant shark is now a
thing of the past.” Legislation passed in 1986 limited the directed thresher shark fishery in the
Pacific. Off the U.S. Atlantic coast, the CPUE has shown a considerable decline (Cramer, 1996).
Essential Fish Habitat for Thresher Shark:
•

Neonate (#175 cm TL): Offshore Long Island, NY and southern New England in
the northeastern United States, in pelagic waters deeper than 50 m, between 70° W
and 73.5° W, south to 40° N (Figure B.122).

•

Juveniles (176 to 388 cm TL): (Identical to neonate EFH): Offshore Long Island,
NY and southern New England in the northeastern United States, in pelagic waters
deeper than 50 m, between 70° W and 73.5° W, south to 40° N (Figure B.123).

•

Adults ($389 cm TL): (Identical to neonate EFH) Offshore Long Island, NY and
southern New England in the northeastern United States, in pelagic waters deeper
than 50 m, between 70° W and 73.5° W, south to 40° N (Figure B.124).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-55

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.1

1999 FMP size ranges for different life stages of sharks.
Map Neonates/
early juveniles
TL (cm)
≤ or range

Map Late Juveniles/
subadults
TL (cm)

Text:
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Text:
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Map Adults

Text Pup size
TL (cm)

N/A
(text 270)

180

271-810

460-610

810-980

810

N/A
(text 70)
45

67

71-220

210-258

210-220

221

38-45

46-249

140-185

200

250

TL (cm)
≥ or range

Large Coastal Sharks
Cetorhinidae
Cetorhinus maximus
Sphyrnidae
Sphyrna mokarran
S. lewini
S. zygaena
Lamnidae
Carcharodon carcharias

N/A

N/A

N/A

(text 175)

120-150

175-479

370-340

370-340

(text 480)

Ginglymostomatidae
Ginglymostoma cirratum

13-60

30

61-225

225

225

226

Carcharhinidae
Carcharhinus altimus

70-155

70

156-220

213

221

99
(text 100)
110

55-60

139-145

153-156

75

100-155
(text 100-156)
111-225

N/A
(text 221)
156

210-220

225

226

N/A
(text 105)
115

70

106-199

170

200

85-100

116-300

290

300

N/A
(text 200)
301

C. limbatus
C. leucas
C. perezi
C. obscurus
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-56

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Map Neonates/
early juveniles
TL (cm)
≤ or range

Map Late Juveniles/
subadults
TL (cm)

Text:
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Text:
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Map Adults

Text Pup size
TL (cm)

N/A

80

N/A

205-239

215-245

90

64

91-228

228

228

N/A
(text 215)
229

60-70

200-220
N/A

247
(text 231)
178

N/A

68-72

N/A
(text 101-230)
101-178

C. plumbeus

N/A
(text 100)
N/A
(text 100)
90

60

90-179

180

180

180

C. falciformis

55-97

75-80

98-231

225

232-245

C. brevipinna

90

60-75

91-154

130

150-155

N/A
(text 232)
155

Galeocerdo cuvier

120

68-85

121-289

290

290

290

Odontaspididae
Odontaspis noronhai

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Carcharias taurus

125

100

N/A
(text 126-220)

190-195

220-229

221

Rhincodontidae
Rhincodon typus

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

50

28-30

51-105

90-105

90-105

106

C. galapagensis
Negaprion brevirostris
C. brachyurus
C. signatus

TL (cm)
≥ or range

179

Small Coastal Sharks
Squatinidae
Squatina dumeril

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-57

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Map Neonates/
early juveniles
TL (cm)
≤ or range

Map Late Juveniles/
subadults
TL (cm)

Text:
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Text:
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Map Adults

Text Pup size
TL (cm)

50

27-35

51-84

70

85

85

Carcharhinidae
Rhizoprionodon terraenovae

17-55

29-32

56-84

65-80

85-90

85

Carcharhinus acronotus

35-75

50

76-99

100

100

100

R. porosus

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

C. isodon

90

48-58

91-135

130

135

136

C. porosus

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Hexanchidae
Hexanchus vitulus

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Heptranchias perlo

N/A

25

N/A

85-90

85-90

N/A

Hexanchus griseus

N/A

60-70

N/A

325

421

N/A

Lamnidae
Isurus paucus

no sizes

N/A

no sizes

N/A

N/A

no sizes

Lamna nasus

50-100

76

101-224

150-200

200-250

225-280

I. oxyrinchus

95

N/A

96-279

N/A

N/A

280

Sphyrnidae
Sphyrna tiburo

TL (cm)
≥ or range

Pelagic Sharks

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-58

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Map Neonates/
early juveniles
TL (cm)
≤ or range

Map Late Juveniles/
subadults
TL (cm)

Text:
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Text:
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Map Adults

Text Pup size
TL (cm)

Carcharhinidae
Prionace glauca

75

34-48

76-220

218

166-243

221

Carcharhinus longimanus

115

65-75

116-190

190

190

191

N/A
(text 135)
200

N/A

136-339

270

340

340

137-155

200-319

333

315

320

Alopiidae
Alopias superciliosus
A. vulpinus

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-59

TL (cm)
≥ or range

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.2

Size ranges used in this Amendment for mapping distribution data for different life stages of sharks.
Neonates
max embyro+10%
TL (cm)
≤

Literature
embryo size range
or max embryo size
in term females
TL (cm)

Juveniles
TL (cm)

Literature
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Literature
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Adults
F 1st mat
TL (cm)
≥

Large Coastal Sharks
Cetorhinidae
Cetorhinus maximus

182

165**
Castro 83

183-809

810
Castro 99

810

Sphyrnidae
Sphyrna mokarran

74

75-209

50

S. zygaena

66

210-220
Steven & Lyle 89
228
Steven & Lyle 89
284
Castro & Mejuto 95

210

S. lewini

67.5
Clarke & von Schmidt 65
39-51
Clarke 71, Carlson 2002
60**
NMFS upubl.

Lamnidae
Carcharodon carcharias

166

151
Uchida et al 96

167-479

480
Uchida et al 96

480

N/A*

28-30.5
Castro 00

37-221

214-214.6
Castro 00

222-232
Castro 00

222

Carcharhinidae
Carcharhinus altimus

67

68-225

66

125-140

226
Springer 60
141-152

226

C. limbatus

61
Springer 60
45-70***

C. leucas

83

C. perezi

66

C. obscurus

110

290
Castro 83

226
Branstetter & Stiles 87
200
Compagno 84
300
Castro 83

Ginglymostomatidae
Ginglymostoma cirratum

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

51-227
67-283

67-149

55-85
Clarke & von Schmidt 65
60****
Castro 83
85-100
Castro 83
B-60

84-225
67-199
111-299

228
284

156
226
200
300

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

C. galapagensis - NO DATA
(all Atlantic data off Bermuda)
Negaprion brevirostris
C. brachyurus - NO DATA

Neonates
max embyro+10%
TL (cm)
≤
N/A
68
N/A

C. signatus

70

C. plumbeus

70

C. falciformis

85

C. brevipinna

71

Galeocerdo cuvier

90

Odontaspididae
Odontaspis noronhai ­
NO DATA
Carcharias taurus
Rhincodontidae
Rhincodon typus
LITTLE DATA, ONE MAP

Literature
embryo size range
or max embryo size
in term females
TL (cm)
81
Wetherbee et al 96
62
Clarke & von Schmidt 65
N/A
55-75
Raschi et al 82
44.2-64
Castro 93b
77
Bonfil et al 93

Juveniles

Literature
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

N/A

N/A

71-199

185-190

200-205

200

71-147

139-153
Merson 98

148-175
Merson 98
232
Branstetter 87
Bonfil et al 93
185

148

297
Clarke & von Schmidt 65

297

N/A

N/A

236.6
Gilmore et al 83

237

TL (cm)
N/A
69-235

86-231

60-75
Branstetter 81
82
NMFS upubl.

72-184
91-296

N/A

N/A

N/A

117

106
Gilmore et al 83

118-236

N/A

Adults
F 1st mat
TL (cm)
≥
N/A

Literature
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range
215
Wetherbee et al 96
236
Clarke & von Schmidt 65
N/A

N/A

N/A

236
N/A

232

185

N/A

Small Coastal Sharks
Squatinidae
Squatina dumeril

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

28

26****

26-82

B-61

84

89

89

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Neonates
max embyro+10%
TL (cm)
≤

Literature
embryo size range
or max embryo size
in term females
TL (cm)

Sphyrnidae
Sphyrna tiburo

38

22-30*****

Carcharhinidae
Rhizoprionodon terraenovae

40

Carcharhinus acronotus

48

R. porosus - NO DATA

N/A

C. isodon
C. porosus
LITTLE DATA, ONE MAP

64
N/A

Juveniles

Literature
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Literature
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Adults
F 1st mat
TL (cm)
≥

40-66

66-83

77-94
Parsons 93

77

36
Parsons 83

41-75

73-75

76

38-44

95

108

70-85
Loefer & Sedberry 03
Carlson and Baremore 03
115
Hazin et al 02

TL (cm)

115
N/A

43.7-58
Castro 93a & 93b
30

65-120

119-130

123-132

123

30-70

71-75

70

70

158
Springer & Waller 69
89-93
Compagno 84
421
Ebert 86

N/A

245
Guitart-Manday 66
210
Jensen et al 02
263

245

Pelagic Sharks
Hexanchidae
Hexanchus vitulus
LITTLE DATA, ONE MAP
Heptranchias perlo
LITTLE DATA, ONE MAP
Hexanchus griseus
LITTLE DATA, ONE MAP
Lamnidae
Isurus paucus

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

149

Lamna nasus

79

I. oxyrinchus

85

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

135.5
NMFS upubl
72
Jensen et al 02
77

150-244
80-209
108-262

B-62

N/A
N/A

210
263

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Neonates
max embyro+10%
TL (cm)
≤
Carcharhinidae
Prionace glauca

60

C. longimanus

83

Alopiidae
Alopias superciliosus

116

A. vulpinus

175

Literature
embryo size range
or max embryo size
in term females
TL (cm)
Duffy & Francis 01
54.4
Pratt 1979
75
Seki et al 98

Juveniles
TL (cm)

61-183
84-136

105.5
Gilmore 83
159
Moreno et al 89

117-340
176-388

Literature
M maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range

Literature
F maturity
TL (cm)
≥ or range
Mollet et al 00

Adults
F 1st mat
TL (cm)
≥

184
Williams 1977
137
Seki et al 98

184

341
Moreno & Moron 92
389
Moreno et al 89

137

341
389

*nurse sharks below 37 cm TL in the 1999 FMP database were actually embryos and not free swimming sharks
**confirmed report of the smallest free swimming individual, not an embryo
***Castro has seen one litter with sizes beyond the above range (70.4-74.2 cmTL). This litter was not included because it was unusually large for
this species.
****based on estimated size at birth
*****average of three full term embryos from one female collected in Tampa Bay, FL

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-63

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.3

Blacktip shark (Carcharinus limbatus) Life History and Habitat Characteristics. From Amendment 1 to the FMP.

Life Stage

Species Distributions
Location

Habitat Characteristics
Season

Temp
( ̊C)

DO
(mg/l)

Sal (ppt)

Source*
Depth (m)

B = bottom and S = surface
Neonate and
young of the
year (YOY)

Off Yaupon and Holden Beaches, NC

summer primary nursery

no data

no data

no data

no data

SC estuarine and nearshore waters

summer primary nursery, pupping late
May/early June to early July

no data

no data

no data

no data

GA estuarine waters

summer primary nursery (June-Sept)

21-30.4

4.35-6.08

22-36.1

0.5-11.6

Yankeetown to 10,000 Islands on the west coast of
Florida, Cape Canaveral on the east coast of FL and the
Florida Keys. Also found in the Marquesas Islands west
of the Florida Keys

summer primary nursery (June-Oct); FL
Keys – found year round; Marquesas
Islands – overwintering grounds

19.1-33.6

3.28-9.26

15.8-41.1

0.9-12.5

Belcher and
Shierling Gurshin

summer primary nursery

22.5-31.4

3.6-7

19-38

2.1-6

Hueter and
Tyminski, Michel
and Steiner

summer primary nursery
summer primary nursery (May-Sept)

B 29.3
S 30.6
22.6-32.4

B 6.6
S 6.6
no data

B 20.3
S 17.8
18-34.7

3.4
1.2-5.2

summer primary nursery (May-Sept)

16.7-34

no data

0-54

no data

Northeast Gulf of Mexico (Apalachee Bay, Apalachicola
Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Crooked Island Sound and St
Andrew Bay)
From the mouth of St Louis Bay, MS to the tip of Fort
Morgan, AL
Terrebonne/Timbalier Bay System, LA
All major bay systems along the Gulf coast of Texas from
Sabine Lake to Lower Laguna Madre

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Jensen et al
(2002)
Ulrich and Riley,
SEAMAP (2002)

Carlson

Parsons (env.
parameters are
average values
Neer et al
Jones and Grace

B-64

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Life Stage
Juvenile

Species Distributions

Habitat Characteristics

Source*

Nearshore and inshore waters from Cape Hatteras and
Core Sound to Holden Beach, NC

summer secondary nursery

no data

no data

no data

no data

Jensen et al.

SC estuarine and nearshore waters

secondary summer and overwintering
nursery (May-Dec)

18-24

no data

no data

no data

GA estuarine waters

summer secondary nursery (June-Sept)

21-30.4

4.35-6.08

22-36.1

0.5-11.6

Ulrich and Riley,
SEAMAP, Hueter
and Tyminski
Belcher and
Shierling, Gurshin

Yankeetown to 10,000 Islands on the west coast of
Florida, Cape Canaveral on the east coast of FL and the
Florida Keys

summer secondary nursery (March-Nov);
warm water effluents of Tampa Bay and
Yankeetown power plants during winter
months

20.8-33.6

2-8.3

27-38

0.7-5

summer secondary nursery

16-32.5

1.9-8.3

19-38

0.7-6.4

Northeast Gulf of Mexico (Apalachee Bay, Apalachicola
Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Crooked Island Sound and St
Andrew Bay)
north central Gulf of Mexico

summer secondary nursery

B 27.3-28.1

B 3.2-6.2

B 34.3-37

5.8-7.6

Coastal Alabama off Dauphin Island and Mobile Point

summer secondary nursery

B 28
S 28.8

B 6.3
S 6.9

B 19.4
S 17.7

3.1

From the mouth of St Louis Bay, MS to the tip of Fort
Morgan, AL

summer secondary nursery (April-Nov)

22.6-32.4

no data

18-34.7

1.2-5.2

Hueter and
Tyminski, Michel
and Steiner

Carlson

Gurshin
Parsons (env.
parameters are
average values)

summer secondary nursery
Terrebonne/Timbalier Bay System, LA
All major bay systems along the Gulf coast of Texas from
Galveston Bay to Lower Laguna Madre, except Corpus
Christi Bay

Neer et al

Jones and Grace

Adult

Outer Banks of NC, St Augustine to Cape Canaveral, FL,

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

* Contributing authors in: McCandless, C.T., H.L. Pratt Jr., and N.E. Kohler. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of
the United States: an overview. Authors and papers are cited separately in References section.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-65

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.4

Dusky shark (Carcharinus obscurus) Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

Life Stage

Species Distributions
Location

Habitat Characteristics
Season

Temp
( ̊C)

DO
(mg/l)

Sal (ppt)

Source*
Depth (m)

B = bottom and S = surface
Neonate and
young of the
year (YOY)

Juvenile

Nearshore waters from Cape Hatteras to Bogue Banks
and off Holden Beach, NC

Oct and Nov; pupping April and May off
Holden beach

no data

no data

no data

no data

Jensen et al,
SEAMAP

SC coastal waters

transient or overwintering nursery (Nov)

18

no data

no data

no data

Ulrich and Riley

In the coastal waters of Martha's Vineyard, MA ( off East
and South Beaches of Chappaquiddick Island)

summer secondary nursery

17-24

no data

no data

4.8-19.2

Skomal

Exposed nearshore waters in Virginia, rarely enter the
estuaries (one juvenile female (79cm PCL) caught in lower
Chesapeake Bay in August of 1990

summer secondary nursery

no data

no data

no data

no data

Grubbs and
Musick

Nearshore waters from Cape Hatteras to Holden Beach,
NC

summer secondary and overwintering
nursery grounds

18.1-22.2

no data

no data

4.3-15.5

SC coastal waters

transient or overwintering nursery (Nov)

18

Jensen et al,
SEAMAP
no data

no data

no data
Ulrich and Riley

Adult

Pelagic waters offshore the Virginia/North Carolina border
and
south to Fort Lauderdale, FL Nearshore waters beginning
at the border of Georgia and Florida south to Fort
Lauderdale

Migrations moving north-south with the
seasons

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

* Contributing authors in: McCandless, C.T., H.L. Pratt Jr., and N.E. Kohler. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of
the United States: an overview. Authors and papers are cited separately in References section.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-66

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.5

Sandbar shark (Carcharinus plumbeus) Life History and Habitat Characteristics

Life Stage

Species Distributions

Location

Habitat Characteristics

Season

Temp
( ̊C)

DO
(mg/l)

Sal (ppt)

Source*

Depth (m)

B = bottom and S = surface
Neonate and
young of the
year (YOY)

Great Bay, NJ

summer primary nursery (pupping early
July)

Delaware Bay (DE & NJ waters)

23.8

7.01

26.5

2.4

18-29.9

no data

18.3-30.4

0.9-16.6

17-28

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

summer primary nursery (June-Oct with
majority of pupping from late June to early
July)
Lower Chesapeake Bay, VA and the tidal creeks and
lagoons along Virginia's Eastern Shore
In coastal waters from Cape Hatteras to Bogue Banks, off
Holden Beach and in Pamlico Sound, NC

summer primary nursery

SC estuarine and nearshore coastal waters

summer primary nursery (May-July);
overwintering grounds off Cape Hatteras,
NC (catches increase greatly in Oct and
Nov)

GA estuarine waters

summer primary nursery (May-Sept), with
coastal waters also serving as
overwintering grounds

26.9-30.1

4-5.9

29.6-30.1

3.7-13.1

Off Yankeetown, FL (N=3)

summer primary nursery (June-Sept)

25-29

no data

20.4-25.4

2.4-3.7

Northeast Gulf of Mexico (Apalachicola Bay and Crooked
Island

summer primary nursery

26.6-30.8

5-7.3

19-39

3-5.2

summer primary nursery

Merson and Pratt
McCandless et al

Grubbs and Musick

Jensen et al,
SEAMAP

Ulrich and Riley

Belcher and
Shierling
Hueter and
Tyminski
Carlson

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-67

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Life Stage

Juvenile

Species Distributions

Habitat Characteristics

Source*

summer secondary nursery (June -Oct )

20-24

no data

no data

2.4-6.4

Skomal

summer secondary nursery (May-Oct)

15.5-30

no data

18.3-31.4

0.8-23

McCandless et al

summer secondary nursery (May-Oct)

17-28

no data

no data

no data

Grubbs and
Musick

summer secondary nursery; overwintering
grounds off Cape Hatteras, NC

22.6-28.1

no data

no data

no data

Coastal NC waters

summer secondary (April - Sept) and
overwintering grounds (Dec)

15-28

no data

no data

no data

SC estuarine and coastal waters

summer secondary nursery (June-Sept)

26.9-30.1

4-5.9

29.6-30.1

3.7-13.1

summer secondary nursery

19.8-30.8

5-7.3

19-36

2.1-5.2

summer secondary nursery

23.3-24.4

8-8.3

13.4-14.8

2.1

spring/summer secondary nursery

no data

no data

no data

no data

Cape Poge Bay, MA, around Chappaquiddick Island, MA
(East and South Beaches), and off the south shore of
Cape Cod, MA
Delaware Bay (DE & NJ waters)
Lower Chesapeake Bay, VA and the tidal creeks and
lagoons along Virginia's Eastern Shore

GA estuarine waters
Northeast Gulf of Mexico (Apalachicola Bay and Crooked
Island Sound)

Jensen et al,
SEAMAP

Ulrich and Riley,
SEAMAP

North central Gulf of Mexico (just north of Cat and Horn
Islands, MS) (N=4)
Belcher and
Shierling

Upper Texas coast, LA coast, and Bulls Bay, SC

Carlson

Parsons

Hueter and
Tyminski

Adult

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

* Contributing authors in: McCandless, C.T., H.L. Pratt Jr., and N.E. Kohler. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of
the United States: an overview. Authors and papers are cited separately in References section.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-68

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.6

Nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

Life Stage

Species Distributions
Location

Habitat Characteristics
Season

Temp
(̊C)

DO
(mg/l)

Sal (ppt)

Source*
Depth (m)

B = bottom and S = surface
Neonate and
young of the
year (YOY)
Juvenile

Charlotte Harbor, FL and the Florida Keys

primary nursery

31.7

7.01

33.9

2.1

Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, 10,000 Islands Estuary and
the Florida Keys

secondary nursery (April-Nov)

17.5-32.9

3.1-9.7

28-38.5

0.6-2.9

Dry Tortugas, FL

summer secondary nursery

no data

no data

no data

no data

Northeast Gulf of Mexico (Apalachee Bay, Apalachicola
Bay, and Crooked Island Sound)

summer secondary nursery

22.6-28.1

5-8.3

27-37

3.5-6

Hueter and
Tyminski

Hueter and
Tyminski, Michel
and Steiner
Pratt and Carrier

Carlson

Adult

From tropical West Africa and the Cape Verde Islands in
the east, and from Cape Hatteras to Brazil in the west.
Littoral waters of the tropical and subtropical Atlantic,
shallow water, often under coral reefs or rocks

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

* Contributing authors in: McCandless, C.T., H.L. Pratt Jr., and N.E. Kohler. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of
the United States: an overview. Authors and papers are cited separately in References section.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-69

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.7

Essential fish habitat maps by species.

TUNAS
Figure B.1 to B.3 Atlantic Albacore (Thunnus alalunga)
Figure B.4 to B.6 Atlantic Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus)
Figure B.7 to B.9 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
Figure B.10 to B.12 Atlantic Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis)
Figure B.13 to B.15 Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus
albacares)
SWORDFISH
Figure B.16 to B.18 Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
BILLFISH
Figure B.19 to B.21 blue marlin (Makaira nigricans)
Figure B.22 to B.24 white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus)
Figure B.25 to B.27 sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus)
Figure B.28 to B.30 spearfish (Tetrapturus pfluegeri)
LARGE COASTAL SHARKS
Basking sharks - Cetorhnidae
Figure B.31 to B.33 basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus)
Hammerhead sharks - Sphyrnidae
Figure B.34 to B.36 great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran)
Figure B.37 to B.39 scalloped hammerhead (S. lewini)
Figure B.40 to B.42 smooth hammerhead (S. zygaena)
Mackerel sharks - Lamnidae
Figure B.43 to B.45 white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)
Nurse sharks - Ginglymostomatidae
Figure B.46 to B.48 nurse shark (Ginglymostomatidae
cirratum)
Requiem sharks - Carcharhinidae
Figure B.49 to B.51 bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus)
Figure B.52 to B.54 blacktip shark (C. limbatus)
Figure B.55 to B.57 bull shark (C. leucas)
Figure B.58 to B.60 Caribbean reef shark (C. perezi)
Figure B.61 to B.63 dusky shark (C. obscurus)
Figure B.64 to B.66 lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris)
Figure B.67 to B.69 night shark (C. signatus)
Figure B.70 to B.73 sandbar shark (C. plumbeus)
Figure B.74 to B.76 silky shark (C. falciformis)
Figure B.77 to B.79 spinner shark (C. brevipinna)
Figure B.80 to B.82 tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri)

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Sand tiger sharks - Odontaspididae
Figure B.83 to B.85 sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus)
SMALL COASTAL SHARKS
Angel sharks - Squatinidae
Figure B.86 to B.88 Atlantic angel sharks (Squatina dumerili)
Hammerhead sharks - Sphyrnidae
Figure B.89 to B-91 bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo)
Requiem sharks - Carcharhinidae
Figure B.92 to B-94 Atlantic sharpnose (R.. terraenovae)
Figure B.95 to B-97 blacknose shark (C. acronotus)
Figure B.98 to B-100 finetooth shark (C. isodon)
Figure B.101 smalltail shark (C. porosus)
PELAGIC SHARKS
Cow sharks - Hexanchidae
Figure B.102 bigeye sixgill shark (Hexanchus vitulus)
Figure B.103 sevengill shark (Heptranchias perlo)
Figure B.104 sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus)
Mackerel sharks - Lamnidae
Figure B.105 to B.107 longfin mako (Isurus paucus)
Figure B.108 to B.110 porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus)
Figure B.111 to B.113 shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)
Requiem sharks - Carcharhinidae
Figure B.114 to B.116 blue shark (Prionace glauca)
Figure B.117 to B.119 oceanic whitetip shark (C. longimanus)
Thresher sharks - Alopiidae
Figure B.120 to B.121 bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus)
Figure B.122 to B.124 thresher shark (A. vulpinus)

B-70

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Table B.8

List of abbreviations and acronyms for EFH data sources used in the maps.

Belcher
Carlson
COASTSPAN
CSTP
CTS
Govoni
Gurshin
Jensen
Jones/Grace
Michel/ST
Mote
Neer
Parsons
POP
SEAMAP
SELL
SOP
Ulrich

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

Belcher and Shierling 2002
Carlson 2002
Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery Area Program
Cooperative Shark Tagging Program
Cooperative Tagging System
Govoni et al., 2003
Gurshin 2002
Jensen et al., 2002
Jones and Grace 2002
Michel and Steiner 2002
Mote Marine Laboratory
Neer et al., 2002
Parsons 2002
Pelagic Observer Program
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program
Southeast Longline Survey
Shark Observer Program
Ulrich and Riley 2002

B-71

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.1

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-72

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.2

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-73

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.3

Atlantic Albacore Tuna: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-74

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.4

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-75

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.5

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-76

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.6

Atlantic Bigeye Tuna: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-77

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.7

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-78

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.8

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Juveniles.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-79

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.9

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Adults.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-80

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.10

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-81

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.11

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-82

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.12

Atlantic Skipjack Tuna: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-83

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.13

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-84

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.14

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-85

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.15

Atlantic Yellowfin Tuna: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-86

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.16

Atlantic Swordfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-87

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.17

Atlantic Swordfish: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-88

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.18

Atlantic Swordfish: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-89

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.19

Blue Marlin: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-90

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.20

Blue Marlin: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-91

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.21

Blue Marlin: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-92

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.22

White Marlin: Spawning, Eggs, and larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-93

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.23

White Marlin: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-94

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.24

White Marlin: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-95

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.25

Sailfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-96

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.26

Sailfish: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-97

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.27

Sailfish: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-98

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.28

Spearfish: Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-99

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.29

Spearfish: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-100

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.30

Spearfish: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-101

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.31

Basking Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-102

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.32

Basking Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-103

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.33

Basking Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-104

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.34

Great Hammerhead: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-105

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.35

Great Hammerhead: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-106

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.36

Great Hammerhead: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-107

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.37

Scalloped Hammerhead: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-108

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.38

Scalloped Hammerhead: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-109

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.39

Scalloped Hammerhead: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-110

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.40

Smooth Hammerhead: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-111

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.41

Smooth Hammerhead: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-112

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.42

Smooth Hammerhead: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-113

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.43

White Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-114

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.44

White Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-115

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.45

White Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-116

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.46

Nurse Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-117

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.47

Nurse Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-118

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.48

Nurse Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-119

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.49

Bignose Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-120

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.50

Bignose Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-121

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.51

Bignose Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-122

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.52

Blacktip Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-123

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.53

Blacktip Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-124

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.54

Blacktip Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-125

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.55

Bull Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-126

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.56

Bull Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-127

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.57

Bull Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-128

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.58

Caribbean Reef Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-129

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.59

Caribbean Reef Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-130

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.60

Caribbean Reef Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-131

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.61

Dusky Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-132

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.62

Dusky Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-133

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.63

Dusky Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-134

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.64

Lemon Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-135

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.65

Lemon Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-136

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.66

Lemon Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-137

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.67

Night Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-138

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.68

Night Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-139

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.69

Night Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-140

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.70

Sandbar Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-141

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.71

Sandbar Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-142

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.72

Sandbar Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-143

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.73

Sandbar Shark Habitat Area of Particular Concern.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-144

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.74

Silky Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-145

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.75

Silky Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-146

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.76

Silky Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-147

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.77

Spinner Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-148

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.78

Spinner Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-149

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.79

Spinner Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-150

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.80

Tiger Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-151

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.81

Tiger Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-152

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.82

Tiger Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-153

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.83

Sand Tiger Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-154

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.84

Sand Tiger Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-155

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.85

Sand Tiger Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-156

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.86

Angel Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-157

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.87

Angel Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-158

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.88

Angel Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-159

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.89

Bonnethead Shark : Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-160

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.90

Bonnethead Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-161

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.91

Bonnethead Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-162

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.92

Altantic Sharpnose: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-163

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.93

Atlantic Sharpnose: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-164

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.94

Atlantic Sharpnose Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-165

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.95

Blacknose Shark: Neonoate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-166

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.96

Blacknose Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-167

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.97

Blacknose Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-168

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.98

Finetooth Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-169

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.99

Finetooth Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-170

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.100

Finetooth Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-171

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.101

Smalltail Shark: All Life Stages.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-172

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.102

Bigeye Sixgill Shark: All Life Stages.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-173

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.103

Sevengill Shark: All Life Stages.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-174

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.104

Sixgill Shark: All Life Stages.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-175

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.105

Longfin Mako Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-176

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.106

Longfin Mako Shark : Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-177

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.107

Longfin Mako Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-178

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.108

Porbeagle Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-179

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.109

Porbeagle Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-180

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.110

Porbeagle Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-181

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.111

Shortfin Mako Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-182

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.112

Shortfin Mako Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-183

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.113

Shortfin Mako Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-184

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.114

Blue Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-185

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.115

Blue Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-186

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.116

Blue Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-187

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.117

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-188

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.118

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-189

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.119

Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-190

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.120

Bigeye Thresher Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-191

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.121

Bigeye Thresher Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-192

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.122

Thresher Shark: Neonate.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-193

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.123

Thresher Shark: Juvenile.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-194

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Figure B.124

Thresher Shark: Adult.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-195

APPENDIX B
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

APPENDIX B REFERENCES
Aasen, O. 1963. Length and growth of the porbeagle [Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre)] in the North
West Atlantic. Rep. Norw. Fish. Invest. 13(6): 20-37.
Allen, B.R. and S.P. Wintner. 2002. Age and growth of the spinner shark Carcharhinus
brevipinna (Muller and Henle, 1839) off the Kwazulu-Natal Coast, South Africa. South
African Journal of Marine Science 24: 1-8.
Arocha, F. 1997. The reproductive dynamics of swordfish Xiphias gladius L. and management
implications in the northwestern Atlantic. PhD Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral
Gables, Florida.
Backus, R.H., S. Springer, and E.L. Arnold. 1956. A contribution to the natural history of the
whitetip shark, Pterolamiops longimanus. Deep-Sea Res. 3: 178-188.
Barker, M.J., S.H. Gruber, S.P. Newman and V. Schluessel. 2005. Spatial and ontogenetic
variation in growth of nursery-bound juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris: a
comparison of two age-assigning techniques. Environ. Biol. Fishes 72: 343-355.
Baremore, I.E. and J.K. Carlson. 2004. Preliminary reproductive parameters of the Atlantic
Angel Shark with a potential example of reproductive senescence. Amer. Soc. Ich. Herp.
Ann. Mtg., Norman, OK.
Bass, A.J., J.D. D’ Aubrey, and N. Kistnasamy. 1973. Sharks of the east coast of southern
Africa. I. The genus Carcharhinus (Carcharhinidae). Invest. Rep. Oceanog. Res. Inst.,
Durban, S. Afr. 33: 1-168.
Bayley, R. E. and E. D. Prince. 1993. A review of tag release and recapture files for
Istiophoridae from the Southeast Fisheries Center’s cooperative game fish tagging program,
1954 to present. Meet of the ICCAT standing committee on research and statistics, Madrid
(Spain), Nov. 1992. Collect Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT SCRS/92/60.
Beardsley, G. L., Jr., N. R. Merrett and W. J. Richards. 1975. Synopsis of the biology of the
sailfish Istiophorus platypterus (Shaw and Nodder, 1791). Pages 95-120 in: Shomura, R. S.
and F. Williams. eds. Proceedings of the International Billfish Symposium Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii, 9-12 August 1972. Part 3. Species Synopses. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-675.
159 p.
Bedford, D.W. 1985. Pelagic shark/swordfish drift gill net fishery. Calif. Dept. Fish. Game,
Management Information Document. 74pp.
Bedford, D.W. 1987. Shark management: A case history- the California pelagic shark and
swordfish fishery. In S. Cook (ed.): Sharks: an inquiry into biology, behavior, fisheries, and
use. Oregon State Univ., Sea Grant Pub. Oregon: 161-171.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-196

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Beerkircher, L.R., E. Cortbs, and M. Shivji. 2002. Characteristics of shark bycatch observed on
pelagic longlines off the southeastern United States, 1992-2000. Marine Fisheries Review
64:40-49.
Belcher, C. and T. Shierling. 2002. Preliminary findings for Georgia’s shark nursery study, a part
of the Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery (COASTSPAN) survey. In:
McCandless et al. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast
waters of the United States: an overview. 286 pp.
Berkeley, S. A. and E. D. Houde. 1981. Swordfish, Xiphias gladius, dynamics in the Straits of
Florida. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. Vol. 15(2): 372 –380.
Berkeley, S.A., and W.L. Campos. 1988. Relative abundance and fishery potential of pelagic
sharks along Florida’s east coast. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(1): 9-16.
Bethea, D.M., J.A. Buckel and J.K. Carlson. 2004. Foraging ecology of the early life stages of
four sympatric shark species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 268: 245-264.
Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1948. Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Pt.1. Lancelets,
cyclostomes and sharks. New Haven: Mem. Sears Fdn. Mar. Res. 576pp.
Blackburn, J.K., J.A. Neer, and B.A. Thompson. (In Press). Delineation of bull shark,
Carcharhinus leucas, nursery areas in the inland and coastal waters of Louisiana. in C. T.
McCandless, N. E. Kohier, and H. L. Pratt, Jr., editors. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of
Mexico and the East Coast waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society
Symposium, Bethesda, Maryland.
Block, B.A., S.L.H. Teo, A. Walli, A. Boustany, M.J.W. Stokesbury, C.J. Farwell, K.C. Weng,
H. Dewar, T.D. Williams. 2005. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic
bluefin tuna. Nature. Vol. 434. 1121-1127.
Bonfil, R., R. Mena, and D. de Anda. 1993. Biological parameters of commercially exploited
silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, from the Campeche Bank, Mexico. In S. Branstetter
(ed.): Conservation Biology of Sharks. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 115. U.S. Dept.
Comm., Miami: 14pp.
Branstetter, S. 1987a. Age and growth validation of newborn sharks held in laboratory aquaria,
with comments on the life history of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon
terraenovae. Copeia 1987(2): 219-300.
Branstetter, S. 1987b. Age and growth estimates for blacktip, Carcharhinus limbatus, and
spinner, Carcharhinus brevipinna, sharks from the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Copeia
1987(4): 964-974.
Branstetter, S., and J.D. McEachran. 1986. Age and growth of four carcharhinid sharks common
to the Gulf of Mexico: A summary paper. In T. Uyeno, R. Arai, T. Taniuchi, and K.
Matsuura (eds.): Indo-Pacific Fish Biology: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Indo-Pacific Fishes. Ichth. Soc. Jpn. 11pp.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-197

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Branstetter, S., and R. Stiles. 1987. Age and growth estimates of the bull shark, Carcharhinus
leucas, from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Biol. Fishes 20(3): 169-181.
Branstetter, S., J.A. Musick, and J.A. Colvocoresses. 1987. A comparison of the age and growth
of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvieri, from off Virginia and from the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico. Fish. Bull. 85: 269-279.
Branstetter, S., and J.A. Musick. 1994. Age and growth estimates for the sand tiger in the
northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 123: 242-254.
Branstetter, S., and G. Burgess. 1997. Commercial Shark Observer Program 1996. Final Report MARFIN Award NA57FF0286. Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation,
Inc.
Brown, C.A., and S.H. Gruber. 1988. Age assessment of the lemon shark, Negaprion
brevirostris, using tetracycline validated vertebral centra. Copeia 1988(3): 747-753.
Brown, C.A. 1996. Standardized catch rates of four shark species in the Virginia-Massachusetts
(U.S.) rod and reel fishery 1986-1995. 1996 Shark Stock Assessment Workshop.
NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami: 9pp.
Bush, A. and K. Holland. 2002. Food limitation in a nursery area: estimates of daily ration in
juvenile scalloped hammerheads, Sphyrna lewini (Griffith and Smith, 1834) in Kane’ohe
Bay, O’ahu, Hawai’i. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 278: 157-178.
Cailliet, G.M., and D.W. Bedford. 1983. The biology of three pelagic sharks from California
waters, and their emerging fisheries: A review. Cal. Mar. Res. Comm., COFI Rep. 24: 57­
69.
Cailliet, G.M., L.K. Martin, J.T. Harvey, D. Kusher, and B.A. Welden. 1983. Preliminary studies
on the age and growth of blue, Prionace glauca, common thresher, Alopias vulpinus, and
shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrhinchus, sharks from California waters. NOAA Technical Report
NMFS 8. U.S. Dept. Comm., Washington DC: 179-188.
Cailliet, G.M., L.J. Natanson, B.A. Welden, and D.A. Ebert. 1985. Preliminary studies on the age
and growth of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, using vertebral bands. Mem.
South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 9: 49-60.
Cailliet, G.M., D.B. Holts, and D. Bedford. 1991. A review of the commercial fisheries for
sharks on the west coast of the United States. In J. Pepperell, J. West, and P.Woon (eds):
Shark conservation: Proceedings of an international workshop on the conservation of
elasmobranchs, Taronga Zoo, Sydney: 13-29.
Cailliet, G.M. and H. M. Mollet. 1997. Preliminary demographic analysis of the shortfin mako,
Isurus oxyrinchus. Abstract. ASIH 77th Annual Meeting, June 26-July 2, 1997. University of
Washington, Seattle.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-198

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Caldwell, D.K. 1962. Postlarvae of blue marlin. Contrib. Sci. (Los Angeles) 53, 1-11.
Campana, S.E., L.J. Natanson and S. Myklevoll. 2002. Bomb dating and age determination of
large pelagic sharks. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59: 450-455.
Campana, S.E. and W.N. Joyce. 2004. Temperature and depth associations of porbeagle shark
(Lamna nasus) in the northwest Atlantic. Fisheries Oceanography 13: 52-64.
Capape, C., F. Hemida, A.A. Seck, Y. Diatta, O. Guelorget and J. Zaouali. 2003. Distribution
and reproductive biology of the spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna (Muller and Henle,
1841) (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae). Israel Journal of Zoology 49: 269-286.
Carlson, J.K. 1999. Occurrence of neonate and juvenile sandbar sharks, Carcharhinus plumbeus,
in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 97: 387-391.
Carlson, J.K. and G.R. Parsons. 1997. Age and growth of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo,
from northwest Florida, with comments on clinal variation. Environ. Biol. Fishes 50: 331­
341
Carlson, J.K., E. Cortés and A.G. Johnson. 1999. Age and growth of the blacknose shark,
Carcharhinus acronotus, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Copeia: 684-691.
Carlson, J.K. 2002. Shark nurseries in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: McCandless, C.T.
and H.L. Pratt, Jr. (eds.) Gulf of Mexico and- Atlantic States shark nursery overview. US
Department of Commerce, NOAAINational Marine Fisheries ServiceIHighly Migratory
Species Management Division, FISFI NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring MD.
Carlson, J.K., and I.E. Baremore. 2003(a). Changes in biological parameters of Atlantic
sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae in the Gulf of Mexico: evidence for densitydependent growth and maturity? Marine and Freshwater Research 54:227-234.
Carlson, J.K., E. Cortés and D. Bethea. 2003(b). Life history and population dynamics of the
finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon, in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 101:281292.
Carlson, J.K., and I.E. Baremore. 2005. Growth dynamics of the spinner shark, Carcharhinus
brevipinna, off the United States Southeast and Gulf of Mexico coasts: a comparison of
methods. Fish. Bull.. 103: 280-291.
Carlson, J.K. J.R. Sulikowski, and I.E. Baremore. In review. Do differences in life history exist
for blacktip sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus, from the United States South Atlantic Bight and
Eastern Gulf of Mexico? Environ. Biol. Fishes.
Casey, J.G., and L.J. Natanson. 1992. Revised estimates of age and growth of the sandbar shark
(Carcharhinus plumbeus) from the western North Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49(7):
1474-1477.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-199

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Casey, J.G., and N.E. Kohler. 1992. Tagging studies on the shortfin mako shark (Isurus
oxyrhinchus) in the western North Atlantic. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43: 45-60.
Casey, J.G., and H.L. Pratt, Jr. 1985. Distribution of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, in
the western North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 9:2­
14.
Castillo, G.J.L. 1992. Diagnostico de la pesqueria de tiburon en Mexico. Secretaria de Pesca,
Mexico. 72pp.
Castro, J.I. 1983. The sharks of North American waters. Tex. A&M Univ. Press, College Station:
180pp.
Castro, J.I. 1993a. The biology of the finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon. Environ. Biol.
Fishes 36: 219-232.
Castro, J.I. 1993b. The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a review of the shark
nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. Environ. Biol. Fishes 38(1): 37-48.
Castro, J.I. 1996. The biology of the blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus, off the southeastern
United States. Bull. Mar. Sci. 59(3): 508-522.
Castro, J.I., and J.P. Wourms. 1993. Reproduction, placentation, and embryonic development of
the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. J. Morph. 218: 257-280.
Chang, W.B., M.Y. Leu and L.S. Fang. 1997. Embryos of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus:
early growth and size distribution. Copeia: 444-446.
Chen, C.T., K.M. Liu and Y.C. Chang. 1997. Reproductive biology of the bigeye thresher shark,
Alopias superciliosus (Lowe, 1839) (Chondrichthyes: Alopiidae), in the northwestern
Pacific. Ichthyological Research 44: 227-235.
Clark, E., and K. von Schmidt. 1965. Sharks of the central gulf coast of Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci.
15: 13-83.
Clark, E. 1963. The maintenance of sharks in captivity, with a report of their instrumental
conditioning. In P.Gilbert (ed.): Sharks and survival. D.C. Heath and Co., Boston: 115-149.
Cliff, G., and S.F.J. Dudley. 1992. Sharks caught in the protective gill nets off Natal, South
Africa. 6. The copper shark Carcharhinus brachyurus (Günther). S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 12:
663-674.
Collette, B.B and C.E. Nauen. 1983. FAO species catalogue Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. An
annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known
to date. FAO Fish. Synop., (125) Vol. 2: 137 p.
Colman, J.G. 1997. A review of the biology and ecology of the whale shark. Journal of Fish
Biology 51: 1219-1234.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-200

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. FAO Species Catalog Vol.4, Part 1 and 2: Sharks of the world: An
annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. 125.
FAO, Rome, Italy
Cortés, E. 1995. Demographic analysis of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon­
terraenovae, in the Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 93: 57-66.
Cortés, E., C.A. Manire and R.E. Hueter. 1996. Diet, feeding habits, and diel feeding chronology
of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, in southwest Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science
58: 353-367.
Cortés, E. and G.R. Parsons. 1996. Comparative demography of two populations of the
bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 709-718.
Cramer, J. 1996a. Large pelagic logbook indices for sharks. 1996 Shark Stock Assessment
Workshop. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami: 7pp.
Cramer, J. 1996b. Estimates of the numbers and metric tons of sharks discarded dead by pelagic
longline vessels. 1996 Shark Stock Assessment Workshop. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami:
21pp.
Cramer, J. 1996c. Large pelagic logbook newsletter – 1995. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS – SEFC – 394, 28p.
Cummings – Parrack, N. 1996. Updated ASPIC analyses for North Atlantic albacore through
1992. Collect. Vol. Pap. ICCAT, 43 : 325-329.
Davies, J. H. and S. A. Bortone. 1976. Partial food list of 3 species of Istiophoridae Pisces from
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fla. Sci. 39(4)249-253. ICCAT –SCRS Vol. 45(3) : 67-85.
de Sylva, D.P. and P.R. Breder. 1997. Reproduction, gonad histology, and spawning cycles of
north Atlantic billfishes (Istiophoridae). Bull. Mar. Sci. 60(3): 668-697.
Dodrill, J.W. 1977. A hook and line survey of the sharks found within five hundred meters of
shore along Melbourne Beach, Brevard County, Florida. M.S. Thesis. Florida Inst. Techn.,
Melbourne, FL. 304pp.
Dragovich, A. 1969. Review of studies of tuna food in the Atlantic Ocean. U. S> Fish wildl.
Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.-Fish. 593:21 p.
Dragovich, A. 1970a. The food of skipjack and yellowfin tunas in the Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull.
U. S. 68(3):445-460.
Dragovich, A. 1970b. The food of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the western North Atlantic
Ocean. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99(4):726-731.
Dragovich, A. and T. Potthoff. 1972. Comparative study of food of skipjack and yellowfin tunas
off the west coast of West Africa. Fish. Bull. U. S. 70(4): 1087-1110.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-201

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Driggers,W.B., J.K. Carlson, D. Oaldey, G. Ulrich, B.J. Cullum and J.M. Dean. 2004. Age and
growth of the blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus) in the western North Atlantic
Ocean. Environ. Biol. Fishes 71: 171-178.
Driggers,W.B., D. Oakley, G. Ulrich, J.K. Carlson, B.J. Cullum, and J.M. Dean. 2004.
Reproductive biology of the blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acrontus) in the coastal waters
of South Carolina. Journal of Fish Biology 64:1540-1551.
Dudley, S.F.J., and G. Cliff. 1993. Sharks caught in the protective gills nets off Natal, South
Africa. 7. The blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus (Valenciennes). S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 13:
237-254.
Ebert, D.A. 1986. Observations on the elasmobranch assemblage of San Francisco Bay. Calif.
Dep. Fish. Game, Fish. Bull. 72(4): 244-249.
Ebert, D.A. 2002. Some observations on the reproductive biology of the sixgill shark Hexanchus
griseus (Bonnaterre, 1788) from Southern African waters. South African Journal of Marine
Science 24: 359-363.
Estrada, J.A., A.N. Rice, L.J. Natanson, and G.B. Skomal. In Press. The use of isotopic analysis
of vertebrae in reconstructing ontogenetic feeding ecology in white sharks. Ecology.
Estrada, J.A., A.N. Rice, M.E. Lutcavage and G.B. Skomal. 2003. Predicting trophic position in
sharks of the northwest Atlantic Ocean using stable isotope analysis. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83: 1347-1350.
FAO. 1994. FAO yearbook: Fishery statistics: Catches and landings. FAO Fisheries Series 46.
Vol. 78. Italy: 700pp.
Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory, Shimizu. March 1978. Distribution atlas of larval tunas,
billfishes and related species. Results of larval surveys by R/V Shunyo Maru and Shoyu
Maru (1956 –1975). Far Seas Fish. Res. Lab. S Ser. 9. 99p.
Francis, M.P. and J.D. Stevens. 2000. Reproduction, embryonic development, and growth of the
porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. Fish. Bull. 98: 41-63.
Francis, M.P. and C. Duffy. 2005. Length at maturity in three pelagic sharks (Lamna nasus,
Isurus oxyrinchus, and Prionace glauca) from New Zealand. Fish. Bull. 103: 489-500.
Fourmanoir, P. 1961. Requins de la cote ouest de Madagascar. Memoires de L’Institut
Scientifique de Madagascar. Tome IV. 81pp.
Fowler, H.W. 1906. Some cold blooded vertebrates of the Florida Keys. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.
Phila. 58: 77-113.
Francis, M.P. 1996. Observations on a pregnant white shark with a review of reproductive
biology. In A.P. Klimley, and D.G. Ainley (eds): Great white sharks: The biology of
Carcharodon carcharias. Acad. Press, New York: 157-172.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-202

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Garrick, J.A.F. 1982. Sharks of the genus Carcharhinus. NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circ.
445. U.S. Dept. Comm., Washington DC: 194pp.
Gauld, J.A. 1989. Records of porbeagles landed in Scotland, with observations on the biology,
distribution and exploitation of the species. Scottish Fisheries Research Report 45. Dept.
Ag., Edinburgh, Scotland: 1-15.
Gelsleichter, J., J.A. Musick and S. Nichols. 1999. Food habits of the smooth dogfish, Mustelus
canis, dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus, Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon
terraenovae, and the sand tiger, Carcharias taurus, from the northwest Atlantic Ocean.
Environ. Biol. Fishes 54: 205-217.
Gervelis, B. 2005. Age and growth of the thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus, in the northwest
Atlantic Ocean. MS Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Gilmore, R. G. 1983. Reproduction and embryonic development of the sand tiger shark,
Odontaspis taurus (Rafinesque). U.S. Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull.: 192):201-225.
Goodyear, C.P. 1997. An analysis of the possible utility of time-area closures to minimize
billfish bycatch by U.S. pelagic longlines. In Review ICCAT SCRS/97/65.
Govender, A., N. Kistnasamy, and R.P. Van Der Elst. 1991. Growth of spotted ragged-tooth
sharks, Carcharias taurus (Rafinesque) in captivity. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 11: 15-19.
Govoni, J.J., E.H. Laban, and J.A. Hare. 2003. The early life history of swordfish (Xiphias
gladius) in the western North Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 101(4) 778-789.
Grall, C., D.P. de Sylva and E.D. Houde. 1983. Distribution, relative abundance, and seasonality
of swordfish larvae. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 112:235-246.
Grubbs, R.D. and J.A. Musick. 2002. Shark nurseries of Virginia: spatial and temporal
delineation, migratory patters, and habitat selection; a case study. In: McCandless et al.
2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of the United
States: an overview. 286 pp.
Gubanov, Y.P., and V.N. Grigor’yev. 1975. Observations on the distribution and biology of the
blue shark Prionace glauca (Carcharhinidae) of the Indian Ocean. J. Ichth. 15(1): 37-43.
Gudger, E.W.1912. Summary of work done on the fishes of Tortugas. Carnegie Inst.
Washington. Year book No. 11:148-149.
Guitart Manday, D. 1975. Las pesquerias pelagico- oceanicas de corto radio de accion en la
region noroccidental de Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Instituto de Oceanologia.
Serie Oceanologia 31. 26pp.
Gurshin, C.W.D. 2002. Shark nursery grounds in Sapelo Island National Estuarine Reserve,
Georgia and coastal Alabama. 2002. In: McCandless et al. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of
the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of the United States: an overview. 286 pp.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-203

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Hanan, D.A. 1984. Analysis of the common thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus, in the California
Bight. NOAA/NMFS/SWFSC Admin. Rep. LJ-84-10C: 34pp.
Hanan, D.A., D.B. Holts, and A.L. Coan, Jr. 1993. The California drift net fishery for sharks and
swordfish, 1981-82 through 1990-91. Calif. Dept. Fish. Game, Fish Bull. 175: 95pp.
Harvey-Clark, C. 1995. Protection of sixgill sharks. In N.L. Shackell, and J.H.M. Willison (eds):
Marine protected areas and sustainable fisheries. Sci. Manag. Protected Areas Ass., Nova
Scotia: 286-289.
Hazin, F.H.V., F.M. Lucena, T. Souza, C.E. Boeckman, M.K. Broadhurst and R.C. Menni. 2000.
Maturation of the night shark, Carcharhinus signatus, in the southwestern equatorial
Atlantic Ocean. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 173-185.
Hazin, F., A. Fischer and M. Broadhurst. 2001. Aspects of reproductive biology of the scalloped
hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini, off northeastern Brazil. Environ. Biol. Fishes 61: 151­
159.
Hazin, F.H.V., P.G. Oliveira and M.K. Broadhurst. 2002. Reproduction of the blacknose shark
(Carcharhinus acronotus) in coastal waters off northeastern Brazil. Fish. Bull. 100: 143­
148.
Heist, E.J., J.A. Musick and J.E. Graves. 1996. Genetic population structure of the shortfin mako
(Isurus oxyrinchus) inferred from restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of
mitochondrial DNA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 583-588.
Heupel, M.R. and R.E. Hueter. 2002. Importance of prey density in relation to the movement
patterns of juvenile blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) within a coastal nursery area.
Marine and Freshwater Research 53: 543-550.
Heupel, M.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2002. Estimation of mortality of juvenile blacktip sharks,
Carcharhinus limbatus, within a nursery area using telemetry data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
59: 624-632.
Heupel, M.R., C.A. Simpfendorfer and R.E. Hueter. 2004. Estimation of shark home ranges
using passive monitoring techniques. Environ. Biol. Fishes 71: 135-142.
Heupel, M.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2005a. Quantitative analysis of aggregation behavior in
juvenile blacktip sharks. Marine Biology 147: 1239-1249.
Heupel, M.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2005b. Using acoustic monitoring to evaluate MPAs for
shark nursery areas: the importance of long-term data. Marine Technology Society Journal
39: 10-18.
Hueter, R.E. 1991. Survey of the Florida recreational shark fishery utilizing shark tournament
and selected longline data. Final report, FL Dept. Nat. Res. grant agreement 6627. 74 pp.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-204

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Hueter, R.E. and J.P. Tyminski. 2002. Center for Shark Research (CSR) U.S. shark nursery
research overview 1991-2001. In: McCandless et al. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the
Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of the United States: an overview. 286 pp.Hoff,
T.B. 1990. Conservation and management of the western North Atlantic shark resource
based on the life history strategy limitations of sandbar sharks. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of
Delaware. 282pp.
Hoffmayer, E.R. and G.R. Parsons. 2003. Food habits of three shark species from the Mississippi
Sound in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 271-280.
Hoffmayer, E.R., J.S. Franks, and J.P. Shelley. 2005. Recent observations of the whale shark
(Rhincodon typus) in the north central Gulf of Mexico. Gulf and Caribbean Research Vol
17, 117-120.
Holts, D.B. 1988. Review of U.S. west coast commercial shark fisheries. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish.
Serv. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(1): 1-8.
Holts, D.B., A. Julian, O. Sosa-Nishizaki, and N.W. Bartoo. 1996. Pelagic shark fisheries along
the west coast of the United States and Baja California, Mexico. American Fisheries Society
1995 Proceedings. 37pp.
Hueter, R.E. 1991. Survey of the Florida recreational shark fishery utilizing shark tournament
and selected longline data. Final report, Florida Dept. Nat. Res. grant agreement 6627. 74pp.
ICCAT. 1994. Report of the working group to evaluate Atlantic yellowfin tuna. Collect. Vol.
Pap. ICCAT 1994 Vol. 42(2) : 1-25.
ICCAT. 1995. 1995 SCRS detailed report on skipjack.
ICCAT. 1997. Report for biennial period 1996-97, 1(2).
ICES. 1995. Report of the study group on elasmobranch fishes. ICES Headquarters,
Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 1995/g:3. 92pp.
Idyll, C. P. and D. de Sylva. 1963. Synopsis of biological data on albacore Thunnus alalunga
(Gmelin) 1788 (Western Atlantic). Pages 749-754 in: H. Rosa Jr. ed. Proceedings of the
World Scientific Meeting on the Biology of Tunas and Related Species. FAO Fisheries
Reports No. 6 (2)
Idyll, C.P. and D. de Sylva. 1963. Synopsis of biological data on yellowfin tuna Thunnus
albacares (Bonnaterre) 1788 (Western Atlantic). Pages 771-777 in: H. Rosa Jr. ed.
Proceedings of the World Scientific Meeting on the Biology of Tunas and Related Species.
FAO Fisheries Reports No. 6 (2)
Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser. 1998. The effects of fishing on Marine Ecosystems. Advances in
Marine Biology, 34.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-205

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Jensen, C.F., L.J. Natanson, H.L. Pratt, N.E. Kohler and S.E. Campana. 2002. The reproductive
biology of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fish.
Bull. 100: 727-738.
Jensen, C.F., T.A. Thorpe, M.L. Moser, J.J. Francesconi, G.A. Hopkins, and D. Bersoff. 2002.
Shark nursery areas in North Carolina state waters. In: McCandless et al. 2002. Shark
nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast waters of the United States: an
overview. 286 pp.
Joung, S.J., Y.Y. Liao, K.M. Liu, C.T. Chen and L.C. Leu. 2005. Age, growth, and reproduction
of the spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna, in the northeastern waters of Taiwan.
Zoological Studies 44: 102-110.
Joung, S.J., C-T Chen, E. Clark, S. Uchida, and W.Y.P. Huang. 1996. The whale shark,
Rhincodon typus, is a livebearer: 300 embryos found in a one "Megamamma" supreme.
Environ. Biol. Fishes 46: 219-223.
Joyce, W.N., S.E. Campana, L.J. Natanson, N.E. Kohler, H.L. Pratt and C.F. Jensen. 2002.
Analysis of stomach contents of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus Bonnaterre) in the
northwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 1263-1269.
Kato, S., S. Springer, and M.H. Wagner. 1967. Field guide to eastern Pacific and Hawaiian
sharks. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish. Wildl. Ser., Bureau of Comm. Fish., Circular 271,
Washington DC: 47pp.
Kelley, S., J.V. Gartner, W.J. Richards and L. Ejsymont. 1993. SEAMAP 1984 & 1985 –
ICHTHYOPLANKTON Larval Distribution and Abundance of Carangidae, Clupeidae,
Coryphaenidae, Engraulidae, Gobiidae, Istiophoridae, Lutjanidae, Scombridae, Serranidae,
and Xiphiidae in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS –SEFSC – 317. 107 p.
Kelley, S., T. Potthoff, W.J. Richards, L. Ejsymont and J.V. Gartner. 1986. SEAMAP 1983 –
ICHTHYOPLANKTON Larval Distribution and Abundance of Engraulidae, Carangidae,
Clupeidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Sciaenidae, Coryphaenidae, Istiophoridae, Xiphiidae,
and Scombridae in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS –SEFC – 167.
Kenney, R.D., R.E. Owen and H.E. Winn. 1985. Shark distributions off the northeast United
States from marine mammal surveys. Copeia 1985: 220-223.
Keeney, D.B., M. Heupel, R.E. Hueter and E.J. Heist. 2003. Genetic heterogeneity among
blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus, continental nurseries along the US Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico. Marine Biology 143: 1039-1046.
Keeney, D.B., M.R. Heupel, R.E. Hueter and E.J. Heist. 2005. Microsatellite and mitochondrial
DNA analyses of the genetic structure of blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) nurseries
in the northwestern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Molecular Ecology 14:
1911-1923.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-206

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Kerstetter, D.W., B.E. Luckhurst, E.D. Prince and J.E. Graves. 2003. Use of pop-up satellite
archival tags to demonstrate survival of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) released from
pelagic longline gear. Fish. Bull. 101: 939-948.
Kleijn, L.J.K. 1974. Results of experimental and exploratory fishing off northeastern South
America (MFR paper 1089). Mar. Fish. Rev. 36 (9): 67-77.
Kunzlik, P.A. 1988. The basking shark. Dept. of Ag. and Fisheries for Scotland. Scottish
Fisheries Information Pamphlet 14: 21pp.
Laevastu, T. and H. Rosa, Jr. 1963. Distribution and relative abundance of tunas in relation to
their environment. Pages 1835- 1851 in: H. Rosa Jr. ed. Proceedings of the World Scientific
Meeting on the Biology of Tunas and Related Species. FAO Fisheries Reports No. 6 (3).
Lessa, R. and F.M. Santana. 1998. Age determination and growth of the smalltail shark,
Carcharhinus porosus, from northern Brazil. Marine and Freshwater Research 49: 705-711.
Lessa, R.P. and Z. Almeida. 1998. Feeding habits of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, from
northern Brazil. Cybium 22: 383-394.
Lessa, R., R.C. Menni and F. Lucena. 1998. Biological observations on Sphyrna lewini and S.
tudes (Chondrichthyes, Sphyrnidae) from northern Brazil. Life and Environment 48: 203­
213.
Lessa, R., R. Paglerani, and F.M. Santana. 1999a. Biology and morphometry of the oceanic
whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus (Carcharhinidae), off northeastern Brazil. Cybium
23: 353-368.
Lessa, R., F. Santana, R. Menni, and Z. Almeida. 1999b. Population structure and reproductive
biology of the smalltail shark (Carcharhinus porosus) off Maranhao (Brazil). Marine and
Freshwater Research 50: 383-388.
Lessa, R., F.M. Santana, and R. Paglerani. 1999c. Age, growth and stock structure of the oceanic
whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, from the southwestern equatorial Atlantic.
Fisheries Research 42: 21-30.
Liu, K.M., P.J. Chiang, and C.T. Chen. 1998. Age and growth estimates of the bigeye thresher
shark, Alopias superciliosus, in northeastern Taiwan waters. Fish. Bull. 96: 482-491.
Loefer, J.K. and G.R. Sedberry. 2003. Life history of the Atlantic sharpnose shark
(Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) (Richardson, 1836) off the southeastern United States. Fish.
Bull. 101: 75-88.
Loefer, J.K., G.R. Sedberry, and J.C. McGovern. 2005. Vertical movements of a shortfin mako
in the western North Atlantic as determined by pop-up satellite tagging. Southeastern
Naturalist 4: 237-246.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-207

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Lombardi-Carlson, L.A., E. Cortes, G.R. Parsons and C.A. Manire. 2003. Latitudinal variation in
life-history traits of bonnethead sharks, Sphyrna tiburo, (Carcharhiniformes: Sphyrnidae)
from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 875-883.
Lucifora, L.O., R.C. Menni, and A.H. Escalante. 2002. Reproductive ecology and abundance of
the sand tiger shark, Carcharias taurus, from the southwestern Atlantic. ICES Journal of
Marine Science 59: 553-561.
MacNeil, M.A., G.B. Skomal, and A.T. Fisk. 2005. Stable isotopes from multiple tissues reveal
diet switching in sharks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302: 199-206.
Marquez-Farias, J.F. and J.L. Castillo-Geniz. 1998. Fishery biology and demography of the
Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, in the southern Gulf of Mexico.
Fisheries Research 39: 183-198.
Marquez-Farias, J.F., J.L. Castillo-Geniz, and M.C.R. de la Cruz. 1998. Demography of the
bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo (Linnaeus, 1758), in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico.
Ciencias Marinas 24: 13-34.
Martinez, J.L. 1947. The Cuban shark industry. US. Fish Widl. Serv. Fishery Leaflet 250. 18pp.
Mather, F.J., lll, H.L. Clark, and J.M. Mason, Jr. 1975. Synopsis of the biology of the white
marlin Tetrapturus albidus Poey (1861). Pages 55-94 in: Shomura, R. S. and F. Williams.
eds. Proceedings of the International Billfish Symposium Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 9-12
August 1972. Part 3. Species Synopses. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-675. 159 p.
Mather, F.J., J.M. Mason, and A.C. Jones. 1995. Historical document: life history and fisheries
of Atlantic bluefin tuna. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC – 370 : 165 p.
Matthews, F.D., D.M. Damkaer, L.W. Knapp, and B.B. Collette. 1977. Food of wesatern North
Atlantic tunas (Thunnus) and lancetfishes (Alepisaurus). NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS-SSRF­
706:19 p.
McFarlane, G.A., J.R. King, and M.W. Saunders. 2002. Preliminary study on the use of neural
arches in the age determination of bluntnose sixgill sharks (Hexanchus griseus). Fish. Bull.
100: 861-864.
McGowan, M.F. and W.J. Richards. 1989. Bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, larvae in the Gulf
Stream off the southeastern United States: satellite and shipboard observations of their
environment. Fish. Bull. 87: 615-631.
Michel, M. and P. Steiner. 2002. Sharks of the Ten Thousand Islands Estuary in Florida. In:
McCandless et al. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast
waters of the United States: an overview. 286 pp.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1998. Amendment 12 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, August 1998. Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. Dover, DE.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-208

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Mollet, H.F., G. Cliff, H.L. Pratt, and J.D. Stevens. 2000. Reproductive biology of the female
shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus Rafinesque, 1810, with comments on the embryonic
development of lamnoids. Fish. Bull. 98: 299-318.
Moreno, J.A., and J. Morón. 1992. Reproductive biology of the bigeye thresher shark, Alopias
superciliosus (Lowe 1839). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43: 77-86.
Morgan, S. G. , C. S. Manooch III, D. L. Mason and J. W. Goy. 1985. Pelagic fish predation on
Cerataspis, a rare larval genus of oceanic penaeoid. Bull. Mar. Sci. 36(2): 249-259.
Musick, J.A. and J.A. Colvocoresses. 1986. Seasonal recruitment of subtropical sharks in
Cheasapeake Bight, USA. IOC/FAO Workshop on recruitment in tropical demersal
communities. Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commision
Workshop Report No. 44-Supplement. pp301-311.
Musick, J.A., S. Branstetter, and J.A. Colvocoresses. 1993. Trends in shark abundance from
1974 to 1991 for the Chesapeake Bight region of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Coast. In S.
Branstetter (ed.): Conservation biology of elasmobranchs. NOAA Technical Report NMFS
115: 1-18.
Musyl, M.K., R.W. Brill, C.H. Boggs, D.S. Curran, T.K. Kazama, and M.P. Seki. 2003. Vertical
movements of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) associated with islands, buoys, and seamounts
near the main Hawaiian Islands from archival tagging data. Fisheries Oceanography, Vol.
12(3): 152-169.
Nakamura, I. 1985. FAO Species Catalogue Vol. 5. Billfishes of the world. An annotated and
illustrated catalogue of marlins, sailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. FAO
Fish. Synop., (125) Vol. 5. 65 p.
Nakamura, H. 1935. On the two species of the thresher shark from Formosan waters. Mem. Fac.
Sci. Agric. Taihoku Imp. Univ. 14: 1-6.
Nakano, H. 1994. Age, reproduction and migration of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean.
Bull. Nat. Inst. Far Seas Fish. 31: 141-144.
Natanson, L.J. 1990. Relationship of vertebral band deposition to age and growth in the dusky
shark, Carcharhinus obscurus, and the little skate, Raja erinacea. Ph.D.dissertation.
University of Rhode Island:153 pp.
Natanson, L.J. 2002. Preliminary investigations into the age and growth of the shortfin mako,
Isurus oxyrinchus, white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, and thresher shark, Alopias
vulpinus, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers
ICCAT 54:1280-1293.
Natanson, L.J., J.G. Casey, and N.E. Kohler. 1995. Age and growth estimates for the dusky
shark, Carcharhinus obscurus, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull. 93: 116-126.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-209

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Natanson, L.J., J.G. Casey, N.E. Kohler, and T. Colket. 1999. Growth of the tiger shark,
Galeocerdo cuvier, in the western North Atlantic based on tag returns and length
frequencies; and a note on the effects of tagging. Fish. Bull. 97: 944-953.
Natanson, L.J., J.J. Mello, and S.E. Campana. 2002. Validated age and growth of the porbeagle
shark (Lamna nasus) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull. 100: 266-278.
Neer, J.A., B.A. Thompson, R.E. Condrey, J.A. De Silva, G.W. Peterson, K.P. Barry, J.K.
Blackburn, and D.W. Parnell. 2002. Shark nursery areas of Louisiana’s nearshore coastal
waters: a preliminary review. In: McCandless et al. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf
of Mexico and the East Coast waters of the United States: an overview. 286 pp.
Neer, J.A., B.A. Thompson, and J.K. Carlson. 2005. Age and growth of the bull shark,
Carcharhinus leucas, in the northern Gulf of Mexico: incorporating variability in size at
birth. Journal of Fish Biology 67: 370-383.
Owen, R.E. 1984. Distribution and ecology of the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus
(Gunnerus 1765). MS thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Palko, B.J., G.L. Beardsley, and W.J. Richards. 1981. Synopsis of the biology of the Swordfish,
Xiphias gladius Linnaeus. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 127. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS
Circular 441. 21p.
Parker, H.W., and F.C. Stott. 1965. Age, size and vertebral calcification in the basking shark,
Cetorhinus maximus (Gunnerus). Zool. Meded. 40(34): 305-319.
Parsons, G.R. 1993. Age determination and growth of the bonnethead shark Sphyrna tiburo: a
comparison of two populations. Mar. Biol. 117: 23-31.
Parsons, G.R. 2002. Identification of shark nursery grounds along the Mississippi and Alabama
Gulf coasts. In: McCandless et al. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and
the East Coast waters of the United States: an overview. 286 pp.
Pelligrin, G. 1996. Bycatch estimates and estimates of relative abundance for sharks. 1996 Shark
Stock Assessment Workshop. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami: 7pp.
Pothoff, T. and W. J. Richards. 1970. Juvenile bluefin tuna and other scombrids taken by terns in
the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 20(2): 389-413.
Pratt, H.L. 1979. Reproduction in the blue shark, Prionace glauca. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish.
Bull. 77: 445-470.
Pratt, H.L. and J.G. Casey. 1983. Age and growth of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus. In
E.D. Prince and L.M. Pulos (eds), Proceedings of the international workshop on age
determination of oceanic pelagic fishes: Tunas, billfishes, and sharks. NOAA Tech. Rep.
NMFS 8: 175-177.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-210

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Pratt Jr., H.L. and J.G. Casey. 1983. Age and Growth of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus,
using four methods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 1944-1957.
Prince, E.D., D.W. Lee, C.A. Wilson, and J.M. Dean. 1986. Longevity and age validation of a
tag-recaptured Atlantic sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus, using dorsal spines and
otoliths.Fish. Bull. U.S. 84(3):493-502.
Prince, E.D., D.W. Lee, and J.R. Zweifel. 1991. Estimating age and growth of young Atlantic
blue marlin Makaira nigricans from otolith microstructure. Fish. Bull., U.S. 89:441-459.
Report of the Standing Committee of Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, 20-24 October,
1997
Rey, J.C.,and E. Alot. 1983. Contribucion al estudio de la pesqueria de palangre del pez espada
(Xiphias gladius) en el Mediterraneo occidental. ICCAT. Collective Volume of Scientific
Papers. Vol.XX (SCRS-1983), No. 2- Temperate Spp. Madrid: 428-434.
Richards, W.J. 1969. Distribution and relative apparent abundance of larval tunas collected in the
tropical Atlantic during Equalant I and II. Proc. Symp. Ocean. Fish. Res. Trop. Atl. –
Review papers and contributions. pp. 289 – 315.
Richards, W.J. and D.C. Simmons. 1971. Distribution of tuna larvae (Pisces, Scombridae) in the
northwestern Gulf of Guinea and off Sierra Leone. Fish. Bull. U.S. 69(3):555-568.
Richards, W.J., T. Potthoff, S. Kelley, M.F. McGowan, L. Ejsymont, J.H. Power, and R.M.
Olvera. 1984. SEAMAP 1982 – ICHTHYOPLANKTON Larval Distribution and
Abundance of Engraulidae, Carangidae, Clupeidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Coryphaenidae,
Istiophoridae, Xiphiidae and Scombridae in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS
–SEFC – 144. 51 p.
Richards, W.J. 1991. Early life history of the Atlantic bluefin tuna from the western north
Atlantic. IATTC Spec. Rep. 7. 357 p.
Rivas, L.R. 1975. Synopsis of biological data on blue marlin, Makaira nigricans Lacepede,
1802. Pages 1-16 in: Shomura, R. S. and F. Williams. eds. Proceedings of the International
Billfish Symposium Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 9-12 August 1972. Part 3. Species Synopses.
NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-675. 159 p.
Robins, C.R. 1975. Synopsis of biological data on the longbill spearfish Tetrapturus pflugeri
Robins and de Sylva. Pages 28-38 in: Shomura, R. S. and F. Williams. eds. Proceedings of
the International Billfish Symposium Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 9-12 August 1972. Part 3.
Species Synopses. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-675. 159 p.
Russell, S.J. 1993. Shark bycatch in the Northern Gulf of Mexico tuna longline fishery, 1988-91,
with observations on the nearshore directed shark fishery. In S. Branstetter (ed.):
Conservation Biology of Elasmobranchs. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 115: 19-29.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-211

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Santana, F.M. and R. Lessa. 2004. Age determination and growth of the night shark
(Carcharhinus signatus) off the northeastern Brazilian coast. Fish. Bull. 102: 156-167.
Sauzo, L. 1956. Uova, larve e stadi giovanili di Teleostei. Fauna & Flora Golfo Napoli. Monogr.
38.
Schwartz, F.J. 1984. Occurrence, abundance and biology of the blacknose shark, Carcharhinus
acronotus in North Carolina. Northeast Gulf Sci. 7 (1): 29-47.
Scoles, D.R. and J.E. Graves. 1993. Genetic analysis of the population structure of yellowfin
tuna, Thunnus albacares, from the Pacific Ocean. Fish. Bull. U. S. 91:690-698.
Scott, G.P. 1996. Updated analysis of recent trends in catch rates of some Atlantic sharks. 1996
Shark Stock Assessment Workshop. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami: 32pp.
Scott, G.P., P.J. Phares, and B. Slater. 1996. Recreational catch, average size and effort
information for sharks in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters. 1996 Shark Stock
Assessment Workshop. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami: 32pp.
Shann, E.W. 1911. VIII- A description of the advanced embryonic stage of Lamna cornubica.
In: The 28th Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland: 73-79.
Simpfendorfer, C. 1992. Biology of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) caught by the Queensland
shark meshing program off Townsville, Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43: 33-43.
Simpfendorfer, C.A., G.G. Freitas, T.R. Wiley, and M.R. Heupel. 2005. Distribution and habitat
partitioning of immature bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) in a southwest Florida estuary.
Estuaries 28: 78-85.
Sims, D.W. 1999. Threshold foraging behaviour of basking sharks on zooplankton: life on an
energetic knife-edge? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B-Biological
Sciences 266: 1437-1443.
Sims, D.W. and D.A. Merrett. 1997. Determination of zooplankton characteristics in the
presence of surface feeding basking sharks Cetorhinus maximus. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 158: 297-302.
Sims, D.W. and V.A. Quayle. 1998. Selective foraging behaviour of basking sharks on
zooplankton in a small-scale front. Nature 393: 460-464.
Sims, D.W., C.D. Speedie and A.M. Fox. 2000. Movements and growth of a female basking
shark re-sighted after a three year period. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of
the United Kingdom 80: 1141-1142.
Skomal, G.B. and L.J. Natanson. 2003. Age and growth of the blue shark (Prionace glauca) in
the North Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull. 101: 627-639.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-212

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Skomal, G., G. Wood, and N. Caloyianis. 2004. Archival tagging of a basking shark, Cetorhinus
maximus, in the western North Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the
United Kingdom 84: 795-799.
Sminkey, T.R. and J.A. Musick. 1995. Age and growth of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus
plumbeus, before and after population depletion. Copeia 1995(4): 871-83.
Smith, R.L. 1990. Ecology and Field Ecology. Harper Collins Publishers, USA. 922 pp.
Snelson, F.F., Jr., T.J. Mulligan, and S.E. Williams. 1984. Food habits, occurrence, and
population structure of the bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas, in Florida coastal lagoons. Bull.
Mar. Sci. 34(1): 71-80.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Comprehensive Amendment
Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic
Region, May 1998. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC.
Springer, S. 1967. Social organizations of shark populations. In P. Gilbert (ed.): Sharks, skates,
and rays. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore: 149-174.
Springer, S. 1950a. An outline for a Trinidad shark fishery. Proceedings of the Gulf and
Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Second Annual Session. Univ. of Miami. Coral Gables: 17-26.
Springer, S. 1960. Natural history of the sandbar shark Eulamia milberti. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv.
Fish. Bull. 61 (178): 1-38.
Springer, S. 1950b. Natural history notes on the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris. Tex. J. Sci.
3: 349-359.
Springer, S. 1950c. A revision of North American sharks allied to the genus Carcharhinus. Am.
Mus. Novit. 1451: 13pp.
Springer, S. 1979. Report on shark fishing in the western central Atlantic. WECAF report No. 3.
UNDP. FAO. Panama: 39 pp.
Springer, V. G. 1964. A revision of the carcharhinid shark genera Scoliodon, Loxodon, and
Rhizoprionodon. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 115 (no. 3493): 559-632.
Springer, S. and R.A. Waller. 1969. Hexanchus vitulus, a new sixgill shark from the Bahamas.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 19: 159-174.
Springer, S. 1938. Notes on the sharks of Florida. Porch. Florida Acad. Sci. 3: 9-41.
Springer, S. 1963. Field observations on large sharks of the Florida-Caribbean region. In: P.W.
Gilbert (ed.): Sharks and Survival. D.C. Heath and Co., Boston: 95-113.
Springer, S. 1948. Oviphagous embryos of the sand shark, Carcharias taurus. Copeia 1948(3):
153-157.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-213

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Squire, J.L., Jr. 1963. Thermal relationships of tuna in the oceanic Northwest Atlantic. Pages
1639-1657 in: H. Rosa Jr. ed. Proceedings of the World Scientific Meeting on the Biology
of Tunas and Related Species. FAO Fisheries Reports No. 6 (3)
Squire, J.L., Jr. 1963. Distribution of tuna species in the oceanic Northeast Atlantic. Pages 1477­
1514 in: H. Rosa Jr. ed. Proceedings of the World Scientific Meeting on the Biology of
Tunas and Related Species. FAO Fisheries Reports No. 6 (2)
Stevens, J.D. and K.J. Mcloughlin. 1991. Distribution, size, and sex composition, reproductive
biology and diet of sharks from northern Australia. Austr. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 42: 151­
99.
Stevens, J.D. and J.M. Lyle. 1989. Biology of three hammerhead sharks (Eusphyra blochii,
Sphyrna mokarran, and S. lewini) from northern Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res.
40: 129-46.
Stillwell, C.E. and N. Kohler. 1982. Food, feeding habits, and estimates of daily ration of the
shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:
407-414.
Stillwell, C.E. and N. Kohler. 1985. Food and feeding ecology of the swordfish Xiphias gladius
in the western north Atlantic Ocean with estimates of daily ration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
22:239-247.
Strasburg, D.W. 1958. Distribution, abundance, and habits of pelagic sharks in the central Pacific
Ocean. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 138 (58): 335-361.
Strong, W.R., Jr., R.C. Murphy, B.D. Bruce, and D.R. Nelson. 1992. Movements and associated
observations of bait-attracted white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias: a preliminary report.
Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43: 13-20.
Suda, A. 1953. Ecological study on the blue shark (Prionace glauca Linne). South Seas Area
Fisheries Research Laboratory, Report 26, Supplement 1: 15pp.
Suda, A. 1994. Some preliminary observations on the biological characteristics of the
concentrations of bluefin tuna in the Northwestern and Central North Atlantic Ocean.
Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 42(1) : 267-270.
Sundstrom, L.F., S.H. Gruber, S.M. Clermont, J.P.S. Correia, J.R.C. de Marignac, J.F.
Morrissey, C.R. Lowrance, L. Thomassen, and M.T. Oliveira. 2001. Review of
elasmobranch behavioral studies using ultrasonic telemetry with special reference to the
lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris, around Bimini Islands, Bahamas. Environ. Biol.
Fishes 60: 225-250.
Tanaka, S. and K. Mizue. 1977. Studies on sharks- XI: Reproduction in female Heptranchias
perlo. Bull. Fac. Fish. Nagasaki Univ. 42: 1-9.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-214

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Templeman, W. 1963. Distribution of sharks in the Canadian Atlantic. Bulletin of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 140.
Thayer, G.W., J.P. Thomas, and K.V. Koski. 1996. The habitat research plan of the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries. 21(5): 6-10.
Thorson, T.B. 1976. The status of the Lake Nicaragua shark: An updated appraisal. In T.B.
Thorson (ed.): Investigations of the ichthyofauna of Nicaraguan lakes. School of Life
Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln: 561-574.
Thorson, T.B. and E.J. Lacy. 1982. Age, growth rate and longevity of Carcharhinus leucas
estimated from tagging and vertebral rings. Copeia 1982(1): 110-116.
Tiews, K. 1963. Synopsis of biological data on the bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus)
1758 (Atlantic and Mediterranean). Pages 422- 481 in: H. Rosa Jr. ed. Proceedings of the
World Scientific Meeting on the Biology of Tunas and Related Species. FAO Fisheries
Reports No. 6 (2)
Toll, R.B. and S.C. Hess. 1981. Cephalopods in the diet of the swordfish, Xiphias gladius, from
the Florida Straits. Fish. Bull. 79(4): 765 –774.
Tremain, D.M., C.W. Harnden, and D.H. Adams. 2004. Multidirectional movements of sportfish
species between an estuarine no-take zone and surrounding waters of the Indian River
Lagoon, Florida. Fish. Bull. 102: 533-544.
Turner and Boesch. 1987. Aquatic animal production and wetland relationships: Insights gleaned
following wetland loss or gain, pp. 25-39, in: D. Hooks (ed.), Ecology and Management of
Wetlands. croon Helms, LTD, Beckenham, Kent, UK.
Uchida, S., M. Toda, K. Teshima, and K. Yano. 1996. Pregnant white sharks and full-term
embryos from Japan. In ‘Great white sharks: the biology of Carcharodon carcharias.
Klimley, P., and Ainley, D.G. (Eds.) Acad. Press, New York: 139-155.
Ulrich, G.F. 1996. Fishery independent monitoring of large coastal sharks in South Carolina.
1996 Shark Stock Assessment Workshop. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami: 16pp.
Ulrich, G.F. and C.P. Riley. 2002. Shark nursery areas in South Carolina estuarine and coastal
waters. In: McCandless et al. 2002. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and the
East Coast waters of the United States: an overview. 286 pp.
Vas, P. 1990. The abundance of the blue shark, Prionace glauca, in the western English channel.
Environ. Biol. Fishes 29: 209-225.
Vinnichenko, V.I. 1996. New data on the distribution of some species of tuna (Scombridae) in
the North Atlantic. J. of Ichth. 36(8): 679-681.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-215

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Vodyanitsky, V.A., and I.I. Kazanova, 1954. Key to the pelagic fishes and larvae of the Black
Sea. Tr. Vges. Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Morsk. Rybn. Khoz. Okeanogr. 28:240-345 (In
Russian).
Walter, J.P. and D.A. Ebert. 1991. Preliminary estimates of age of the bronze whaler,
Carcharhinus brachyurus, (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae) from southern Africa, with a
review of some life history parameters. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 10: 37-44.
Weng, K.C. and B.A. Block. 2004. Diel vertical migration of the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias
superciliosus), a species possessing orbital retia mirabilia. Fish. Bull. 102: 221-229.
Wetherbee, B.M., G.L. Crow, and C.G. Lowe. 1996. Biology of the Galapagos shark,
Carcharhinus galapagensis, in Hawaii. Environ. Biol. Fishes 45: 299-310.
Whitney, N.M., H.L. Pratt, and J.C. Carrier. 2004. Group courtship, mating behaviour and
siphon sac function in the whitetip reef shark, Triaenodon obesus. Animal Behaviour 68:
1435-1442.
Wilson, S.G. 2004. Basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) schooling in the southern Gulf of
Maine. Fisheries Oceanography 13: 283-286.
Wintner, S.P. 2000. Preliminary study of vertebral growth rings in the whale shark, Rhincodon
typus, from the east coast of South Africa. Environ. Biol. Fishes 59: 441-451.
Wintner, S.P. and S.F.J. Dudley. 2000. Age and growth estimates for the tiger shark, Galeocerdo
cuvier, from the east coast of South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 43-53.
References for Shark Sizes in Tables B.1 and B.2
Bonfil, R., R. Mena and D. de Anda. 1993. Biological parameters of commercially exploited
silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, from the Campeche Bank, Mexico. In S. Branstetter
(ed.): Conservation biology of sharks. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 115. U.S. Dept.
Comm., Miami. pp. 72-86
Branstetter, S. 1987. Age and growth estimates for blacktip, Carcharhinus limbatus, and spinner,
C. brevipinna, sharks from the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Copeia 1997(4): 964-975.
Branstetter, S. 1987. Age, growth and reproductive biology of the silky shark, Carcharhinus
falciformis, and the scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini, from the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico. Environ. Biol. Fishes 19(3): 161-173.
Branstetter, S. and R. Stiles. 1987. Age and growth estimates of the bull shark, Carcharhinus
leucas, from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Env. Biol. Fish. 20(3): 169-181.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-216

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Carlson, J.K. 2002. Shark nurseries in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: McCandless, C. T.
and H. L. Pratt, Jr. (eds.) Gulf of Mexico and- Atlantic States shark nursery overview. US
Department of Commerce, NOAAINational Marine Fisheries ServiceIHighly Migratory
Species Management Division, FISFI NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 13 15 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD.
Carlson, J.K. J.R. Sulikowski, and L.E. Baremore. In review. Do differences in life history exist
for blacktip sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus, from the United States South Atlantic Bight and
Eastern Gulf of Mexico? Environ. Biol. Fishes .
Castro, J.A. and J. Mejuto. 1995. Reproductive parameters of blue shark Prionace glauca and
other sharks in the Gulf of Guinea. Marine and Freshwater Research 46(6): 967-933.
Castro, J.I. 1983. The sharks of North American waters. Texas A. & M. University Press,
College Station.180pp.
Castro, J.I. 1993a. The biology of the finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon. Environ. Biol.
Fishes 36: 219-232.
Castro, J.I. 1993b. The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a review of the shark
nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. Environ. Biol. Fishes 38: 37-48.
Castro, J.I. 1996. Biology of the blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus, off the southeastern
United States. Bulletin of Marine Science 59(3): 508-522.
Castro, J.I. 2000. The biology of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum, off the Florida east
coast and the Bahama Islands. Environ. Biol. Fishes 58: 1-22.
Castro, J.I., C. M. Woodley, and R. L. Brudek. 1999. A preliminary evaluation of the status of
shark species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 380. 72pp.
Clarke, E. and K. von Schmidt. 1965. Sharks of the central Gulf coast of Florida. Bulletin of
Marine Science 15(1): 13-83.
Clarke, T.A. 1971. The ecology of the scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini, in Hawaii.
Pacific Science 25: 133-144.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. FAO Species Catalog Vol. 4 Part 1: Sharks of the world: an annotated
and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis 125. FAO,
Rome, Italy. 249pp.
Duffy, C. and M.P. Francis. 2001. Evidence of summer parturition in shortfin mako (Isurus
oxyrinchus) sharks from New Zealand waters. New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research 35(2): 319-324.
Ebert, D.A. 1986. Biological aspects of the sixgill shark, Hexanchus griseus. Copeia
1986(1):131-135.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-217

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Fourmanoir, P. 1961. Requins de la cote ouest de Madagascar. Memoires de L'Institut
Scientifique de Madagascar. Tome IV. 81pp.
Gilmore, R.G. 1983. Observations on the embryos of the longfin mako, Isurus paucus, and the
bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus. Copeia 1983(2): 375-382.
Gilmore, R.G. 1993. Reproductive biology of lamnoid sharks. Env. Biol. Fish. 38: 95-114.
Gilmore, R.G., J.W. Dodrill, and P.A.Linley. 1983. Reproduction and embryonic development of
the sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus (Rafinesque) Fish. Bull. 81(2): 201-225.
Guitart-Manday, D. 1966. Nuevo nombre para una especie de tiburon del genero Isurus
(Elasmobranchii: Isuridae) de aguas Cubanas. Poeyana 15: 1-9.
Hazin, F.H.V., P.G. Oliveira, and M.K. Broadhurst. 2002. Reproduction of the blacknose shark
(Carcharhinus acronotus) in coastal waters off northeaster Brazil. Fish. Bull. 100: 143­
148.
Hoese, H.D. 1962. Sharks and rays of Virginia's seaside bays. Chesapeake Science 3(3): 166­
172.
Jensen, C.F., L.J. Natanson, H.L. Pratt, Jr., N.E. Kohler, and S.E. Campana. 2002. The
reproductive biology of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the western North Atlantic
Ocean. Fish. Bull. 100: 727-738.
Loefer, J.K. and G.R. Sedberry. 2003. Life history of the Atlantic sharpnose shark
(Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) (Richardson, 1836) off the southeastern United States.
Fish. Bull. 101(1): 75-88.
Merson, R.R. 1998. Nursery grounds and maturation of the sandbar shark in the western North
Atlantic. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 150pp.
Mollet, H.F., G. Cliff, H.L. Pratt, Jr., J.D. Stevens. 2000. Reproductive biology of the female
shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus Rafinesque, 1810, with comments on the embryonic
development of lamnoids. Fish. Bull. 98(2): 299-318.
Moreno, J.A. and J. Moron. 1992. Reproductive biology of the bigeye thresher shark, Alopias
superciliosus (Lowe, 1839). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43: 77-86.
Moreno, J.A., J.I. Parajua, and J. Moron. 1989. Biologia reproductiva y fenologia de Alopias
vulpinus (Bonnaterre, 1788) (Squaliformes: Alopiidae) en el Atlantico nor-oriental y
Mediterraneo occidental. Scientia Marina (Barcelona) 53(1): 37-46.
Parsons, G.R. 1983. The reproductive biology of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon
terraenovae (Richardson). Fish. Bull. 81(1): 61-73.
Parsons, G.R. 1993. Geographic variation in reproduction between two populations of the
bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo. Env. Biol. Fish. 38: 25-35.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-218

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

Pratt, Jr., H.L. 1979. Reproduction in the blue shark, Prionace glauca. Fish. Bull. 77(2): 445­
470.
Raschi, W., J.A. Musick, and L.J.V. Compagno. 1982. Hypoprion bigelowi, a synonym of
Carcharhinus signatus (Pisces: Carcharhinidae), with a description of ontogenetic
heterodonty in this species and notes on its natural history. Copeia 1982(1): 102-109.
Seki, T., T. Taniuchi, H. Nakano, and M. Shimizu. 1998. Age, growth and reproduction of the
oceanic whitetip shark from the Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Science 64(1): 14-20.
Springer, S. Natural history of the sandbar shark, Eulamia milberti. Fish. Bull. 61(178): 1-38.
Springer, S. and R.A. Waller. 1969. Hexanchus vitulus, a new sixgill shark from the Bahamas.
Bulletin of Marine Science 19(1): 159-174.
Stevens, J.D. and J.M. Lyle. 1989. Biology of three hammerhead sharks (Eusphyra blochii,
Sphyrna mokarran and S. lewini) from northern Australia Australian Journal of Marine
and Freshwater Research 40: 129-146.
Uchida, S., M. Toda, K. Teshima, and K. Yano. 1996. Pregnant white sharks and full-term
embryos from Japan. In: A.P. Klimley and D.G. Ainley (eds.) Great white sharks: The
biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, New York: 139-155.
Wetherbee, B.M., G.L. Crow, and C.G. Lowe. 1996. Biology of the Galapagos shark,
Carcharhinus galapagensis, in Hawaii. Env. Biol. Fish. 45: 299-310.
Williams, F. 1977. Notes on the biology and ecology of the blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the
eastern Pacific Ocean and a review of data from the World Ocean (unpublished
manuscript).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

B-219

APPENDIX B
REFERENCES

APPENDIX C LIST OF TABLES
Table C.1

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Pelagic Longline Atlantic White Marlin
Mortalities in Numbers of Fish 2001-2004. Source: Pelagic Longline Logbook;
Kerstetter, 2006.................................................................................................. C-1

Table C.2

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities,
in Number of Fish, as Derived from the RBS Database by Combining Retained
Fish and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM)
(applying a 35% post-release mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source:
Recreational Billfish Survey; Horodysky, 2005 ................................................ C-2

Table C.3

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities,
in Number of Fish, as Derived from the MRFSS Database by Combining
Retained Fish and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities
(PRM) (applying a 35% post-release mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source:
Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey; Horodysky, 2005 .................... C-3

Table C.4

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities,
in Number of Fish, as Derived from the LPS Database by Combining Retained
Fish and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM)
(applying a 35% post-release mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source: Large
Pelagics Survey; Horodysky, 2005; Large Pelagic Survey; Horodysky, 2005.. C-4

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

C-i

APPENDIX C
WHITE MARLIN FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES

C

APPENDIX: AGGREGATE DOMESTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE AND RECREATIONAL ATLANTIC WHITE
MARLIN FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES 2001 - 2004

Table C.1

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Pelagic Longline Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities in Numbers of Fish 2001-2004. Source: Pelagic
Longline Logbook; Kerstetter, 2006
Estimated PLL
Post-Release
Reported Atlantic PLL Killed/
Reported Atlantic PLL Live
Mortalities
Year
(PRM)*
Annual Estimate
Dead Discard
Releases
2001

267

617

343.1

610.1

2002

456

989

549.9

1,005.9

2003

275

539

299.7

574.7

2004

305

755

353.9

658.9

Sub-Totals
Estimated Aggregate PLL WHM
Mortality
Estimated Average Annual Aggregate
PLL White Marlin Mortality

1,303

2,900

1,546.6

2,849.6

2,849.6
712.4

* Various post-release mortality rates were applied by hook type (55.6% for J-hook; 27.7% for circle hook per Kerstetter, 2005), area, and time period, as
appropriate. J-hook PRM rates were applied to PLL live releases for 2001, 2002, 2003, and January – June (inclusive) 2004. J-hook PRM rates were applied to
non-NED PLL live releases for July 2004. Circle hook PRM rates were applied to NED PLL live releases for July 2004. Circle hook PRM rates were applied to
PLL live releases for all areas for August – December (inclusive) 2004.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

C-1

APPENDIX C
WHITE MARLIN FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES

Table C.2

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities, in Number of Fish, as Derived from the RBS Database
by Combining Retained Fish and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM) (applying a 35% post-release
mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source: Recreational Billfish Survey; Horodysky, 2005
Estimated Total Annual
RBS
Recreational White Marlin
Mortality
Year
RBS Kept
RBS Discarded Dead
Live Releases
RBS Estimated PRM
479.1
2001
22.0
0.0
1,306
457.1
805.5
2002
33.0
0.0
2,207
772.5
234.9
2003
20.0
0.0
614
214.9
497.2
2004
25.0
0.0
1,349
472.2
Sub-Totals
100.0
0.0
5,476
1,916.6
2,016.6
Estimated Aggregate Domestic
Recreational White Marlin
Mortality
2,016.6
Estimated Average Annual
Aggregate Recreational White
Marlin Mortality
504.15

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

C-2

APPENDIX C
WHITE MARLIN FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES

Table C.3

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities, in Number of Fish, as Derived from the MRFSS
Database by Combining Retained Fish and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM) (applying a 35%
post-release mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source: Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey; Horodysky, 2005
Estimated Total Annual
Recreational White
Marlin Mortality
MRFSS Discarded Dead MRFSS Live Releeases MRFSS Estimated PRM

Year

MRFSS Kept

2001

0.0

0.0

11,255

3,939.3

3,939.3

2002

0.0

0.0

4,633*

1,621.6

1,621.6

2003

0.0

0.0

339*

118.7

118.7

2004

0.0

0.0

7,060*

2,471.0

2,471.0

Sub-Totals

0.0

0.0

23,287

8,150.5

8,150.5

Estimated Aggregate Domestic
Recreational White Marlin
Mortality

8,150.5

Estimated Average Annual
Aggregate Recreational White
Marlin Mortality

2,037.6

*Data not available from all areas in that year.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

C-3

APPENDIX C
WHITE MARLIN FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES

Table C.4

Estimated Domestic Aggregate Recreational Atlantic White Marlin Mortalities, in Number of Fish, as Derived from the LPS Database
by Combining Retained Fish and Dead Discarded Fish with Estimated Post-Release Mortalities (PRM) (applying a 35% post-release
mortality estimate) 2001-2004. Source: Large Pelagics Survey; Horodysky, 2005; Large Pelagic Survey; Horodysky, 2005
LPS
Estimated Total Annual
Live Releases
Recreational White
Marlin Mortality
Year
LPS Kept
LPS Discarded Dead
LPS Estimated PRM
250.1
2001
4.0
0.0
703
246.1
2,183.6
2002
218.0
0.0
5,616
1,965.6
1,439.2
2003
365.0
0.0
3,069
1,074.2
2,028.6
2004
78.0
0.0
5,573
1,950.6
Sub-Totals
665.0
0.0
14,961
5,236.5
5,091.5
Estimated Aggregate Domestic
Recreational White Marlin
Mortality
5,901.5
Estimated Average Annual
Aggregate Recreational White
Marlin Mortality
1,475.4

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

C-4

APPENDIX C
WHITE MARLIN FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES

APPENDIX D: TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix D: Table of Contents ................................................................................................... D-i

D Proposed Rule and DEIS Comments and Responses ......................................................... D-1

D.1
Bycatch Reduction ...................................................................................................... D-1

D.1.1
Workshops .......................................................................................................... D-1

D.1.2
Time/Area Closures .......................................................................................... D-15

D.2
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing.................................................................... D-46

D.2.1
Northern Albacore Tuna ................................................................................... D-46

D.2.2
Finetooth Sharks ............................................................................................... D-49

D.2.3
Atlantic Billfish................................................................................................. D-58

D.3
Management Program Structure ............................................................................... D-95

D.3.1
Bluefin Tuna Quota Management Measures .................................................... D-95

D.3.2
Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries ................................. D-103

D.3.3
Authorized Fishing Gear................................................................................. D-105

D.3.4
Regulatory Housekeeping............................................................................... D-127

D.4
Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................. D-145

D.5
Economic and Social Impacts................................................................................. D-151

D.6
Consolidation of the FMPs ..................................................................................... D-154

D.7
Objectives of the FMP ............................................................................................ D-156

D.8
Comment Period/Outreach...................................................................................... D-159

D.9
General.................................................................................................................... D-160

D.9.1
Recreational .................................................................................................... D-163

D.9.2
Commercial Fishery........................................................................................ D-165

D.9.3
Longline .......................................................................................................... D-166

D.9.4
Swordfish ........................................................................................................ D-167

D.9.5
Tunas............................................................................................................... D-170

D.9.6
Sharks.............................................................................................................. D-170

D.9.7
Fishing Mortality and Bycatch Reduction ...................................................... D-174

D.9.8
Permitting, Reporting, and Monitoring........................................................... D-180

D.9.9
Enforcement.................................................................................................... D-183

D.9.10 ICCAT............................................................................................................. D-185

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-i

APPENDIX D
PROPOSED RULE & DEIS COMMENTS & RESPONSES

D

PROPOSED RULE AND DEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

D.1

Bycatch Reduction
D.1.1 Workshops

Comment 1: NMFS should have workshops for the recreational fishing industry
explaining the use of circle hooks.
Response: NMFS has conducted circle hook outreach in the past and will continue to
promote circle hook use in the future. NMFS has disseminated information on circle hooks
through informational pamphlets and in person through billfish tournament outreach. At this
time, this action would implement shark identification and careful release and disentanglement
workshops as required by Biological Opinions. The Agency may consider hosting voluntary
workshops to address the use of circle hooks in the recreational fishery and may provide
additional outreach targeting billfish tournaments.
Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops for Pelagic Longline,
Bottom Longline, and Gillnet Fishermen
Comment 2: Post-release survival is important to any successful conservation
management regime and sustainable fisheries. NMFS needs additional education and outreach
workshops, as well as cooperative research initiatives, before significant reductions in postrelease mortality can be achieved.
Response: The protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops are
intended to help further reduce the mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other
protected resources and non-target species captured incidentally in the HMS pelagic and bottom
longline and gillnet fisheries. Owners and operators of PLL, BLL, and gillnet vessels would
receive instruction on techniques for disentanglement, resuscitation, release, and identification of
protected resources and other non-target species. The dissemination of this information is an
important element in further reducing post-release mortality of protected resources in the PLL,
BLL, and gillnet fisheries in compliance with requirements of the 2003 and 2004 BiOps. The
goal for these workshops would be to increase fishermen’s proficiency with required release
equipment and protocols, while reducing the number of protected and non-target species
mortalities. Through the NED experiment, NMFS has shown that significant bycatch reductions
can be achieved through proper research, education, and outreach. These workshops are
intended to disseminated the information learned from the NED experiment, as well as other
information for the BLL and gillnet fisheries.
Comment 3: Several comments supported mandatory protected species workshops for
captains and owners. Some of those comments include: owners and captains should attend the
workshops, but attendance should not be mandatory for the crew because it would not be feasible
for crew members, who are not U.S. citizens, to attend a workshop; owners’ attendance would
discourage hiring green captains who do not know how to handle sea turtles; support for
mandatory training to reduce post-release mortality of longline-caught marine mammals and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-1

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

turtles; the GMFMC supports mandatory workshops for captains on pelagic longline vessels;
getting their gear off the turtles should be all the incentive fishermen need; industry will benefit
from attending these workshops because it will enable them to avoid further regulations; NMFS
needs to comply with the BiOp to keep the fishery open; workshops are a good investment for
the fishermen; and, EPA supports alternatives A2 and A3 requiring mandatory workshops on
handling protected species captured or entangled in fishing gear for all HMS pelagic and bottom
longline vessel owners (A2) and operators (A3). EPA also supported preferred alternatives A5
(mandatory workshops/certification for shark gillnet vessel owners/operators).
Response: Under the preferred alternatives, NMFS would require owners and operators,
but not crew members, of HMS longline and shark gillnet vessels to attend the protected species
safe handling, release, and identification workshops. Owners would be required to attend and
successfully complete the workshop before renewing their HMS fishing permit in 2007. Without
workshop certification, the vessel’s permit would not be renewed. Operators would be required
to attend the workshop to ensure that at least one person on board the vessel, who is directly
involved with the vessel’s fishing activities, has been successfully trained in the proper safe
handling, release, and identification of protected species. Without an operator trained in these
techniques, the vessel would be prohibited from engaging in HMS PLL, BLL, and gillnet fishing
activities. A safe handling, release, and identification workshop certificate would be required on
board HMS permitted longline and gillnet vessels during fishing operations. Due to the large
universe of HMS longline and shark gillnet crew members, NMFS would not require their
attendance at these workshops. Crew members, compared to owners and operators, would incur
a higher individual cost to attend the workshops in relation to their income per fishing trip.
Additionally, crew member certification would be difficult to monitor and enforce. NMFS
would encourage operators to transfer the knowledge and skills obtained from successfully
completing the workshops to the crew members potentially increasing the proper release,
disentanglement, and identification of protected resources. While crew members are not
required to attend the workshops, to the extent practicable, the workshops would be open to
anyone who wishes to attend and receive certification.
Comment 4: NMFS received several comments supporting mandatory workshop
certification for all HMS commercial and recreational hook and line fisheries. Those comments
include: Handling and release workshops should be implemented immediately for all HMS
commercial and recreational hook and line fisheries in order to gain the maximum benefit from
mitigation technologies and fishing practice; training the greatest number of crew members is the
key to protecting these imperiled species. To offset the economic impact, we support a longer
interval between required trainings for the rest of the crew, but not a complete exemption; and,
all HMS fishermen should complete workshops. Just because something is hard does not mean
NMFS should not train the fishermen.
Response: The preferred alternatives would require owners and operators of PLL, BLL,
and gillnet vessels to obtain the safe handling, release, and identification workshop certification.
Certified operators would be encouraged to transfer the knowledge, skills, and protocols obtained
from the workshops to the vessel’s crew members. While these workshops would be mandatory
for owners and operators, the workshops would be open to other interested parties, including
crew members and other HMS fishermen. Crew members that may have an opportunity to serve
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-2

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

as an operator on board a vessel would be encouraged to obtain the workshop training and
certification. Crew members would not be required to obtain certification in the safe handling
and release protocols because the average crew member’s individual cost to attend the workshop
is greater than the owner and operator. Additional information suggests that turnover is higher
with the vessel’s crew, making it difficult to continue operating a vessel with a fully certified
crew. With at least one individual on board the vessel trained and proficient in the safe handling
and release protocols, the likelihood of the safe release and disentanglement of protected species
increases significantly. While implementing mandatory workshops for all commercial and
recreational HMS fishermen may be a laudable goal, NMFS does not have the resources to train
such a large group of individuals at this time. Nearly 30,000 HMS recreational permit holders
would need to be trained and certified. The cost and logistics of doing this would be prohibitive.
However, NMFS may consider these workshops and other means for educating these permit
holders in the future.
Comment 5: NMFS received comments opposed to the protected species workshops.
These comments include: handling bycatch correctly wastes too much time on a valuable
money-making longline trip; I am opposed to alternative A2 and part of A5, mandatory
workshops and certification for all HMS pelagic and bottom longline and shark gillnet vessel
owners is unnecessary, unless they are an owner and an operator; owners may not be the vessel
operator on fishing trips. The first priority should be the vessel operator onboard while at sea on
fishing trips.
Response: NMFS agrees that handling bycatch correctly may take extra time and effort;
however, this time and effort will be well spent if it helps to ensure the continued survival of
protected species, prevents an exceedance of the incidental take statement (ITS), and prevents a
shutdown of the fishery. By taking this necessary training, fishermen would be helping to
protected threatened and endangered species, make the fishery less likely to shut down, and
therefore, promote economic stability. NMFS realizes that many vessel owners may not operate
or be on their vessels during fishing trips. Under the preferred alternative, protected species safe
handling, release, and identification workshops would be mandatory for all longline and gillnet
vessel operators. NMFS would encourage these operators to disseminate the workshop
information to their fishing crews. By certifying vessel owners, NMFS would ensure that the
owners are aware of the certification requirement and skills and would hold them accountable for
preventing their vessel from engaging in fishing activities without a certified operator onboard.
Additionally, the certification requirement would be linked to a vessel’s limited access permits
and owners would not be able to renew their permits without successful completion of the
required workshop. NMFS requires that vessel operators follow safe release and handling
protocols when they have interacted with certain protected species. All other non-marketable
species should be released in a way that maximizes their chances of survival. NMFS requires
vessel owners and operators to meet or exceed the performance standards laid out in the 2004
Biological Opinion.
Comment 6: NMFS received comments suggesting that the operator be required to train
the vessel’s crew with the safe handling and release protocols. Those comments include:
alternative A3 and A5 should include a stipulation that the certified vessel operator train new
crew members prior to each trip as is customary for safety drills; and, it should be clarified that a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-3

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

trained and certified owner or operator must be aboard at all times and that this individual is
responsible for ensuring that proper release and disentanglement gear is aboard, the crew is
informed, and correct procedures are followed.
Response: Owners and operators of HMS permitted longline and gillnet vessels would be
required to obtain the protected safe handling, release, and identification workshop certification
before the vessel’s permit expires in 2007. Operators would be required to be proficient in the
safe handling and release protocols to ensure that there is an individual on board the vessel with
the necessary skills to disentangle, safely release, and accurately identify any protected species
caught in the vessel’s gear. Owners and operators would be encouraged to explain and
demonstrate the safe handling and release protocols with the vessel’s crew members. Owners
and operators would not be required to train crew members, as this requirement would be
difficult to monitor and enforce. While crew members would not be required to attend the
protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops, to the extent practicable,
these workshops will be open to individuals interested in receiving the certification.
Comment 7: NMFS received comments in support of training fishermen in the proper
release of prohibited species and billfish, as well as protected species. These comments include:
NMFS should include safe release training for sharks and billfishes in these workshops; these
workshops should be referred to as “Careful Handling and Release Workshops,” rather than
protected species workshops because the workshops are appropriate for many species; and, the
scope of the protected species workshops should be expanded to include prohibited species.
Response: NMFS agrees that safe handling, release, and identification training may be
beneficial to all participants in HMS fisheries, including those that interact with sharks and
billfishes. The need for protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshops
stems from two Biological Opinions (BiOp) issued for the commercial shark fishery and the
pelagic longline fishery. The intent of these workshops is to reduce the post-release mortality of
sea turtles (in compliance with these BiOps) that are most frequently caught by participants using
either bottom longline to target sharks or pelagic longline to target swordfish and tunas. These
workshops would facilitate improved hook removal and safe release of sharks and billfishes
because the equipment and protocols, although specific to sea turtles, could be used to safely
disengage hooks in other fish and/or mammals that may be encountered. Billfish are often
encountered as bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery and the dehooking equipment and
protocols could be employed to safely dehook and release billfish, thus increasing their postrelease survival rates. The only fisheries authorized to target billfish are recreational rod and reel
fisheries. The two BiOps require outreach to the commercial fisheries employing PLL, BLL,
and shark gillnet gear on the proper safe handling, release, and identification of protected
species. While workshop attendance and certification would not be mandatory for recreational
fishermen, these individuals are welcome to attend any of the workshops on safe handling,
release, and identification to voluntary become more familiar with these techniques and
protocols.
Comment 8: NMFS received comment on grandfathering individuals who attended the
industry certified workshops held in Orlando, Florida and New Orleans, Louisiana. Those
comments include: the industry should be recognized for holding workshops before NMFS
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-4

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

finalized mandatory workshops; the three-year clock should start ticking on January 1, 2007 for
those who are grandfathered in, not from when they took the workshop; certification should be
given to fishermen and owners who attended previously held workshops; 85 percent of pelagic
longline fishermen were trained and industry certified in 2005. The industry was supportive and
actively engaged. These workshops should serve as a template for the future workshops; if the
industry-certified sea turtle handlers who have already attended and passed the industry
mandatory certification classes are required to do something, it should be an online review and
should not have to lose additional time at sea and incur additional travel expenses; and, the
process should be streamlined for these individuals to receive their initial certification.
Response: NMFS agrees that industry should be recognized for holding voluntary
workshops before NMFS finalized the Consolidated HMS FMP. As such, all owners and
operators that, as documented by workshop facilitators, attended and successfully completed
industry certification workshops held on April 8, 2005, in Orlando, FL, and on June 27, 2005, in
New Orleans, LA, would automatically receive valid protected species workshop certificates.
For those who participated in the industry-sponsored workshops, the certification must be
renewed every three years prior to the expiration date printed on the workshop certificate and
would need to be renewed prior to renewing their HMS permit in the third year.
Comment 9: NMFS received several comments requesting careful consideration when
scheduling the workshops. Comments include: the lunar cycles should be considered when
scheduling the workshops; workshops during closed season can still inconvenience people
because shark fishermen also fish for wahoo, dolphin, etc.; NMFS needs to be cognizant of the
time burden involved for fishermen; the mandatory workshops should be held only for critical
issues because fishermen must be out fishing to be profitable; and, there needs to be flexibility in
the process because not everyone will be able to attend the workshops.
Response: NMFS realizes that some HMS fisheries are dependent on the lunar cycle; and
therefore, would consider timing the workshops to ensure that most fishermen are able to attend.
To the extent practicable, NMFS would consider the lunar cycles and their resultant impacts on
availability of HMS participants when scheduling protected species safe handling, release, and
identification workshops. Scheduling the shark identification workshops for Federal dealers
would not be influenced by the lunar cycles because shark fisheries using bottom longline gear
(primary gear used to target large coastal sharks) are not as synchronized with the lunar cycles.
However, since the Agency does not know what other fisheries in which fishermen may be
participating, the Agency cannot guarantee that all workshops would be held at times to
minimize all lost fishing opportunities. The workshops would be held in areas where there is a
high concentration of permit holders, according to the addresses provided when applying for an
HMS permit. The schedule of these workshops would be made available in advance to allow
fishermen to attend the workshop most convenient to them. While a number of workshops could
be informative to HMS fishermen, the Agency chose to conduct the protected species workshops
required by the Biological Opinions and the recommendation from the Biological Opinion to
conduct shark identification workshops. The Agency may provide an opportunity for the
industry to schedule one-on-one training at the expense of the individual (i.e., trainer fees), if
they are unable to attend any of the previously scheduled workshops.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-5

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Comment 10: Some identification training should be provided to the owners and
operators during the release and disentanglement workshops.
Response: Species identification is vital for determining how best to handle a de-hooking
event, and would also enhance the amount and quality of data available regarding protected
species interactions. Accurate species identification is also important for compliance with HMS
fishery regulations, including the avoidance of prohibited species, maintaining quota limits, and
accurate data collection. NMFS intends to make education a key component of the workshops,
and would provide workshop participants with training to safely disentangle, resuscitate, and
release sea turtles, as well as identify and release other protected species such as marine
mammals and smalltooth sawfish. Sea turtle identification guides are also available on the
internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. Some marine mammal identification information
can be obtained from the Office of Protected Resources website:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. The HMS website also contains a link (HMS
ID Guide) to the Rhode Island Sea Grant bookstore where you may purchase identification
guides for marine mammals, sharks, tunas, and billfish.
Comment 11: NMFS received several comments on alternatives A6 and A16,
certification renewal timetable. Those comments include: renewal of the workshop certification
should occur every three years; NMFS should recertify every three years, but recertification
every five years would be better. Recertification held more frequently than three-years would be
too much; the workshop certification requirement could be an impediment to someone selling a
vessel if one cannot transfer the certification; certification should be tied to the operator, not the
vessel; and, EPA supports alternative A6.
Response: Under the preferred alternative, owners and operators of HMS longline and
shark gillnet vessels would be required to renew the mandatory protected species safe handling,
release, and identification workshop certification every three years. A three-year period for
recertification would maintain proficiency in the release, disentanglement and identification
protocols, and allow NMFS to update owners and operators on new research and developments
related to the subject matter while not placing an excessive burden on the participants (e.g., lost
fishing time and travel to attend workshops). NMFS considered recertifying owners and captains
every five years, but determined that it allows a more extensive period of time to lapse between
certification workshops, possibly impacting maintenance of proficiency and ability to obtain the
latest updates on research and development of handling and dehooking protocols. NMFS also
considered recertifying owners and operators every two years, but did not prefer the option
because it would likely have the greatest economic burden for the participants due to increased
frequency. Federally permitted shark dealers would also be required to renew the mandatory
Atlantic shark identification workshop certification on a three-year timetable. A renewal
frequency of three years ensures proficiency in shark identification and would provide an update
on new developments in shark identification and HMS regulations.
The workshop certification would not be transferable to any other person and would state
the name of the permit holder on the certificate. If acquiring an HMS LAP from a previous
permit holder, the new owner would need to obtain a workshop certification prior to transferring
the permit into the new owner’s name. This requirement ensures that every HMS LAP owner is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-6

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

fully aware of and accountable for the mandatory protocols that must be followed on board a
vessel with longline gear.
The initial operator certification would be linked to the renewal of the vessel’s HMS
LAP(s) in 2007. If the vessel owner holds multiple HMS LAPs, the operator would need to be
certified prior to the earliest expiration date on any of the permits in 2007. After the initial
certification, the operator’s workshop certificate is no longer linked to the renewal of a vessel’s
HMS LAP and would need to be renewed prior to the expiration date on the operator’s workshop
certificate. The workshop certification would not be transferable to any other person and would
have the operator’s name on the certificate.
Comment 12: PLL, BLL, and gillnet vessel owners may need to be allowed proxies as
well as dealers. NMFS should consider a proxy for elderly owners.
Response: NMFS believes that allowing proxies to attend workshops on behalf of
longline and gillnet owners would reduce the likelihood that those involved in the operation of
individual vessels would be the ones attending the workshops. NMFS is concerned that vessel
owners would select proxies that are not involved in the day-to-day operation of their fishing
vessel, thus compromising the goal of these workshops. If permit holders were to send proxies
involved with the day-to-day activities of the vessel (i.e., crew or operators), the permit holder
runs the risk of having no proxy available on the boat due to the high turnover of crew and
operators. The proxy may not be employed on permit holder’s vessel for the entire three years
that the permit is valid. Additionally, NMFS does not have the means to validate a connection
between the permit holder and the proxy. It is important for vessel owners that are not actually
involved in the day-to-day operations of their vessels to be aware of the regulations and
management of the fisheries in which their vessels are participating in order to fully and
effectively implement the techniques taught at the workshops. Vessel owners should be aware of
the concepts and breadth of material, as well as the tools and techniques, that would be covered
in the workshops to understand the requirements for engaging fishing activities with PLL, BLL
or gillnets on board the vessel and to understand what is expected of the vessel’s crew. By
certifying vessel owners, NMFS ensures that the owners are aware of the certification
requirement and skills and will hold them accountable for preventing their vessel from engaging
in fishing activities without a certified operator onboard. Non-compliance with the requirements
of the 2003 and 2004 BiOps could result in additional, more restrictive management measures in
the future.
Comment 13: EPA commented that the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP would be
improved by providing a more balanced discussion of workshop costs, and noted that in today=s
society, most trades and professions require practitioners to obtain licenses demonstrating
competence. Additionally, without authorized takings procedures, owners/operators might have
to defend themselves in courts of law for violating ESA. EPA stated that if one considers the
time invested in attending a one-day workshop, this measure seems like a bargain. EPA
questioned the assumption inherent in the cost/earnings analysis that accepts the premise that
time spent becoming qualified to practice longline fishing is time lost, and of no value.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-7

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Response: NMFS acknowledges that most trades and professions require practitioners to
obtain licenses demonstrating competence. However, there is still an economic opportunity cost
associated with any required activity that would not otherwise be taken voluntarily. In the case
of analyzing the economic costs associated with workshop alternatives, NMFS assumed the
activity that workshop participants would be engaged in, if they were not attending the
workshop, would be fishing. In the economic literature, it is common practice to use wage rates
from primary job activities as the opportunity cost of engaging in other activities.
NMFS recognizes that the training provided by workshops is valuable to fishermen and
may offset some unquantifiable portion of the opportunity costs that were estimated. The
opportunity cost estimates provided in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP were considered, and
should continue to be considered, upper bounds on the potential economic costs associated with
attending workshops. Information quantifying the economic value of time spent at the
workshops is not currently available to further refine the upper bound cost estimates used in the
economic analysis of workshop alternatives.
Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops
Comment 14: NMFS received several comments in support of alternative A9, mandatory
Atlantic shark identification workshops for all shark dealers. Those comments include: dealers
should be required to attend the shark identification workshops. If shark dealers cannot properly
identify a fish, their license and ability to be a dealer should be permanently revoked; workshops
for species identification are generally unnecessary for commercial fishermen although shark
identification workshops may be necessary for dealers or recreational fishermen; NMFS needs to
rename the Identification Workshops as being Shark and not HMS, since only shark dealers are
expected to be in attendance and certified at identifying sharks, not tunas; NMFS should have
two days of training, one mandatory (dealers) and one voluntary (fishermen, public, etc);
workshops give the dealer a good housekeeping seal of approval; NMFS should consider
prioritizing the certification of shark dealers because the universe is so large. The prioritization
could be based on a minimum annual purchase of shark products; and, EPA supported alternative
A9, stating that accurate species identification is necessary for compliance with HMS fishery
regulations, including avoidance of prohibited species, maintaining quota limits, and also for
accurate data collection.
Response: Under the preferred alternative, A9, NMFS would rename the workshops as
Atlantic shark identification workshops because only Federally permitted shark dealers would be
required to attend the workshops and receive certification. Identification training would be
focused on various species of sharks likely to be encountered by the dealer in both whole and
dress form. These mandatory identification workshops would improve the ability of shark
dealers to identify sharks to the species level and would improve the data collected for quota
monitoring, stock assessments, and decision making processes for formulating appropriate
fishery management strategies. While mandatory for shark dealers, these workshops would be
open to other interested individuals, to the extent possible. Workshop locations would be based
on dealer permit addresses. A schedule of workshops would be available in advance to allow
dealers to select the workshop most convenient to their schedule. The Agency may provide an
opportunity for the industry to schedule one-one-one training at the expense of the individual
(i.e., trainer costs), if they are unable to attend any of the previously scheduled workshops.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-8

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Comment 15: NMFS received several comments concerned about the effectiveness of the
HMS identification workshops for only shark dealers. The comments include: limiting HMS
identification workshops to dealers only will mean proper species identification will come too
late for prohibited species such as dusky sharks and such a strategy will not address problems
with recreational compliance. NMFS should expand the required audience at the HMS
identification workshops and/or expand the scope of the protected species workshops to include
identification and safe release of prohibited shark species; the identification workshop for dealers
only is not enough. It will help with data collection and stock assessments, but it will not help
with conservation; and, the Agency should focus their efforts on the directed shark fishermen
that are actually landing sharks and dealers with 90 percent of the catch.
Response: Under the preferred alternatives, Atlantic shark identification workshops
would be mandatory for Federally permitted shark dealers, but, to the extent possible, these
workshops would be open to other interested individuals (e.g., individuals participating in the
shark fishery, port agents, law enforcement officers, state shark dealers, and recreational
fishermen) on a voluntary basis. Under the preferred alternatives, Federally permitted shark
dealers would be required to receive this training in an effort to reduce unclassified shark
landings and improve species-specific landings data. Improvements in shark dealer data would
improve existing quota monitoring programs as well as improve the accuracy of future stock
assessments. With improved dealer identification, dealers would be more accountable for the
sharks purchased, potentially discouraging the purchase of prohibited species. If there is no
market for prohibited species, fishermen may modify their behavior and safely release any
incidental catch of prohibited species. To train and certify the greater than 25,000 anglers that
participate in the HMS recreational fishery would exceed the Agency’s resources at this time.
While commercial and recreational shark fishermen would not be required to attend the Atlantic
shark identification workshops, to the extent possible the workshops would be open to anyone
who wishes to attend and receive certification. In the future, additional actions may be taken to
improve the data collected from the HMS recreational industry.
Comment 16: NMFS received comments on Alternative A15, mandatory attendance at
HMS identification workshops for all HMS Angling category permit holders. Those comments
include: mandatory attendance for all HMS Angling category permit holders would be a
substantial undertaking; HMS identification workshops should be mandatory for all fishermen
that land sharks; HMS Angling category permit holders should also have to attend because they
are the primary misidentification and non-reporting problem; most commercial fishermen know
how to identify species; and, some of the species identification problem is an angler problem.
Response: At this time, HMS identification workshops would not be required for HMS
Angling category permit holders. Under the preferred alternative, all Federally permitted shark
dealers would be required to attend the Atlantic shark identification workshops. The successful
completion of the workshop would be linked to the dealer’s ability to renew a Federal dealer
permit. The purpose of the Atlantic shark identification workshops is to improve the data
collected from the fishery, thereby improving quota monitoring and stock assessments. Dealer
reports are an important data source for quota monitoring and management decisions; and
therefore, these workshops would have great impact on improving the accuracy of the shark
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-9

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

species identification. While the recreational fishery also contributes to shark misidentification,
mandatory attendance for the angling community would not resolve the data quality issues
associated with commercial vessel logbooks and dealer reports. Thus, quota monitoring and
commercial regulatory compliance would not benefit from mandatory angler attendance as they
would under mandatory shark dealer certification. Commercial and recreational shark fishermen
would not be required to attend the Atlantic shark identification workshops, but to the extent
possible, the workshops would be open to anyone who wishes to attend and receive certification.
The money and time required to track and link permits to the workshop certification, to hold an
appropriate number of workshops to certify all HMS anglers permit holders (over 25,000
individuals), and to enforce the workshop requirement for all HMS angler permit holders
currently exceed the Agency's resources. In the future, additional actions may be taken to
improve the data collected from the HMS recreational industry.
Comment 17: NMFS received two comments about mandatory workshops for state shark
dealers. Those comments are: HMS identification workshops should be held for state dealers to
encompass the entire universe of dealers reporting unclassified sharks; and, NMFS needs more
information on state shark landings. The Agency is wasting the industry’s time requiring the
wrong people to attend these workshops.
Response: NMFS does not have any jurisdiction over state permitted shark dealers and
cannot require their attendance at Federal workshops. However, to the extent possible, the
Atlantic shark identification workshops would be open to other interested individuals, including
state shark dealers, on a voluntary basis. To purchase sharks from a Federally permitted vessel, a
state shark dealer must also possess a Federal shark dealer permit and, therefore, would be
required to attend the workshops.
Comment 18: NMFS should require port agents to attend these workshops to improve
their shark identification. Law enforcement needs to learn how to identify sharks.
Response: The Agency would encourage port agents to attend these workshops to
improve their identification skills, especially since port agents are often responsible for the
collection of biological information on many species that the Agency manages. Furthermore,
law enforcement officials also need to identify sharks to the species level to enforce regulations
related to seasons, minimum sizes, bag limits, and trip limits. Port agents and law enforcement
officials are required to attend rigorous training on the identification of HMS regulated species;
however, the material that would be covered in these workshops might provide additional
morphological characteristics to facilitate shark identification in various conditions at landing
(i.e., no fins, no head, several days since landing, and gutted). As mentioned previously, law
enforcement officials and port agents would be notified of workshops in their respective regions
and encouraged to attend, to the extent practicable.
Comment 19: It is very difficult to sell 'unknown' sharks in the market and sharks are
being listed as unclassified because it is the path of least resistance when they are reporting.
Response: Landings data from 2004 indicate that the number of unclassified large
coastal, small coastal, and pelagic shark landings was 19 percent, 0.3 percent, and 53 percent of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-10

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

total shark landings. These percentages indicate that a significant number of sharks do enter the
market as unclassified despite regulations that require species-specific reporting by vessel
owners and dealers. NMFS does not know if sharks are being listed as unclassified because
fishermen and dealers are unable to identify them, to circumvent prohibited species restrictions,
or because it is the most expeditious manner to process the catch as the commenter suggests.
However, NMFS believes that mandatory Atlantic shark identification workshops would
improve the ability of shark dealers to identify sharks to the species level. NMFS anticipates that
these workshops would improve the data collected to assess stock status and decision making
processes for formulating appropriate fishery management strategies.
Comment 20: NMFS received comment on the workshop materials and the need to hold
shark identification workshops. These comments include: NMFS will need pictures of all the
shark species to teach proper identification. Those pictures will need to include pictures of
dressed fish, whole fish, and fins of each species, especially prohibited species; and, NMFS
should consider enlisting members of the industry to help with these workshops.
Response: NMFS would coordinate with local shark dealers to have some dressed sharks
available for each workshop. If the workshops are held after a closure or in an area where no
carcasses are available, NMFS would use other tools, such as photo presentations and
dichotomous keys, to present methods for identifying dressed sharks to the species level. The
Agency intends to use a combination of dressed sharks, fins, photo presentations, and
dichotomous keys to improve species-specific shark carcass identification. The success of the
Atlantic shark identification workshops will depend upon cooperation between the Agency and
the industry.
Comment 21: Please consider Houma as a location to conduct the shark dealer
workshops, if selected.
Response: NMFS would not be able to hold workshops at every shark dealer facility;
however, the Agency examined the number and location of shark dealers in each region, and
would work to provide workshops in areas that are convenient to the greatest number of people.
A preliminary evaluation of dealers in the southern Louisiana region shows that Houma
proportionally does not land the most sharks in the region, but is central to other locations. As
suggested, the Agency will consider Houma as a potential site for an Atlantic shark identification
workshop.
Comment 22: NMFS received several comments on allowing a proxy to attend the
Atlantic shark Identification workshops for the shark dealers. Those comments are: NMFS
should allow a purchase agent proxy to attend instead of the shark dealer permit owner. NMFS
needs to consider all of the truck drivers operating under the single NMFS shark dealer permit
who purchase sharks products from satellite locations; if a shark dealer loses their proxy due to
unforeseen circumstances, NMFS should have some flexibility on allowing the fishhouse to
continue operating until a replacement is found and certified; a trained and certified dealer
representative must be present at all times whenever HMS catches are offloaded to be
responsible for ensuring that all HMS landings are monitored and properly documented.
Therefore, dealers should be allowed more than one proxy if it is requested; “Dockside
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-11

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Technicians” should be allowed as a proxy for the fish dealer who may not be present during
vessel pack-outs; the document has some good ideas for proxies, but you will need to be careful
about a lapse between proxies, should the individual leave the business; and, there must be a fast
track way to get certified if a proxy leaves, such as online certification.
Response: Under the preferred alternatives, all Federally permitted shark dealers would
be required to obtain Atlantic shark identification workshop certification. NMFS encourages
shark dealers to send as many proxies as is necessary to train staff members responsible for shark
species identification within the dealer’s business. Federally permitted shark dealers would be
held accountable for ensuring that the appropriate individuals receive the proper training in shark
identification. Shark dealer permit holders would be encouraged to share the workshop
information and training with individuals that were unable to attend the workshop. Multiple
proxies per shark dealer would ensure that the dealer has at least one person on staff with the
workshop certification and skills to properly identify sharks if another proxy’s employment is
terminated. The schedule for Atlantic shark identification workshops would be available in
advance to allow dealers and proxies to select the workshop closest to them and most convenient
to their schedule. If a dealer and/or proxy is unable to attend a scheduled workshop, NMFS will
consider granting one-on-one workshop training at the expense of the individual. These one-on­
one training sessions could accommodate the replacement of a proxy whose employment was
terminated on short notice.
Other Workshop Related Comments
Comment 23: NMFS received several comments on outreach beyond the two workshops.
These comments included: regardless of who is required to attend the workshops, the Agency
should do at-sea identification; a field guide should be sent out to all HMS permit holders;
NMFS should provide waterproof field identification materials; manuals should be developed on
the proper billfish and tuna release handling procedures; and, HMS Identification Guide should
be required on board permitted vessels and in the office of HMS permitted fish dealers. The
Guide could also be made available online.
Response: The HMS website (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/) currently provides a
diversity of information on a number of HMS and protected species, including a tutorial on sea
turtle identification and handling, and a link to purchase the waterproof HMS identification guide
from Rhode Island Sea Grant, as well as the actual safe handling and release protocols and
placards in three different languages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese). Curriculum for the
Atlantic shark identification workshops is in development. However, current plans include
distributing waterproof identification material at the protected species workshops, as well as
distributing and training participants to use a key for distinguishing species-specific features at
Atlantic shark identification workshops. NMFS recommends that these materials be readily
accessible in dealer offices and onboard fishing vessels, and encourages workshop participants to
share knowledge gained with their crew and other employees. While NMFS would like to
distribute the HMS guide to all HMS permit holders, the resources to do so are not currently, nor
are they likely to be available in the future.
Comment 24: NMFS received several comments about providing an expedited means for
receiving the training, certification, and renewal. Those comments include: there should be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-12

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

internet training and certification; can HMS identification workshops and renewals occur
online?; certification over the internet might not suffice, however, recertification might be
possible; to facilitate normal turnover, review and busy schedules, NMFS could conduct training
via the internet and/or by mail; NMFS needs to provide a convenient way for new captains to be
certified prior to their first trip. Initial certification for new vessel operators must be
conveniently available, such as a self-course over the internet or overnight mail. Vessel
operations should not be held up unnecessarily; NMFS needs to make sure to develop a
streamlined approach to keeping this certification effort simple and convenient so as to not to be
a burden to all folks participating; and, hands-on training is important. The first time going
through the training must occur in the workshop.
Response: The Agency’s priority is to make the workshops as successful and effective as
possible. Due to the nature of workshop subject matter, hands-on training and interaction with
the workshop leader is vital for initial skill development and certification for the protected
species safe handling, release, and identification workshops, as well as the Atlantic shark
identification workshops. Once the first round of certifications are complete, NMFS will explore
alternative means for renewing permits, including online or mail-in options. The Agency also
hopes to develop an online program that will serve as a medium for providing up-to-date
information regarding Atlantic shark identification and protected species handling techniques.
To facilitate coordination between workshops and regular business activities, NMFS
plans to do focused mailing to permit holders to ensure that the workshop times and locations are
known in advance. This will hopefully allow workshop participants to plan workshop attendance
accordingly and prevent lapses in fishing activities.
Comment 25: How did NMFS analyze the economic impacts of attending these
workshops?
Response: NMFS conducted an opportunity cost analysis to determine the economic
costs associated with attending the various workshop alternatives. This analysis utilized the
economic information gathered in the HMS Logbook, and in particular the information in the
economic costs section of the logbook that is required to be completed by selected vessels. For
the vessels that completed the economic portion of the HMS Logbook in 2004, revenues per trip
were estimated by taking the number of fish caught per trip, multiplying the number of fish by
average weights for each species harvested, and multiplying the total weights for each species by
average prices for each species as reported in the dealer landings system. The costs reported for
each trip were then subtracted from the estimated revenue for each trip. Then the number of
days at sea as reported in logbooks was used to determine the average net revenue per day at sea
for each trip taken. Finally, the information provided on crew shares was used to allocate the net
revenue per day at sea to owner, captain, and crew. Information from the HMS permits database
was then used to estimate the potential number of participants in each of the workshop
alternatives. Since information on the number of captains per permitted vessel was not available,
NMFS conservatively estimated that there could be two captains per permit for PLL vessels and
one captain for all others. Net revenues per day for owners, captains, and crew were then
multiplied by the number of participants expected for each workshop alternative to estimate the
opportunity cost for a one day workshop. The economic impacts (i.e., out of pocket cash costs)
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-13

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

associated with attending workshops is likely to be less than the economic opportunity costs
estimated since NMFS plans on scheduling workshops on less productive fishing days to avoid
lost time at sea.
Comment 26: If training and certification is mandated, it is essential that NMFS ensure
that adequate funding and personnel resources are dedicated to develop and fully support all
program facets.
Response: The Agency agrees and is fully aware of the ramifications of these workshops
and the need to implement them successfully. Numerous individuals, with a variety of expertise
and backgrounds have been involved in the implementation of the voluntary workshops to date,
and will be involved in any future mandatory workshops, including: shark identification and
biology, fishing gear technology and deployment, safe release and handling of protected
resources, vessel permitting, fisheries law enforcement, and shark carcass identification.
Comment 27: NMFS should consider how to ensure compliance with this requirement
and should have a plan to measure the effectiveness of the workshops.
Response: Successful completion of both workshops would be linked to the renewal of
the owner’s or dealer’s HMS permits. Longline and gillnet vessel owners would need to be
certified in the safe release and disentanglement protocols before they can renew their limited
access permits. Additionally, longline and gillnet vessels would not be allowed to engage in
fishing operations without a certified operator onboard, as well as proof of owner and operator
certification. Similarly, Federal shark dealers would need to be certified in shark identification,
or have a certified employee, to renew their dealer permit. NMFS would gauge the success of
these requirements by monitoring compliance with the sea turtle release and disentanglement
performance standards established in the 2004 Biological Opinion, as well as by monitoring the
amount of unclassified sharks reported by Federal dealers.
Comment 28: NMFS received comment suggesting that the Agency provide the
workshop materials in other languages, such as Spanish and Vietnamese, as well as English.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the diversity of HMS fishery participants, and would
make workshop materials accessible to as many of its constituents as possible. While workshops
would be conducted in English, NMFS hopes to provide workshop materials in other languages
for distribution at and outside of the workshops. Placards of sea turtle handling and release
guidelines are currently available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. To the extent
practicable, the Agency will work to develop shark identification materials in these languages as
well.
Comment 29: NMFS received several comments related to alternative A17, Compliance
with and Understanding of HMS Regulations. Those comments include: compliance and
increased understanding of HMS regulations could be addressed by mailing an updated HMS
Compliance Guide to each HMS recreational and commercial permit holder each year;
workshops on the regulations is unnecessary as long as brochures are available; the proposed
workshops should cover new regulatory requirements, such as the new PLL TRT regulations;
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-14

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

there are no alternatives in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP for workshops on HMS
regulations. The GMFMC recommends that an interactive web-based tutorial be available to
improve the understanding and compliance with HMS regulations. This training should be
mandatory for commercial captains; and, NMFS should consider mandatory recreational
compliance workshops because many U.S. regulations are adhered to by commercial vessels
while the less emphasis is placed on recreational non-compliance.
Response: During scoping, NMFS explored an alternative that focused on enhancing
compliance with and understanding of HMS regulations via Agency sponsored workshops.
NMFS received comments noting that mandatory workshops need to be prioritized due to the
time and cost to those who must attend. Furthermore, comments received were supportive of
continuing the current methods of disseminating information pertaining to HMS regulations
(e.g., Annual HMS Compliance Guide) rather than spending Federal dollars to hold workshops
on regulations at this time. Advisory Panel members were supportive of focusing on mandatory
requirements (e.g., workshops required under Biological Opinions and other mandates) first and
then following up with additional hard copy outreach materials to meet regulatory informational
needs. Since NMFS already disseminates this type of information and, given that this
information can be distributed to participants attending NMFS sponsored workshops, that
alternative was not further analyzed in the Consolidated HMS FMP. Compliance guides and
brochures can be obtained from on the HMS website (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/).
Anyone requesting hard copies of the compliance guides and/or brochures will have the
materials mailed to them.
Under the preferred alternatives, NMFS would require owners and operators to attend
mandatory protected species release, disentanglement, and identification workshops.
Furthermore, shark dealers (or their designated proxy(ies)) would be required to attend shark
identification workshops. In doing so, NMFS may consider the use of web-based training as a
suitable media for disseminating training information following an initial face-to-face workshop.
D.1.2 Time/Area Closures
New Closures
Comment 1: Alternative B2(a) indicates that there would be ecological benefits to
leatherback sea turtles and blue and white marlin, yet this alternative was given cursory
treatment.
Response: NMFS disagrees that alternative B2(a) was given cursory treatment. The
Draft and Final HMS FMPs comprehensively analyzed this and all other alternatives for
ecological and economic impacts. In the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS investigated potential changes
in bycatch and discards with and without the redistribution of fishing effort for all the time/area
closure alternatives considered. For alternative B2(a), NMFS evaluated a total of three scenarios
of redistributed effort, each of which had different assumptions regarding how fishing effort
would be redistributed into open areas. The first scenario assumed that fishing effort (i.e.,
hooks) from alternative B2(a) would be displaced into all open areas. The second scenario
assumed all fishing effort would only be redistributed within the Gulf of Mexico. The third
scenario assumed that fishing effort would be displaced within the Gulf of Mexico and into an
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-15

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

area (i.e., Area 6) where the majority of vessels with Gulf of Mexico homeports have reported
fishing during 2001 – 2004.
All three of these scenarios predicted that bycatch and discards would increase for at least
one of the species considered. For instance, under the first scenario, NMFS predicted an increase
in loggerhead sea turtle interactions (7.9 percent or 14 turtles/over three years; annual numbers
may be obtained by dividing by three), bluefin tuna (BFT) discards (10.3 percent or 166
discards/over three years), swordfish discards (4.4 percent or 1,635 discards/over three years),
yellowfin discards (3.0 percent or 166 discards/over three years), and bigeye tuna discards (11.6
percent or 117 discards/over three years). Under the second scenario of redistributed effort
(effort only redistributed in the Gulf of Mexico), NMFS predicted increases in sailfish discards
(1.8 percent or 18 discards/over three years), spearfish discards (3.3 percent or 14 discards/over
three years), pelagic shark discards (0.3 percent or 112 discards/over three years), large coastal
shark discards (3.6 percent or 598 discards/over three years), swordfish discards (4.4 percent or
1,635 discards/over three years), yellowfin discards (22.3 percent or 1,224 discards/over three
years), bigeye tuna discards (0.4 percent or 4 discards/over three years), and BAYS tuna discards
(1.0 percent or 91 discards/over three years). Finally, under the third scenario (redistribution in
the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6), NMFS predicted increases in sailfish (4.7 percent or 61
discards/over three years), pelagic sharks (4.4 percent or 834 discards/over three years), BFT
discards (1.6 percent or 35 discards/over three years), and BAYS tuna discards (0.7 percent or 70
discards/over three years). Given the potential negative ecological impact of B2(a) under all
three redistribution of effort scenarios, NMFS is not preferring alternative B2(a) at this time.
Comment 2: NMFS decided against any new closures to protect sea turtles, billfish, and
other overexploited species at this time because there is no closure that will benefit all species.
Closures should not be rejected because they do not “solve” the bycatch problem on their own.
Rather, they should be coupled with other sensible measures to ensure that all species are
receiving the protection they need to recover to and maintain healthy populations.
Response: NMFS agrees that closures can be combined with other measures to achieve
management objectives. However, NMFS did not reject closures because there was not a closure
that benefited all species. To the contrary, NMFS is not preferring the closures because, in part,
there were indications that the closures could actually result in an increase in bycatch to the
detriment of some species with redistribution of effort. Additionally, NMFS does not prefer
implementing new closures at this time, other than the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps
Marine Reserves, for a number of other reasons, including those discussed below. All of the data
used in the time/area analyses were based on J-hook data. The Northeast Distant experiment
suggested that circle hooks likely have a significantly different catch rate than J-hooks; further
investigations are required to determine the potential impact of any new time/area closures.
NMFS anticipates that 2005 Highly Migratory Species (HMS) final logbook data will become
available in the summer of 2006. In the meantime, the Agency will continue to monitor and
analyze the effect of circle hooks on catch rates and bycatch reduction as well as assess the
cumulative effect of current time/area closures and circle hooks. NMFS does not prefer to
implement new closures as this time until the effect of current management measures, and
potential unanticipated consequences of those management measures, can be better understood.
Second, NMFS is awaiting additional information regarding the status of the pelagic longline
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-16

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

(PLL) fleet after the devastating hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico during the fall of 2005. A
majority of the PLL fleet was thought to be severely damaged or destroyed during the 2005
hurricane season. The amount of PLL fishing effort, especially within the Gulf of Mexico, will
be assessed in the summer of 2006 when data quality control procedures on the 2005 HMS
logbook data are complete. Until NMFS can better estimate the current fishing effort and
potential recovery of the PLL fleet, it may be premature to implement any new time/area
closures at the present time. Third, a number of stock assessments will be conducted during
2006 (LCS, blue marlin, white marlin, north and south swordfish, eastern and western BFT, and
large coastal sharks). NMFS is waiting on the results of these stock assessments to help
determine domestic measures with regard to management of these species. Once NMFS has this
updated information, NMFS will consider additional management measures, potentially for all
gear types, to help reduce bycatch and discard rates. NMFS is also trying to assess how
protecting one age class at the potential detriment of other age classes will affect the fish stock as
a whole. For instance, how will protecting spawning BFT help rebuild the stock if it results in
increased discards of non-spawning adults, juvenile, and sub-adult BFT along the eastern
seaboard? Therefore, more information is needed to further understand how to manage this
species given its complex migratory patterns, life history, and age structure. NMFS is also
considering developing incentives that would dissuade fishermen from keeping incidentally
caught BFT, particularly spawning BFT, in the Gulf of Mexico. This may involve research on
how changes in fishing practices may help reduce bycatch of non-target species as well as
tracking discards (dead and alive) by all gear types. In addition, sea surface temperatures in the
Gulf of Mexico have recently been thought to be associated with congregations of BFT and
putative BFT spawning grounds in the Gulf of Mexico (Block, pers. comm.). NMFS intends to
investigate the variability associated with sea surface temperatures as well as the temporal and
spatial consistency of the association of BFT with these temperatures regimes. By better
understanding what influences the distribution and timing of BFT in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS
can work on developing tailored management measures over space and time to maximize
ecological benefits while minimizing economic impacts to the extent practicable.
Comment 3: NMFS received several comments regarding additional closures to consider
including: NMFS should consider a time/area closure for longlining from the 35th parallel to the
41st parallel, from the 30 fathom line to the 500 fathom line, from June 15th to September 30th;
NMFS should consider longline closures around San Juan, Puerto Rico and other areas around
Puerto Rico; NMFS should pressure the states north of the North Carolina closed area to close
their state waters during April through July 31 to protect juvenile sandbar sharks; since the
sandbar shark HAPC includes a major U.S. nursery area for this species, NMFS should close the
federal waters out to 10 fathoms beginning in April and ending on July 31 each year; NMFS
should reevaluate its decision not to close the Northeast Central statistical area proposed as
Alternative A14 in the June 2004 SEIS; and, Georgia CRD requests either the closure of the EEZ
off Georgia to gillnet gear to facilitate state enforcement and management efforts or the
requirement for shark gillnet vessels to carry VMS year-round to facilitate Georgia’s cooperative
state/Federal enforcement efforts.
Response: While there may always be additional areas that could potentially be
considered for time/area closures, NMFS considered a number of different closures that
encompassed the major areas of bycatch for the greatest number of species of concern. Most of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-17

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

the areas were initially selected by plotting and examining the HMS logbook and Pelagic
Observer Program (POP) data from 2001 – 2003 to identify areas and times where bycatch was
concentrated. NMFS also took into account information received in a petition for rulemaking to
consider an additional closure (alternative B2(c)) to reduce BFT discards in a reported spawning
area in the Gulf of Mexico (Blue Ocean Institute et al., 2005; Block et al., 2005), and a
settlement agreement relating to white marlin, which was approved by the court in Center for
Biological Diversity v. NMFS, Civ. Action No. 04-0063 (D.D.C.). Additional closures,
including closures for juvenile sandbar sharks and closures for other gear types, including
gillnets and/or recreational gear, could be considered in future rulemakings, as needed.
Comment 4: NMFS received several comments in favor of maintaining existing time/area
closures. These comments included: time/area closures should be used to promote conservation
of all HMS species; marine sanctuaries need to be established for all species of fish; these areas
need to remain closed until the fishery is rebuilt to the 1960s levels that existed prior to the
overcapitalization of this fishery; as a result of the existing closures, overall discards have
declined by as much as 50 percent so NMFS should continue to expand the existing closures; the
reductions in bycatch as a result of the existing closures benefit a wide range of species; current
closed areas are effective, based upon recent increases in swordfish size and weight in the deepwater recreational swordfish fishery; and suggestions by the industry that the closed area goals
have been met because swordfish are rebuilt ignore the broader purpose and benefit of the
closures.
Response: NMFS agrees that the existing closures have been effective at reducing
bycatch of protected species and non-target HMS and have provided positive ecological benefits,
and NMFS prefers to keep existing closures in place at this time. For example, the overall
number of reported discards of swordfish, BFT, and bigeye tunas, pelagic sharks, blue and white
marlin, sailfish, and spearfish have all declined by more than 30 percent. The reported discards
of blue and white marlin declined by about 50 percent, and sailfish discards declined by almost
75 percent. The reported number of sea turtles caught and released declined by almost 28
percent. However, these analyses are based on J-hook data, and the fishery is required to use
circle hooks. It is possible that the impact of such closures since implementation of circle hooks
may be greater in ecological benefits than expected. If this happens, NMFS may not need to
implement new closures and may be able to reduce existing closures. NMFS currently only has
final, quality controlled HMS logbook data on the catch associated with circle hooks from July
through December of 2004. NMFS anticipates having final, quality controlled 2005 HMS
logbook data in the summer of 2006. At that time, NMFS will examine and analyze the effect of
circle hooks on catch rates and bycatch reduction. Any changes to the existing closures would
occur through a proposed and final rulemaking using the criteria in the preferred alternative B5.
Comment 5: NMFS received a number of comments in opposition to closures including:
the effectiveness of time/area closures as a management tool to address bycatch issues has been
exhausted; bycatch measures other than time/area closures should be considered; closures are not
conservation, but reallocation to prohibit one hook and line gear (especially, circle hook gear)
while allowing another hook and line gear (especially, more harmful J-style hook gear and live
baiting); these areas were closed to rebuild the now fully rebuilt swordfish stock; an alternative
to a full area closure could be to conduct an experimental fishery to test gear modifications - if
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-18

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

the modifications do not work then put in a full closure; and the pelagic longline industry cannot
withstand additional time/area closures.
Response: NMFS does not believe that the effectiveness of time/area closures as a
management tool has been exhausted. The existing closures have been effective at reducing
bycatch of protected species and many non-target HMS and have provided positive ecological
benefits. For example, the overall number of reported discards of swordfish, BFT and bigeye
tunas, pelagic sharks, blue and white marlin, sailfish, and spearfish have all declined by more
than 30 percent. The reported discards of blue and white marlin declined by about 50 percent,
and sailfish discards declined by almost 75 percent. The reported number of sea turtles caught
and released declined by almost 28 percent. Thus, the current time/area closures have had
positive ecological impact by reducing the overall bycatch of non-target and protected species.
However, NMFS recognizes that the current closures have had an impact on retained species’
landings as well. For example, from 1997 to 2003, the number of swordfish kept declined by
nearly 28 percent, the number of yellowfin tuna kept declined by 23.5 percent, and the total
number of BAYS kept (including yellowfin tuna) declined by 25.1 percent. Such declines in
landings have resulted in negative economic impacts for the fleet and may explain the overall
decline in effort by the Atlantic PLL fishery from the pre- to post-closure period. Thus, while
time/area closures play an important part in resource management, NMFS does not prefer to
implement new closures, except for the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine
Reserves, until NMFS can assess the cumulative effect of the current time/area closures and
circle hooks. In addition, NMFS is waiting for additional information regarding the status of the
PLL fleet after the devastating hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico during the fall of 2005. A
portion of the PLL fleet was thought to be severely damaged or destroyed during the 2005
hurricane season. Until NMFS can better estimate the current fishing effort and potential
recovery of the PLL fleet, NMFS believes that it may be premature to implement any new
time/area closures, particularly on the PLL fleet.
BFT/Gulf of Mexico
Comment 6: NMFS received comments regarding time/area closures to protect BFT
spawning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (Alternatives B2(c) and B2(d)). Some of these comments
suggested NMFS should consider different months or permutations of months between January
and August. Other comments included: NMFS should implement additional measures to protect
the Atlantic BFT biomass, especially spawning fish in the Gulf of Mexico; NMFS should
consider closing the Gulf of Mexico to protect spawning BFT and analyze different time periods
in combination with the northeast closures during months of high discards or high CPUE that
might address effects on loggerhead sea turtles; an area south of Louisiana surrounding known
BFT spawning areas should be closed to all longline fishing for a reasonable period of time – at a
minimum this should include the area identified in Alternative B2(c); the Nature study firmly
establishes the time and location of the spawning season and affords NMFS the opportunity to
close a hot spot based on the best available science; Japan has recommended a longline closure
of the entire Gulf of Mexico at ICCAT; NMFS should immediately initiate interim or emergency
action to close the longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, starting in January of 2006 that would
be effective for six months each year from January through June; NMFS should explain why the
ecological benefits of closing the longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico during BFT spawning
season, as described in Alternative B2(c), would be minimal; why does NMFS assume that a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-19

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

longline closure in the Gulf of Mexico would cause a redistribution of effort to areas where BFT
discards could increase?; what are the positive and negative economic consequences of allowing
longline fishing to continue in the Gulf of Mexico during BFT spawning season?
Response: NMFS considered a wide range of alternatives ranging from maintaining
existing closures (No Action) to a complete prohibition of PLL gear in all areas in order to
reduce the bycatch and bycatch mortality of non-target HMS and protected species, such as sea
turtles, in Atlantic HMS fisheries. After comparing the potential bycatch reduction for all of the
closures that NMFS initially considered (see Chapter 2), NMFS chose five closures with the
highest overall bycatch for further analysis. Alternative B2(c) was chosen for analysis in
response to a petition received by NMFS from several conservation organizations requesting
consideration of a closure of the “Gulf of Mexico BFT spawning area” (Blue Ocean Institute et
al., 2005). The times and areas analyzed for alternative B2(c) were directly from the petition.
Alternative B2(d) was chosen for analysis in order to determine if any other closure, or
combination of closures, would be more effective at reducing bycatch than some of the other
alternatives considered. The analyses indicated that almost all of the closures and combinations
of closures considered for white marlin, BFT, or sea turtles would result in a net increase in
bycatch for at least some of the primary species considered when redistribution of fishing effort
was taken into account. In addition, the predicted reduction in bycatch when redistribution of
fishing effort was taken into account was typically less than 30 percent for any given species
with overall reduction in the number of individual species being very low.
According to the POP data, alternative B2(c), closing 101,670 nm2 in the Gulf of Mexico
from April through June, would reduce discards of all non-target HMS and protected resources
from a minimum of 2.3 percent for spearfish to a maximum of 25.0 percent for other sea turtles
(comprised of green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles). Without redistribution of effort,
the logbook data indicate that alternative B2(c) would potentially reduce discards of all of the
species being considered from a minimum of 0.8 percent for pelagic sharks to a maximum 21.5
percent for BFT. In a more likely scenario that assumes redistribution of effort, however,
bycatch was predicted to increase for all species except leatherback and other sea turtles. Even
BFT discards, which showed a fairly dramatic decline without redistribution of effort, were
predicted to increase by 9.8 percent with redistribution of effort. Alternative B2(d) would
prohibit the use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted to fish for HMS in a 162,181
nm2 area in the Gulf of Mexico west of 86 degrees W. Long. year-round, thus eliminating an area
where approximately 50 percent of all effort (Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) and 90
percent of all effort in the Gulf of Mexico has been reported in recent years (2001 – 2003).
Without the redistribution of effort, the closure could have resulted in large reductions in all nontarget HMS, ranging from a 10.1 percent reduction in loggerheads to 83.5 percent reduction in
spearfish discards. With the redistribution of effort, NMFS predicted a decrease in discards of
blue marlin (20.3 percent or 497 discards/over three years; annual estimates can be obtained by
dividing by three), sailfish (26.8 percent or 276 discards/over three years), and spearfish (73.3
percent or 276 discards/over three years). However, given the size and timing of this closure
(i.e., year-round), NMFS also predicted an increase in white marlin discards (0.3 percent or 10
discards/over three years), loggerhead sea turtle interactions (65.5 percent or 117 turtles/over
three years), BFT discards (38 percent or 614 discards/over three years), swordfish discards (31.9

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-20

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

percent or 11,718 discards/over three years), and bigeye tuna discards (84.8 percent or 853
discards/over three years).
Other alternatives, such as alternative B2(b), which would close a much smaller area in
the Northeastern United States, could have greater benefits in terms of the number of BFT
discards reduced. Although alternative B2(b) is not considered a BFT spawning area, data from
the POP program indicate that large fish (>171 cm TL) are present in the area. Additionally,
there is evidence to indicate that the area is utilized as a feeding and staging area by BFT prior to
migrating to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn (Block et al., 2005). Hence, while NMFS recognizes
that the same proportion of western spawning BFT would not be protected from a closure in the
Northeast as one in the Gulf of Mexico, potentially a small proportion of western spawning-size
BFT could be protected by a closure like B2(b), especially given the prevalence of larger
individuals in Northeast area from the POP data. Therefore, a closure like B2(b) may be able to
protect a few spawning-size individuals as well as pre-spawners, or sub-adults, which are also
valuable age classes with regard to the stock (although, presumably, there is a mixture of eastern
and western origin fish in this area, and a closure in this area may protect sub-adults of western
as well as eastern origin). Furthermore, the total proportion of dead discards in the Northeast
was similar to the Gulf of Mexico. In the Northeast, 48 percent (219 out of 461) of all BFT
discards from 2001 – 2003 were discarded dead, whereas 53 percent (249 out of 470) of all BFT
discards from the Gulf of Mexico were discarded dead. Given the high number of BFT discards
in the Northeast, a smaller closure there may provide similar ecological benefit compared a
closure in the Gulf of Mexico (depending on post-release survival rates in the two areas), and
would minimize the economic impacts on the fleet.
NMFS will continue to pursue alternatives to reduce bycatch of spawning BFT. NMFS
has currently adopted all of the ICCAT recommendations regarding BFT, a rebuilding plan is in
place domestically for this species, and NMFS has implemented measures to rebuild this
overfished stock. NMFS is currently trying to assess how protecting one age class at the
potential detriment of other age classes will affect the fish stock as a whole. For instance, how
will protecting spawning BFT help rebuild the stock if it results in increased discards of nonspawning adults, juveniles, and sub-adult BFT along the eastern seaboard? Therefore, more
information is needed to further understand how to manage this species given its complex
migratory patterns, life history, and age structure. As described above, NMFS is also
considering developing incentives that would dissuade fishermen from keeping incidentally
caught BFT, particularly spawning BFT in the Gulf of Mexico.
Comment 7: NMFS received several comments regarding the biology of spawning BFT
in the Gulf of Mexico. These comments included: the management measures currently in place
do not protect spawning BFT nor create the conditions necessary for BFT to survive, reproduce,
and increase their population; current U.S. regulations result in a situation where almost half the
BFT landed by longline fishermen come from the Gulf of Mexico when spawning fish are
present, resulting in a significant de facto directed fishery; warm water in the Gulf of Mexico
poses particular risks to BFT captured on longline gear due to the physiological stress caused in
warm, low oxygen waters; and the spawning fish in this time and place are more valuable to the
population than at other times of year.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-21

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Response: Although NMFS does not prefer alternative B2(c), or any other closure
specific to spawning BFT in the Gulf of Mexico at this time, NMFS plans to pursue alternatives
to reduce bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico, especially for spawning BFT. Such actions could
improve international rebuilding efforts of this species. NMFS is also considering developing
incentives that would dissuade fishermen from keeping incidentally caught BFT, particularly
spawning BFT, in the Gulf of Mexico. This may involve research on how changes in fishing
practices may help reduce bycatch of non-target species as well as the tracking of discards (dead
and alive) by all gear types. In addition, sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico have
recently been thought to be associated with congregations of BFT and putative BFT spawning
grounds in the Gulf of Mexico (Block, pers. comm.). NMFS intends to investigate the variability
associated with sea surface temperatures as well as the temporal and spatial consistency of the
association of BFT with these temperatures regimes. By better understanding what influences
the distribution and timing of BFT in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS can work on developing
tailored management measures over space and time to maximize ecological benefits while
minimizing economic impacts, to the extent practicable.
Comment 8: NMFS should outline the methods and mortality rates used to estimate dead
discards as reported to ICCAT, and comment on the likely associated uncertainty. The current
regulations are currently failing to implement key provisions of the ICCAT rebuilding plan, in
violation of ATCA. The model used by NMFS in its Draft HMS FMP assumes that the
reproductive value of western Atlantic BFT caught in the Atlantic Ocean off the northeastern
United States later in the year is equivalent to that of BFT caught from March-June in the Gulf of
Mexico. This is a faulty and risky assumption. Does the analysis in the Draft HMS FMP take
into account the current low stock status of western Atlantic BFT? The draft HMS FMP is
flawed when it does not prefer closing BFT spawning grounds because it erroneously analyzes
the closure primarily with regard to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. In fact, the
primary legal duty falls under the need to rebuild the western Atlantic BFT population in as short
a period of time as possible. Overfishing continues at high rates and the model used for the
rebuilding program is unrealistically optimistic.
Response: The estimates of discards used in the analyses include both live and dead
discards, as reported by fishermen in logbooks. While NMFS ultimately used logbook data for
the time/area analyses, NMFS also compared estimates of discards from the POP data. NMFS
did not develop mortality estimates from the data. Rather, NMFS evaluated percent change in
total discards as the measure of the effectiveness of potential time/area closures. NMFS
disagrees that the current regulations are failing to implement provisions of the rebuilding plan.
NMFS has currently adopted all of the ICCAT recommendations regarding BFT, a rebuilding
plan is in place domestically for this species, and NMFS has implemented measures to rebuild
this overfished stock. The model used by NMFS did not make any assumptions about the
reproductive value of BFT. Rather, the intent of examining different closures was to maximize
the potential reduction in bycatch for the greatest number of species, while minimizing losses in
target catch.
Comment 9: NMFS received a comment that the area in the Nature study extends beyond
the U.S. EEZ and so should the analyses in the Draft HMS FMP. There is no legal reason to
limit the analysis to the U.S. EEZ.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-22

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Response: While NMFS has analyzed closures beyond the U.S. EEZ (e.g., the Northeast
Distant closed area), except for two relatively small areas, the U.S. EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico
abuts the Mexican EEZ. U.S. fishermen are not allowed to fish in the Mexican EEZ, and NMFS
does not have the legal authority to regulate foreign fisheries that operate outside of the U.S.
EEZ. As such, the analyses were limited to the U.S. EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico utilizing
logbook and POP data from the U.S. PLL fishery.
Comment 10: Demographics in the Gulf of Mexico have changed due to last summer’s
hurricanes. No one knows what the impacts of that will be. NMFS should not rush into changes
in the Gulf of Mexico that are not necessary.
Response: NMFS is aware that there have been significant impacts in the Gulf of Mexico
as a result of the 2005 hurricanes, which may take time to be fully realized. After carefully
reviewing the results of all the different time/area closures analyses, and in consideration of the
many significant factors that have recently affected the domestic PLL fleet, NMFS does not
prefer to implement any new closures, except the complementary measures in the MadisonSwanson and Steamboat Lumps closed areas at this time. As described above in the response to
Comment 2 in this section, this decision is based on a number of reasons including the potential
impacts of the hurricanes on the PLL fleet.
White Marlin
Comment 11: NMFS received several comments in support of additional time/area
closures to protect white marlin. Comments included: NMFS should consider a closure for white
marlin in the mid-Atlantic; NMFS has never implemented a time/area closure for PLL fishing
specifically to reduce blue and white marlin, or sailfish bycatch even though exceedingly high
levels of bycatch occur; and NMFS must reduce marlin bycatch by closing areas to longline
fishing when and where the most bycatch continues to occur to avoid a white marlin ESA listing.
Response: While NMFS has never implemented a closure to specifically reduce bycatch
of blue and white marlin, current closures (the Northeastern U.S. closure, the DeSoto Canyon
closure, the Charleston Bump, the East Florida Coast closures, and the Northeast Distant closed
area) have resulted in large decreases in blue and white marlin discards from PLL gear, and
billfish were considered in the analyses of these closures. Percent change in discards from the
HMS logbook data before (1997 – 1997) versus after (2001 – 2003) the closures were
implemented showed an overall 47.5 percent decrease in white marlin discards and an overall
50.3 percent decrease in blue marlin discards. In addition, NMFS implemented a ban on live bait
in the Gulf of Mexico on August 1, 2000 (65 FR 47214), for PLL vessels to help reduce billfish
bycatch. In the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS considered areas specifically for white marlin, per a
settlement agreement relating to white marlin (Center for Biological Diversity v. NMFS, Civ.
Action No. 04-0063 (D.D.C.)). Based on the HMS logbook and POP data from 2001 – 2003,
other potential time/area closures were predicted to result in larger ecological benefits for all the
species, including white marlin, rather than the areas outlined in the settlement agreement.
Ultimately, NMFS chose to further analyze time/area closure boundaries that included the areas
of highest interactions for a number of species. However, based on the results of these analyses
and for the reasons discussed under the response to Comment 2, NMFS chose not to implement

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-23

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

any new closures at this time beside the complementary measures in the Madison-Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves.
Comment 12: NMFS received a number of comments on alternative B2(c) including:
Alternative B2(c) corresponds to the location of significant incidental catches of white marlin
and leatherback sea turtles - NMFS should consider that area for closures, effort restrictions, or
stricter gear requirements rather than allow itself to be paralyzed in the search for a single
time/area closure that will address all bycatch reduction needs for more than a dozen species;
NMFS should consider closed areas in the western Gulf of Mexico because that is where marlin
are being killed; Alternative B2(c) should be closed from June through August to protect the
greatest abundance of billfish in the Gulf of Mexico; the draft HMS FMP does not propose a
closure big enough or long enough to generate a meaningful reduction in billfish bycatch; U.S.
and Japanese data shows that bycatch of billfish is higher in the Gulf of Mexico than in any other
part of the commercial fishery, and the closures to protect blue and white marlin in the Gulf of
Mexico could save more of these species than any other closure in the entire United States, yet
NMFS did not consider that there would be enough positive impact to consider implementing a
closure.
Response: As described above in Comment 6 of this section, NMFS examined alternative
B2(c) specifically in response to a petition for rulemaking regarding protection of spawning
BFT. Under the full redistribution of fishing effort model for B2(c) (fishing effort distributed to
all open areas), NMFS predicted an increase in white marlin discards (7.0 percent or 221
discards/over three years; annual estimates can be found by dividing by three), blue marlin
discards (2.0 percent or 50 discards/over three years), sailfish discards (4.4 percent or 45
discards/over three years), loggerhead sea turtle interactions (23.5 percent or 42 turtles/over three
years), BFT discards (9.8 percent or 158 discards/over three years), swordfish discards (6.0
percent or 2,218 discards/over three years), and bigeye tuna discards (1.7 percent or 18
discards/over three years). Under the second scenario of redistributed effort (redistribution in the
Gulf of Mexico and Area 6), NMFS predicted increases in blue marlin discards (0.7 percent or
20 discards/over three years), sailfish discards (21.7 percent or 283 discards/over three years),
spearfish discards (2.0 percent or 10 discards/over three years), large coastal sharks (12.8 percent
or 2,454 discards/over three years), swordfish tuna discards (5.0 percent or 2,109 discards/over
three years), and bigeye tuna discards (0.6 percent or 7 discards/over three years). Although
white marlin discards were predicted to decrease under the second scenario evaluated (by 2.6
percent or 98 discards/over three years), there were potential negative ecological impacts of
B2(c) for other species considered under the different scenarios of redistributed effort.
Therefore, NMFS decided to not prefer alternative B2(c) at this time.
Based on a submission by the Japanese at ICCAT on BFT management (Suzuki and
Takeuchi, 2005), the proposed closures and subsequent ecological benefits were based on closing
the entire Gulf of Mexico and did not considered redistribution of fishing effort. As described
above in Comment 9 of this section, NMFS has no jurisdiction to close the Mexican EEZ, and
U.S. PLL vessels are prohibited from fishing in the Mexican EEZ. NMFS also believes it is
critical to consider the redistribution of fishing effort before implementing management
measures, such as time/area closures, because potential increases in discards and bycatch can
result from time/area closures as effort is moved to remaining open areas. Additionally, as
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-24

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

described above, NMFS is considering future management measures to minimize bycatch of
non-target HMS in the Gulf of Mexico.
Comment 13: Longlining should be banned off the East Coast from June to September
when white marlin are present in this area.
Response: NMFS currently has several closures along the eastern seaboard specifically
for pelagic and bottom longline. These consist of the Northeastern United States closed area,
which is closed to pelagic longlining during the month of June; the mid-Atlantic Shark Closure,
which is closed during January through July to bottom longline gear; the Charleston Bump
closed area that is closed to PLL gear from February through April; and the East Florida Coast
closure that is closed year-round to PLL gear. The Florida East Coast (FEC), the Mid-Atlantic
Bight (MAB), and the Northeastern Coastal (NEC) statistical reporting areas cover the extent of
the U.S. Atlantic PLL logbook reporting areas along the East Coast. Comparing the number of
discards for the months of July through December between the pre-closure period 1997 – 1999
and the period 2001 – 2003, when closures were in effect, reported landings of white marlin
decreased by 95.4 percent in the FEC, 53.4 percent in the MAB, and 77.8 percent in the NEC.
Therefore, while NMFS has not implemented a closure for white marlin specifically along the
East Coast, data show a substantial decrease in white marlin discards likely resulting from the
current time/area closures along the eastern seaboard.
Current Closed Areas
Comment 14: NMFS received several comments regarding the East Florida Coast closed
area. These comments are: NMFS should prohibit all commercial fishing for swordfish in the
East Florida Coast closed area; NMFS should eliminate all commercial shark fishing in the East
Florida Coast closed area; NMFS should impose a 20-mile limit for the entire East Florida Coast
that would prohibit commercial fishing in the area; NMFS should set a policy for the East
Florida Coast closed area that allows for recreational swordfish hook and line fishing for a three
to four month period or adopt management measures that allow for recreational swordfish hook
and line fishing only on an every other year basis; NMFS needs to protect the Florida east coast
because it is a nursery area for juvenile swordfish; NMFS should readjust the offshore border of
the East Florida Coast Closed Area to allow PLL vessels a reasonable opportunity to harvest its
ICCAT quotas; and NMFS should reopen the offshore border - the inshore and Straits of Florida
portions that will remain closed afford adequate ongoing protections for undersized swordfish
and other bycatch.
Response: NMFS closed the East Florida Coast closed area to PLL gear effective in 2001
(August 1, 2000, 65 FR 47214) in order to reduce bycatch of HMS and other species by PLL
gear. One reason NMFS closed that area was because it is a swordfish nursery area and many of
the swordfish being caught by PLL fishermen were undersized and therefore discarded dead.
However, the goal of the closures was to reduce bycatch in general in the PLL fishery, and
analyses conducted for that rulemaking also indicated that closing the area to PLL gear would
reduce bycatch and discards of other species as well. The closure was not intended to be for all
commercial fishing or to be permanent. Nor was the closure meant to allow only recreational
fishing in that area. Because the area is a swordfish nursery area, it is likely that any fishing gear
in that area, particularly those fishing for swordfish, will catch undersized swordfish that must be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-25

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

discarded, as well as juvenile swordfish that meet the legal minimum size. The preferred
alternative that establishes criteria should allow NMFS to consider closing the East Florida Coast
to other gears to reduce bycatch or for other reasons or to modify the closed area to PLL gear to
either expand or reduce it, as needed. NMFS considered modifications to the closed area to
allow PLL fishermen into an area that they claimed had swordfish larger than the minimum size.
The analyses for this rulemaking concluded that swordfish in the potential re-opened area are
significantly larger than those in the remaining closed area; however, the analyses also indicated
potential increases in marlin bycatch. For this reason and others, NMFS did not prefer any
alternative that would modify the East Florida Coast closed area at this time. NMFS may
consider changes to that area or to the gears allowed to fish in that area in future rulemakings.
Modifications to Current Closed Areas
Comment 15: NMFS received comments supporting and opposing modifications of the
existing HMS time/area closures to allow additional fishing effort into these areas. Comments in
support of modifying the existing closures include: the existing time/area closures to protect
small swordfish are no longer needed and should be reduced in size and/or duration or eliminated
all together; NMFS inaction to adjust the offshore closure borders prevents U.S. fishermen from
having a reasonable opportunity to harvest its ICCAT quota share, contrary to ATCA and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act; NMFS needs to re-examine the area closures and provide immediate
modifications to at least some areas. Other areas may require a period of heightened monitoring
to determine the effects of new circle hook gear and careful handling/release procedures; NMFS
should continuously monitor whether the existing closed areas are having the desired effect to
determine whether modifications can occur; NMFS should reevaluate the PLL gear time/area
closures for their necessity and effectiveness and redevelop these closures to include prohibiting
all HMS hook and line fishing if the biological justification warrants retaining any such closures;
NMFS should consider modifying the offshore borders of existing closures in several areas
where the deeper depth contours provide relatively clean directed fishing; NMFS should have
considered modifying the Desoto Canyon; opening the area offshore of the 250 fathom curve in
the Desoto Canyon could benefit YFT fishermen; and if NMFS allows vessels into closed zones
by using Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), then VMS should also be used to implement and
enforce additional new closures that follow oceanic bottom contour lines. Comments opposed to
modifying the existing HMS closures include: NMFS should not rely on old logbook data to
modify existing closures; the existing closures should not be modified; NMFS should not
consider areas that may serve as nursery areas for North Atlantic swordfish; NMFS should not
consider opening the DeSoto Canyon areas to longlining because this would adversely affect the
health of the fisheries ecologically and would prove detrimental to the economic interests of the
commercial fleet; and the figures in this section show longline sets after the 2000 closure of the
Desoto Canyon and the harvest of BFT dead discards - if this is illegal, how do these individuals
make the sets and record them in the logbooks?
Response: NMFS considered making modifications to the current time/area closures,
including modifications to the DeSoto Canyon, and is continuously monitoring the effect of
current closures. As described above, an analysis of pre-closure and post-closure data indicate
that the existing closures have been effective at reducing bycatch of protected species and nontarget HMS, and have provided positive ecological benefits. The analysis also indicated that
none of the modifications considered would have resulted in a large enough increase in retained
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-26

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

catch to alleviate concerns over uncaught portions of the swordfish quotas. Specifically for the
DeSoto Canyon, NMFS considered modifying the existing DeSoto Canyon time/area closure
boundary to allow PLL gear in areas seaward of the 2000 meter contour from 26º N Lat., 85º 00’
W Long., to 29º N Lat., 88º 00’ W Long (alternative B3(d)). However, the average swordfish
size was significantly smaller in the area to be reopened (average size = 108 cm LJFL) compared
to the area to remain closed (average size = 116 cm LJFL; P = 0.03). Both average swordfish
sizes are smaller than the minimum size limit of 119 cm LJFL. Therefore, NMFS believes that
modifying the Desoto Canyon closure could result in increased swordfish discards. In addition,
new circle hook management measures were put into place in 2004, and NMFS is still assessing
the effects of circle hooks on bycatch rates for HMS. Until NMFS can better evaluate the effects
of circle hooks on bycatch reduction, especially with regards to protected species interaction
rates, the Agency is not preferring to modify the current time/area closures, at this time.
Furthermore, as described in the response to Comment 14 above, the current time/area closures
were established to reduce bycatch of more than just swordfish. Nonetheless, if the upcoming
ICCAT swordfish stock assessment indicates the species is rebuilt, NMFS may reconsider
modifying the existing closures taking into consideration things such as the impact of circle
hooks and protected species interaction rates. Finally, while VMS allows fishermen to travel
through the closed area, oceanic bottom contours are often irregularly shaped lines that despite
VMS, may be more difficult to enforce. Geometric coordinates greatly aid in enforcement of
time/area closures.
The baseline that NMFS has used to calculate bycatch reduction associated with current
time/area closures is the U.S. Atlantic HMS logbook data just prior to the implementation of the
closures (1997 – 1999). NMFS feels this best reflects the status of the stocks at the time of the
closures. More current data is not available because PLL gear has been prohibited in these areas
since 2000 or 2001, depending on the closure. The figures referred to by the commenter (Figures
4.3 and 4.8 in the Draft FMP) incorrectly showed all of the 1997 – 1999 reported sets rather than
the intended 2001 – 2003 reported sets. The figures have been corrected. Very few, if any, sets
have been reported in the Desoto Canyon since 2000. The figures in the Final HMS FMP only
show where BFT discards occurred for PLL vessels from 2001 through 2003. NMFS also
implemented the use of a vessel monitoring system (VMS) for all PLL vessels on September 1,
2003 (68 FR 45169). This monitoring system helps track where PLL vessels are placing sets,
and NMFS has been able to track whether or not PLL vessels are placing sets in closed areas.
VMS has helped alert enforcement of illegal activities occurring in closed areas under real time
conditions, which has led to prosecution for illegal fishing in closed areas.
Comment 16: We support a modification of the area described in alternative B3(a)
(modifications to the Charleston Bump closed area). While the analysis shows a negligible
amount of bycatch, there is an opportunity for catching marketable species for boats that are
struggling and need access to this area.; We also support a modification of the area described in
alternative B3(b) (modifications to the Northeastern U.S. closed area), this area should never
have been closed in the first place. The entire June BFT closure area should be reevaluated in
light of all the mandatory bycatch reduction measures and the inability to harvest the U.S. BFT
quota in recent years.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-27

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Response: NMFS analyzed both alternatives B3(a) and B3(b). The analyses indicate that
alternative B3(a) would result in an increase in swordfish catch of 1.1 percent and yellowfin tuna
catch of 0.16 percent. However, it could result in an increase of bycatch for sailfish (3.0
percent), spearfish (2.4 percent), and white marlin (2.0 percent). Alternative B3(b) would result
in a minimal increase in bycatch and retained catch (i.e., 3 swordfish, 1 BFT, and 1 BAYS tuna
would be expected to be caught based on 1997 – 1999 data). As described above, NMFS is not
preferring to implement any new or to modify any existing closures, except for MadisonSwanson or Steamboat Lumps, at this time for the reasons stated in the response to Comment 2,
and with regard to alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) because neither of the modifications considered
would have resulted in a large enough increase in retained catch to alleviate concerns over
uncaught portions of the swordfish and BFT quotas. NMFS may consider changes to the current
time/area closures depending on the results of the circle hook analyses, the 2006 ICCAT stock
assessments (BFT, swordfish, and billfish), and protected species interaction rates, and criteria
preferred in a future rulemaking.
Madison-Swanson/Steamboat Lumps
Comment 17: NMFS received contrasting comments regarding preferred alternative B4
(implement complementary HMS management measure in Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps Marine Reserves) including: I support preferred alternative B4 and the maintenance of
the existing closures; the Agency appears to be acting positively on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council’s request for complementary closures; I support this alternative even
though this will have virtually no significant impact on HMS fisheries because the area is so
small; I support alternative B4 because it will make enforcement easier; we support alternative
B4 with the following edit, “Maintain existing time/area closures and implement
complementary…November through April (6 months) – Preferred Alternative”; and we do not
support complementary closures with Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps - the PLL
industry has had to withstand numerous stringent measures in recent years and cannot withstand
any additional closures.
Response: NMFS is implementing alternative B4, complementary HMS management
measures for the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves, at the request of the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. These closures were designed primarily to
provide protection for spawning aggregations of gag grouper and other Gulf reef species.
Similar management measures are already in effect for holders of southeast regional permits.
The complementary HMS management measures would close any potential loopholes by
extending the closure regulations to all other vessels that could potentially fish in the areas. As a
result, this action is expected to improve the enforcement of the Madison-Swanson and
Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves. Only minor impacts on HMS fisheries, including the PLL
fishery, are anticipated because the marine reserves are relatively small, and little HMS fishing
effort has been reported in these areas. The suggested edit to the title of this alternative is
appreciated, but is not necessary because the existing closures will remain in effect by default,
absent additional action to remove or modify them.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-28

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Criteria/Threshold/Baseline
Comment 18: NMFS received several comments on using the criteria on current closures
including: NMFS should have created these criteria when establishing the closed area off NC NMFS then could have modified the economic impacts to the NC directed shark fishermen by
having flexibility to reduce the time and area of the current closed area; and all existing closed
areas should be immediately re-evaluated in terms of the new criteria.
Response: NMFS used many of the criteria when establishing the current time/area
closures. NMFS currently prefers the criteria alternative in order to clarify the process and allow
constituents to see what NMFS would consider before implementing new or modifying current
time/areas closures. In addition, in this rulemaking, NMFS evaluated the impacts of most of the
current time/area closures in the No Action alternative, B1, and the impacts of modifying four
current time/area closures. Thus, NMFS has already re-evaluated some of the current time/area
closures using the criteria. Once the criteria are implemented, NMFS would continue using them
in future rulemakings. The only time/area closure that was not re-evaluated during this
rulemaking was the mid-Atlantic shark closure off North Carolina. NMFS did not re-evaluate
this closure because, as described in the response to a petition for rulemaking from the State of
North Carolina (October 21, 2005, 70 FR 61286), the closure became effective in January 2005,
and NMFS did not have any additional information on which to reevaluate the conclusions of the
rulemaking that established the closure (December 24, 2003, 68 FR 74746). However, when
NMFS established the mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure, the Agency considered the social
and economic impacts on directed shark fishermen, while also balancing reductions in the catch
of juvenile sandbar sharks, the bycatch of prohibited dusky sharks, and the quota throughout the
entire large coastal shark fishery. As described in this rulemaking and in previous rulemakings,
the primary goals of time/area closures are to maximize the reduction of bycatch of non-target
and protected species while minimizing the reduction in the catch of retained species. NMFS
believes that the mid-Atlantic shark closure should accomplish these goals even though there
may be negative economic impacts as a result of that closure. Once the results of the ongoing
LCS and dusky shark stock assessment are finalized, NMFS may consider if changes in any
management measures regarding LCS, including dusky sharks, are appropriate, and may
reconsider the mid-Atlantic closed area using the criteria listed in the preferred alternative.
Comment 19: NMFS received several comments regarding research and closed areas
including: NMFS should support additional research to determine where other closed areas
should be placed; research to collect data for use in establishing such criteria should be done in
open areas to the maximum extent possible; and there must be overwhelming reason to pay
fishermen to use illegal gear in a closed area in the name of research (while still being able to sell
their catch) when such studies could just as easily be performed in vast areas of the oceans where
it is legal to fish in that manner.
Response: NMFS supports research to determine how changes in fishing gear and/or
fishing practices can reduce bycatch. Research in closed areas to test how changes in fishing
gear and/or fishing practices may reduce bycatch is particularly important. Due to the spatial and
temporal variability of HMS and species that HMS interact with, the results of experiments in
open areas may not be applicable to closed areas. Oftentimes, these areas are “hot spots” and
were closed because they are areas where there are high congregations of HMS or other species.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-29

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

The congregations usually occur along bathymetric contour lines or areas where currents
interact. In order to scientifically test if a certain change in the gear would result in a significant
reduction in bycatch, scientists may need to be in areas where there is a high degree of certainty
that the gear will interact with the bycatch species. Testing for bycatch reductions in areas where
there is little to no bycatch likely would require more resources, in terms of money, fishermen,
and time than in areas that are considered “hot spots.” Scientists do conduct preliminary tests in
open areas to ensure that the change in gear or fishing method could work but may need to be
allowed access to the closed areas at some point in order to be certain that the change works.
Therefore, in order to understand how technological advances in bycatch reduction would
operate in closed areas, research would likely need to be conducted in closed areas. Otherwise,
NMFS could reopen such areas in light of technological advances in bycatch reduction and not
see the expected reduction rates in bycatch, or potentially see an increase in bycatch rates in
these once closed areas.
Comment 20: NMFS received comments regarding the specific criteria that NMFS
should consider when examining potential area closures including: the criteria should include the
status of the stock in each area under consideration; the set of criteria should include bycatch
baselines, targets, reduction timetables, and consider impacts on all HMS, with an emphasis on
overfished species; what percent reduction in discards is required to implement a time/area
closure, and on what basis is this threshold determined? What is the threshold the Agency is
trying to achieve? There are no standards. Was a target bycatch reduction level identified? The
Agency should quantitatively use an optimization model to combine areas to achieve the
optimum benefit; these criteria should be developed in a workshop of managers, scientists, and
stakeholders to ensure their success; the discussion of how specific criteria would be developed,
reviewed, and authorized is vague; and the criteria seem overall to restrict NMFS’ use of
discretion in using closed areas as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce bycatch and ensure
sustainable ecosystems. NMFS should preserve the availability of the greatest range of options
to address its fisheries management, protected resources, and marine ecosystem conservation
responsibilities.
Response: NMFS already considers the status of the stocks when implementing time/area
closures. Closed areas like the Northeastern United States closed area, the mid-Atlantic shark
closed area, and the Northeast Distant closed area were all implemented to address specific
overfished or protected species. The other closed areas, while implemented to reduce bycatch in
general, also considered the status of the stocks before implementation. Establishing pre­
determined thresholds or target reduction goals for specific species, as requested in the comment,
is inappropriate because it does not consider the impact on the remaining portion of the catch.
NMFS stated this in response to comments on the rulemaking that implemented the East Florida
Coast, the DeSoto Canyon, and the Charleston Bump closures, and continues to believe the
statement is valid. Consideration of the overall catch is critical when implementing a
multispecies or ecosystem-based approach to management. Furthermore, while the MagnusonStevens Act provides NMFS the authority to manage all species, NMFS must balance the
impacts of management measures on all managed species and may not choose protections for
one species to the detriment of protected and overfished species (e.g., NMFS may not choose to
protect BFT even if sea turtle interactions or bycatch of overfished species may increase
substantially). National Standard 1, which requires NMFS to prevent overfishing while
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-30

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

achieving on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States
fishing industry, clearly applies to all species and all fisheries. Similarly, National Standard 9,
which requires NMFS to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable,
applies to all species and fisheries. By not choosing a specific threshold or establishing a
decision matrix, NMFS retains the flexibility to balance the needs of all the species encountered
and the fishery as a whole. If NMFS is given a specific goal (e.g., a jeopardy conclusion
regarding the PLL fishery and leatherback sea turtles), this flexibility allows NMFS to close
certain areas or take other actions to protect that specific species while also protecting, to the
extent practicable, the other species and the rest of the fishery. Without this flexibility, NMFS
might potentially have to implement more restrictive measures to protect one species causing
potential cascade effects (e.g., closing one area may increase the bycatch of another species,
which could result in closing another area, etc.). This approach also provides NMFS with the
flexibility to re-examine the need for existing closures and modify them appropriately based on
the analyses rather than the attainment of a specific goal (e.g., NMFS would not have to wait for
30 percent reduction in bycatch to be met; it could open the closure at 25 percent, depending on
the result of reducing bycatch of other species or other considerations, as appropriate). The
present criteria do not preclude NMFS from considering the establishment of a decision matrix in
the future if such a matrix could be designed that would provide for the flexibility to consider all
the species involved. This may be more appropriate when NMFS has a longer temporal dataset
on the simultaneous effect of circle hooks and the current time/closures. At this time, NMFS
believes that the criteria contained in the preferred alternative B5 would provide the guidance
needed, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and this FMP, to help NMFS make the
appropriate decisions regarding the use of time/area closures in HMS fisheries. NMFS
developed such criteria as a way to help make the overall process of implementing and/or
modifying current time/area closures more transparent, not more vague. The criteria themselves
are a list of the issues that NMFS would consider when devising or modifying time/area closures.
The criteria listed in the preferred alternative are what NMFS would consider for new or
modified time/area closures. While NMFS did not hold a workshop on these criteria, these
criteria were considered by multiple stakeholders during the scoping and public comment period
for this rule and refined, as appropriate.
Comment 21: NMFS received many comments regarding the use of criteria to open or
modify closed areas. These comments included: criteria are needed to allow for modifications of
the closed areas; I cannot support the preferred alternative B5, area closure framework
alternative, because it could allow NMFS to open existing closures; changes to existing closed
areas must, at a minimum, be conservation neutral; we need a mechanism to open or modify
closed areas. The present closures appear to be larger or different from necessary. To go
through an entire regulatory process to change or eliminate them takes too long and is too costly
to both the government and the fishery.
Response: NMFS already has the authority to modify current closed areas once NMFS
determines that a closed area has met its original management goal. The existing time/area
closures were not meant to be permanent closures. Rather, each closure was implemented with a
specific management goal(s) in mind. Once those goals are met, NMFS may decide to modify or
remove the time/area closure. Through the implementation of the criteria, and using the
appropriate analyses, NMFS would be able to modify current time/area closures in a more timely
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-31

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

manner and transparent process. No changes were made to existing time/area closures at this
time because such modifications could potentially result in bycatch of non-target HMS and
protected resources, such as sea turtles. However, once NMFS better understands the effects of
circle hooks, which were implemented fleet-wide in mid-2004, on all species, NMFS may
consider modifying the current time/area closures. Such modifications would need to be either
conservation neutral or positive.
Comment 22: Since the East Florida Coast, Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon
closures went into effect, bycatch and fishing effort has been reduced. Those three closures
achieved a greater than predicted reduction in bycatch. NMFS should use the year before the
closures went into effect as a baseline to determine what the existing management measures have
produced, rather than taking additional actions and expecting the bycatch to continually
diminish. NMFS could modify closures and allow increases in bycatch up to the reductions
expected as a result of the analyses that closed those areas. This would reduce the economic
impacts on fishermen.
Response: NMFS agrees that the current closures reduced bycatch of most species to
levels greater than those predicted by the analyses in the rulemaking that closed the areas.
NMFS used data just prior to the implementation of these closures (i.e., logbook data from 1997
– 1999) because the Agency felt this time series best represented the status of the stocks at the
time the closures were implemented. NMFS considered modifications to these areas in this
rulemaking. However, the current analyses indicated that bycatch of some species, such as
marlin and sea turtles, could increase as a result of those modifications. Given the status of
marlin and the jeopardy finding on leatherback sea turtles, NMFS believes that increases in
bycatch of those species is not appropriate. Additionally, the analyses in this rulemaking are
based on mostly J-hook data, which are no longer in use in the fishery. NMFS will continue to
monitor the effectiveness of the closures and may consider modifications in the future,
particularly as the amount of circle hook data increases.
Fleet Mobility/Redistribution of Effort
Comment 23: NMFS received several comments regarding the mobility of the fleet.
These comments included: I do not believe that effort will move to the Atlantic from the Gulf of
Mexico - commercial fishermen would rather stay home and move to fishing for another species;
longline vessels are tied to communities; given rising fuel prices, an increase in long distance
relocation seems unlikely; NMFS states that Vietnamese fishermen are reluctant to fish outside
the Gulf of Mexico and uses this statement to conduct a separate analysis specific to the Gulf of
Mexico. This thought process was inexplicitly applied to the analysis for only one alternative for
the Gulf of Mexico. It should be applied to all; how does the 2001 NMFS VMS study support
conducting a fleet-wide analysis when the majority of effort is in or adjacent to the homeport
fishing area?
Response: To determine fleet mobility, NMFS relied on a 2001 report submitted to the
U.S. District Court in response to a lawsuit filed by the fishing industry against NMFS for
implementing the vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement. That document indicated that
fishermen were as likely to fish in areas away from their homeport as in areas immediately
adjacent to their homeport, even without the added pressure of a closure in an area adjacent to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-32

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

their homeport. In addition, in the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS conducted a separate analysis for
alternative B2(a), which limited the redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico only because
B2(a) was the smallest of the three closures considered in the Gulf of Mexico and represents the
most likely case in which fishermen would stay in the Gulf of Mexico. Since there would still be
open areas left to fish in the Gulf of Mexico during this period (May through November),
fishermen may turn to those areas rather than move out of the Gulf and into the Atlantic. In
addition, NMFS recognized that Vietnamese fishermen are reluctant to fish outside of the Gulf of
Mexico, especially for a small time/area closure. Such limited redistribution of effort was not
appropriate for other closures in the Gulf of Mexico based on their size and temporal duration.
However, NMFS further analyzed fleet mobility in the current rulemaking by examining
logbook data from 2001 – 2004 (this included only the first six months of 2004 to include only Jhook data) to determine the amount of movement of vessels along the Atlantic coast and in the
Gulf of Mexico. The data indicated that there was movement of vessels out of the Gulf of
Mexico, and that vessels sometimes fished as far away as the central Atlantic. Similarly, in the
Atlantic, there were vessels that fished in areas far from their homeports, although movement
from the Atlantic into the Gulf of Mexico was minimal. Additionally, there were no physical
differences in terms of length or horsepower between vessels that fished inside or outside the
Gulf of Mexico. Thus, NMFS concluded that HMS vessels continue to be highly mobile, are
capable of fishing in areas distant from their homeports, and that the closure analyses would need
to take into account the potential for redistribution of fishing effort, particularly for a potentially
large closure such as B2(c) in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on this additional analysis of fleet
mobility, NMFS considered different scenarios of redistributed of effort for alternatives B2(a),
B2(b), and B2(c), where each scenario had different assumptions regarding where effort would
be redistributed based on the current fleet’s movement. However, NMFS recognizes that the
cost of fuel and other supplies may limit the movement of the pelagic fleet.
Comment 24: NMFS received comments regarding the redistribution of fishing effort
model used to analyze the time/area closure alternatives. Comments included: Does the model
assume random distribution to other fishing grounds?; how does the redistribution of effort
model result in more bycatch?; how does the redistribution of effort model work with circle
hooks?; the model is based on discard rates, which implies some mortality.
Response: NMFS considered a broad range of time/area closure alternatives that
estimated potential bycatch with and without redistribution of fishing effort. Considering the
impacts of closures with and without redistribution of effort provides NMFS with the potential
range for which changes in catch could occur as a result of the closure(s). One end of the range
assumes that all fishing effort within a given closed area would be eliminated (i.e., fishermen
who fished in the closed area would stop fishing for the duration of the closure). Thus, the
number and percent reduction in catch of both non-target and target species in these analyses
represents the highest possible expected reduction. This would also represent the greatest
negative social and economic impact that is anticipated for the industry. The other end of the
spectrum assumes that all fishing effort in a closed area would be distributed to open areas (i.e.,
fishermen would continue fishing in surrounding open areas, move their business, or sell their
permits).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-33

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Rather than random redistribution, the full redistribution model calculates resulting catch
of target and non-target species by multiplying the effort that is being redistributed due to the
closure by the CPUE for each species in all remaining open areas. This amount is then
subtracted from the estimated reduction inside the closed area (for a complete description of the
methodology used for redistribution of effort, please see Appendix A of the Final HMS FMP.)
This end of the continuum would be expected to provide the least amount of bycatch reduction
for a given closure, depending on the CPUE of each species in all remaining open areas. Often
times, this model provides mixed results regarding the ecological, economic, and social impacts
because HMS and protected species are not uniformly distributed throughout the ocean and tend
to occur in higher concentrations in certain areas. Therefore, a closure in one area might reduce
the bycatch of one or two species, but may increase bycatch of others. An increase in bycatch
for a particular species occurs if that species is more abundant or more frequently caught (i.e.,
higher CPUE) in areas outside of the closed area. For example, the analyses indicate that a
closure in the central Gulf of Mexico could reduce BFT and leatherback sea turtle discards
because CPUE for those species is higher in the Gulf of Mexico than along the eastern seaboard.
However, such a closure result in an increase in sailfish, spearfish, and large coastal shark
discards because the CPUE for those species is higher outside the Gulf of Mexico. In reality, the
actual result is expected to be between the results obtained from these two different
considerations of redistributed effort. In addition, NMFS combined dead and live discards in
these analyses, so mortality is accounted for in terms of discards. Given the number of species
that NMFS had to consider, there was no single closure or combination of closures that resulted
in a reduction of bycatch of all species considered. The data analyzed in the Draft FMP (2001 –
2003) and additional analyses in the Final FMP (2001 – 2004, including the first six months of
2004 only) did not include circle hook data. The implementation of the circle hook requirement
in June 2004 resulted in a change to the baseline. NMFS needs to fully analyze the circle hook
data to determine the extent of bycatch reduction and the effects of post-release mortality
resulting from this new gear requirement.
Comment 25: How is NMFS going to address the peer review comments that found fault
with the effort redistribution model?
Response: Not all of the peer reviewers found fault with the redistribution of effort
analysis. For example, one peer reviewer made the following comment:
The time area closure model is based on generally accepted principles in fisheries
science. In general such models rely on a set of assumptions related to static patterns of relative
abundance at some temporal and spatial resolution, limited consideration of fish movements, and
incomplete understanding of the effects of closure areas on redistribution of fishing effort.
Nonetheless, such models can provide useful insights for comparisons of alternative management
strategies. This is the approach taken within this Draft EIS. Twelve combinations of seasonal
and spatial closures are evaluated in Section 4.1.2. Without such a model there would be no
pragmatic way of comparing the proposed closed areas. In general it is probably safe to assume
that the limitations of the model will be comparable across alternatives. Thus the rankings of
each alternative should be relatively insensitive to the assumptions.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-34

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

However, in response to another peer reviewer’s comment that NMFS test assumptions
and consider other plausible alternatives to the random effort redistribution model, NMFS
evaluated different scenarios of redistributed effort that had different assumptions regarding
where effort would be redistributed in the Final FMP, including redistribution of effort in the
Gulf of Mexico only for closures in the Gulf of Mexico, redistribution of effort in the Atlantic
only for a closure in the Atlantic, and redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic for closures in the Gulf of Mexico. These scenarios were based on an analysis of the
movement of fishing effort out of the Gulf and into the Atlantic. In order to perform this last
analysis, NMFS examined logbooks from 2001 – 2004 and tracked the movement of vessels out
of the Gulf of Mexico into different areas of the Atlantic. By examining the movement of effort
between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, NMFS was able to modify the existing full
redistribution of effort model and apply different proportions of effort to the average CPUEs of
species in the different areas. Using these additional analyses, NMFS could ask different
questions about the assumptions of the existing model (e.g., should all fishing effort from a
closed area be distributed to all open areas or redistributed only within remaining open areas of
the Gulf of Mexico?).
Comment 26: The random redistribution of effort model weighs nearby and distant areas
equally. This may artificially emphasize distant areas where bycatch rates are higher, and may
result in unlikely assumptions about how the effort will shift. This model suggests that Gulf of
Mexico vessels are mobile and might fish as far away as Florida but does not suggest that effort
is distributed randomly or that significant effort would be displaced to the Northeast. To close or
not close an area based on random redistribution of effort is not reasonable. We are concerned
about the model given the fact that the data clearly show where concentrations of marlin are
caught.
Response: As described above, the method used to calculate redistribution of effort and
the resulting catch of target and non-target species is to multiply the effort that is being
redistributed by the average catch rate (CPUE) for each species in all remaining open areas, and
subtract it from the estimated reduction inside the closed area (for a complete description of the
methodology used for redistribution of effort, please see Appendix A of the Final FMP.) In
some cases, depending upon the average CPUE in open areas, this approach may emphasize
distant areas where bycatch rates may be higher. However, in other cases, low bycatch rates in
distant areas would not be a factor. For example, a small closure such as B2(a) in the central
Gulf of Mexico might result in fishing effort being displaced into areas immediately adjacent to
and surrounding the closed area. NMFS tried to take this into account by analyzing
redistribution of effort only in the Gulf of Mexico for alternative B2(a). For larger closures in
the Gulf of Mexico such as alternative B2(c), NMFS considered redistribution of effort in the
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic based on known movement of fishing vessels and effort into areas
of the Atlantic. Finally, for a closure such as B2(b) located in the Atlantic, NMFS considered
redistribution of effort in open areas of the Atlantic only. In all cases, NMFS considered the
results of both no redistribution of effort and the full redistribution of effort model and assumed
that the actual result of the closure would be somewhere between the results of the two scenarios.
Comment 27: NMFS needs a probabilistic model for effort redistribution that considers
things such as the history of effort.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-35

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Response: NMFS is aware of other models that have investigated redistribution of effort
as a result of time/area closures (i.e., random utility models (RUMs) used for the Hawaiian PLL
fishery, and a closed area model used by the New England Fishery Management Council
(NEFMC) to evaluate closures for the groundfish fishery). These types of models are
econometric models, which predict where fishermen will reallocate effort based on maximizing
revenues and/or profits. However, these models were not designed to be used for the current
HMS PLL fishery, and in order for either framework to be applicable to a time/area analysis for
the Atlantic HMS PLL fishery, NMFS would have to develop a specific model for the PLL fleet
based the current economics, fishing grounds, and fishing effort of the Atlantic HMS PLL fleet.
Development of such a model would require considerable additional investment, time, and effort.
At present, NMFS has not developed a probabilistic model that considers the history of effort or
other complicating factors (i.e., trip costs, revenues or profits). Prior to developing such a
model, NMFS would need to consider the limitations of the Agency, both financially and
logistically, to build such a model and the approach the Agency should take. For example,
despite the fairly straightforward model used in this rulemaking and previous time/area
rulemakings, to calculate redistribution of fishing effort, many commenters found the procedure
confusing or misunderstood the approach and results. This confusion could become even worse
if a more complicated model were used. Some models require substantial capital investment for
the Agency, years to develop, and years of testing before they can be used. Nevertheless, NMFS
sees the benefits to improving the models used to analyze the impacts of time/area closures and
is considering different options.
Comment 28: NMFS has applied the redistribution model beyond its usefulness because
the model does not describe where the vessels are likely to go. NMFS places an overemphasis
on the dangers of redistribution of effort instead of making balanced recommendations based on
both the lower and upper estimates of the model.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the redistribution model has been applied beyond its
usefulness. It is highly unlikely that NMFS could develop a perfect model that accurately
predicts fishing behavior. The redistribution of effort model is useful in providing one end of a
range of potential outcomes resulting from new closures. NMFS does not overemphasize the
dangers of redistribution of effort, but rather considers it likely that fishing effort may be
displaced into open areas and that there may be some increase in bycatch as a result. This is not
highly speculative, but rather based on quantitative assessments of fishing effort, bycatch rates,
and resulting ecological impacts. For instance, there was an increase in fishing effort in the open
areas in the Gulf of Mexico after the implementation of the existing closures, which suggests that
fishing effort will be displaced to other areas. Furthermore, NMFS does not believe that fishing
effort that occurred historically within an area would be completely eliminated with a new
closure.
Comment 29: NMFS received comments regarding effort shifts in the Gulf of Mexico
including: effort shifts have not occurred in the Gulf of Mexico as predicted for other species;
vessels may be offloading in different ports but still in the Gulf of Mexico; and the assumption
that vessels would move out of the Gulf of Mexico and catch BFT, particularly spawning
western BFT, is unlikely.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-36

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Response: While there has been an overall decrease in fishing effort since
implementation of the closures in 2000 – 2001, NMFS has seen evidence of an increase in effort
in the Gulf of Mexico during 2001 – 2004, possibly as a result of the East Florida Coast closure
implemented in 2001, which forced fishermen who originally fished in the east coast of Florida
into the Gulf of Mexico. The difference between closures implemented in 2000 and the closures
being considered in this FMP is that many of the areas of high bycatch were targeted for closures
in 2000 and remain closed today. NMFS is now analyzing an additional series of closures that
may not produce the same tangible results that occurred after the first round of closures.
Additionally, as the areas open to fishermen become more restricted, fishing effort will tend to
become more and more concentrated in smaller and smaller areas where even low bycatch rates
may result in increases in bycatch due to the high effort levels. Some of the closures considered
in this rulemaking such as alternatives B2(c) and B2(d) would close very large portions of the
Gulf of Mexico where approximately 90 percent of the historic fishing effort in the Gulf has
occurred. Closing such a large area in the Gulf of Mexico would be unprecedented, and
predicting the outcome would likewise be difficult. It should be noted that while the NED
closure was just as large as some of the closures proposed in this rulemaking, the closures
proposed in this rulemaking are closer to land and more accessible to vessels. However, NMFS
disagrees with the comment that vessels would be unlikely to move out of the Gulf of Mexico in
response to such an unprecedented large closure. The analyses indicate that fishermen currently
homeported in the Gulf of Mexico move out of the Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic even without
the added incentive of a closure. Even in the highly unlikely event that fishermen did not move
out of the Gulf of Mexico in response to a closure, the economic impact could force them to sell
their permits to fishermen in the Atlantic, thereby increasing fishing effort in those areas. The
redistribution of effort analysis in the FMP would take this into account.
Comment 30: NMFS received many comments regarding where effort would be
redistributed including: the model fails to consider redistribution of effort from one fishing gear
to another (e.g., longline to gillnet); the model inappropriately predicts spatially heterogeneous
increases in regional fishing effort and bycatch; NMFS should acknowledge the limitations of
the model when selecting the final alternatives and base predictions about redistribution of effort
on credible, transparent sources and peer-reviewed literature or on comparisons to the outcomes
of previous time/area closures; and NMFS initially argued that there would not be a displacement
of effort if closures were implemented, but now is arguing the opposite.
Response: While the redistribution of effort model does not explicitly take into account
the potential for fishermen to shift from one gear to another, NMFS has discussed a number of
unintended consequences that could result from new closures, including fishermen selling their
permits, moving to other areas, and possibly switching gears to target other species. However,
given the limited access restrictions of permits for other fisheries, NMFS predicts that it would
be difficult for fishermen to switch to a different gear and different fisheries unless they currently
possess other permits. NMFS continues to acknowledge the limitations of the redistribution of
effort model, and has made an attempt to consider and analyze other plausible alternatives to the
current redistribution scenario. NMFS considered both the redistribution of effort model and
results from considering no redistribution of effort since the first closure for HMS fishermen was
implemented in 1999. In none of the rules that implemented time/area closures did NMFS argue

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-37

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

that there would be no displacement of effort. To the contrary, NMFS has consistently taken
both scenarios into account when considering new or additional closures.
Data Concerns
Comment 31: Does the recent article in the journal “Nature” regarding BFT spawning,
which indicated that discards are being underestimated, affect NMFS assumptions about the
benefits (and costs) of the proposed time/area closures? Does NMFS have any data indicating
that bycatch rates are significantly lower than those recorded by the scientific observers?
Response: NMFS is aware that discards may be underreported in the HMS logbook data
compared to the POP data. However, NMFS tested to see if there were any differences in
underreporting for different species between different regions. If no differences in
underreporting occurred between regions, then the relative effect of each closure on bycatch
reduction for each species should be comparable across alternatives. Cramer (2000) compared
dead discards from HMS logbook and POP data. In her paper, Cramer used POP data to
estimate dead discards of undersized swordfish, sailfish, white and blue marlin, and pelagic
sharks from the PLL fishery operating in the U.S. Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. She
also provided the ratio of catch estimated from the POP data divided by the reported catch in the
HMS logbooks. This ratio indicates the amount of underreporting for different species in a given
area. NMFS analyzed these ratios to test whether underreporting varied for different species in
different parts of the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS found that there was no
statistical difference in the ratio of estimated catch versus reported catch for undersized
swordfish, pelagic sharks, sailfish, or white or blue marlin in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of
Mexico. Based on the available information, NMFS believes HMS logbooks may underestimate
the amount of bycatch, however, the relative effect of each closure for each species should be
comparable across alternatives. While the data used in the Cramer (2000) study represented an
earlier time period (1997 – 1998) compared to the 2001 – 2003 data used here, it gives some
indication that the use of HMS logbook data over POP data should not invalidate or bias the
results of the time/area analyses. NMFS will continue to investigate potential differences in
reporting between HMS logbook and POP data for all discarded species as well as potential
biases in reporting between geographical areas for different species.
Comment 32: NMFS should use the observed sea turtle CPUE by season for each region
and multiply it by the amount of effort anticipated to return to that particular area in order to
obtain a more accurate assessment of changes to sea turtle bycatch.
Response: NMFS chose to use HMS logbook data for all the analyses to maintain
consistency among the alternatives and species. If NMFS were to have used the POP data for all
of the species, NMFS would have had to calculate extrapolated takes for all the species
considered. This extrapolation would have introduced more assumptions and uncertainty than
using HMS logbook data to analyze the potential impacts of time/area closures. As mentioned in
the response to Comment 31, NMFS found that HMS logbooks may underestimate the amount of
bycatch, however, the relative effect of each closure for each species should be comparable
across alternatives. The analyses conducted in this rulemaking (and described in the response to
Comment 31) give some indication that the use of HMS logbook data over POP data should not

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-38

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

invalidate or bias the results of the time/area analyses. NMFS will continue to investigate
potential differences in reporting between HMS logbook and POP data for all discarded species.
Comment 33: How did NMFS conduct the overlap analysis comparing effects of bycatch
on BFT, marlin, and sea turtles?
Response: NMFS analyzed the distribution of white marlin, BFT, leatherback and
loggerhead sea turtles, as well as a number of other species from the 2001 – 2003 HMS logbook
and POP data using GIS. Data for each of the species were mapped and compared spatially to
one another in order to select the areas of highest concentration of bycatch. The areas of highest
concentrations of bycatch for all species were then selected for further analysis. NMFS provided
maps of bycatch for individual species in the Draft HMS FMP, and has provided a map showing
the overlap of BFT, white marlin, and sea turtles in the Final HMS FMP. NMFS combined the
bycatch data from the HMS logbook for BFT, white marlin, and sea turtles into one combined
dataset, and then joined them to a 10 x 10 minute grid (which is equivalent to approximately 100
nm2) to get the number of discards for all species combined per 100 nm2. A color scale is
included to show the number of observations per 100 nm2. The maps show the areas of highest
bycatch for the three species combined. Monthly interactions for the different species (i.e.,
temporal variability) were considered in the redistribution of effort analyses.
Comment 34: NMFS should consider increasing observer coverage throughout the
longline fleet to document unintended bycatch.
Response: NMFS’ target for PLL observer coverage is eight percent. This is based on the
recommendation from the National Bycatch Report that found coverage of eight percent would
yield statistical analyses of protected resources that would result in coefficient of variance
estimates that were below 30 percent.
Comment 35: Available evidence suggests that leatherbacks, loggerheads, and BFT may
share similar hot spots in the Gulf of Mexico, thus closures could be beneficial to all species –
despite the opposite conclusion in the Draft HMS FMP.
Response: Pelagic logbook data also showed areas in the Gulf of Mexico where
leatherbacks, loggerheads and BFT have been present. NMFS considered closures in the Gulf of
Mexico for white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, spearfish, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea
turtles, other sea turtles, pelagic and large coastal sharks, swordfish, BFT, bigeye, albacore,
yellowfin, and skipjack tunas (BAYS). However, no single closure or combination of closures
would reduce the bycatch of all species considered, and in certain cases resulted in increases of
bycatch for some species with the consideration of redistribution of effort.
Pelagic longline
Comment 36: NMFS received several comments regarding alternative B7, the prohibition
of PLL gear. These comments included: we oppose any rule that would allow the further use or
experimentation of such gear, and support alternative B7, prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS
fisheries and areas (this alternative would save the fishery if buoy gear was also prohibited);

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-39

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

NMFS needs to look at data prior to the introduction of PLL gear in relation to the decline of
billfish; and this should be about the gear, not the fishermen - PLL gear does not work.
Response: NMFS has not preferred alternative B7 at this time because while prohibiting
the use of PLL gear would eliminate bycatch associated with that gear, it would also eliminate
retained catch of swordfish and tuna. Elimination of this retained catch would result in
substantial negative social and economic impacts. Under ATCA, the United States cannot
implement measures that have the effect of raising or lowering quotas, although NMFS has the
ability to change the allocation of that quota among different user groups. The swordfish fishery
is confined, by regulation, to three gear types: harpoon, longline, and handlines. Under preferred
alternative H5, the commercial swordfish fishery would also be authorized to use buoy gear.
Since it is unlikely that the handgear sector would be able to catch the quota given the size
distribution of the stock, prohibiting longline gear may reduce the ability of U.S. fishermen to
harvest the full quota. It may also have the effect of reducing traditional participation in the
swordfish fishery by U.S. vessels relative to the foreign competitors because the United States
would harvest a vastly reduced proportion of the overall quota.
In addition, any ecological benefits may be lost if ICCAT reallocates U.S. quota to other
countries that may not implement comparable bycatch reduction measures as the United States.
The PLL fishery has undergone many management measures to reduce bycatch including circle
hooks implementation, live bait restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico, no targeted catch of billfish
and BFT, time/area closures, and safe handling and release protocols for protected resources.
These restrictions have been successful. Methods that have been employed and designed by U.S.
PLL fishermen, such as circle hooks and safe handling and release protocols for protected
resources, are being transferred around the world to reduce bycatch world-wide. Therefore, this
alternative could ultimately provide support for the fisheries of other countries that do not
implement or research conservation and bycatch reduction measures to the same extent that the
United States does.
Comment 37: NMFS needs to consider the adverse economic impact of existing time/area
closures on the commercial longline fishery. The PLL fleet was reduced to approximately 88
vessels due to existing restrictions. The current high cost of fuel is severely impacting the PLL
fleet, and recent hurricanes may have further reduced the fleet.
Response: NMFS evaluated the effect of current time/area closures on the PLL fleet in
the No Action alternative, B1. While the closures have had a positive impact on bycatch, they
have also had a negative impact on retained species landings. For example, from 1997 to 2003,
the number of swordfish kept declined by nearly 28 percent, the number of yellowfin tuna kept
declined by 23.5 percent, and the total number of BAYS kept (including yellowfin tuna) declined
by 25.1 percent. Overall effort in the Atlantic PLL fishery, based on reported number of hooks
set, declined by 15 percent during the pre- to post-closure period. NMFS acknowledges that one
reason for this decline may be that fishermen left the fishery as a result of time/area closures. In
addition, NMFS realizes that other factors, which are out of NMFS’ control, such as hurricanes
and fuel prices, have negatively impacted the PLL fishery. This is one reason why NMFS is not
preferring any new time/area closures, except for Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps, at

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-40

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

this time. Rather, NMFS intends to continue to estimate the current fishing effort and potential
recovery of the PLL fleet while also considering protected species and other takes.
Comment 38: Why is NMFS considering additional closures for the PLL fishery when
analyses indicate that the original goals of the closures have been met or exceeded? NMFS does
not react this way for the BFT fishery. NMFS protects spawning or pre-adult swordfish,
exceeding the ICCAT standards, yet promotes full utilization of the BFT angling quota. NMFS
must realize that the PLL fishery is not always the highest contributor to mortality, and that other
fisheries continue to hide behind their lack of data. NMFS should show recreational data and
analyze closures for other gears. The issue is fishing mortality, regardless of where it comes
from. NMFS must consider all forms of fishing mortality including post release mortality from
catch and release fishing.
Response: As part of its annual review process, NMFS evaluates the effectiveness of
existing time/area closures. Analysis of the change in effort and bycatch after implementation of
existing closures indicates that reduction in bycatch may have been greater than predicted with
redistribution of effort, and in some cases, without redistribution of effort. There are several
possible explanations for the higher than predicted decline in bycatch and effort resulting from
time/area closures that may have ecological impacts as well as economic repercussions on
fishing behavior and the PLL fishing industry: (1) stocks may be declining; (2) time/area
closures may have acted synergistically with declining stocks to produce greater declines in
catch than predicted; (3) fishermen may have left the fishery; and (4) fishing effort may have
been displaced into areas with lower CPUEs. With regard to the last point, the redistribution of
effort model is incapable of making predictions based on a declining CPUE. Instead, the model
assumes a current CPUE that remains constant in the remaining open areas when estimating
reductions. Modifications to the existing closures such as alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) were also
considered as ways to refine existing closures so as to provide additional opportunity to harvest
legal-sized swordfish while not increasing bycatch. NMFS, however, is currently not preferring
any modifications to the current closures for the reasons discussed in response to Comment 15.
NMFS agrees that all sources of fishing mortality should be considered in evaluating new and
existing management measures. For this reason, circle hooks would be required with natural
baits in all billfish tournaments (preferred alternative, E3). Estimated mortality contributions of
the domestic PLL and recreational sectors toward Atlantic white marlin can be seen in Appendix
C of the Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS will consider additional information on post release
mortality as it becomes available.
Comment 39: NMFS must consider safety. Overly restrictive closed areas force small
vessels to stretch beyond their offshore capabilities.
Response: NMFS agrees that safety concerns should be considered when developing any
new management measures, consistent with National Standard 10. After carefully reviewing the
results of all the different time/areas closures analyses, and in consideration of the many
significant factors that have recently affected the domestic PLL fleet, NMFS has decided, at this
time, not to prefer any new closures, except the complementary measures in the MadisonSwanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves. This decision is based primarily upon the
analyses indicating that no single closure or combination of closures would reduce the bycatch of
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-41

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

all species when the redistribution of effort was considered. Furthermore, the economic impacts
of each of the alternatives may be substantial, ranging in losses of up to several million dollars
annually, depending upon the alternative, and displacement of a significant number of fishing
vessels.
Bottom Longline
Comment 40: We support the prohibition of bottom longline gear in the southwest of Key
West to protect smalltooth sawfish (alternative B6). This alternative can provide a head-start in
reducing sawfish bycatch during the lengthy process of review and implementation of the
Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan (SSRP). NMFS should coordinate closely with the Panama
City Laboratory and Mote Marine Laboratory to ensure full funding of their proposed research
into sawfish critical habitat and act promptly on their recommendations regarding additional
time/area closures for the species.
Response: The alternative to close an area off of Key West relied upon a limited amount
of Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP) data, thus making it difficult to
determine whether the area being considered would result in overall reduction in interactions, or
whether sawfish exhibit a higher degree of mobility, and are as likely to be caught in other areas.
Recent information indicates that additional sawfish interactions have occurred outside the
proposed area, thus necessitating further review of the most appropriate location for a potential
closure. In addition, the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery team is currently in the process of
identifying sawfish critical habitat, which may be helpful in determining an appropriate closure
area in the future. NMFS supports this and other efforts to further delineate critical habitat for
this endangered species.
Comment 41: NMFS received several comments regarding the bottom longline closed
area off North Carolina including: NMFS should comprehensively examine and assess the
effectiveness of closures and have the confidence that alterations would not reduce protection for
dusky and sandbar sharks; I recommend removing the NC BLL closure and re-analyzing the
impacts in the same manner as was done for this document. Displacement was not considered
for that closure; and NMFS should change the NC closed area to only be closed out to 15
fathoms maximum depth, and change the time to begin April and continue until July 31 each
year. These changes protect juvenile sandbar sharks, keep protections in place for the peak
“pupping season,” and balance the needs of the directed shark fishermen whose economic
livelihood has been hurt by the Amendment 1 measures.
Response: The bottom longline closed area off North Carolina was implemented in
Amendment 1 to the FMP in December 2003, and became effective on January 1, 2005. The
time/area closure has only been in place for one complete management period from January 1 to
July 31, 2005 (January 1, 2006, marked the start of the second year for the closure). The final,
quality controlled 2005 logbook data will become available in early summer 2006, and NMFS
will evaluate the impacts of the first period of this closure once this data is available. Otherwise,
NMFS does not have any other new information to support removal or modification of the
closure to include only those areas inside 15 fathoms along the North Carolina coast.
Furthermore, NMFS does not have any data to support the assertion that such a modification or
removal of the closure would attain the management goal of protecting prohibited dusky and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-42

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

sandbar sharks. NMFS will consider new information, such as the results of the LCS stock
assessment and the newly completed dusky shark stock assessments, to determine whether
changes to the time/area closure are appropriate. In addition, NMFS will continue to monitor
changes to shark regulations by coastal states and will continue to work with the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to develop an interstate shark plan, which may warrant
a review of existing Federal regulations and consideration of further changes to the time/area
closure. NMFS considered redistribution of fishing effort for the time/area closure off North
Carolina in Amendment 1. The redistribution of fishing effort analysis indicated that, despite an
increase in fishing effort outside the time/area closure, the overall catch of juvenile sandbar and
dusky sharks would be reduced by the time/area closure. The analysis showed that the number
of juvenile sandbar and prohibited dusky sharks outside the time/area closure was low compared
to the number being caught inside the time/area closure.
Hook Types
Comment 42: NMFS received several comments regarding hook types and time/area
closures, including: the time/area closure analyses are based on J-hook data, which the Agency
has admitted is obsolete. The analyses do not take into account new CPUE or PRM rates based
on circle hooks; the impact of the area closures will be larger than predicted because the PLL
industry is already using circle hooks; all of NMFS analyses are based on J-hook data and a
much larger fleet. Bycatch and bycatch mortality will be further reduced due to the exclusive
use of circle hooks in the PLL fishery; NMFS should consider banning all J-hooks and live bait
fishing in all areas that are currently closed to PLL fishing.
Response: NMFS used the best scientific information available to analyze the various
time/area closure alternatives. Circle hooks were not required in the PLL fishery until July 2004,
and all of the data used in the time/area analyses were based on J-hook data. The approach
NMFS will take regarding the evaluation of the effects of circle hooks is discussed in the
response to Comment 2. An important component of the rationale supporting the Agency’s
decision not to prefer new time/area closures (notwithstanding Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps) is based upon absence of information regarding the effects of circle hooks on bycatch
rates in the PLL fishery.
Similarly, there is an absence of information to analyze the effects of a ban on all J-hooks
and live bait fishing in areas that are currently closed to PLL fishing. Some studies are available
documenting the effects of circle hooks on certain species (i.e., white marlin), and NMFS is
preferring specific, targeted hook requirements in these fisheries to reduce bycatch mortality.
However, the effect of circle hooks on other HMS species (i.e., swordfish and sharks) and
fisheries is largely unknown. As additional information becomes available, NMFS will assess
the need to require circle hooks or to prohibit live bait in other HMS fisheries in areas that are
closed to PLL fishing.
General Time/Area Comments
Comment 43: NMFS chose to combine some of the closures in the analyses. How were
those areas chosen?

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-43

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

Response: NMFS analyzed the combination of areas that had the highest bycatch of
certain species in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic to maximize potential bycatch reduction,
and to take into account high bycatch for the same species in different areas as described in
response to Comment 33. For example, there is high bycatch for BFT in both the Gulf of
Mexico and in areas of the Northeast. By combining these two areas, NMFS took into account
the fact that, if effort were redistributed, it would not be redistributed into the areas of highest
bycatch in a different geographic region.
Comment 44: What is the new process for establishing/modifying closures?
Response: NMFS is not implementing a new process for establishing or modifying HMS
time/area closures. Rather, the Agency would identify specific criteria to consider for regulatory
framework adjustments to implement new time/area closures or to modify existing time/area
closures in the future. These criteria, or combinations of them, have always been considered in
establishing time/area closures. The preferred alternative, however, should provide for greater
transparency and predictability in the decision making process by clarifying exactly what the
Agency is looking for or considering during its analyses. The same criteria would be used for
both establishing new closures and modifying existing closures. The preferred alternative to
establish criteria to consider would not change the ability of the public to submit a petition for
rulemaking to NMFS if they believe that modification to an existing time/area closure or the
establishment of a new time/area closure is warranted.
Comment 45: The proposed time/area closure alternatives do not achieve the
conservation objectives of the FMP.
Response: NMFS disagrees. There are many objectives in the HMS FMP. All of the
objectives must be balanced and considered in their entirety and in consideration of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other domestic laws when implementing management measures.
Some of the objectives are especially relevant to this particular comment. The first objective is
to prevent or end overfishing of Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish and sharks and adopt the
precautionary approach to fishery management. The second objective is to rebuild overfished
Atlantic HMS stocks and monitor and control all components of fishing mortality, both directed
and incidental, so as to ensure the long-term sustainability of the stocks and promote Atlanticwide stock recovery to the level where MSY can be supported on a continuing basis. The third
objective is to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch of living marine resources and the
mortality of such bycatch that cannot be avoided in the fisheries for Atlantic HMS or other
species, as well as release mortality in the directed billfish fishery. Finally, another objective
that is relevant to this comment indicates that NMFS should minimize, to the extent practicable,
adverse social and economic impacts on fishing communities and recreational and commercial
activities during the transition from overfished fisheries to healthy ones, consistent with ensuring
achievement of the other objectives of this plan and with all applicable laws. These objectives
clearly indicate that the biological impacts on all HMS species must be considered, as well as the
bycatch of all other living marine resources. In addition, NMFS must minimize, to the extent
practicable, adverse social and economic impacts on fishing communities and fisheries, while
remaining consistent with the other objectives. In selecting the preferred time/area closure
alternatives, NMFS has accomplished these objectives.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-44

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

In this rulemaking, NMFS does not prefer any new closures, except for complementary
measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves. This decision is
based primarily upon the analyses described in the Final HMS FMP indicating that no single
closure or combination of closures would reduce the bycatch of all species when considering
redistribution of effort. Furthermore, the economic impacts associated with each of the new
closure alternatives may be substantial, ranging in losses of up to several million dollars
annually, depending upon the alternative, and could result in the displacement of a significant
number of fishing vessels. Even when the time/area closure alternatives were combined in an
attempt to maximize bycatch reduction, the ecological benefits were minimal at best, with
increases in discards of some species. NMFS considered a number of closures based upon
analyses with and without the redistribution of fishing effort. The Agency believes it is
important to consider redistribution of fishing effort because HMS and protected species are not
uniformly distributed throughout the ocean, and they tend to occur in higher concentrations in
certain areas. Fishing vessels, which are mobile, can move from one location to another, if
necessary, when a closure is implemented. Therefore, a closure in one area might reduce the
bycatch of one or two species, but may increase the bycatch of others. NMFS additionally
considered alternative approaches to effort redistribution for closures to protect BFT in spawning
areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Even using this revised approach, which is described in the Final
HMS FMP, it was found that closures in the Gulf of Mexico could still result in an increase in
bycatch for some of the species being considered. Based upon these results, and in consideration
of other recent significant developments in the PLL fishery (mandatory circle hooks, rising fuel
costs, devastating hurricanes, etc.), NMFS believes that not preferring new time/area closures is
appropriate and is fully consistent with the objectives of the Consolidated HMS FMP and all
applicable law.
Comment 46: If species identification is questionable how can the impacts of closures be
analyzed?
Response: NMFS agrees that species identification can be problematic when it comes to
large coastal sharks, especially at the dealer level. However, this should not be a problem for
evaluating the potential impacts of various time/area closures as large coastal sharks were
combined into a single group for the analyses. Identification of other species which achieve
legal minimum sizes may be less problematic. Nevertheless, NMFS has used the best available
scientific data in this analysis as required by law.
Comment 47: NMFS must consider the turtle take and gear removal data from the first
two years of the pelagic longline fishery’s three-year ITS. Pursuant to the BiOp, annual take
estimates based on POP and effort data are required to be completed by March 15th of each year.
Additionally, NMFS should take this opportunity to provide a framework to take corrective
actions as recommended by the BiOp
Response: NMFS agrees that changes may have occurred in the PLL fishery since
implementation of the circle hook requirement and safe handling and release guidelines in July
2004. Fishery data collected in 2005 will represent the first full year under these requirements.
NMFS will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of existing management measures based on
current fishing practices. NMFS currently only has finalized logbook data on the catch
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-45

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BYCATCH REDUCTION

associated with circle hooks from July through December of 2004. Because circle hooks likely
have a significantly different catch rate than J-hooks, further investigation is required to
determine the potential impact of any new time/area closures. NMFS anticipates that 2005 HMS
final logbook data will become available in the summer of 2006. The Agency will continue to
monitor and analyze the effect of circle hooks on catch rates and bycatch reduction as well as
assess the cumulative affect of current time/area closures and circle hooks. NMFS has also
completed its annual take estimates of sea turtles for both 2004 and 2005 and both loggerhead
and leatherback interactions have decreased substantially. During 2005, the first full year under
the circle hook requirement, a total of 282 loggerhead and 368 leatherback sea turtles were
estimated to have been taken. This represents decreases of 64.8 and 65.8 percent compared to
the annual mean for 2000 – 2003 for loggerheads and leatherbacks, respectively. In regard to the
framework mechanism recommended by the BiOp, NMFS requested comments on this
mechanism and other ways to reduce unanticipated increases in sea turtle takes by the PLL
fishery (August 12, 2004, 69 FR 49858). NMFS is considering the comments received and notes
that the preferred alternative to establish criteria is a step towards allowing for such proactive
measures.
D.2 Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing
D.2.1 Northern Albacore Tuna
Comment 1: NMFS received comments opposed to alternative C2, unilateral reduction in
albacore fishing mortality, which indicated such restrictions would only create unnecessary
waste and discards. Commenters remarked that the U.S. only weakens its negotiating position
by taking unilateral steps prior to ICCAT action. Even prohibiting retention of albacore by all
U.S. vessels would have negligible conservation effects. Some commenters stated that the U. S.
should go forward ahead of ICCAT and not negotiate our position.
Response: NMFS recognizes the costs associated with imposing restrictions on albacore
tuna landings for U. S. fisheries, and at the present time believes that the costs are greater than
potential ecological benefits the northern albacore stock as a whole. Restrictions that affect U.S.
fishermen solely are not expected to be of significant ecological value to the Atlantic albacore
stocks as a whole, as U.S. albacore landings account for less than two percent of the international
landings. Furthermore, albacore stock assessment data has been updated but not re-evaluated
since 2000. It would not be consistent with ATCA to impose fishing restrictions on this stock in
the absence of current data supporting such an action. The Agency therefore prefers to move
forward with alternative C3, which would allow the U.S. to build a foundation with ICCAT
contracted parties to develop a comprehensive management plan for albacore.
Comment 2: NMFS received comments in opposition to the preferred alternative,
including: “the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is concerned that regulations to
rebuild the northern albacore could impact other Gulf fisheries and recommends that no action be
taken in the Gulf as part of the United States foundation for the ICCAT rebuilding program,
since there is not a substantial albacore catch in the Gulf”; I am leery about any regulations
relating to albacore since albacore is an important fishery in Aug-Sept off Long Island; NMFS
should set a bag limit of three albacore per person and a minimum size of 27 inches curved fork
length now, and perhaps enact a seasonal catch limit as well.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-46

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Response: As noted by the SCRS in 2003, trends for CPUE of albacore are stable and
possibly increasing for the PLL fleet; however, in the absence of more recent stock assessment
data, the Agency believes that no action, or moving forward with a unilateral reduction in U.S.
fishing mortality are not consistent with ATCA and are therefore inappropriate alternatives at
this time. In alternative C2, NMFS considered the ecological, social and economic impacts of
unilateral action. Restrictions that affect U.S. fishermen solely, including the implementation of
bag and size limits, or catch limits, are not expected to significantly benefit the Atlantic albacore
stocks as a whole, as U.S. albacore landings account for less than two percent of the international
landings. NMFS prefers to work with ICCAT to develop an international rebuilding plan for
albacore. No immediate restrictions will be imposed on fisheries in the Gulf or elsewhere as
NMFS develops the appropriate foundation for such a plan as described in alternative C3. Upon
adoption of an ICCAT rebuilding plan, domestic management would be developed in separate
rulemaking and Gulf regulations options would be considered at that time.
Comment 3: NMFS received support for the preferred alternative, which entails
establishing a foundation at ICCAT for developing an international rebuilding program for
albacore. These comments included: The management approach for Northern Albacore is
favorable and NMFS should apply this approach to many other domestic fisheries; and we
support alternative C3, which would actively encourage ICCAT to develop and implement an
international rebuilding plan for albacore tuna. While we support an albacore-rebuilding plan,
we do not believe that the U.S. should implement reductions on its albacore fishermen. For
meaningful and effective rebuilding of albacore to take place, U.S. managers must be willing to
put significant pressure on countries with high fishing mortalities; and, EU countries have felt
compelled to ban gillnets in this fishery.
Response: To prevent an ineffective approach to management and impose a unilateral
economic burden on U.S. fisheries, and to ensure that international efforts are taken to regulate
albacore fishing mortality in attempts to provide a sustainable fishery, the Agency plans to work
with ICCAT to develop a rebuilding program for albacore. As current international catch rates
exceed the levels needed to produce MSY, NMFS believes that international cooperation is
essential and would result in long-term positive ecological impacts on the stock.
Comment 4: NMFS received a number of comments in regard to data that is used to
determine the U.S. catch and status of Atlantic albacore, including: We are concerned about the
use of survey data for the for-hire sectors of this fishery. A study by Loftus and Stone showed
that the LPS data was often a significant underestimate of recreational catches of northern
albacore tuna, which supports the need for increased recreational data collection; there is a
directed fishery for longfin tuna that catches albacore; this fishery is not important to the GOM
but it could affect other GOM fisheries. I think it is important to get data straightened out now
rather than after the fact; and, we need better recreational data. The draft FMP did not pay
adequate attention to data issues, including looking at a census approach rather than sampling.
We need to work with ACCSP to create census data with good quality control.
Response: Adequate data collection is an ongoing concern for successful management of
Highly Migratory Species. NMFS funds the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS) which is a sampling
based catch data collection program for HMS species. In three states, ME, VA, NC, catch-card
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-47

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

and tail-wrap tagging programs are part of the LPS which is making an effort to use the census
approach to catch data collection. NMFS is working with managers to include data collection for
all HMS species, including Atlantic albacore, through the ACCSP program. In addition the Gulf
Council has asked the Gulf Commission to look into statistic and census based data collection
programs for HMS in the Gulf of Mexico.
Comment 5: NMFS received comments asking to explain what “establish the foundation
with ICCAT…” means in terms of a specific plan. One commenter suggested that the plan
needed to be fully developed and explained in the proposed FMP.
Response: If the stock is determined to be overfished during the 2007 assessment, the
United States would work with ICCAT to develop a comprehensive international rebuilding plan
to be adopted by ICCAT, and that would comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Implementation of the selected alternative would include a thorough analysis of the ICCAT
Rebuilding Program to ensure that it includes a specified recovery period, biomass targets,
fishing mortality rate limits, and explicit interim milestones expressed in terms of measurable
improvement of the stock. Each of these components is necessary to support the objectives of
this FMP and the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. An Atlantic-wide TAC for northern
albacore tuna, along with other conservation and management measures, would be adopted by
ICCAT to rebuild the stock. Upon adoption by ICCAT, domestic management and conservation
measures for the United States would be developed in a separate rulemaking.
Comment 6: One commenter asked how the 607 mt quota is to be divided between the
commercial and recreational fisheries.
Response: Currently, the U.S. does not have domestic quota for recreational albacore
catches, nor are there restrictions on the number of albacore that may be landed by commercial
vessels issued an Atlantic tuna permit. Allocation of the quota between commercial and
recreational fisheries has not been of concern during recent years as the U.S. harvest has been
below the quota allocated by ICCAT. During the last eight years (1997 to 2004), an average of
161.4 mt and 311.4 mt of northern albacore were caught on longlines and rod and reel
respectively.
Comment 7: NMFS received a comment that a lot of albacore tuna are seen off New
York. The commenter wanted to know how it is that NMFS can conclude they are overfished.
Response: During the last 20 years, the spawning stock biomass of albacore has declined
significantly, according to the SCRS. The most recent SCRS stock assessment (reviewed in
2004, using catch at age data from 2003 to update the 2000 assessment) for albacore, indicates
that the spawning stock biomass is 30 percent below maximum sustainable yield. A new
assessment is anticipated in 2007. According to the MSFCMA, a stock is overfished if the level
of fishing mortality is greater than the capacity of that fishery to produce the maximum
sustainable yield on a continuing basis. The presence of fish therefore, does not necessarily
mean that a stock is not overfished. However, NMFS recognizes the seasonal nature of the
albacore fisheries and would take this into account in developing management measures as
needed.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-48

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

D.2.2 Finetooth Sharks
Comment 1: NMFS received several comments in support of seasonal commercial
gillnet fishing restrictions to reduce finetooth shark fishing mortality, including one from the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. These comments included: If seasons of high
finetooth shark landings can be identified from the observer program, landings, or other data,
then we suggest closing the small coastal shark fishery during that season for gillnetters, or
having shark fishermen move offshore into deeper waters away from where finetooth sharks are
typically found; fishing on these schools during pupping season may have significant biological
implications; and, the seasonality of finetooth shark pupping should be investigated to determine
whether some finetooth shark bycatch is more biologically significant than others.
Response: Seasonal closures of commercial gillnet fisheries landing finetooth shark were
not analyzed as part of alternative D2, however, these closures may be considered in the future,
as necessary, to reduce fishing mortality. Closing the small coastal shark fishery would not
prevent dead discards, or account for finetooth that are landed in other fisheries such as Spanish
mackerel. In the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, trips that landed finetooth sharks between 1999
- 2004, according to the Coastal Fisheries Logbook data, were analyzed by gear and month.
These data indicate that the number of trips landing finetooth sharks increases in October and
November. This could be attributed to finetooth sharks moving in schools southward from the
Carolinas to warmer waters off Florida in these months leading to an increase in finetooth
landings. Furthermore, there is an expansion of fishing effort targeting Spanish mackerel as
these fish are also moving south to Florida in October and November each year, which might
also lead to increased landings during this period.
Commercial shark gillnet fishermen are already subject to stringent regulations during
October and November including: prohibitions on fishing in state waters of FL, GA, and SC with
gillnets longer than 100’, the directed shark gillnet fishery in Federal waters is subject to 100
percent observer coverage and the use of VMS in the vicinity of the Southeast U.S. Restricted
Area for north Atlantic right whales between Savannah, GA and Sebastian Inlet, FL; and all
gillnet fishermen are prevented from deploying shark gillnets (stretched mesh >5”) in the
Southeast U.S. Restricted Area between November 15 and March 31 every year. Since most
states in the region already have bans on gillnet gear, and seeing that most of the fishing pressure
on finetooth sharks occurs after they have already dropped their pups in the coastal waters (2-7 m
water depth), it is difficult to use protection during pupping season as a justification for seasonal
closures. Fishermen are not able to target finetooth sharks when fishing with gillnets. Any
management measures that are solely directed at fishermen using gillnet gear and in possession
of a commercial shark permit, could easily be circumvented as gillnets are also an authorized
gear for Spanish mackerel or are used by fisheries pursuing currently unregulated species.
Furthermore, closures may result in increased fishing effort in other areas or seasons, which
could lead to increased dead discards of finetooth sharks.
Comment 2: NMFS received several comments in support of the proposed preferred
alternative for finetooth shark management, including: identifying sources of finetooth shark
fishing mortality to target appropriate management actions is appropriate; the occurrence of
overfishing is a function of data deficiency; I agree with the preferred alternative; we need
clarification about the landings information in the SCS assessment; I support the preferred
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-49

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

alternative and the stock assessment; I applaud NMFS for taking the approach with the level of
uncertainty; NMFS scientists cautioned the reader about conclusions made for finetooth and
blacknose shark; ASMFC is trying to address these issues; we need to know which fishery is
catching these fish; I know that under the law we are supposed to reduce mortality, but I think
that we need more information; we support alternative D4 because it is critical to improve the
assessment for finetooth sharks in 2007; NMFS should wait on the updated assessment results
for finetooth sharks before attempting a quota reduction on the commercial shark fishermen; the
March 2002 SCS assessment did not have bycatch estimates to include with the short catch and
catch per unit of effort (CPUE) series, as well as no catch for finetooth and blacknose sharks,
which may have effected the results; if the majority of mortality occurs in non-HMS fisheries,
why should HMS fishermen have to solve the problem; and if there is little connection to HMS,
and if we want to get to fishing mortality, we need to collect information.
Response: NMFS agrees that implementing a plan for preventing overfishing of finetooth
sharks is necessary, and that appropriate measures are included in preferred alternative D4. The
majority of finetooth sharks are landed in the South Atlantic region (primarily Florida) by vessels
deploying a non-selective gear type (gillnet gear) and in possession of both a Spanish mackerel
permit and a commercial shark permit and/or targeting species that are currently unmanaged
(kingfish). Thus, any management measures that are solely directed at fishermen using gillnet
gear and in possession of a commercial shark permit, could easily be circumvented as gillnets are
also an authorized gear for Spanish mackerel or are used by fisheries pursuing currently
unregulated species. NMFS continues to explore which vessels may be engaged in fisheries that
harvest finetooth sharks and intends to conduct a new SCS stock assessment following the
Southeast Assessment, Data, and Review (SEDAR) process starting in 2007. Reducing finetooth
shark fishing mortality via regulations targeting commercial shark permit holders is further
confounded by the fact that finetooth sharks are within the SCS complex, which is not currently
overfished or experiencing overfishing, and commercial fishermen have only caught, on average,
20 percent of the SCS quota between 1999-2004. The highest landings of SCS reached 74
percent in 2003. Measures directed at the shark gillnet fishery would result in an increased
number of dead discards of finetooth sharks and removing gillnets from the authorized gear list
for the shark fishery (closing the shark gillnet fishery). Fishermen do not appear to selectively
target finetooth sharks and these sharks have a tendency to roll upon contact with gillnets.
Observer data from the five vessels targeting sharks indicate that they are only responsible for a
small portion of the commercial finetooth shark landings. Most of the gillnet vessels in the
South Atlantic region have permits for both HMS and non-HMS species. If gillnets were no
longer an authorized gear for harvesting HMS, vessels would continue to discard dead finetooth
sharks caught as bycatch in pursuit of other non-HMS species. Furthermore, a fishery closure
could lead to adverse economic impacts and unknown ecological impacts as this displaced
fishing effort would likely shift to other fisheries or increase fishing pressure on LCS using
bottom longline gear. Recreational landings of finetooth sharks only comprise 10 percent of
annual finetooth shark landings on average. Recreational landings of finetooth sharks are
approximately 1.5 percent of the landings within the SCS complex.
In 2002, NMFS conducted a stock assessment for all SCS, including finetooth sharks.
These catch rate series data were combined with life history information for finetooth sharks and
evaluated with several stock assessment models. The lack of bycatch data in the catch series
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-50

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

data led to low values of MSY predicted for finetooth sharks in the SCS stock assessment
(especially those obtained through the SPM models). This lack of bycatch data and shorter catch
and catch per unit effort (CPUE) series, coupled with no catches reported in some years, led to
some uncertainty in the stock assessment for finetooth sharks. In the case of finetooth sharks,
model estimates of recent F levels are above FMSY, indicating that recent levels of effort directed
at this species, if continued, could result in an overfished status in the relatively near future.
The preferred alternative may increase the amount of available catch series and bycatch data by
expanding existing observer programs and contacting state and Federal fisheries management
entities to collect additional landings data, which may be available for the upcoming stock
assessment starting in 2007.
ASMFC is in the initial steps of developing an interstate FMP for coastal sharks.
ASMFC staff has drafted a Public Information Document (PID), equivalent to Scoping
Document drafted prior to initiating a fishery management plan. The PID is currently available
online at www.asmfc.org. The deadline for submitting public comment is July 14, 2006.
Comment 3: NMFS received several comments either opposing the preferred alternative
(alternative D4), or expressing concern over the fact that more progress has not already been
made to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks, including: NMFS acknowledged finetooth
shark overfishing three years ago and the current preferred alternative simply collects more data
on sources of mortality for the species; it has already taken three or more years to amend this
plan; NMFS should reconsider proposing more specific management measures in this Draft
HMS FMP to conserve finetooth sharks; we have a species that is in trouble, and under the law,
you need to do something; we are disappointed that you are picking an alternative that won’t do
anything for the mortality; you need to change the preferred alternative to something more
conservation-oriented; NMFS has not done anything in the past 4 years and finetooth has
overfishing occurring; we support alternative D4, but note our disappointment that NMFS has
not already directed the appropriate Regional Council to take action to end the overfishing of
finetooth sharks; NMFS should contact states directly as they should be more than willing to
provide information; NMFS has made some steps forward in collecting more information,
however, you are going to have to work harder to get more data; and, NMFS needs to develop
and pursue specific management measures to end finetooth shark overfishing.
Response: The preferred alternative implements an effective plan to prevent overfishing.
Based on our present knowledge of the fisheries that interact with
finetooth sharks, management actions that affect only HMS fisheries will not
adequately address finetooth shark overfishing. The majority of finetooth shark landings occur
in commercial fisheries deploying a non-selective gear (gillnets) in a region (south Atlantic)
where other non-HMS fisheries also deploy gillnets. Thus, measures that prohibit the use of
gillnets for landing sharks (alternative D2), if aimed exclusively at the commercial shark gillnet
fishery, would not prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks. Most of the five vessels that
comprise the commercial shark gillnet fishery also possess Spanish mackerel permits. If gillnets
were not allowed for the harvest of sharks the vessels could continue to deploy gillnets to catch
other species, including Spanish mackerel, catch finetooth sharks incidentally, and then discard
dead finetooth sharks. Finetooth sharks are caught in a wide range of gillnet mesh sizes and are
often dead at haulback, rendering trip limits and/or gear modifications (alternative D2)
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-51

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

ineffective at preventing overfishing because dead sharks would continue to be discarded.
Mortality of finetooth sharks in fisheries outside the jurisdiction of HMS (state waters) or in
unregulated fisheries in Federal waters (i.e, kingfish) would also be unaffected. The preferred
alternative will provide additional information on finetooth shark landings to allow enactment of
comprehensive, collaborative measures that effectively reduce finetooth shark fishing mortality.
The preferred alternative would not simply collect more data. NMFS has sent a letter to
the South Atlantic Fishery Management council and attended a recent meeting in Coconut
Grove, FL (June 13-15, 2006) to request consideration of joint management initiatives. Without
cooperative measures vessels may be able to circumvent any additional regulations that would be
enacted for the commercial shark fishery when pursuing Spanish mackerel. The Agency has
attained, and will continue to evaluate, landings of finetooth sharks by non-HMS fisheries in
state and Federal waters. Furthermore, the Agency has analyzed Federal logbook data to better
understand what non-HMS fishermen are catching when they land finetooth sharks, has
determined seasonality of landings by Federally permitted fishermen, has analyzed the Federal
permits of vessels that land finetooth sharks, and has analyzed the Florida trip ticket data to
better understand the seasonality, extent of landings, and what permits vessels possess that are
landing finetooth sharks in the state of Florida. The Agency has expanded the directed shark
gillnet fishery observer program to include observer coverage on vessels using alternative types
of gillnet gear (sinknet) or targeting non-HMS species to determine the extent of finetooth shark
landings in these fisheries and added finetooth sharks to the select species list for bycatch subsampling in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery to monitor bycatch of finetooth sharks in
this fishery. These activities will form the basis for selecting additional management measures,
either analyzed in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, or otherwise, to ensure that overfishing of
finetooth sharks is prevented.
Comment 4: There should be a cap on the number of vessels allowed into the directed
shark gillnet fishery and a limited entry program that only allows the five vessels that are
currently participating in the fishery.
Response: NMFS does not currently employ a gear based permit endorsement for shark
fisheries; rather, permit holders possess either directed or incidental permits and both permits are
valid for any of the authorized gears for sharks (gillnet, bottom and pelagic longlines, handline,
rod and reel, or bandit gear). NMFS did not consider specific permit endorsements or gearbased permits in this rulemaking, but may consider options to limit vessel participation in the
shark gillnet fishery in the future. Logbook and permit data does not indicate that there has been
a significant increase in recent years in the number of vessels targeting sharks with gillnet gear.
The majority of shark fishermen deploy bottom longline gear for LCS; however, directed shark
gillnet fishermen most frequently target SCS and blacktip sharks. As blacktip sharks and the
SCS species complex are not overfished or experiencing overfishing, capping the number of
vessels allowed into the fishery may not be justified.
Comment 5: NMFS received several comments in favor of banning gillnets for the
directed harvest of sharks, including: banning gillnets might help reduce finetooth shark
mortality; in the absence of removing gillnets from the authorized HMS gear list, there should be
a requirement for year-round use of VMS on gillnet boats; drift gillnets should be prohibited; the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-52

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

State of Georgia supports the prohibition of gillnet gear to target finetooth sharks to prevent
overfishing; and, I suggest that this fishery be banned in the South Atlantic and GOM until we
determine the status of finetooth sharks and get things straight with the Right whale calf that was
caught with gillnet gear.
Response: NMFS considered the prohibition of gillnet gear within Alternative D2
(implement commercial management measures to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth sharks).
A similar alternative was also considered in Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic, Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. NMFS agrees that banning the use of gillnets for the
five vessels that comprise the directed shark drift gillnet fishery may reduce fishing mortality of
finetooth sharks. However, other gillnet fisheries in the South Atlantic that target non-HMS
(Spanish mackerel and kingfish) would continue to catch finetooth sharks, and other species of
sharks. Observer data indicate that the five vessels targeting sharks in the South Atlantic region
are only responsible for a small portion of the commercial finetooth shark landings. Since most
of the gillnet vessels in the South Atlantic have permits for both HMS and non-HMS (Council­
managed) species, if gillnets were no longer an authorized gear for harvesting HMS, these
vessels would continue to land, and discard dead, finetooth sharks caught as bycatch in pursuit of
other non-HMS species. If gillnet gear were banned for HMS, fishermen in other fisheries
would continue to catch finetooth sharks but without coordination with management entities and
possibly without observer coverage. Furthermore, the current regulations in place for the
Southeastern U.S. Restricted Area currently prohibit the use of shark gillnet gear in the water
between Savannah, GA and Sebastian Inlet, FL. Shark gillnet gear is defined as a gillnet with
stretched mesh greater than 5”. Gillnets that are less than 5” stretched mesh could still be
deployed if the directed shark gillnet fishery were banned, and finetooth sharks would continue
to be landed as a result. Gillnets are already banned in Georgia and Florida and restricted to less
than 100 feet in length for recreational fisheries in South Carolina.
Generally, VMS is required to aid in enforcement of time/area closures. Because no
gillnet closures were fully analyzed in the Draft HMS FMP, the requirement to use VMS on
gillnet vessels year-round was not considered as an alternative in this rulemaking. The existing
requirement was originally implemented in 2003 by Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, and requires that all vessels with gillnet gear onboard and a
commercial shark permit have a functioning VMS unit onboard and that the unit is operational
during all fishing activities, including transiting, between November 15st and March 31st each
year. This requirement applies to all areas between November 15-March 31 and not just in the
vicinity of the Southeastern U.S. Restricted Area. If additional time and area closures were
implemented outside of the right whale calving season, it may be prudent to reevaluate the need
for a year-round VMS requirement for all shark drift gillnet vessels.
The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) met in St. Augustine, FL,
on April 10-11, 2006, to determine what course of action should be taken to prevent future
interactions between right whales and gillnet gear. The ALWTRT did not reach consensus on all
the management measures that were being considered at the meeting and are still deliberating on
how to address the co-existence of gillnet fisheries and right whales on their calving grounds in
the Southeastern U.S. Restricted Area. NMFS will work with the team to minimize mortality of
these endangered marine mammals.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-53

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Comment 6: Identification of finetooth sharks is difficult because they are often
confused with blacktip sharks.
Response: The Agency agrees that finetooth sharks are difficult to identify, especially for
dealers who are required to positively identify sharks to species based on a log (carcass that has
been gutted and finned). The preferred Alternative A9, mandatory HMS identification
workshops for all shark dealers, would provide shark dealers with tools and instruction that they
could employ to prevent mis-identification of finetooth sharks and minimize the likelihood of
confusion between Carcharinid species of sharks.
Comment 7: Spanish mackerel fishermen catch finetooth sharks intermixed with blacktip
sharks.
Response: An analysis of Federal logbook data from 1999-2004 indicates that 17 vessels
landed finetooth sharks with gillnet gear and possessed both a Spanish mackerel and commercial
shark permit. Since gillnets are a not selective gear and finetooth sharks, blacktip sharks, and
Spanish mackerel have similar temperature and habitat preferences, it is not unreasonable to
assume that there are some gillnet sets where all three species are landed. The Federal logbook
data indicated that Spanish mackerel were the most abundant non-HMS reported on trips that
landed finetooth sharks and accounted for approximately 13.6 percent (by weight) of landings.
Comment 8: NMFS states that 80 percent of finetooth sharks are caught in gillnets, and
the majority is landed in FL and GA, but gillnets are banned in these states. So finetooth sharks
must not be all that coastal if they are being caught outside of state waters (> 3 miles).
Response: Generally speaking, finetooth sharks inhabit shallow coastal waters of the
western Atlantic Ocean from North Carolina to Brazil. Finetooth sharks travel north to waters
adjacent to South Carolina when the surface temperature of the water increases to approximately
20ºC then returns south to off the coast of Florida when temperatures fall below 20ºC. Finetooth
seem to prefer water temperatures in this range, and they feed primarily on menhaden, which are
also generally found closer to shore. However, finetooth sharks are opportunistic and will likely
inhabit more coastal state waters or locales offshore in Federal waters as oceanographic and
feeding conditions allow. Finetooth sharks would not be allowed to be harvested with gillnets
within State waters of Flordia, Georgia, or South Carolina, however; they would still be
vulnerable to fishing mortality resulting from interactions with gear in other fisheries and may be
landed in Florida if they are caught in gillnets deployed in Federal waters.
Comment 9: There are only five vessels are in the fishery- where do all the catches come
from?
Response: The five gillnet vessels that target sharks with drift gillnet or strikenet gear are
responsible for less than 10 percent of the commercial finetooth shark landings. The majority of
finetooth sharks may be landed either in state waters, or by fishermen pursuing other species,
such as those managed by the Gulf of Mexico or South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils
(i.e., Spanish mackerel) or species that are not currently managed (i.e., kingfish). Since these
fishermen hold directed shark permits, they can opportunistically keep all finetooth sharks;
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-54

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

however, because their harvest of finetooth sharks is incidental to landing of other non-HMS
species, these vessels have not been selected for HMS observer coverage. Vessels fishing sink
gillnet gear on the bottom and targeting other non-shark species are some of the same vessels in
the shark drift gillnet fishery.
A recent analysis of landings data submitted via the Fishing Vessel Logbook/Gulf of
Mexico Reef Fish/South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper/King and Spanish Mackerel/Shark (Coastal
Fisheries Logbook) from 1999 - 2004, indicate that a total of 46 vessels reported landings of
finetooth sharks. Of these, 17 vessels had only a shark limited access permit, 17 vessels had both
a shark and a Spanish mackerel permit (managed under the Coastal Pelagics FMP and its
amendments by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council), and 12 vessels had neither
permit. In 2003, 15 vessels reported landings of finetooth sharks and all of these vessels had
both a shark directed permit and a Spanish mackerel permit. Furthermore, since approximately
29 vessels are either targeting other non-HMS species and keeping finetooth sharks
opportunistically, or are not covered under existing management regimes, these vessels would
likely continue to contribute to finetooth shark fishing mortality by participating in coastal gillnet
fisheries within the finetooth shark’s range.
Comment 10: NMFS received several comments questioning the 2002 SCS stock
assessment, including: in 1995, 95 percent of finetooth came from PLL and not gillnets, in 1996­
2000 there was this shift to gillnet, and I don’t understand why; the document says that less than
1 percent came from the commercial fishery in the GOM- how can shrimp trawls not catch
finetooth?; and, 100 percent of recreational landings came from the GOM, it just does not make
any sense.
Response: NMFS analyzed landings data from 1999-2004 for the analysis of alternatives
to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks in this rulemaking. It is possible that there are
inconsistencies between more recent data analyzed for this rulemaking and those data employed
for the 2002 stock assessment. This could be a result of misidentification or misreporting of
finetooth sharks, general lack of data for the 2002 SCS stock assessment, or changes in fishing
effort that may have occurred. The commenter does not provide specific examples of which data
set they are referring to that was used in the 2002 SCS assessment; therefore, it is difficult to
explain any potential inconsistencies. Alternative D4 would include finetooth sharks as a select
species for bycatch sub-sampling in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl observer program which
will provide additional bycatch and landings information from this fishery. In the past, finetooth
sharks were not identified in the bycatch associated with shrimp trawls, however, they may have
been present. The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Service estimated that 14,811 finetooth sharks were landed between 1999 and 2005.
The data used for the 2002 SCS stock assessment indicate that there were several years where all
of the recreational landings of finetooth shark occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. However, there
are also years where the majority of recreationally caught finetooth sharks were caught in both
the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions. This could be attributed to changes in
oceanographic conditions and/or fishing effort.
Comment 11: NMFS should investigate bycatch in other areas and consider the suite of
management measures by other states that may be affecting finetooth shark mortality. In the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-55

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

State of Texas, there are bag limits but no commercial fisheries. Sharks can only be caught on
rod and reel. They may be sold, but only one fish per boat. There are also some shrimp trawl
closures (seasonal) that may provide some indirect benefits for finetooth and other sharks.
Response: Since this comment was received, NMFS has contacted the Regional Fishery
Management Councils and discussed possible fisheries where finetooth sharks may be harvested
incidentally. The Agency has also compiled a list of state and Council regulations that affect
gillnet and bottom longline fisheries and therefore may impact finetooth fishing mortality either
directly or indirectly. Creel surveys from Texas Parks and Wildlife indicate that on average,
nine finetooth sharks are landed a year, with 193 landings documented since 1984. Shark
specific landing restrictions similar to those imposed by Texas and other states, while helpful,
may not significantly reduce finetooth landings as the majority of finetooth landings are from
commercial fisheries in the South Atlantic that use non-selective gear. Successful management
of this species will likely only be attained through cooperative efforts between the fishermen,
States, Regional Fishery Management Councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, and NMFS.
Comment 12: NMFS received several comments expressing concern about the fact that
the Agency did not know exactly where all finetooth shark landings are coming from, including:
how is it that NMFS has catch data coming from dealers, but does not know which vessels are
catching finetooth?; NMFS should call the dealers and find out which types of boats are
offloading/selling the finetooth; in 1999, you changed the criteria for boats that could get a
directed shark permit so that the smaller croaker boats, etc. catch sharks, and they have to report
to the Federal dealer, so you should be able to get the dealer information; and dealers should be
required to provide vessel information with all shark landings.
Response: General canvass data submitted by Federally permitted shark dealers does not
include information pertaining from which vessel that fish were purchased. These reports are
submitted every two weeks. NMFS agrees that the General Canvass data should be linked to the
individual vessel from which those fish were purchased. NMFS has also been contacting states
between Texas and North Carolina to determine whether or not they had any records of finetooth
sharks being landed. Many states maintain trip ticket programs that can be linked to individual
vessels from which seafood products were purchased. This information was analyzed for the
Florida trip ticket program because that is where the majority of finetooth shark landings are
occurring. Starting in 2000, some of the Florida trip tickets reporting finetooth sharks included
the vessel identification. Of the vessels that were associated with these landings in the Florida
trip ticket data, six vessels had only a Federal shark permit, eight had both a Federal shark and
Spanish mackerel permit, and three vessels had neither permit. The fact that vessels possess
multiple permits reiterates the need for collaborative management efforts between HMS, the
Regional Fisheries Management Councils, and individual states.
Comment 13: NMFS received a comment based on the 2005 observer report for the
Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery that stated that in the shark gillnet fishery, five vessels used three
different fishing methods. Of the three methods, the strikenet gets the most finetooth sharks.
This is a fishery that is targeting finetooth sharks. The average size is 123 cm for finetooth
sharks, which is smaller than what the recreational fishery can take.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-56

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Response: The 2005 observer report indicated an increase in the observed landings of
finetooth sharks with strikenet gear. This gear is generally used to target schools of blacktip
sharks, which are located from the air using a spotter plane. Historically, most observed landings
of finetooth sharks occur in the drift gillnet segment of the fishery. 2005 may have been an
anomalous year with regard to prey abundance or distribution, thereby, making finetooth sharks
more vulnerable to strikenet gear. Strikenet fishermen are subject to the same restrictions as
other shark gillnet gear. The average size of finetooth sharks landed in 2005 was 123 cm, based
on measurements obtained from 38 individuals.
Comment 14: NMFS received a number of comments opposed to Alternative D2,
implement commercial management measures to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth sharks,
including: A subquota for finetooth sharks is not necessary; I oppose alternative D2 unless the
fishery is harvesting its entire commercial quota; and, we are opposed to alternative D2 because
it appears that the allocated quota is not being overharvested.
Response: The quota for SCS is not currently, and has never been, fully utilized.
Observer data indicate that finetooth sharks are not the primary shark species harvested in the
directed shark gillnet fishery. Since finetooth sharks have a tendency to roll upon contact with
gillnet gear, prohibiting landings of finetooth sharks would not reduce fishing mortality, as most
of these fish would then be discarded dead. Additional dead discards may encourage fishermen
to make more trips to replace lost revenues, leading to more dead discards and an increase in
fishing mortality level. Since the rest of the SCS complex is not experiencing overfishing and is
not overfished, reducing the overall SCS quota was not considered in this FMP.
Comment 15: NMFS received several comments in support of alternative D3, implement
recreational management measures to reduce fishing mortality of finetooth sharks, including: I
support alternative D3 because between 2000 and 2003, 6,732 and 5,742 finetooth sharks were
reported to MRFSS. What is the expansion? What are the Post-Release Mortality estimates?;
recreational landings of finetooth sharks looks like they may potentially be the majority of
mortality for yet another HMS species; mandatory circle hooks would reduce mortality; it
appears that the actions described in the preferred alternative only intend to pursue commercial
mortality and ignore recreational mortality; I would suggest getting into the MRFSS system
because there is a problem with shark reporting and MRFSS; no one reports finetooth sharks to
the Councils; and MRFSS does not have sharks listed, but that is where I would suggest looking
for information.
Response: NMFS is not preferring recreational measures to reduce fishing mortality of
finetooth sharks at this time because the vast majority of finetooth sharks are landed
commercially, most recreational fisheries for finetooth sharks are likely in state waters, and there
is not conclusive evidence that circle hooks would reduce post hooking release mortality of
finetooth sharks. Between 1999 and 2004, average landings of finetooth sharks in recreational
and commercial fisheries were 11.2 (10 percent) and 93.6 (90 percent) mt dw/year, respectively.
MRFSS data would include landings of finetooth sharks in state waters, which is where most
finetooth sharks are found, however, NMFS can not directly implement regulations in state
waters. A study by Gurshin and Szedlymayer (2001) estimated that only 10 percent (1 of 10
captured) of sharpnose sharks, a similar species, died as a result of capture on hook and line.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-57

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

Post release mortality depends on water temperature, hook used, whether or not live bait is used,
and the overall condition of fish at hooking. MRFSS lists sharks and estimates of finetooth shark
landings were obtained from this program and included in this rulemaking. NMFS also does not
prefer recreational measures at this time because there is already a conservative bag limit in
place and a minimum size well above the size at first maturity. Recreational measures may be
considered in the future as necessary. NMFS will continue to explore all sources of finetooth
sharks fishing mortality, both recreational and commercial, and will consider further exploration
of the landings reported to NMFS and individual states.
Comment 16: Due to the lack of progress towards ending overfishing, finetooth sharks
should be added to the prohibited species list while means to reduce mortality are investigated.
Response: NMFS considered, but did not analyze, an alternative that included adding
finetooth sharks to the prohibited species list for Atlantic sharks. Presently, finetooth sharks do
not meet any of the four criteria defined under 50 CFR Part 635.34 (c) for inclusion of species to
the prohibited species list. The existing criteria are: (1) there is sufficient biological information
to indicate the stock warrants protection, such as indications of depletion or low reproductive
potential or the species is on the ESA candidate list; (2) the species is rarely encountered or
observed caught in HMS fisheries, (3) the species is not commonly encountered or observed
caught as bycatch in fishing operations, or (4) the species is difficult to distinguish from other
prohibited species (i.e., look alike issue). With regards to these criteria, finetooth sharks are not
currently overfished, are commonly encountered and observed in HMS fisheries, are commonly
caught as bycatch in non-HMS fisheries, and upon capture (prior to dressing), are distinguishable
from prohibited species. As new biological and fishery data becomes available, NMFS may
make adjustments to the prohibited species list, as needed in the future.
D.2.3 Atlantic Billfish
ICCAT Landing Limits
Comment 1: NMFS received a number of basic questions pertaining to the history, data,
U.S. actions, and the requirements of the ICCAT marlin recommendations. The comments
included: Where did the 250 marlin limit come from? What was the biological data used to limit
the recreational harvest of blue and white marlin to 250 fish?; has the 250 white marlin limit ever
been exceeded?; what is the harvest quota for the commercial harvest of blue and white marlin?;
what is the breakdown of white and blue marlin bycatch compared to the recreational catch?;
and, where does NMFS get the authority to establish a quota (250-fish marlin limit)?
Response: The annual landing limit of 250 recreationally caught blue and white marlin,
combined, stems from ICCAT Recommendation 00-13. ICCAT recommendations are binding
instruments that the United States, as a contracting party to ICCAT, is obligated to implement.
Recommendation 00-13, was proposed by the United States and established a number of
additional stringent conservation measures intended to improve the stock status of Atlantic
marlin. The 250 marlin number was the result of a dynamic international negotiation at ICCAT
that included, and was supported by, the U.S. recreational, commercial, and government
commissioners. Considerations in the U.S. negotiating position included, but were not limited
to, data from the Recreational Billfish Survey and the Marine Recreational Statistics Survey, and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-58

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS & RESPONSES
REBUILDING & PREVENTING OVERFISHING

intentionally included a buffer to account for changes in the fishery and improved monitoring.
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act provides NMFS the regulatory authority to implement
ICCAT recommendations by authorizing the promulgation of regulations as may be necessary
and appropriate to implement binding recommendations adopted by ICCAT. The 250 marlin
limit is for both blue and white Atlantic marlin combined, and was exceeded for the calendar
year 2002, when the U.S. reported 279 recreationally landed marlins. This exceedance was the
result of methodological change that was applied to U.S. recreational landings retroactively.
Further, while the United States exceeded its landing limit in that one year, the United States
remained in compliance with Recommendation 00-13 because, as allowed by ICCAT
Recommendation 00-14, the U.S. underharvest from 2001 was applied to the “negative” 2002
balance and was of sufficient magnitude to allow the United States to remain in compliance with
the recommendation. The United States does not have a commercial quota or allowable level of
landings for Atlantic billfish. Commercial possession and sale of Atlantic billfish have been
prohibited since 1988 in the United States. Internationally, commercial quotas vary by country.
Foreign pelagic longline and purse seine vessels, the gear types that dominate commercial
Atlantic billfish landings, are restricted to 50 percent and 33 percent of Atlantic blue and white
marlin landings, respectively, from the years 1996 or 1999, whichever is greater. The
breakdown of domestic commercial and recreational harvests varies considerably by year and are
presented in detail in Chapter 4 of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. For the period 1999 2004, pelagic longline dead discards and recreational harvests of Atlantic blue marlin averaged
44.2 metric tons (mt) and 22.9 mt, respectively; Atlantic white marlin averaged 31.8 mt and 2.3
mt, respectively; and Atlantic sailfish averaged 24.5 mt and 81.6 mt, respectively. These
numbers do not necessarily reflect the true mortality contributions of each sector to the fishery.
Recent data on post-release mortality indicates that the aggregate domestic recreational white
marlin mortality contribution may be equal to, or greater than, the aggregate domestic pelagic
longline white marlin mortality contribution, in some years, and may be the result of the
substantial difference in the scale of these fisheries.
Comment 2: NMFS received public comment both endorsing and opposing preferred
alternative E6, Implement ICCAT Recommendations on Recreational Marlin Landings Limits,
for widely varying reasons, and with varying qualifiers. Comments in support of this preferred
alternative included: We endorse alternative E6; I support alternative E6 because it has been five
years since the ICCAT recommendation and we need stricter regulations; NMFS has to
implement alternative E6 to comply with international obligations; NMFS must codify the 250­
fish marlin limit because it came as a quid pro quo with other countries agreeing to measures. If
the U.S. does not codify the 250-fish limit, it will result in loosening of restrictions in other
countries, which we don't want; if something is not done now, ESA will take all the fisheries
away from us. We should show we are doing all we can to stop the killing of marlin. NMFS
should implement the 250 marlin limit and the calendar year; I'm not opposed to the 250-fish
limit (alternative E6), but somehow the U.S. got into a bad deal and is stuck with it; and I support
alternative E6 only if the original accounting system (RBS data) is used to count U.S. landings.
Response: NMFS agrees that the United States is obligated to implement the 250
recreationally caught Atlantic marlin landing limit and that more needs to be done to reduce
fishing mortality levels on these species if they are to recover. The U.S. landing limit was part of
a comprehensive plan to begin the process of rebuilding Atlantic marlins and which obligated
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-59

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

other nations to make substantial sacrifices on behalf of their fishing interests. NMFS shares
concerns that a failure of the United States to fully implement an ICCAT recommendation may
allow other nations to rationalize non-compliance on their behalf. NMFS further acknowledges
that domestic implementation of the 250 Atlantic marlin landing limit has taken longer than
anticipated. The United States has led international conservation efforts on Atlantic marlin and
other species and will maintain its credibility and leadership role on these issues by fully
implementing its international obligations through the adoption of the preferred alternatives.
NMFS believes that adoption of ICCAT recommendation 00-13 was an important step
toward stemming long-term declines in Atlantic marlin populations and rebuilding their
populations. Under this agreement, the U.S. was limited to landing 250 recreationally caught
blue and white marlin combined on an annual basis, as previously discussed. The U.S. has
reported marlin landings below the 250 fish limit in three of the previous four years. Other
ICCAT nations whose fishermen catch and sell Atlantic marlin were obligated to reducing their
pelagic longline and purse seine landings of blue marlin by 50 percent and white marlin by 67
percent. The recommendation also required release of live marlins brought to the vessel along
with other various restrictions. As conditions in the fishery change, NMFS will continue to
review the appropriateness of measures contained in the ICCAT recommendations and seek
changes as appropriate.
NMFS acknowledges concerns of anglers regarding the use of a different accounting
methodology for compliance purposes than was originally used to contribute to the negotiation
250 marlin limit. However, as discussed in the response to Comment 1, the 250 marlin number
was based, in part on RBS and MRFSS data, but also intentionally included a buffer to account
for changes in the fishery and improved monitoring. The number was the result of a negotiation
and not a specific scientific methodology. Under the recommendation, the United States is
obligated to report all verifiable recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin for
compliance purposes. New sources of data on domestic recreational landings have been
developed since the 2000 negotiation, including catch-card programs in North Carolina and
Maryland as well as the billfish and swordfish reporting line, which provide a small number of
additional marlin each year. These sources of data have represented a very limited number of
verifiable fish in any given year, with tournaments representing the majority of landings.
Comment 3: Comments opposing preferred alternative E6, Implement ICCAT
Recommendations on Recreational Marlin Landings Limits, included: We cannot comprehend
why NMFS, knowing of our small percentage of the harvest would even consider establishing
severe restrictions on the recreational harvest; this alternative A6 is unnecessary and arbitrary
and should be eliminated, especially since the fishery is mostly catch and release; it should be
removed at the 2006 ICCAT meeting; from a conservation and negotiating standpoint, the 250
landing cap is neither needed nor of any value to the United States; mandating this cap when low
marlin landings are already driven by a strong, voluntary conservation ethic will do little or
nothing to reduce overall marlin mortality; why implement increased size limits to avoid
reaching the 250 mark, when the existing regulations seem to work?; there should be a provision
for underages and overages; the 250 marlin limit derives only from tournament landings and is
not an appropriate limit for the fishery as a whole; if NMFS restricts landings of marlin species
to 250 fish and prohibits white marlin catches for five years, tournament fishing will take a
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-60

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

massive economic hit. Towns that host tournaments would have to rely on an alternative form of
tourism; I oppose Alternative E6 because it will cause economic harm, unless anglers switch to
blue marlin; 250 fish are insignificant compared to longline bycatch mortality; and alternative E6
is problematic considering the unknown landings in the Caribbean. The large landings of blue
marlin in Puerto Rico can be addressed through enforcement of existing management measures
(minimum size, no sale, etc.); and, we must address the foreign sources of billfish mortality at
ICCAT if we are to achieve the recovery of billfish stocks.
Response: NMFS disagrees that alternative E6, implement the ICCAT established
recreationally caught marlin landing limit, is unnecessary or arbitrary in any way. This
alternative would implement U.S. obligations negotiated as part of a key international agreement
that has the potential to dramatically reduce fishing mortality of Atlantic marlins. As discussed
in the response to Comment 1, the United States is obligated to implement ICCAT
recommendations under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. Further, to maintain credibility and
leadership on international billfish conservation issues, and limit opportunities for foreign
nations to rationalize potential non-conformity with billfish conservation measures, the United
States must abide by its international obligations. Unilateral elimination of the 250 marlin
landing limit is not an option available to NMFS or even the United States. However, should
ICCAT choose to do so during a future Commission meeting, it could remove the restriction
thereby allowing the United States to follow suit. NMFS acknowledges that, in and of
themselves, the 250 fish allocated to the United States may not dramatically impact stock status,
however, the implementation of U.S. international obligations is critical to a credible negotiating
position and reduces the ability of other nations to rationalize potential non-conformity with
international billfish conservation measures. Under the preferred alternative, potential increases
in size limits would only occur if the United States were approaching its 250 marlin limit. The
intent of potential in-season minimum size limit increase would be to minimize impacts to the
fishery by slowing landings and allowing the fishery to continue until the 250 fish limit is
reached but not exceeded. Allowing landings to continue at a slower pace over a longer period
in the fishing year is anticipated to have reduced socio-economic impacts as compared to a shift
to catch and release only fishing earlier in a given year. Consistent with ICCAT
Recommendation 00-14, the preferred alternative would mandate carry-over of overharvest and
would allow for carry-over of underhavest. Contrary to some comments received, and as
discussed more fully in the responses to Comments 1 and 2, the 250 marlin number did not stem
from only tournament landings. Consistent with those previous responses, NMFS does not
believe that the 250 fish limit is inappropriate for the U.S. directed billfish fishery at this time.
NMFS disagrees that implementation of the 250 marlin limit would cause substantial adverse
economic impacts. As discussed in the response to Comment 2, the United States has landed 75
percent of its landing limit, on average, over the past four years and in half of the years reviewed,
the United States has been 40 percent below the allowable landing limit for recreationally caught
Atlantic marlin.
Further, preferred alternative E6 was specifically designed in a way to minimize
economic impacts should fishing or retention patterns change and result in the United States
approaching the 250 marlin limit. Should the 250 marlin limit be achieved, NMFS believes that
it would occur relatively late in the fishing season, thereby impacting a limited number of fishery
participants and resulting in relatively minor impacts to the fishery as a whole. There could
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-61

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

potentially be heightened localized impacts in a small number of communities, where, for
instance, tournament participation may be reduced or a tournament cancelled. However, based
on the significant level of catch and release fishing practiced in the Atlantic billfish fishery (75 to
99 percent), NMFS believes any reductions in participation would be minor as fishermen could
still catch and release Atlantic marlin.
Based on public comment that indicated more substantial concerns over potential adverse
economic impacts to the fishery if catch and release only fishing for Atlantic white marlin were
required, as well as a number of other factors including, but not limited to, the impending receipt
of a new assessment for Atlantic white marlin, upcoming international negotiations on Atlantic
marlin, and a somewhat limited ecological benefit, NMFS does not prefer the alternative to allow
catch and release only fishing for Atlantic white marlin. NMFS acknowledges that the 250
recreational marlin allocated to the United States represent a small portion of total billfish
mortality from the full ICCAT pelagic longline fleet. However, from a domestic perspective, if
the full allocation of 250 marlin were landed by the recreational sector, it would represent
approximately one-third (35 percent) of the annual number of Atlantic marlin (blue and white
combined) discarded dead from the domestic pelagic longline fleet, on average, over the four
year period 2001-2004. Of more importance to the overall health of the stock than landings or
dead discards, is total mortality inflicted upon the stock. As noted in the response to Comment 1,
recent estimates and data on post-release mortality indicate that the aggregate domestic
recreational white marlin mortality contribution may be equal to or greater than the aggregate
domestic pelagic longline white marlin mortality contribution, in some years. This appears to be
a result of the substantial difference in the scale of these fisheries. NMFS acknowledges that
there is some uncertainty associated with marlin landings statistics from the U.S. Caribbean, and
the Agency is working to improve these statistics by increasing enforcement of existing
permitting and reporting requirements, including those for tournaments. Finally, NMFS agrees
that foreign sources of billfish mortality must be addressed at ICCAT if we are to achieve the
recovery of Atlantic billfish stocks. As such, the United States will continue its efforts to
champion billfish conservation at ICCAT and in other appropriate fora.
Comment 4: NMFS received a number of comments asking for clarification of authority
and the regulations pertaining to the potential implementation of alternative E6, Implement
ICCAT Recommendations on Recreational Marlin Landings Limits, including: Would the
“priority” be given to tournaments in catching the 250 fish limit?; if 20 tournament boats catch­
and-release 10 fish in the season, what are the rest of the private and recreational anglers and
thousands of boats to do? Can the unharvested portion of the 250 fish limit be carried over into
the next year? Once the quota is established, which we have never approached, except for the
year NMFS counted differently, then what happens?; and, does the U.S. have the authority to
reduce the 250-fish limit? It goes against ICCAT. In every other case, the U.S. must give
fishermen a reasonable opportunity to catch fish.
Response: The 250 recreationally caught marlin landing limit applies to the Atlantic
recreational billfish fishery as a whole. NMFS has no intent to assign Atlantic marlins that are
available for landing to any particular sector or component of the recreational fishery in this
rulemaking. NMFS appreciates the concern expressed by some anglers regarding the
opportunity to land a fish when one looks at the large number of participants in the fishery.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-62

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

However, the United States has been bound by the 250 recreationally caught Atlantic marlin
landing limit since June of 2001, and only in one year has that 250 fish number been achieved, as
previously discussed. Under the preferred alternative (E6), if the landing limit is approached,
regardless of whether those fish are landed by a small number of vessels or by many individual
vessels, the Agency would consider the appropriateness of an inseason minimum size increase or
prohibition on retention based on the criteria identified in the discussion of preferred alternative
E6 in Chapter 4 of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. Even if all retention were prohibited for
the remainder of a given fishing year, anglers would be permitted to continue catch and release
fishing for Atlantic marlin, and Atlantic sailfish would be available for landing. As previously
discussed, 75 to 99 percent of all billfish are currently released on a voluntary basis, so NMFS
anticipates little disruption in the fishery, should either a minimum size increase or all release
fishery become necessary. As discussed in the response to Comment 3, consistent with ICCAT
Recommendation 00-14, the preferred alternative would mandate carry-over of overharvest and
would allow for carry-over of underhavest into the next management period. The Agency would
monitor recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin and would make decisions as
appropriate regarding in-season management actions based on the decision criteria identified in
the preferred alternative. NMFS is not proposing to reduce the 250 recreationally caught marlin
landing limit.
Comment 5: NMFS received a number of suggestions for substitute alternatives to
preferred alternative E6, including: Spread the 250 fish limit over 12 months so that all areas get
to land marlin (spatial and temporal); divide the 250 fish limit up by state. Let the states
exchange billfish for bluefin tuna quota until each state can support the tournaments they need
to; white and blue marlin should have separate limits because they are such different animals;
and, not landing the 250 marlin recreational landing limit and eliminating the entire commercial
billfish harvest could not solve any of the problems. To solve the problem, the United States
should prohibit the importation of billfish, swordfish, and tuna from other countries.
Response: NMFS appreciates these comments and suggestions, however, these options
were not analyzed in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP and as such are beyond the scope of this
Final Consolidated HMS FMP. The Agency may consider these and other options as needed, if
necessary and appropriate, in a future rule making.
Comment 6: I am opposed to counting fish that are caught by U.S. vessels fishing abroad
against the United States’ quota.
Response: The United States is obligated to account for all recreational landings of
Atlantic marlin by U.S. citizens. If a U.S. citizen is fishing in the waters of an ICCAT
contracting party or cooperating entity or on the high-seas on a vessel flagged by that nation, it is
assumed that that nation has a reporting mechanism. If the nation in whose waters and upon
whose flagged vessel the angler is fishing does not report to ICCAT, then the U.S. citizen is
considered to be participating in an illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishery. If a
landing occurs on a U.S. flagged vessel fishing in foreign waters or on the high-seas, then the
angler is required to report that fish to the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the United
States must report that landing. If the angler is aboard a U.S. flag vessel and is fishing in the
waters of a foreign nation that is not party to nor cooperating with ICCAT, and the angler fails to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-63

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

report the landing to the United States National Marine Fisheries Service, then that angler is
deemed to be participating in an IUU fishery.
Comment 7: The British Virgin Islands (BVI) have separate regulations from the United
States. International coordination on HMS management is critical. In 15 minutes time, we can
be out of the United States Virgin Island waters. For us, the importance is the coordination of
international HMS management. The BVI folks can catch and sell their billfish. What is being
done on the international front to resolve these types of conservation concerns? The Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP does not include anything that addresses international coordination
efforts.
Response: NMFS appreciates the frustration felt by anglers in the Caribbean regarding
the current differences in regulations between the United States and the British Virgin Islands.
The Agency also agrees that Atlantic billfish management requires international cooperation to
be successful. However, international relations are beyond the scope of this domestic rule
making, and, as such, this Final Consolidated HMS FMP does not address relations between the
United States and the British Virgin Islands or any other nation on any subject. International
management issues are handled jointly between Department of Commerce staff, including
NOAA and NMFS staff, and the Department of State.
Comment 8: Will the ICCAT landing limit be placed under “Quotas” in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), so that it will be easy to update annually as with tuna and swordfish
quotas?
Response: The majority of regulatory text associated with ICCAT landing limits would
likely be placed in 635.27 (d) because it is the most appropriate place for it in the regulations.
That is the same section that includes the tuna and swordfish quotas.
Comment 9: NMFS received a number of comments on the potential impacts of the 250
marlin limit in combination with the possible shift to only catch and release fishing for Atlantic
white marlin, including: the United States will catch the 250-fish limit if white marlin landings
are prohibited, because redistribution will occur between different species. When you ban white
marlin, people will fish for blue marlin. The bigger Northeast tournaments will fish harder on
blue marlin; it's not desirable to make all of the fish under the limit be blue marlin; with the
proposed change in the fishing year, some tournaments could be penalized if they take place after
the 250-fish limit is exceeded.
Response: Based on public comment expressing deep concern over the ratio of potential
adverse economic impacts relative to estimated ecological benefits, the prospect of a new
international assessment, an impending international negotiation, and other factors, NMFS is not
preferring to implement catch and release only fishing for Atlantic white marlin at this time.
NMFS disagrees with the characterization that some tournaments may be penalized if they take
place after the 250 fish limit is exceeded. The United States has been bound by the 250 fish limit
since it went into effect at ICCAT in June of 2001. At that time, the only mechanism the Agency
had available to address fulfillment of the 250 marlin landing limit was an emergency closure of
the fishery. Thus, any tournament that would have occurred after the 250 fish limit had been
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-64

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

reached, even prior to this action, would have been required to operate on a catch and release
basis only. However, they would have had little warning. The preferred alternative was
specifically designed to minimize the likelihood of a shift to catch and release only fishing for
Atlantic marlin. The preferred alternative would provide the Agency with the ability to slow
landings by quickly implementing a minimum size increase for the specific purpose of avoiding
a mandatory shift to catch and release only fishing for Atlantic marlin, if possible, to minimize
adverse impacts. If the ICCAT recreationally caught marlin landings limit is still achieved,
despite the minimum size increase, then the Agency would retain the ability to quickly mandate
catch and release only fishing. Thus, any tournament that occurs, or would have occurred, after
the 250 fish limit is/was achieved, either prior to implementation of this action or after, would
have to operate under an all release scenario. Tournaments actually gain an advantage with
implementation of the preferred alternative because it would provide the ability to implement inseason minimum size increases, and thereby reduce the likelihood of exceeding the 250 limit,
which would force a shift to an all release fishery. Further, the preferred alternative would also
include a 14-day delayed effective date which would further allow tournament operators and
billfish anglers to adjust to any possible in-season management actions.
Comment 10: NMFS received a number of comments regarding carry over of
underharvest and overharvests, including: if NMFS intends to go forward with the 250-fish
landing limit, underages should be added to the next years limit and fishermen should not be
penalized if the limit is exceeded; the U.S. should mandate that underages be carried-over like
every other quota; codifying the 250-fish limit is not a problem, but the proposed regulations
with respect to overages and underages is unacceptable. Rulemakings to deal with underages
should not be necessary.
Response: As previously discussed in the response to Comment 3, the preferred
alternative would mandate carry-forward of overharvest and would allow for carry-forward of
underharvest, consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 00-14. A failure to account for
overharvest, as suggested by one commenter, would be inconsistent with ICCAT
Recommendation and result in non-compliance by the United States. The United States has
pledged to its ICCAT partners not to carry forward underharvest until uncertainty surrounding
landings of marlin in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Caribbean is reduced. To
decrease or increase the annual 250 marlin landings limit as a result of carrying forward future
over or underharvest of Atlantic marlins the Agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register.
To increase or decrease the 250 marlin recreational landing limit as a result of a new ICCAT
recommendation, would require rulemaking under the preferred alternative.
Comment 11: NMFS received several questions, comments, and suggestions on billfish
monitoring and reporting, including: how comprehensive or adequate is the monitoring of
recreational billfish landings?; how would the public know when 250 fish are landed? Marlin
recreational data collection methods are not accurate. Ninety percent of fish caught now are not
reported. NMFS should implement mandatory logbooks for all permitted HMS fisheries,
commercial and recreational, and require that trip reports be submitted because MRFSS
interviews are not effective; enforcement is lacking. That is why people do not report their
billfish landings. NMFS should develop a better system to account for marlin landings, such as
tail tags; and, NMFS is not receiving all non-tournament marlin landings. There are clubs that
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-65

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

land marlin and do not report them. NMFS should instead require each club to report their marlin
landings, just like tournament are currently required to do. Penalties should be imposed on
fishing clubs that do not report.
Response: NMFS has a comprehensive system in place to capture billfish landings which
includes the Recreational Billfish Survey, the Atlantic HMS Non-tournament Billfish and
Swordfish Reporting system, the Large Pelagics Survey (including dockside intercepts), and the
Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey (including dockside intercepts), as well as
cooperative agreements to access landings tag/card data from the states of North Carolina and
Maryland. NMFS is always looking to improve its data collection systems, and this may or may
not include future tagging programs, log book reporting programs, improvements to the MRFSS,
LPS and other systems, among other efforts. If the 250 marlin landing limit is achieved, NMFS
would likely notify the public via a number of mechanisms, including: publication of a notice in
the Federal Register, issuance of a fax notice to interested stakeholders, notification of the HMS
consulting parties, telephone contact with recreational constituent leaders, posting information on
the HMS website, placing information on the HMS Information telephone line, and working with
popular sportfishing magazines and websites to notify constituents, along with other means, as
appropriate. NMFS encourages the public to continue to suggest potential improvements. It
should be noted however, that most any reporting system relies on the willingness of anglers to
accurately report, and when this does not occur the veracity of the data is compromised. NMFS
acknowledges that recreational landings data pertaining to Atlantic billfish do not account for
every billfish landed, and thus some level of uncertainty surrounds billfish landings estimates.
NMFS has undertaken efforts to improve enforcement of reporting requirements, has improved
the MRFSS and LPS, and has recently received a report from the National Research Council that
may allow for improvements to be made to some data collection systems.
Comment 12: NMFS received contrasting comments on the proposed five-day minimum
notification period for in-season billfish management actions intended to ensure compliance with
the ICCAT 250 marlin landing limit. Comments opposing a minimum five-day notification
window included; we support E(6), establish the 250 recreationally caught marlin landing limit.
However, 21 days would be the minimum acceptable notice period; we support implementation
of the 250 marlin landing limit. If an additional increase in minimum size becomes necessary, a
notice for an inseason adjustment should be given at least 30 days in advance. This will give
tournament directors ample time to notify participants of a size change; tournament directors will
need more than a few days (about a month) to make changes to their regulations, minimum sizes,
and brochures if the United States approaches the 250-fish marlin limit; and, five days is not
enough time to make changes to the Atlantic billfish regulations and to inform the public of such
changes, as specified in Preferred Alternative E6, which would implement ICCAT
Recommendations regarding recreational marlin landings. NMFS will probably just shut down
tournaments. Most HMS tournaments print their information packets long before their start date.
To the extent that in-season marlin adjustments can be avoided, they should be. Comments
supportive of a minimum five day notification period for in-season management action included:
A five-day notice should provide sufficient time for in-season billfish management actions.
Bluefin tuna has a shorter notice period. Especially with the Internet, five days is sufficient time
for billfish regulatory notification for changes in size limits or closures.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-66

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: NMFS appreciates the concerns expressed by tournament operators and
fishery participants that a five-day minimum delay in effective date may present difficulties with
regard to potential rule changes just prior to or during a tournament. In selecting a period for
notification and implementation of potential in-season regulatory changes to ensure compliance
with ICCAT recreational marlin landings limits, NMFS sought to balance the need to act quickly
to ensure compliance, if necessary, while providing an appropriate period of time to adequately
notify the public of any such regulatory changes. If too short of a period were selected, anglers
and tournament operators may not have time become aware of the regulatory changes. If too
lengthy of a period were selected, restrictions may be enacted too late to ensure compliance with
ICCAT recommendations or stave off more stringent in-season management measures. Based
on public comment requesting additional notice period, a review of the estimated time necessary
to collect and analyze landings information and project the date at which regulatory action may
become necessary, the National Marine Fisheries Service now prefers to alter the minimum delay
in effective date from five to 14 calendar days, inclusive of the date of publication in the Federal
Register, for in-season billfish management actions. NMFS has determined that providing more
than a 14 calendar day minimum delay in effective date would not provide the Agency sufficient
control over the fishery if landings rates were high. NMFS believes that this 14 day period
would still allow the agency to implement regulatory changes in a timely manner, thus ensuring
compliance with ICCAT recommendations or staving off more stringent in-season management
measures and would provide anglers and tournament operators an improved ability to adapt to
any potential in-season changes. NMFS also believes that there is a substantial
misunderstanding of this provision. The minimum 14 day delay in effective date means that
upon publication, any in-season action to increase the minimum legal size of Atlantic marlin or
requirement to shift the fishery to catch and release only cannot become effective in less than
fourteen days. It does not mean that no more than 14 days advanced notice can be provided to
the public, tournament operators, and anglers. The Agency will seek to project potential
regulatory action as far ahead as reasonably possible to aid in mitigating any potential adverse
impacts to the extent practicable.
Landing Restrictions
White Marlin
Comment 13: NMFS received a number of comments in support of alternative E7, Allow
Only Catch and Release Fishing for Atlantic White Marlin from January 1, 2007 to December
31, 2011. Comments in support of this alternative included the need for NMFS to do all it can to
avoid having Atlantic white marlin placed on the Endangered Species Act List of Threatened and
Endangered Species, the need to reduce fishing mortality to the greatest extent possible to help
rebuild overfished populations; statements that there is no reason to land Atlantic white marlin in
tournaments because there are techniques to verify releases, including the use of video and still
cameras; it makes sense to prohibit all landings, if not all directed fishing for white marlin, since
they are in severe decline; we support alternative E7, the Agency has the authority to remove the
requirement earlier than five years if the assessment shows that the stock is improving; and, there
is strong support for prohibiting the landing of white marlin in Florida and the Gulf.
Response: The Agency appreciates these comments, however, based on public comment
indicating more significant concerns over potential adverse economic impacts to the fishery if
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-67

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

catch and release only fishing for Atlantic white marlin were required, as well as a number of
other factors, including but not limited to, the impending receipt of a new stock assessment for
Atlantic white marlin and upcoming international negotiations on Atlantic marlin, NMFS prefers
not to prohibit landings of Atlantic white marlin, at this time. The implementation of circle hook
requirements is an important first step in reducing mortality in the directed billfish fishery.
NMFS may consider catch and release only fishing options for Atlantic white marlin as well as
other billfish conservation measures in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate. In
regard to the Atlantic white marlin ESA listing review, any management measures in place at the
time of the review would be considered during deliberations of the listing review team. NMFS
cannot forecast the impacts of any particular management action on the outcome of the
anticipated ESA listing review.
Comment 14: NMFS received a number of comments opposing alternative E7, Allow
only catch and release fishing for Atlantic white marlin from January 1, 2007 to December 31,
2011. Those comments include: allowing only catch and release recreational fishing for Atlantic
white marlin would have substantial adverse economic impacts on the recreational fishing
community, including charter boat operators, shoreside facilities, and entire communities that
host white marlin tournaments; NMFS underestimated the negative economic impacts of
prohibiting landings of Atlantic white marlin; prohibiting landings of white marlin would do
little to improve the population status of the species, the landings prohibition is unnecessary
given the strong conservation ethic among U.S. anglers and as evidenced by the high release rate
in the U.S. recreational fishery; the entire U.S. recreational fleet landing a few white marlin each
year has little or no impact on billfish stocks; what is the rationale for prohibiting recreational
landings of white marlin given the small number of recreational landings and the large economic
impact generated by fishing for white marlin?; and, I don’t believe in mandatory catch and
release. It doesn’t work and the public won’t support it.
Response: In the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, the Agency preferred a catch and release
only alternative for Atlantic white marlin as well as a circle hook requirement for the tournament
billfish fishery to maximize the mortality reduction and associated ecological benefits from the
directed billfish fishery. NMFS received strong public comment opposed to the Atlantic white
marlin catch and release alternative. As discussed under the response to Comment 13, NMFS
prefers not to prohibit landings of Atlantic white marlin at this time, however, the Agency
believes the implementation of the circle hook requirement is an important first step in reducing
mortality in the directed billfish fishery. NMFS appreciates these comments and will consider
catch and release only options as well as other billfish conservation measures in future
rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 15: NMFS received a number of comments specifically pertaining to the
potential impacts of alternative E7 (which would allow only catch and release fishing for
Atlantic white marlin from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011) on tournament operations.
Those comments include: the proposed rule would unfairly impact white marlin tournaments
along the United States mid-Atlantic coast; NMFS should not prohibit tournament landings of
Atlantic white marlin because few white marlin are landed in tournaments; NMFS should not
prohibit landings of Atlantic white marlin in tournaments because they are the only cost and
personnel effective means to scientifically sample Atlantic white marlin; alternative E7 would
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-68

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

change the dynamic of fishing tournaments from contests where an anglers’ luck or skill may
prevail (biggest fish) to one where only skill would prevail (most fish) and would thus decrease
participation; alternative E7 would create operational problems for tournament operators
pertaining to verification of released fish; a fish killed and discarded as bycatch in the pelagic
longline fishery has no direct economic impact. However, a fish killed as a tournament trophy or
through release mortality contributes to a multi-million dollar industry and benefits the local
economy and the nation as a whole; if alternative E7 is implemented, people will not go to
tournaments to see the results; my concern for tournaments is that people like to see the result on
the docks. If NMFS is going to full catch and release for white marlin, I do not believe that
people will look at tournament videos of catches. The social aspect and behavior of tournament
participants will be negatively impacted; decreasing numbers of tournament participants are
participating in the White Marlin Open under the catch and release category; Maryland has the
most to lose by prohibiting landings of white marlin. Ocean City is the white marlin capital of
the world. Ocean City doesn’t think that they should suffer the loss of the White Marlin Open;
and, alternative E7 is unnecessary, will accomplish nothing for conservation, and would have a
significant impact on billfish tournaments in the mid-Atlantic areas.
Response: As stated above, NMFS is not preferring the catch and release alternative for
Atlantic white marlin in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. Based on overwhelming public
concerns for the social and economic impacts resulting from a shift to catch and release only
fishing for white marlin, as well as the recognition of the limited ecological benefits relative to
the potentially adverse social and economic impacts to billfishermen, tournaments, and other
shore side businesses, as well as other reasons discussed under the response to Comment 13, the
Agency has determined that it may be premature to implement this measure at this time. The
Agency will, however, consider catch and release only options as well as other billfish
conservation measures in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 16: NMFS received comment requesting that the Agency modify alternative
E7 to allow for some tournament landings of white marlin. Those comments include: if the
Agency cannot go with zero landings, then implement a cap for tournaments that already have a
history of landing white marlin. Do not throw out the whole proposal; and, if NMFS prohibits
landings of white marlin, the Agency should allow retention of recreationally caught white
marlin in tournaments or when prominent billfish tournaments are scheduled.
Response: NMFS appreciates these comments and suggestions to address mortality in the
directed billfish fishery. At this time, the Agency does not believe that only allowing Atlantic
white marlin to be landed in tournaments is the most appropriate solution, as nearly all Atlantic
white marlin reported as retained are landed in tournaments. Further, as some of these
suggestions were not analyzed in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, they and are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. The Agency will, however, consider catch and release only options as
well as other billfish conservation measures in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 17: The U.S. only lands less than 1% of the white marlin, so why do we worry
about mortality?

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-69

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: The United States is responsible for approximately 4.5 percent of white marlin
catches in the Atlantic. Fishing mortality rates are a concern regardless of the size of the U.S.
contribution because the current fishing mortality rate is more than eight-times the level that the
species can sustain. As a steward of the fishery, it is appropriate for the United States to work
toward reducing and limiting both domestic and international fishing mortality rates. The United
States will continue its efforts to reduce billfish mortality domestically and through ICCAT at the
international level.
Comment 18: NMFS received comment concerned with fishermen shifting target species
if white marlin landings are prohibited. Those comments include: it's not desirable to make all of
the fish under the ICCAT 250 marlin limit be blue marlin, which is what would happen if white
marlin landings are prohibited; I would not support a prohibition on landing white marlin
because we will kill more white marlin converting to targeting blue marlin; and, I oppose
alternative E7 because fishing effort will be redistributed to different species.
Response: As stated above, NMFS does not prefer to prohibit landings of Atlantic white
marlin, at this time. NMFS understands the concern over potential increases in Atlantic blue
marlin mortality, given the species’ overfished status. The preferred circle hook measure and
measures to codify and ensure compliance with the ICCAT marlin landings limit would address
mortality of both Atlantic blue and white marlin in the directed billfish fishery. The Agency may
consider catch and release only options, as well as other billfish conservation measures, in future
rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 19: Tournament spectators can still be involved in release tournaments if you
use large viewing screens playing movie clips showing the fight and release of marlins. Dead
fish on the dock doesn’t allow for this type of participation.
Response: NMFS applauds the innovative efforts of some tournament organizers in
working to limit marlin mortality. The Agency urges tournament organizers to be creative and to
work to create formats which maximize the social and economic benefits from tournament
operations while minimizing impacts to billfish resources.
Comment 20: NMFS received comment recommending that the Agency should
implement measures to further reduce marlin mortality in other fisheries. Those comments
include: NMFS should implement additional regulations on the pelagic longline fishery, which is
responsible for the majority of marlin mortality, not impose landings restrictions on recreational
fishermen; alternative E7 places a restriction on recreational fishermen without addressing the
real issue; I am opposed to alternative E7 because recreational landings are not the problem; and,
the billfish fishery was supposed to be managed for the recreational sector and NMFS has failed
to make any meaningful reductions to the longline bycatch issue since 1997.
Response: In recent years, the Agency has undertaken multiple rulemakings intended to
reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality in the pelagic longline fishery. Since implementing the
1999 FMP, NMFS has closed multiple areas to pelagic longline fishing, prohibited the use of live
bait in the Gulf of Mexico, required the use of circle hooks, as well required the possession and
use of dehooking devices. The closed areas and live bait restriction were implemented, in part,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-70

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

to reduce the bycatch of billfish in commercial fishing operations. Circle hook and release gear
requirements were implemented to reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality, however,
these measures likely contribute to reductions in billfish release mortality as well. Further, as
discussed in more detail under the response to Comments 1 and 3, recent data and estimates on
post-release mortality indicate that the aggregate domestic recreational billfish mortality
contribution may be equal to or greater than the aggregate domestic pelagic longline billfish
mortality contribution, in some years.
Comment 21: NMFS received comment relating to the ESA listing review of white
marlin. Those comments include: Would a prohibition on landings of Atlantic white marlin
influence the potential listing of Atlantic white marlin under the Endangered Species Act?; and,
selecting alternative E7 will not necessarily prevent an ESA listing of white marlin.
Response: In regard to the Atlantic white marlin ESA listing review, any management
measures in place at the time of the review would be considered during deliberations of the
listing review team. NMFS cannot forecast the impacts of any particular management action on
the outcome of the anticipated ESA listing review.
Comment 22: The white marlin settlement agreement between NMFS and Turtle Island
Restoration network does not preclude further regulation of billfish catches under the MagnusonStevens Act, but does require a complete reassessment of white marlin by the United States no
later than 2007.
Response: The Agency intends to complete the Atlantic white marlin ESA Listing
Review on or before December 31, 2007, as per the settlement agreement. NMFS realizes that it
has the authority to impose additional restrictions on fisheries which interact with Atlantic white
marlin, including the directed billfish fishery; however as discussed under the response to
Comment 13, NMFS does not prefer a prohibition on landings of Atlantic white marlin at this
time. The Agency believes that the implementation of circle hook requirements is an important
first step in reducing billfish mortality in the directed billfish fishery. NMFS will consider catch
and release only options as well as other billfish conservation measures in future rulemakings, as
necessary and appropriate.
Comment 23: NMFS received comment inquiring about the Agency’s legal authority to
prohibit landing of white marlin. Those comments include: NMFS does not have the legal
authority to restrict landings of Atlantic marlin to levels below ICCAT landings limits; I am
opposed to alternative E7 because it is contrary to giving fishermen a reasonable opportunity to
catch fish as required by ATCA.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The ICCAT 250 marlin landings limit could apply to both
species combined, or one species alone, if landings of the other species were to be prohibited
domestically. ICCAT Recommendation 00-13, and the subsequent recommendations that
modified it, did not include species specific landings limits or any references to particular
landings ratios of between Atlantic blue and white marlin. The ICCAT recommendations simply
provided an aggregate annual landing limit that is not to be exceeded. Thus, if the landings of
one marlin species were prohibited domestically, anglers would have 250 of the other marlin
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-71

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

species available for landing, thereby providing a reasonable opportunity for anglers to fulfill
their ICCAT landing limit.
Comment 24: Why is there a timeframe associated with alternative E7? The target
should be MSY. The proposed timeframe seems political. A biological threshold seems more
appropriate.
Response: NMFS felt that a five-year time frame would allow for adequate time to gauge
the potential impacts of such measures on marlin stocks and determine, at that point, if the
measures achieved the objectives of the fishery management plan. Additionally, NMFS is
required to consider factors beyond biology in making management decisions. However, as
noted in the response to Comment 13, NMFS does not to prefer this alternative in the Final
Consolidated HMS FMP, but may consider landings prohibitions for Atlantic marlins and other
species in future rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 25: Recreational fishermen would release all billfish if they thought it would
do any good. However, it will not. The United States has always said that its catch is an
insignificant piece of the Atlantic-wide take. The Draft FMP throws this concept out the window
and directs its regulatory muscle at a tiny number of recreational billfish landings. It is as if
NMFS is deciding to make them a prohibited species before the ICCAT stock assessment or the
ESA status review.
Response: NMFS believes that the majority of recreational fishermen understand the
value of catch and release fishing for Atlantic billfish as supported by the 75 to 99 percent
release rate in this fishery. NMFS believes that catch and release fishing significantly reduces
the domestic mortality contribution to the Atlantic-wide stock. The implementation of circle
hook requirements for this sector of the fishery is anticipated to further reduce mortality by
significantly reducing post release mortality. The Agency recognizes that other ICCAT nations
kill significantly more billfish than the United States. In comparison to other nations, the U.S.
landings and dead discards represent approximately 2.4 and 4.5 percent of total Atlantic landings
of Atlantic blue and white marlin, respectively. Recent information suggests that the U.S.
mortality contribution for Atlantic billfish may be significantly higher than previous estimates,
given new studies on recreational post-release mortality. This rulemaking acknowledges the
U.S. billfish mortality contribution and seeks to minimize this mortality in an appropriate manor.
Comment 26: The entire U.S. recreational fleet and charter/headboats are landing very
few white marlin each year, approximately 227 total fish over the last three years. These
landings have little or no impact on the stock, but generate tremendous social and economic
benefits for coastal communities particularly where tournaments are held.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the significant social and economic benefits that the
recreational billfish fishery provides to coastal communities. Additionally, NMFS acknowledges
the limited conservation benefit that could be realized from a prohibition on the landings of
Atlantic white marlin. This measure was preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP in
addition to a circle hook requirement for tournament billfish fishermen. The Agency preferred
these alternatives together in an attempt to maximize reductions in total Atlantic white marlin
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-72

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

mortality resulting from the directed billfish fishery. However, as noted in the response to
Comment 13, NMFS does not prefer this alternative in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, but
may consider landings prohibitions for Atlantic marlins and other species in future rulemakings,
as necessary and appropriate. In the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, the Agency has preferred a
non-offset circle hook requirement for HMS permitted vessels participating in billfish
tournaments. This measure is anticipated to achieve a substantial reduction in mortality without
the potential adverse economic impacts associated with a prohibition on white marlin landings.
Comment 27: NMFS received comment in support of alternative E8, which would allow
only catch and release recreational fishing for Atlantic blue marlin. Additionally, one
commenter added that alternative E8 may be needed if overfishing cannot be addressed.
Response: As a steward of the fishery, it is appropriate for the Agency to investigate
potential options to reduce domestic mortality rates for blue marlin. This alternative was
analyzed but not preferred in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP or Final Consolidated HMS
FMP due, in part, to potentially severe negative social and economic impacts, and for other
reasons. The United States will continue its efforts to reduce billfish mortality both domestically
and at the international level. Additionally, the Agency may consider catch and release only
options for Atlantic blue marlin as well as other billfish conservation measures in future
rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 28: NMFS received comment opposed to alternative E8, which would allow
only catch and release fishing for Atlantic blue marlin from January 1, 2007 to December 31,
2011. Those comments include: we are vehemently opposed to alternative E(8), catch and
release only for blue marlin. This is not a conservation issue, this is a socio-economic issue and
to implement alternative E8 would be economic suicide; and, this alternative exceeds the ICCAT
Recommendations for this species. NMFS should focus on compliance with ICCAT’s
recommendations. The U.S. directed billfish fishery should be allowed to harvest their allocated
quota.
Response: The Agency did not prefer this alternative in the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP, however, it remains a valid management tool available to NMFS if warranted by stock
status or other factors. NMFS’ preferred alternative E6 would fully implement U.S. international
obligations as per ICCAT Recommendation 00-13 and subsequent amendments to it.
Additionally, the Agency has preferred other domestic measures in the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP to reduce post-release mortality of billfish stocks.
Comment 29: By itself, alternative E8, which would allow only catch and release fishing
for Atlantic blue marlin from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011, will not substantially
reduce blue marlin fishing mortality unless 100 percent circle hook use, careful handling/release
tools, procedures, and training are also required. Even then, unless such responsible actions are
taken by foreign fisheries, especially in the directed fisheries, reducing the U.S. blue marlin
fishing mortality is unlikely to have substantial conservation gains.
Response: NMFS agrees that improved handling and release skills may reduce domestic
post-release mortality of billfish and that foreign fishing nations reducing total mortality through
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-73

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

reductions in post-release mortality or other measures is critical to improving stock status of
Atlantic billfish. NMFS did not consider the other measures suggested in Comment 29, such as
careful handling and release tools, and thus, they are beyond the scope of the Final Consolidated
HMS FMP, but may consider them in future rulemakings as necessary and appropriate. NMFS
also agrees that international cooperation is essential to rebuilding Atlantic billfish populations
and, as such, will continue to pursue international billfish conservation through ICCAT.
Comment 30: NMFS should not impose any new restrictions on HMS tournaments until
after 2006.
Response: To provide Atlantic billfish tournament operators and participants time to
acclimate to new regulations requiring the use of non-offset circle hooks when natural baits and
or natural bait/artificial lure combinations are deployed from HMS permitted vessels that are
participating in billfish tournaments, NMFS prefers January 1, 2007, as the effective date for
these requirements. Barring unforeseen circumstances, no new restrictions would be imposed on
HMS tournaments during 2006.
Comment 31: NMFS should consider a limited entry system for tournaments with a
specific white marlin quota. Tournaments should be issued a permit and a quota for white marlin
kills. Outside of tournaments, recreational vessel owners should be required to have a permit
and to abide by a catch-and-release only policy. This would allow for the continuation of HMS
tournaments, which provide the largest economic benefits. It would also facilitate more accurate
counting of marlin, and provide some fish for biologists to conduct scientific research.
Response: NMFS appreciates the suggestions submitted to the Agency regarding
potential additional tournament regulations and other management suggestions for the directed
billfish fishery, and asks commenters to continue to submit innovative ideas to improve billfish
management. While these suggestions are beyond the scope of this rulemaking because as they
were not considered for analysis in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, they may be considered in
future rule makings, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 32: How many Atlantic white marlin are brought to the dock in tournaments
each year?
Response: Between 1999 and 2004, inclusive, a total of 144 Atlantic white marlin were
reported to the Recreational Billfish Survey as landed in tournaments. According to RBS data,
landings of Atlantic white marlin in tournaments ranged from a low of eight in 2000, to a high of
36 in 1999, and averaged 24 annually for the six year period under discussion.
Comment 33: All fishing tournament participants should be required to use circle hooks,
not just billfish tournament participants.
Response: NMFS believes that the current severely overfished stock status of Atlantic
blue and white marlin and the proven ability of circle hooks to reduce post-release mortality
support the preferred alternativeto require use of non-offset circle hooks in billfish tournaments.
However, NMFS believes that the collection and analysis of more data on the impacts of circle
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-74

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

hooks with regard to non-billfish species and fisheries is preferable prior to proposing additional
hook and bait requirements for all HMS tournaments. NMFS may consider additional hook and
bait requirements for other segments of the HMS recreational fisheries in future rulemakings, as
appropriate.
Comment 34: I spend $3,000.00 a year on the White Marlin Tournament in Ocean City,
Maryland. There are five fishermen on the boat pumping $15,000 into the Ocean City, Maryland
economy on our boat alone. I do not want this tournament to end.
Response: NMFS is interested in seeing a healthy HMS tournament industry continue
operations and continuing to provide benefit to the nation. The preferred alternatives regarding
Atlantic billfish, implementation of non-offset circle hook requirements under certain conditions
in billfish tournaments, and the ICCAT recreational marlin management measures, have been
crafted in a way to minimize and mitigate potential adverse socio-economic impacts and are not
expected to have significant impacts on billfish tournaments. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the
Final Consolidated HMS FMP for additional detail regarding the estimated impacts of the
preferred alternatives.
Comment 35: NMFS received several comments, including one from the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, in favor of increasing the minimum size limits for white and/or
blue marlin, including: even a limited benefit is worth implementing; people interested in a
smaller size limit are trying to make loopholes so they can catch and keep smaller fish; NMFS
should increase the size limit of blue marlin because the Puerto Rico Game fish association has
only taken 15 marlin all year in tournaments; increasing the size by approximately 40 percent,
we would not have to apply the 250 fish cap; I support E4(b), increasing the minimum size of
blue marlin because length and weight are correlated for blue marlin; increase the minimum size
for blue marlin to 105” LJFL because most tournaments have a minimum weight of 400 pounds;
increasing the minimum size for blue marlin would reduce the number of legal fish landed by
one third; there should be at least a 106 inch minimum size limit to allow them to live for three
more years and at least two years of spawning; and, I support a minimum size of 104 inches for
blue marlin.
Response: The Agency does not prefer to implement an increase in minimum size for
blue or white marlin at this time for several reasons. There are limited conservation benefits that
might be attained by increasing the minimum sizes for white marlin because relatively few blue
and white marlin are landed on an annual basis. In 2004, there were 118 blue marlin and 18
white marlin reported to ICCAT, comprised mainly of tournament landings, but also including
North Carolina and Maryland catch card landings, and non-tournament landings reported to
HMS. Since the majority of landings occur in tournaments and numerous tournaments already
have a minimum size greater than the current minimum size, increasing the minimum size may
not have any significant ecological benefits. The Agency has also received information that
white marlin might not display a consistent length-weight relationship, meaning that very few of
these fish would even attain the minimum size if it were increased.
As indicated above, the United States is currently well under its 250 fish limit imposed by
ICCAT and therefore does not need to reduce landings to maintain compliance with international
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-75

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

obligations at this time. Lastly, other management measures preferred in this action (mandatory
use of circle hooks when using natural bait by HMS angling permit holders in tournaments that
have a billfish prize category (alternative E2) and implementation of ICCAT recommendations
that establish an in-season adjustment framework to increase minimum sizes or catch and
release, if necessary (alternative E6)) should result in the desired conservation benefits by
reducing landings if the ICCAT landings limit is approached in the future and reducing post
release mortality of billfish caught in tournaments. The Agency may consider permanent
modifications to the minimum size in the future as necessary to ensure compliance with
international obligations and facilitate rebuilding of blue and white marlin stocks.
Comment 36: NMFS received numerous comments opposing the implementation of a
minimum size for white and/or blue marlin as described in Alternative E4 (a), increase the
minimum legal size for Atlantic white marlin to a specific size between 68 - 71” LJFL and
Alternative E4 (b), increase the minimum size of blue marlin to a specific size between 103-106”
LJFL, including: many tournaments already have a larger minimum size than what NMFS has
implemented (i.e., 110 inches or 400 lbs), therefore, no benefits will be realized from increasing
minimum sizes; NMFS had already established minimum size limits for white and blue marlin
and these limits should not be increased; because of the differences in growth patterns between
white and blue marlin, an increased size limit for white marlin would be ineffective because
these fish grow to size and then put on additional weight and not necessarily length; for white
marlin weight and length are not closely correlated for fish above 62 inches LJFL; there is no
rationale for increasing minimum sizes, because requiring circle hooks will accomplish the same
thing; and, why implement increased size limits to avoid reaching the 250 mark, when the
existing regulations seem to work?
Response: NMFS is not preferring an increased minimum size for white or blue marlin at
this time, however, may consider modifications to minimum sizes in the future, as necessary.
NMFS is unaware of the exact number of billfish tournaments that currently require a minimum
size greater than the current Federal regulations, however, they are numerous. Since this is
where the majority of reported landings occur, increasing the minimum size may not result in
significant positive ecological benefits. In 2004, all but 3 of the 149 billfish reported to ICCAT
were landed in tournaments. The United States has been well under its ICCAT allocated quota
of 250 billfish/year every year (except 2002) and preferred alternative E6 would implement an
increase in the minimum size for white and blue marlin if there is a possibility of approaching
the landings limit in the future, mitigating the need to permanently increase minimum sizes to
comply with the ICCAT landings limit. NMFS is also preferring an alternative mandating the
use of non-offset circle hooks in billfish tournaments by HMS anglers when deploying natural
baits to reduce post hooking mortality of released fish. Furthermore, because the majority of
billfish are caught and released and catch rates are low (1.03 and 1.13 white and blue marlin per
100 hours angling, respectively), conservation benefits of increasing the minimum size may be
minimal.
Comment 37: NMFS received comments both opposing and supporting alternatives E4(a)
and E4(b) on the basis that a larger size limit would result in fishermen targeting larger, more
fecund females and that NMFS should consider a slot limit to protect these larger, more fecund,
marlin.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-76

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: Generally speaking, the likelihood of landing a more fecund female may
increase if NMFS implemented a larger minimum legal size for blue marlin. For white marlin,
the correlation between length and age or fecundity is less certain as current information indicate
that white marlin may first put on length, and then weight. The fishery is generally opportunistic
in nature, with a low CPUE, and with little ability for fishermen to “target” a large or small
billfish. Further, the recreational billfish fishery is an overwhelmingly catch and release fishery.
As such, while a larger legal minimum size may result in larger fish being landed, it is unlikely
that anglers could successfully “target” larger billfish. NMFS appreciates the suggestion of
analyzing a slot limit, and encourages anglers to continue to submit suggestions to the Agency,
however that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As discussed in the response to comment
35, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time for the reasons discussed above, however
the Agency may consider minimum size changes in the future.
Comment 38: NMFS received a comment asking what data were used to determine the
billfish size limits.
Response Size distributions from Atlantic billfish tournaments held from 1995-1997 were
used to analyze minimum size alternatives contained in Amendment One to the Billfish FMP
(1999), which resulted in the current minimum legal sizes for Atlantic billfish. Minimum size
ranges analyzed for this rulemaking were based on RBS landings of white and blue marlin in
tournaments between 1999-2004.
Comment 39: NMFS received several comments in support of Alternative E5 (bag limit
of one billfish/vessel/day), including: the fact that the United States is under such a limited quota
for white and blue marlin (250 fish/year combined for both species); a bag limit might result in
some high grading, but it should not be much of a problem; and, if the United States recreational
sector is limited to 250 blue marlin and white marlin, it is inappropriate to let one boat come
back with more than a single fish on any given day.
Response: NMFS recognizes the concerns of anglers regarding allocation of fish,
particularly given the strict marlin landings limits placed upon the United States. As discussed in
Chapter Four of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, the United States is limited to 250 white and
blue marlin, combined, on an annual basis, per ICCAT recommendation (00-13). Since 2001,
the United States has only exceeded its annual 250 fish limit one time (2002) and that was
because of a modification to the accounting methodology for compliance with ICCAT.
Alternative E6 would implement ICCAT Recommendations on Recreational Marlin Landings
Limits and is a preferred alternative in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. At this time, there is
little evidence that individual anglers are landing excessive numbers of marlin and potentially
depriving other anglers of the opportunity to land a marlin. No multiple marlin trips have been
reported to the Atlantic billfish and swordfish non-tournament landings system. However,
NMFS may consider implementation of a bag limit in the future as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 40: NMFS received several comments objecting to alternative E5 (bag limit of
one billfish/vessel/trip) for varied reasons, including: it would encourage the culling of fish;
landing a few fish is not the issue; and, a bag limit will not reduce post-release mortality of
billfish unless careful handling and release guidelines are followed.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-77

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 39, there is little evidence, at this
time, that individual anglers are landing excessive numbers of marlin on individual trips and
potentially depriving other anglers of the opportunity to land an Atlantic marlin. Further, overall
landings of Atlantic marlin by U.S. recreational fishermen are low and well below the U.S.
marlin landing limit. This is due, in large part to the conservation ethic of the anglers who
choose not to land marlin that are legally available for landing. NMFS is always concerned
about the potential for increases in culling and discards which may result from regulation.
NMFS acknowledges the limited conservation benefit that a bag limit may produce and agrees
that a bag limit alone would not reduce post-release mortality. NMFS is preferring a circle hook
alternative (E3) in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP that is expected to reduce post-release
mortality of Atlantic billfish.
Gears and Gear Restrictions
Comment 41: NMFS received comment in support of non-preferred alternative E2, which
would require the use of circle hooks in all HMS recreational fisheries when using natural bait,
including: only a fraction of the offshore recreational effort occurs in tournaments and that there
would be a larger conservation benefit if circle hooks were required in all offshore fisheries.
This alternative would facilitate enforcement by requiring that all HMS fishermen use circle
hooks; NMFS should require circle hooks, careful handling/release tools and training for all
HMS hook and line fisheries that interact with white marlin. This may be the only way for
NMFS to prevent an ESA listing for white marlin. It cannot be ignored that the directed
recreational fishery is likely the majority of domestic white marlin mortality, which is a minute
percent. Unfortunately, even such a sacrifice may not be successful, unless adopted by other
foreign fisheries, especially directed fisheries that interact with white marlin. Circle hooks are
needed for all HMS fisheries, not just in tournaments. If an HMS fishery interacts with billfish,
then it needs to use circle hooks.
Response: NMFS agrees that Atlantic billfish tournaments represent a subset of total
fishing effort targeting Atlantic billfish and that there would be a greater conservation gain if
circle hooks were required in all offshore recreational fisheries. NMFS is interested in all
potential means of further reducing the post-release mortality of all HMS. However, NMFS
believes that the collection and evaluation of additional data regarding the impacts of circle hook
requirements on non-billfish species and fisheries prior to potentially mandating circle hooks for
all HMS fisheries is preferable at this time. Other possible methods of reducing post-release
mortality of all HMS could include the use of careful handling and release guidelines, release
equipment and training, and may consider the feasibility of additional circle hook and other
requirements in the future, as suggested by the commenter. NMFS also agrees that uniform
fishery-wide circle hook requirements would likely facilitate enforcement. However, NMFS
believes that the requirements for the use of circle hooks by permitted HMS fishermen when
natural bait and natural bait/artificial lures are deployed in billfish tournaments, can be
adequately enforced by NOAA Enforcement. NMFS further believes that given the conservation
ethic of billfish anglers and the vested financial interests of billfish tournament participants in
ensuring that all tournament participants compete under the same rules and conditions, that there
would be significant self-enforcement of tournament circle hook requirements. The impacts of
all regulations in effect, including circle hook requirements, when the Atlantic white marlin ESA
Listing Review panel undertakes its deliberations would be taken into consideration by the panel
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-78

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

when making its recommendations. NMFS cannot predict the outcome of these deliberations or
the direct impact that any particular regulation may have on the outcome of such deliberations.
Data indicates that the domestic directed fishery for Atlantic white marlin is responsible for a
significant proportion of total domestic white marlin mortality, and may, in some years, exceed
the level of mortality inflicted by the domestic pelagic longline fleet. NMFS also agrees that the
directed fishery for Atlantic white marlin and the bycatch of this species in other fisheries,
represent only a small portion of total Atlantic-wide on both an individual and a collective basis.
NMFS also agrees that the recovery of this severely depleted fishery is dependant upon the
cooperation of the international community. To this end, the United States has, and continues to
aggressively pursue marlin conservation at the international level through ICCAT.
Comment 42: NMFS received conditional support for alternative E2, Effective January 1,
2007, limit all participants in Atlantic HMS recreational fisheries to using only non-offset circle
hooks when using natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations, including; I support
the use of circle hooks with natural baits in all HMS fisheries, only if no J-hooks are allowed on
board the vessel.
Response: Public comment during the scoping phase of this rulemaking was nearly
unanimous on the need to allow the use of J-hooks with artificial lures when fishing for Atlantic
blue marlin given the feeding behaviors of this species. Additionally, during analysis of circle
hook requirements, NMFS found that the post-release mortality rate of Atlantic blue marlin
caught recreationally on J-hooks appears to be comparable to post-release mortality rates of
Atlantic white marlin caught recreationally on circle hooks. As such, the preferred alternative,
which would require the use of non-offset circle hooks by permitted HMS fishermen when
natural bait and natural bait/artificial lures are deployed all billfish tournaments, but would allow
J-hooks to be used with artificial lures would reduce mortality in the directed billfish fishery by
providing a significant and appropriate conservation benefit.
Comment 43: NMFS received comment opposing Alternative E2, including: I do not
support alternative E2; I am concerned about requiring circle hooks in all HMS fisheries because
dolphin, wahoo, king mackerel, and inshore fisheries could be impacted; how would NMFS
determine who is in the HMS fishery?; I strongly oppose requiring the use of circle hooks in all
HMS fisheries because circle hooks do not work on swordfish and the catch rate goes down; and
there may be a problem in terms of enforcement with making circle hooks mandatory in all HMS
fisheries (alternative E2), but it could work in Atlantic billfish tournaments (preferred alternative
E3).
Response: NMFS acknowledges that requiring circle hooks in all HMS fisheries could
have impacts on secondary fisheries, including dolphin, wahoo, king mackerel, and other inshore
fisheries. As previously acknowledged, NMFS would prefer to collect additional data on the
impacts of fishery-wide circle hook requirements. Such data collection would include HMS
fisheries and may also include some non-HMS species and fisheries. The NED circle hook study
indicated that deployment of circle hooks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery can result in
a decrease in the number of swordfish caught under some oceanographic conditions. However,
NMFS has only limited data on the impact of circle hooks in the recreational swordfish fishery.
With regard to enforcement, NMFS believes that given the conservation ethic of billfish anglers
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-79

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

and the vested financial interests of billfish tournament participants in ensuring that all
tournament participants compete under the same rules and conditions, there would be significant
self-enforcement of tournament circle hook requirements.
Comment 44: NMFS received comment on the adequacy of data and assumptions made
in support of non-preferred alternative E2, which would require all HMS fishermen to use circle
hooks when using natural bait and preferred alternative E3, which would require the use of nonoffset circle hooks in billfish tournaments when using natural bait, including: NMFS cannot
justify alternatives E2 or alternative E3. We do not believe that there is data to support the
preferred alternative to require circle hooks in tournaments; and, the assumptions made to
support the use of circle hooks are not specified in the text and leads one to believe that there are
another set of assumptions, which would not support the use of circle hooks. Where the ‘23
percent overall’ figure comes from is not discoverable in the text. It is one of those derived from
assumptions that are not spelled out. The “65.7 percent” figure is right from the Horodysky and
Graves study which, as argued, is simply insufficient to support any of the proposals.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The significant potential reductions in post-release mortality
of recreationally caught Atlantic billfish that are anticipated to be achieved through the shift from
J-hooks to non-offset circle hooks in the directed fishery provide ample support for
implementing these measures. A potential reduction by two-thirds in the post-release mortality
of Atlantic white marlin would be a landmark achievement in efforts to reduce fishing mortality.
The shift to circle hooks in the directed Atlantic billfish fishery would be the most effective
single management tool known to the Agency at this time to control post-release mortality, and
would have the added benefit of having minimal impacts on the fishery. NMFS has relied on
publicly available peer-reviewed scientific papers and available recreational data sets in
developing its analyses. The assumptions made to support the use of circle hooks are clearly
articulated in Chapter 4 of the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. The reference to 23 percent
overall reduction simply represents another statistical perspective on the anticipated reduction. It
represents the change in absolute terms of reducing the estimated post-release mortality of
Atlantic white marlin from 35 percent overall on J-hooks to approximately 12 percent overall on
circle hooks (35 percent – 12 percent = 23 percent). The 65.7 percent figure represents the
relative decrease in post-release mortality between J-hook and circle hook caught Atlantic white
marlin (23 percent / 35 percent = 65.7 percent).
Comment 45: NMFS received a number of comments opposing preferred alternative E3,
which would require the use of non-offset circle hooks by HMS permitted fishermen
participating in billfish tournaments when using natural baits, including: we support the
voluntary use of circle hooks and oppose mandating use of circle hooks in tournaments when
using natural baits; if NMFS lets the recreational and charter/headboat fleet implement circle
hooks on a voluntary basis, there will be 90% or better compliance at using circle hooks in a year
or two; all south Florida tournaments have already voluntarily converted to circle hooks because
they work, NMFS should ask tournament directors to add 5 extra points to anglers who used
circle hooks to catch their fish; the number of fish saved will be ten times greater with the
voluntary use of circle hooks rather than mandatory use, because the public does not like to be
forced into doing things; individual tournaments should be allowed to determine which type of
hook is most appropriate for their own needs; we agree with NMFS that promoting their use in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-80

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

tournaments will result in non-tournament anglers using them also, however it should not be
required by regulation. Anglers will ignore the circle hook requirement at tournaments and will
choose the best tackle to win. The blue marlin fishery is a mixed fishery and circle hooks do not
work well on other tournament species such as wahoo; enforcing circle hook requirements will
be difficult or impossible, especially at tournaments; circle hooks need to be phased in through
angler education, because they are not enforceable at this time with no proposed specifications;
NMFS should educate anglers on the use and benefits of circle hooks. NMFS needs to provide
specifications on circle hooks (offset, circularity, shank length, size, gap, etc.) before requiring
them; I don’t want NMFS to advocate one hook manufacturer over another; NMFS needs written
specifications that are clear to everyone in order to encourage compliance; Circle hooks could
potentially have huge negative economic impacts on tournaments. They may decrease anglers’
ability to catch non-billfish species that are landed for food or tournament winnings and as such
may decrease willingness to participate in tournaments. This commenter also noted that the
transition to circle hooks may require angler to invest between $15,000 and $20,000 in the way
they fish tournaments; potential adverse economic impacts of implementing circle hooks may
outweigh the conservation benefits derived from anticipated decreases in post-release mortality
and as such other areas of conservation should be explored; anglers need to use J-hooks with
artificial lures because of the way marlin feed; circle hooks do not work well for species that are
trolled for at higher speeds; fish do not get gut hooked with J-hooks and artificial bait. Anglers
need natural bait with circle hooks because the use of circle hooks for marlin fishing with lures
will not work. Marlins smack the live bait with circle hooks and will get hooked in the mouth or
bill so there is very little chance of gut hooking anything; the best way to catch them [blue
marlin] is to slow troll natural bait with no drop back. Circle hooks may not work without a drop
back; and, I oppose Alternative E3 because it falls short of what is needed.
Response: NMFS disagrees that there will be significantly greater use of circle hooks by
anglers in the Atlantic billfish fishery if circle hook use remains voluntary, as opposed to being
required under certain circumstances. Circle hook use has always been voluntary, and yet
significant portions of the fishery continue to use J-hooks. Further, NMFS has been actively
encouraging the use of circle hooks in HMS Fisheries since 1999. NMFS advocated circle hook
use through placement of articles on circle hooks, held discussions with industry leaders to
encourage their use and educate anglers on their benefits, recommended their use during public
hearings and elsewhere, and encouraged circle hook use in tournaments by affording monetary
support to provide incentives to anglers for their use. While there has been some progress in
sectors of the fishery, anecdotal evidence suggest that substantial portions of the fishery continue
using J-hooks as the standard hook. With the substantial conservation benefit associated with the
use of circle hooks, recent information suggesting that the post-release mortality rate of Atlantic
white marlin caught recreationally on J-hooks is substantially higher than previous estimates,
data indicating that the mortality contribution of the recreational community toward Atlantic
marlin may equal or exceed that of the pelagic longline fishery in some years, and the fact that
circle hook requirements are already in place in the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS prefers to
require non-offset circle by HMS permitted vessels participating in billfish tournaments when
deploying natural baits at this time.
As discussed in the response to Comment 41 regarding enforcement of circle hook use in
tournaments, NMFS believes that given the conservation ethic of billfish anglers and the vested
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-81

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

financial interests of billfish tournament participants in ensuring that all tournament participants
compete fairly under the same rules and conditions, there would be significant self-enforcement
of tournament circle hook requirements. A general definition of circle hooks is included in the
current Federal regulations governing Atlantic HMS, and NMFS understands the desire of
tournament operators for additional circle hook specifications. However, as there are no industry
standards with regard to hook specifications, NMFS is not prepared to provide an index of
detailed hook specifications for each size circle hook that could be used in the recreational
billfish fishery at this time. NMFS is continuing to work on various definitions of circle hooks
that could be applied in future rule makings. Further, to ease concerns of anglers and simplify
hook choice, NMFS is considering undertaking efforts to work with hook manufacturers to
ensure that all hooks marketed as circle hooks are true circle hooks. NMFS disagrees that
implementation of circle hooks requirements would cause large adverse economic impacts.
NMFS has not seen evidence that participation in the fishery would decrease as a result of circle
hook use. Further circle hooks have been shown to increase catch rates of some billfish and are,
on average, slightly less expensive than J-hooks. Many commenters suggested that if circle hook
use were left voluntary that compliance rates would be very high. The implication of
commenters is that mandatory circle hook use, where all anglers are subject to the same
regulations and conditions, would create some significant artificial cost or economic losses,
while universal voluntary use of circle hooks would not create such costs, or that such costs
would be somehow reduced or more acceptable to anglers. NMFS agrees that circle hooks may
impact the catches of some non-HMS species, but cannot predict whether these catches may
increase or decrease. However, to clarify, it should be noted that circle hooks would only be
required to be deployed on HMS permitted vessels participating in billfish tournaments when
natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations are deployed. Based on public comment
during scoping and an examination of post-release mortality data of blue marlin caught on Jhooks, NMFS would allow anglers on HMS permitted vessels in billfish tournaments to continue
to use J-hooks with artificial lures. NMFS remains convinced that implementing non-offset
circle hook requirements in Atlantic billfish tournaments when natural baits or natural
bait/artificial lures are deployed from permitted HMS vessels would be an important and
productive first step that would noticeably reduce mortality in the U.S. directed billfish fishery.
Comment 46: I am concerned that alternative E3 specifies circle hooks for “all Atlantic
billfish tournament participants” rather than “HMS-permitted vessels in all Atlantic billfish
tournaments.”
Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS has made a technical clarification to the wording of the
alternative to correct any misperceptions. NMFS did not intend, nor mean to imply, that
regulations governing 50 CFR part 635 would apply to fisheries under the jurisdiction of the
regional fishery management councils. It should be noted that NMFS analyzed this alternative
from the perspective of applying circle hook requirements to only HMS-permitted vessels. To
clarify, recreational circle hook requirements would apply only to Atlantic HMS permitted
vessels participating in Atlantic billfish tournaments when deploying natural baits or natural
bait/artificial lure combinations.
Comment 47: NMFS received a number of comments in support of preferred alternative
E3, Effective January 1, 2007, limit all Atlantic billfish tournament participants to using only
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-82

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

non-offset circle hooks when using natural or natural bait/artificial lure combinations, including:
I support alternative E3, which would require circle hooks in Atlantic billfish tournaments; the
results of recent circle hook studies are very compelling; NMFS should make a tough decision
and implement circle hooks because they work; circle hooks can help with catch and release by
reducing post-release mortality; NMFS must reduce mortality on marlin and should require circle
hooks; limiting tournaments to circle hooks should reduce post-release mortality and provide
additional conservation to billfish in the recreational fishery. Mandatory use is viable in the
tournament setting. Outside of tournaments, NMFS needs an aggressive education program to
promote the use of circle hooks; it is easy to get a circle hook back, and circle hooks have the
benefit of not leaving any gear on the fish; circle hooks do work, save fish, and result in less
hooking trauma; I support the use of circle hooks, but they may not work with combination baits;
Our club adopted the use of circle hooks exclusively for all our tournaments, and we generally
have a short ten to 15 minute release time on sailfish and white marlin, which minimizes stress
on the animal; we support alternative E3, non-offset circle hooks with dead or live natural baits
in tournaments, but a circle hook needs to be clearly defined; circle hooks should be mandatory
for billfish tournaments; I support the mandatory use of circle hooks in billfish tournaments
because it is enforceable. Tournament directors can give out hooks or inspect them;
Tournaments are a good place to start implementing circle hooks; there is an international
movement to use circle hooks; the U.S. needs to put circle hook requirements on paper to show
ICCAT our commitment and credibility, rather than doing this voluntarily; the international
focus needs to be on improving the post-release mortality of Atlantic billfish and requiring circle
hooks in U.S. fisheries will help with this effort; and, the recreational sector claims they are not
ready for circle hooks, but the commercial sector was forced to move to circle hooks. Anything
that can be done to reduce mortality is good. The commercial fishing sector has stepped up to
the plate, so the recreational community should do the same.
Response: NMFS agrees with comments suggesting that implementing circle hook
requirements in tournaments would likely reduce post-release mortality of billfish caught in
tournaments, and should help reduce the overall fishing mortality rate of Atlantic marlins.
Recent data indicates that switching to circle hooks could reduce post-release mortality rates for
individual fish by approximately two-thirds. NMFS also agrees with comments indicating the
mandatory circle hook use in tournaments would be viable and enforceable for the reasons
discussed in the response to Comment 41. NMFS also concurs with the need to continue
educational efforts to better educate anglers in the use and benefits of circle hooks, as noted by
some commenters, and encourages anglers to minimize fight times, release fish quickly, and to
release fish in a manner the maximize the probability of survival to further minimize billfish
mortality. NMFS agrees with commenters who suggest that there is growing international
momentum to use circle hooks in various fisheries. However, NMFS sees a need for continuing
pressure on the international community to implement circle hook use more rapidly. As
discussed, in the response to Comment 46, a general definition of circle hooks is included in the
current Federal regulations governing Atlantic HMS, and NMFS understands the desire of
anglers and tournament operators for additional circle hook specifications. However, an index of
detailed hook specifications for each size circle hook that could be used in the recreational
billfish fishery is not available at this time. NMFS is continuing to work on various definitions
of circle hooks that could be applied in future rule makings. Further, to ease concerns of anglers
and simplify hook choice, NMFS is considering undertaking efforts to work with hook
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-83

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

manufacturers to ensure that all hooks marketed as circle hooks are true circle hooks.
Implementing circle hooks requirements in portions of the domestic recreational billfish fishery
would provide a means of applying additional pressure to the international community on this
issue, and further demonstrating the commitment of the United States to billfish conservation.
Improving post-release mortality in both the commercial and recreational fisheries is a critical
component of halting the current decline of Atlantic marlin populations. NMFS agrees that the
commercial fishing sector is subject to a significant number of restrictions to reduce bycatch and
bycatch mortality, however, the Agency is cognizant of the fact that recreational and commercial
sectors are unique and need to be managed in ways most appropriate for each of them, as well as
for the health of the fish stocks under consideration. In some instances, this may mean
implementing comparable measures between sectors of the fishery, but in other cases, such
actions may not be appropriate. With regard to circle hook requirements analyzed in this
rulemaking, the data overwhelmingly indicate that circle hooks can substantially reduce postrelease mortality in the recreational billfish fishery.
Comment 48: NMFS received a number of comments conditionally supporting
implementation of circle hooks in billfish fisheries, including: the use of circle hooks should be
voluntary until NMFS develops a specification on the off-set and shank length; we support
alternative E3, circle hooks in tournaments, provided it includes provisions to conduct
cooperative scientifically valid research, determine and specify minimum design specifications
for circle hooks, require the handling and release equipment be on board, and allow for voluntary
participation in handling and release workshops. The current definition for a circle hook is not
adequate. Rather, NMFS needs to outline minimal design specifications as was done in the NED
experimental design; and, if voluntary conversion to circle hooks is low, then I would support
their mandatory use.
Response: As discussed fully in Chapter 4 of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP and in
the response to Comment 45, NMFS believes it is appropriate to implement particular circle
hook requirements for HMS permitted vessels participating in Atlantic billfish tournaments at
this time, despite a lack of detailed circle hook specifications. NMFS is continuing to work on
development of more detailed circle hook specifications, but believes that the conservation
benefits derived from implementation of circle hook requirements at this time outweigh any
possible adverse impacts that may result from a lack of detailed circle hook specifications.
NMFS has not considered or proposed implementing any restrictions on scientific research in
this Final Consolidated HMS FMP. Interested parties would be able to conduct scientific
research as appropriate under the preferred circle hook alternative. Should the design of such
scientific research call for utilizing gears or undertaking activities prohibited by regulation,
interested parties may apply for either an Exempted Fishing Permit or Scientific Research
Permit, whichever type of permit would be most appropriate. Requiring handling and release
equipment and workshops for the recreational sector is beyond the scope of this rule making, but
may be considered in a future rule making, if appropriate. NMFS is preferring mandatory shark
identification workshops for Federally permitted shark dealers, as well as mandatory protected
resources identification and release and disentanglement workshops for longline and gillnet
vessel owners and operators. However, to the extent possible these workshops would be open to
other interested parties, including recreational fishery participants. As previously discussed,
NMFS is unable to determine what percentage of billfish trips deploy circle hooks. However,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-84

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

the Agency believes that the data clearly demonstrate significant conservation benefits can be
derived from the use of circle hooks in the portions of the recreational billfish fishery.
Comment 49: NMFS received comment regarding the timing of implementing possible
circle hook requirements suggesting the need for a short phase-in of circle hooks into
tournaments and the recreational fishery and advance notice of impending circle hook
regulations to allow for changes in the production of rules and advertising, and to inform
tournament participants of potential circle hook requirements. Commenters also suggest that
increased educational efforts should be undertaken to promote and enhance the growing
recreational awareness and use of circle hooks.
Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS surveyed a number of tournament operators in the
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean to better understand various aspects of tournament
operations. NMFS determined that a delayed date of effectiveness of between four and six
months would likely provide adequate time for tournament operators and participants to adjust
tournament rules, formats, and advertising, as necessary, as well as to notify anglers of changes,
and allow anglers to adjust fishing practices and take other steps, as appropriate, to minimize any
potential adverse impacts stemming from preferred circle hook requirements. As such, given the
anticipated publication date for the Final Consolidated HMS FMP of July 2006, and the
anticipated publication date for the Final Rule of August 2006, NMFS prefers to maintain the
effective date of January 1, 2007, for preferred alternative E3. This effective date would be
consistent the effective date proposed for preferred alternative E3 as contained in the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS has also had a public circle hook public education program in
place for a number of years to educate anglers and encourage the use of circle hooks in
recreational fisheries.
Comment 50: Why would the recreational fishery not be allowed to have offset hooks,
while the PLL fishery can have a 10% offset?
Response: Pelagic longline circle hook and bait requirements were developed to
specifically address bycatch and bycatch mortality of Atlantic sea turtles, while the preferred
circle hook requirements for Atlantic HMS permitted fishermen participating in Atlantic billfish
tournaments are intended to reduce post-release mortality of Atlantic billfish. In other words,
they were developed to address different issues. The pelagic longline fishery may only possess
circle hooks offset up to 10 degrees if they are 18/0 or larger in size. The offset was determined
to be necessary to allow the use of large baits (e.g. whole Atlantic mackerel), which can act as a
shield to the hook. The recreational billfish fishery typically uses significantly smaller hooks
(sizes 8/0 and 9/0), which, if offset, may diminish the conservation benefit of circle hook
requirements by resulting in higher rates of deep hooking and soft tissue damage to vital organs.
Comment 51: NMFS received comments on the potential applicability of circle hook
requirements of preferred alternative E3, which would require billfish tournament participants to
use non-offset circle hooks when deploying natural baits, including: would participants in
tournaments that offer prizes for both billfish and non-HMS species be required to use circle
hooks for the non-HMS species; and would the circle hook requirement apply to vessels fishing
in U.S. waters, or to all U.S. flagged vessels everywhere?
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-85

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: HMS permitted vessels participating in Atlantic billfish tournaments would be
required to use non-offset circle hooks when deploying natural baits and natural bait/artificial
lure combinations. However, HMS permitted vessels participating in Atlantic billfish
tournaments would be able to deploy J-hooks on artificial lures. Circle hook requirements would
pertain to U.S. flagged vessels possessing an HMS permit and participating in an Atlantic billfish
tournament regardless of where that vessel was fishing.
Comment 52: NMFS received a number of comments and suggestions on potential gear
and bait restrictions or policy programs beyond those analyzed in the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP, including: there should be no live bait fishing; prohibit the use of “live bait” in all HMS Jstyle hook fisheries and areas known to have billfish interactions; the use of kites and offset
circle hooks may be more damaging than J-hooks; NMFS should allow only one hook per lure to
reduce foul hooking and injuries to the fish and anglers; NMFS should implement minimum line
test requirements during the season or in tournaments; and, NMFS should create a buyback
program for J-hooks; and, it would be useful to convene a summit of HMS tournament directors
to work on a protocol to get anglers to switch to circle hooks.
Response: NMFS appreciates the thoughtful and creative suggestions made by
commenters to address billfish issues. However, these ideas were not considered in the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP and, as such, are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. These issues
may be may be considered in a future rulemaking if appropriate.
Comment 53: NMFS received a number of questions specific to tournaments landings of
billfish in South Carolina, including: how many billfish are caught annually in South Carolina
tournaments? What is the number harvested for weigh-in versus number released? What is the
estimated mortality for those released? What is the financial gain to the state and does this offset
the number of fish kept or lost?
Response: An examination of the Recreational Billfish Survey, which records tournament
landings, indicates that there were an average of four Atlantic billfish (blue marlin, white marlin,
and sailfish) landed in South Carolina in tournaments annually for the period 1999 – 2004,
inclusive. There was a high of seven (blue marlin) landed in tournaments in South Carolina in
1999, with a low of one (blue marlin) landed in 2002. In total, for the period 1999 - 2004, there
were 25 billfish retained and 73 released in tournaments, as reported through the RBS.
According to RBS data, there were between seven and eight (7.6) tournaments per year
conducted in South Carolina. Rounding-up to an estimate of eight tournaments per year, and
applying an average value of $1,375,481 per tournament, the estimated impact to coastal South
Carolina equates to $11,003,848. NMFS does not understand the implication of the question
“does this [value] offset the number of fish kept or lost.” If the commenter is suggesting that the
preferred alternatives to address billfish mortality would result in the cancellation of South
Carolina’s tournaments and the loss of the estimated $11 million dollars to the state, NMFS
disagrees with this suggestion. First, circle hook requirements would not likely result in
decreased tournament participation, given the high catch and release rate practiced by billfish
anglers, the fact that all tournament anglers would have to abide by the same circle hook
requirements from Maine to Texas to the U.S. Caribbean, the already low number of marlins
landed in South Carolina, and the fact that marlin are available for landing. Further, NMFS does
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-86

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

not believe that South Carolina tournaments are likely to realize any impacts from the 250
recreationally landed marlin landing limit, because with the switch to the calendar year fishing
year management cycle, South Carolina tournaments all occur before the date at which estimated
impacts may occur, under the assumptions made in Chapter four of the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP.
Circle Hooks And/Or Post-Release Mortality Data
Comment 54: NMFS received several comments on the adequacy of some of the studies
cited in development of the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, including: the Horodysky and Graves
study is flawed because it is based on a sample size of only 40 fish and because they landed the
fish in 30 - 40 minutes which is unreasonable. Most anglers will land their fish much more
quickly in 5 - 10 minutes thus reducing stress on the fish and increasing survival rates; the
Horodysky and Graves study concludes that there is a 35 percent greater likelihood that a white
marlin will survive release if taken on a circle hook, rather than a J-hook. Other factors resulting
in post-release mortality must come into play; e.g., no one would expect fish fought for 83
minutes ((DR02-04) or 46 minutes (VZ03-11) to survive and it has nothing to do with the type of
hook used. Yet, the study takes into consideration nothing but the type of hook used to conclude
that hook type alone results in a lower mortality rate; I have problems with one of the circle hook
studies cited because one of the authors was sent to a Guatemalan fishing lodge, and the captains
on these vessels were required to use offset circle hooks only versus non-offset circle hooks.
The study was done in the Pacific Ocean. The methods in the study do not represent how
fishermen fish. This study does not have a comparison of circle hooks with J-hooks.
Response: NMFS appreciates the concerns expressed over the methods and or validity of
the studies cited in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. Nevertheless, the studies cited in Final
Consolidated HMS FMP have been peer-reviewed and constitute the best available science
regarding the topics under discussion. NMFS would appreciate receipt of additional relevant
peer-reviewed studies on these subjects of which commenters may be aware. NMFS is always
searching for, interested in applying, and required to utilize the best available science on relevant
issues.
Comment 55: NMFS received a number of comments which provided research and data
collection recommendations or asking about the availability of certain data, including: we
recommend research to determine the impacts of circle hooks on catch rates, not only of billfish,
but other species such as dolphin, wahoo, and tuna; NMFS should conduct studies on the postrelease mortality of sailfish with circle versus J-hooks in the Atlantic Ocean. Do not rely on
studies from the Pacific Ocean because the sailfish are different between the oceans; more data
via PSAT tagging and angler experience is needed to provide a foundation for any drastic change
in regulations pertaining to marlins; has there been any research on exhaustion mortality, e.g.,
fighting fish for different times on different gear (drop back, hook type, etc) and the resultant
impacts on mortality?; we see big blue marlin occasionally and are wondering about post-release
mortality and catch-and-release rates. Predation should be considered in estimating post-release
mortality; NMFS should conduct additional studies to identify more effective ways for the
pelagic longline fishery to reduce bycatch of marlin and sharks; NMFS should evaluate the
impacts of using “live bait” and circle-style hooks as well as careful handling and release tools

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-87

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

and procedures; and, NMFS should further investigate how the feeding and behavior of Atlantic
blue marlin may affect catch rates with circle hooks.
Response: NMFS appreciates these research recommendations as a way to help guide
future research efforts and funds. The Agency is always looking for, and appreciative of,
relevant research suggestions and additional data that can benefit the management of Atlantic
HMS. While these suggestions are beyond the scope of this rule making, the answers to many of
the research suggestions could potentially benefit management. Some of the research
suggestions contributed by commenters are currently under investigation by either NMFS or
private sector entities. NMFS will consider these suggestions in the future, as appropriate.
Comment 56: Off-set circle hooks show less mortality than non off-set circle hooks.
Response: NMFS is unaware of data showing off-set circle hooks result in a lower
mortality rate than non-offset circle hooks. NMFS would appreciate being supplied with any
such data that may support this contention, and will consider it in future rule makings, as
appropriate.
Comment 57: The Agency has not published specifications for circle hooks and I am
requesting clarification of the definition of non-offset circle hooks by NMFS because, in part,
each manufacturer creates its own definition for non-offset circle hooks.
Response: A general definition of circle hooks is included in the current Federal
regulations governing Atlantic HMS, and NMFS understands the desire of tournament operators
for additional circle hook specifications. The current definition of a circle hook, as per, 50 CFR
Part 635 is: “A circle hook means a fishing hook originally designed and manufactured so that
the point of the hook is turned perpendicularly back toward the shank to form a generally circular
or oval shape.” NMFS is continuing to work on various definitions of circle hooks that may lead
to a more refined hook definition in the future. At this time, however, an index of detailed hook
specifications for each size circle hook that could be used in the recreational billfish fishery is
not available. There are no industry standards with regard to hook specifications. As detailed
under the discussion of preferred alternative E3, in Chapter 4 of the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP, NMFS finds that it is appropriate to require the use of non-offset circle hooks in portions
of the recreational billfish fishery at this time in an effort to reduce post-release mortalities in the
recreational billfish fishery. Further, to ease concerns of anglers and simplify hook choice,
NMFS is considering undertaking efforts to work with hook manufacturers to ensure that all
hooks marketed as circle hooks are true circle hooks.
Comment 58: The Maryland Department of Natural Resources submitted a comment
indicating that they would be willing to work with NMFS to teach voluntary use of circle hooks,
noting that anglers must learn how to fish these hooks and that education for the offshore
fishermen is necessary.
Response: NMFS appreciates the State of Maryland’s willingness to work with the
Agency to reach out to anglers and educate them on the use of circle hooks. Circle hooks have
been to shown to effectively reduce post-release mortality of many species and while having
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-88

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

little impact on rates of catch. The Agency hopes that the offer by the State of Maryland will
remain open if the preferred alternative to implement circle hook requirements is finalized.
Comment 59: NMFS’ statement in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP that increases in
recreational fishing effort and stable fishing mortality indicate that white marlin are decreasing in
number is incorrect. Fishing mortality has not increased, the recreational fishing community is
releasing more of them.
Response: NMFS was unable to locate this statement in the Draft Consolidated HMS
FMP. However, NMFS believes that the commenter may have intended to state that increases in
recreational fishing effort and stable landings of white marlin indicate that white marlin may be
decreasing in number. The number of recreationally landed Atlantic white marlin reported to
ICCAT between 2001 and 2004 varied considerably, ranging from a high of 191 in 2002 to a low
of 23 in 2003. The number of Atlantic white marlin reported to NMFS via the Recreational
Billfish Survey has remained relatively stable over the same period. However, the release rate of
live Atlantic white marlin in the recreational fishery has also remained stable. In the face of
increased effort, a lack of increases in landings, when coupled with stable release rates implies
decreased angler success. Decreased angler success could be attributable to a number of factors,
and one legitimate assumption, given that the fishing mortality rate of Atlantic white marlin is
more than eight times higher than the population can sustain, is that it could be the result of
diminished populations. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP, the current estimate of recreationally caught Atlantic white marlin post-release mortality is
now significantly higher than previous estimates, so an increase in the number of releases would
be anticipated to result in additional mortalities.
Comment 60: Six to ten thousand white marlin are caught each year by U.S. fishermen,
both commercial and recreational. I have data showing that commercial mortality is higher than
recreational mortality in general, but in the past 6 years, the recreational mortality has exceeded
the commercial mortality.
Response: New post-release mortality estimates allowed NMFS to examine total
mortality contributions of the commercial and recreational sectors regarding Atlantic white
marlin over the past four years. Mortality varies greatly by year and data set. In some years,
using some data sets, the recreational mortality contribution appears to exceed the commercial
mortality contribution and in some years the reverse appears to be true. Please see Appendix C
in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP for more detailed information by year and fishery sector.
Appendix C provides a ranges of mortality estimates, but does not attempt to definitively identify
mortality contributions, rather, the estimates provided in that table are intended to provide
reference points for discussion. NMFS will continue to examine this issue as new and refined
data become available.
Elimination of the ‘No Sale’ Exemption
Comment 61: The “no sale” exemption for Atlantic billfish should be removed. The sale
of all billfish in the United States should be prohibited.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-89

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: NMFS agrees that the exemption to the no sale provision for Atlantic billfish
should be removed and prefers to do so. However, NMFS does not agree that the sale of all
billfish, including those from Pacific stocks should be prohibited. Stock status of Pacific billfish
is currently unknown, and as such a nation-wide ban on the sale of billfish may not be
appropriate. The Certificate of Eligibility program in place for Atlantic billfish is designed to
ensure that no Atlantic billfish enter the stream of commerce, while allowing Pacific billfish to
legally be sold. However, the Agency may reconsider a prohibition on the sale of Pacific billfish
in the future, as necessary and appropriate.
Comment 62: The potential ecological impact of billfish sales from fishermen in Puerto
Rico would be minimal because the individuals who may sell Atlantic billfish take only 10 – 15
fish a year, and only keep fish that come to the boat dead in an effort to minimize waste.
Response: NMFS has little data on the extent of illegal sales of billfish in Puerto Rico,
and as such cannot verify the veracity of the commenter’s claims. As such, the Agency cannot
assess their impact. NMFS has received a significant number of anecdotal reports of sales of
Atlantic marlin in Puerto Rico. The number of these anecdotal reports suggests that a sizable
number of Atlantic marlin may be illegally sold and implies that more than just those fish that
come to the boat dead are illegally entered into commerce.
Comment 63: The sale of billfish is legal outside of the United States. Do foreign vessels
fishing in waters of the United States need to obtain U.S. fishing permits and abide by U.S.
regulations?
Response: The sale of Atlantic billfish is legal in most ICCAT nations. Foreign
commercial vessels are not allowed to fish in waters of the United States without explicit
permission from the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State, and being provided a
Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing (TALFF). Such vessels would be subject to strict
regulation, and a number of conditions that would not ordinarily apply to U.S. vessels. Foreign
flagged recreational vessels may obtain an HMS Angling category permit. In such cases, the
U.S. recreationally permitted foreign flagged vessels would be subject to U.S. regulations.
Comment 64: How many comments were received from Puerto Rico on the proposed
removal of the no sale exemption for billfish?
Response: No comments from Puerto Rico directly addressed removal of the no sale
provision. However, one commenter from Puerto Rico requested increased law enforcement at
establishments that may illegally sell Atlantic billfish, such as restaurants. NMFS interprets this
comment to be supportive of prohibiting sale of Atlantic marlin. Further, the Caribbean Fishery
Management Council adopted a motion supporting elimination of the exemption to the no-sale
provision in August of 2005.
General Billfish Comments
Comment 65: The proposed Atlantic billfish alternatives are in direct conflict with the
1988 Billfish FMP and the 1999 Billfish FMP Amendment’s stated objective of “Maintaining the

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-90

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

highest availability of billfishes to the United States recreational fishery by implementing
conservation measures that will reduce fishing mortality.”
Response: NMFS disagrees. The preferred Atlantic billfish alternatives are consistent
with the stated objective of maintaining the highest availability of billfishes to the United States
recreational fishery by preferring conservation measures that would reduce fishing mortality.
Recent studies by Cramer (2005) and Kerstetter (2005-in press) and analyses in the Final
Consolidated HMS FMP indicate that recreational fishing activities contribute significantly to
Atlantic billfish mortality. Because biomass levels of both Atlantic blue and white marlin are
currently very low, it is imperative for NMFS to implement conservation measures on the
domestic recreational Atlantic billfish fishery to reduce post-release mortality and better ensure
the highest, long- term availability of these important species to the United States recreational
fishery. The preferred management measures, specifically the requirement to utilize non-offset
circle hooks when deploying natural bait in billfish tournaments, would be an important step
towards accomplishing this objective.
Comment 66: NMFS must determine the sustainable biomass for spearfish and sailfish
independently, as soon as possible.
Response: Due to the highly migratory nature of these species, stock assessments are
conducted by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) of ICCAT. The last
assessment for sailfish was conducted in 2001. The SCRS expressed concern about the
incomplete reporting of catches, lack of sufficient reports by species, and evaluations of new
methods used to split the sailfish and spearfish catch and to index abundance. The SCRS
recommended that all countries landing sailfish/spearfish, or having dead discards, report these
data to the ICCAT Secretariat. The SCRS also indicated that it should consider the possibility of
a spearfish “only” stock assessment in the future.
Comment 67: I support decreasing the mortality on Atlantic billfish as much as possible;
the focus of billfish management has to be on post-release mortality.
Response: The preferred management measure alternative E3, which would require the
use of non-offset circle hooks with natural bait in billfish tournaments, is intended to reduce the
post release mortality of Atlantic billfishes. A recent study by Horodoysky and Graves (2005)
has shown that circle hooks can reduce post-release mortality on white marlin by as much as 65
percent, when compared to J-hooks.
Comment 68: Billfish conservation is an international problem, and the focus has to be
international.
Response: NMFS agrees that billfish conservation is an issue that must be addressed at
the international level. Nevertheless, given the very low biomass levels of Atlantic blue and
white marlin, and the importance of these species to the domestic recreational fishery, it is
prudent, and consistent with the precautionary management approach, to implement measures to
reduce post-release mortality to the extent practicable in the domestic recreational Atlantic

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-91

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

billfish fishery. The United States will continue to vigorously pursue international agreements at
ICCAT to reduce billfish mortality levels caused by foreign fishing vessels.
Comment 69: NMFS should designate all marlin, spearfish, sailfish, and sharks as catch­
and-release species, and allow fishing for these species only with rod and reel and circle hooks.
Response: In the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS proposed a prohibition on
landings of Atlantic white marlin. Although there was some support for this measure, many
commenters indicated that a white marlin landings prohibition was unnecessary, and that it
would produce significant adverse social and economic impacts. After much consideration,
NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time. Many HMS recreational anglers have a
strong conservation ethic, and already practice catch and release fishing for white marlin and
other species. Furthermore, the commercial sale of Atlantic billfish is prohibited, landings of
longbill spearfish are prohibited, and several shark species may not be landed. Strict quotas and
other management measures based upon the best available scientific information govern
commercial landings of most other shark species, while the recreational sector is required to
adhere to shark bag limits and minimum size restrictions. As a result, mandatory catch and
release in the recreational sector may not be necessary at this time and prohibiting all
commercial shark landings is not necessary. Domestically, the most important factor in
conserving billfish is to improve their survival after the catch and release experience. NMFS
prefers alternative E3 in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, which requires HMS permitted
fishermen to use non-offset circle hooks when using natural baits in billfish tournaments. This
measure would complement existing circle hook requirements in the commercial PLL fishery by
reducing post-release mortality and contributing to the rebuilding of Atlantic billfish stocks.
Comment 70: The economic effects associated with the proposed billfish measures go
far beyond the initial impacts that were analyzed in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP.
Response: NMFS appreciates this comment. Economic impacts are a fundamental
consideration in the Agency’s decision making. Oftentimes, however, the data are not sufficient
to predict, for example, how recreational anglers might react to proposed management measures.
If the measures change, would anglers switch to other species, quit fishing altogether, take fewer
trips, or travel shorter distances? Each of these potential behavioral reactions would impart
different economic impacts. One of the primary reasons for conducting public hearings and
soliciting public comment is to obtain supplemental information on the analyzed impacts
associated with proposed management measures. All written comments, as well as those
received verbally at public hearings, were considered by the Agency in the selection of preferred
management alternatives. NMFS will continue working to improve available social and
economic data and analyses.
Comment 71: NMFS should require a Billfish Certificate of Eligibility to help improve
compliance, facilitate enforcement and improve information on billfish shipments coming into
the United States.
Response: A Certificate of Eligibility for Billfishes is required under 50 CFR
635.31(b)(2)(ii), and must accompany all billfish, except for a billfish landed in a Pacific state
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-92

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

and remaining in the state of landing. This documentation certifies that the accompanying
billfish was not harvested from the Atlantic Ocean management unit, and identifies the vessel
landing the billfish, the vessel’s homeport, the port of offloading, and the date of offloading. The
certificate must accompany the billfish to any dealer or processor who subsequently receives or
processes the billfish. The certificate of eligibility helps to maintain the recreational nature of
Atlantic billfish fishery, with no commercial trade.
Comment 72: NMFS received a number of comments pertaining to pelagic longline
fishing, its impact on billfish, and suggestions for new management measures that should be
researched or implemented. The comments included: new data shows that just under 65 percent
of all white marlin caught as bycatch on pelagic longline vessels are dead, or die soon after being
released alive; it makes absolutely no sense to close fishing to the group that kills less than one
percent of the fish they catch while allowing the other group that kills almost 100 percent of the
billfish they catch to continue doing so. The major source of billfish mortality (pelagic
longlining) has still not been satisfactorily regulated to offer these fish adequate protection; the
commercial pelagic longline fishery is causing the decline in billfish abundance; billfish were
making a comeback until longline fishing of their prey species, dolphin and wahoo, was allowed.
Our club used to tag and release 35 to 40 marlins per year. Now we see only five to six marlin
tags and most of them are from the other side of the Gulf Stream; NMFS should limit the length
of pelagic longlines; and, limit the number of hooks that pelagic longline fishermen are allowed
to set, and require that pelagic longline vessels retrieve their gear every three hours to reduce
billfish mortality.
Response: Many commenters stated that the recreational HMS fishery has only a minor
impact on billfish populations relative to the commercial PLL fleet, and that additional
management measures should be imposed upon the commercial PLL fleet rather than upon the
recreational sector. To confirm the veracity of this long-held assumption, NMFS examined data
from the pelagic longline logbook program and the RBS, MRFSS, and LPS databases. New
information on recreational and commercial post-release mortality rates (Horodysky, 2005, and
Kerstetter, 2006, respectively), when combined with information from these data bases, indicates
that in some years, the total mortality contribution of the domestic recreational billfish fishery
may equal or exceed the total mortality contribution of the domestic pelagic longline fleet with
regard to Atlantic white marlin. As described in Appendix C of the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP, estimates of total annual recreational white marlin mortality, which combines landings,
dead discarded fish, and estimated post-release mortalities, vary greatly by data set and year.
MRFSS and LPS databases indicate that for the period 2001 – 2004, inclusive, that the aggregate
level of recreational mortality was approximately three times and two times higher, respectively,
than aggregate mortality contributions (dead discards and estimated post-release mortality) of the
domestic pelagic longline fleet. Using RBS data, a known subset of recreational effort,
estimated aggregate domestic recreational mortality with regard to white marlin appears to be
about 71 percent of estimated total domestic pelagic longline mortality for the same period.
When taken in combination, and in consideration of the limitations and uncertainties associated
with each data base involved, two general conclusions can be drawn: (1) The aggregate domestic
recreational fishing mortality contribution is higher than previously thought with regard to
Atlantic white marlin; and, (2) there is more parity between the mortality contributions of the
domestic recreational and domestic pelagic longline fleets than previously thought. Cramer
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-93

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

(2005) and Kerstetter (2006) also examined this same issue to varying degrees. Both papers
support the same basic conclusion drawn in this Final Consolidated HMS FMP, that in some
years, the domestic recreational billfish fishery may impose equivalent or even greater levels of
mortality on Atlantic white marlin populations than the domestic pelagic longline fishery. This
finding, which is contrary to the widely held beliefs, appears to be a result of new data indicating
higher post-release estimates for the recreationally released white marlin and the size differential
between the two fisheries. Presently, the domestic commercial PLL fleet is regulated by a
limited access permit program; observers; vessel upgrading restrictions; year-round and seasonal
closed areas; ICCAT-recommended quotas; minimum size restrictions; circle hook requirements;
bait restrictions; careful release protocols; mandatory logbooks; and a VMS requirement, among
others. The recreational HMS sector is governed by an open access permit program; minimum
size restrictions; reporting requirements for swordfish, BFT, and billfish; gear restrictions; a nosale provision; and possession limits for swordfish, sharks and tunas, among others. The
preferred billfish management measures are intended to reduce recreational post-release
mortality of white marlin, because current estimates are substantially higher that previously
thought. NMFS will continue to evaluate the need for additional management measures for both
the domestic PLL fleet and the recreational HMS fishery. NMFS also recognizes that foreign
commercial longline vessels contribute significantly to Atlantic billfish mortality, and will
continue to vigorously pursue international agreements at ICCAT to reduce these levels.
Comment 73: NMFS would be negligent not to require mandatory tournament
registration at this time. Registration should include all contests in which any prize, award
and/or monetary exchange is made relating to the capture of Atlantic HMS.
Response: NMFS requires that all tournament operators register any tournament
awarding points or prizes for HMS with the HMS Management Division, at least four weeks
prior to the commencement of the tournament. In the Regulatory Housekeeping section of
Chapter 2 of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, a clarification would be added to the regulations
specifying that tournament registration is not considered complete unless the operator has also
received a confirmation number from NMFS. This clarification is expected to improve the HMS
tournament registration process.
Comment 74: NMFS received some comment on the alternative E9, implement a
mandatory Atlantic HMS tournament permit, which was considered but not fully analyzed. I
support alternative E9, which would implement a mandatory HMS tournament permit, because
monitoring and enforcement of HMS tournaments is necessary; HMS tournaments need to be
permitted because we need reporting from them.
Response: As mentioned above, a clarification would be added to the regulations
specifying that HMS tournament registration is not considered complete unless the operator has
also received a confirmation number from NMFS. In the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP
alternative E9 was considered, but not further analyzed, because improvements to tournament
registration, data collection, and enforceability can be achieved with significantly less burden to
the public and government by instead requiring a tournament confirmation number. Because
HMS tournaments frequently change operators, names, and dates, a tournament permit would be
burdensome to administer and enforce. NMFS believes that requiring a tournament confirmation
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-94

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

number, issued by the HMS Management Division, would accomplish the same objective (i.e.,
increased compliance) as would a tournament permit.
D.3

Management Program Structure
D.3.1 Bluefin Tuna Quota Management Measures

Comment 1: NMFS received a number of comments on the management of the purse
seine sector of the Atlantic BFT fishery. These comments consisted of: BFT fisheries need every
opportunity to harvest the quota and not addressing the large medium tolerance limits imposed
on the purse seine sector in this rule is disappointing; the Purse Seine category should be allowed
to fish throughout the year provided quota is available; and the purse seine BFT fishery needs to
become a "true" individual transferable quota (ITQ) fishery and thereby not addressing the
ability to transfer purse seine quota outside the category is disappointing. Some comments stated
that the Purse Seine category should be eliminated from the BFT fishery or purse seine vessels
should be limited in the areas they fish to minimize any potential gear conflicts with commercial
and recreational handgear vessels.
Response: During this rulemaking, NMFS heard many comments regarding management
issues in the BFT fishery in general and the purse seine sector in particular that are beyond the
scope of this action. Many of these comments arise from recent issues regarding the status of
BFT, underharvests in recent years, and current size and trip limits. ICCAT is conducting a
stock assessment this summer that should provide additional information regarding the status of
BFT and the current rebuilding plan. In November 2006, ICCAT may recommend new
management measures for BFT. In addition to any future ICCAT recommendations for BFT,
NMFS intends to conduct a rulemaking regarding all HMS permits that could include, among
other things, further rationalizing some segments of the HMS fisheries, streamlining or
simplifying the permitting process, restructuring the permit process (gear-based, species-based,
or both), reopening some segments of the limited access system to allow for the issuance of
additional permits, modifying when permits are renewed (fishing year or birth month), and
considering dedicated access privileges (e.g., individual transferable permits). This future
rulemaking may be better suited to address the entire range of purse seine comments above.
Comment 2: NMFS received a few comments regarding PLL in general and the
incidental catch of BFT by PLL including: the effectiveness of the June PLL closure should be
reevaluated in light of circle hook catch data; the PLL fishery should be afforded a greater
opportunity to catch its targeted species of swordfish, allowable tunas, and sharks, especially
considering the existing protections for BFT in the GOM and Florida East Coast, as well as 100
percent circle hooks, careful handling and release tools, and certified training; NMFS should take
incremental steps to ensure that the Incidental Longline category fully utilizes its domestic BFT
allocation in order to reduce dead regulatory discards to the maximum extent feasible within this
category’s allocation; due to the overall underharvest of U.S. Atlantic BFT quota, NMFS should
cautiously relax the incidental catch criteria to reduce/eliminate regulatory discards and
effectively utilize this category’s quota.
Response: NMFS thoroughly analyzed the incidental catch requirements of BFT by PLL
vessels and published a Final Rule on May 30, 2003 (68 FR 32414), that substantially revised the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-95

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

management scheme for this incidental bycatch of BFT. NMFS continues to gather information
regarding the effectiveness of incidental harvest restrictions, as well as the effectiveness of all
bycatch reduction measures that have been implemented in the PLL fishery. In addition, as more
information becomes available, NMFS will reevaluate which measures, if any, it may be
appropriate to add, modify, reduce, and/or remove all together, as appropriate.
Comment 3: NMFS received two comments regarding rebuilding of the Western Atlantic
BFT stock. These comments consisted of: Agency efforts should be more focused on the
international BFT issues to be effective in rebuilding the stock; and, BFT stocks should be rebuilt
by preventing the commercial interests from overfishing.
Response: NMFS agrees that international cooperation is critical to rebuilding the BFT
stocks. The United States has been at the forefront of efforts to develop appropriate rebuilding
plans that balance biological and socio-economic imperatives and will continue to press the
international community to implement appropriate measures to rebuild Atlantic BFT stocks.
ICCAT recommended the current U.S. BFT TAC based on the 1998 stock assessment for the
Western Atlantic BFT stock and the rebuilding plan with the goal of achieving maximum
sustainable yield within 20 years. Under the current rebuilding plan, the United States needs to
maintain its allocation to prevent overfishing and contribute to rebuilding the stock. Allocation
of the U.S. quota to the commercial or recreational sector is conducted in accordance with the
international rebuilding plan. In the past few years, all the commercial BFT categories have
landed fewer fish than their allocations would allow for. Further, ATCA requires that no
regulation promulgated under ATCA may have the effect of increasing or decreasing any
allocation or quota of fish or fishing mortality level to which the United States agreed pursuant to
a recommendation of ICCAT.
Comment 4: Are herring issues addressed in this document in terms of the impacts they
are having on BFT?
Response: Atlantic herring are currently managed under a separate fishery management
plan by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). The Atlantic herring fishery
management plan is being amended. During a NEFMC meeting on January 31, 2006, the
NEFMC approved a seasonal purse seine/fixed-gear-only fishery for the Western Gulf of Maine
(Area 1A) from June 1 through September 31. The NEFMC's action recognizes the importance
of herring in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem. In addition, NMFS recognizes the importance of
considering ecosystem interactions in fishery management planning, and addresses ecosystem
management as one of the goals of the NMFS Strategic Plan. The Agency continues to work
toward integrating an ecosystem approach into fishery management practices.
Comment 5: Yellowfin tuna should not take a "back seat" to BFT, and NMFS needs to
put more resources into yellowfin tuna data collection, analyses, and regulation.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance of yellowfin tuna to the U.S. fishing
industry. The latest SCRS report indicates that the current fishing mortality rate may be higher
than that which would support maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. NMFS has
chosen to take the precautionary approach managing YFT since they are considered fullyCONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-96

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

exploited by taking a number of actions during, and since, the implementation of the 1999 FMP
to address the management of the YFT fisheries (e.g., imposing limited access on the longline
and purse seine sectors of the fleet and implementing a recreational retention limit). By taking
initiatives for conservation measures, the United States will have a stronger negotiating position
at ICCAT should additional management measures be necessary. NMFS currently has reporting
programs in place to collect commercial and recreational YFT data. This information, in turn, is
then provided to ICCAT and the SCRS to be compiled with other information from member
nations to be used in assessing the YFT stock. Therefore, NMFS maintains that no further action
regarding the YFT fisheries is necessary at this time. However, NMFS will continue to monitor
the status of the YFT fisheries as SCRS has indicated that the yellowfin tuna stock is fullyexploited and will pursue future actions if warranted.
Comment 6: Does NMFS have the authority to close an area or region to BFT fishing via
an inseason action?
Response: NMFS has the regulatory authority to provide for maximum utilization of the
BFT quota by conducting various types of inseason actions. The inseason actions may consist
of: increasing or decreasing the General category daily retention limits; adding or waiving RFDs;
increasing or decreasing the recreational retention limit for any size-class BFT or change a vessel
trip limit to an angler limit and vice versa; conducting quota transfers to/from any fishing
category or to the Reserve; closing domestic quota categories based on when that quota is
reached, or is projected to be reached; and, closing/reopening the Angling category BFT fishery
by accounting for variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of BFT, or
catch rates in one area, which may have precluded anglers in another area from a reasonable
opportunity to harvest a portion of the Angling category quota. The Angling category BFT
fishery or part of the fishery may be reopened at a later date if it is determined that BFT migrated
into the other area. NMFS must consider specific sets of criteria prior to conducting each type of
inseason action. Currently, NMFS has multiple sets of criteria, each one designed for a specific
type of inseason action, that are used in making a determination, however in this action NMFS
prefers to consolidate those lists to assist in making the inseason action determination process
more transparent as well as consistent.
The end results of some inseason actions may be perceived as a geographic closure. For
instance, if NMFS were to implement a number of consecutive RFDs in the General category it
would suspend fishing activities for that time period. NMFS also has the ability to conduct an
interim closure in the Angling category as described above. An area closure for any other BFT
category or a multi-year area closure for any BFT category would require a regulatory
amendment, including public comment.
Comment 7: The SAFMC supports alternative F3(c), which accommodates the
opportunity for a winter BFT fishery. Further, the Council supported an equitable BFT quota
allocation for the South Atlantic region (North Carolina southward), as well as any other actions
that would ensure fishermen in all the South Atlantic states (North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida’s East coast) have an opportunity to participate in this fishery. The
SAMFC is concerned about the proposed January 1 starting date for BFT fishing because it will
prevent underages from being carried over into the following January of the new fishing year.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-97

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

The ability to carry these underages forward can keep the fishery open through the month of
January, which is critical to the fisheries south of North Carolina, off South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida.
Response: Currently, the last General category time-period spans the winter BFT fishery
which usually begins in November and runs through the end of the General category season (at
the latest on January 31). Under the preferred alternative (F3(c)), the current time-period of
October through January and the associated subquota would be adjusted so that the later portion
of the fishery would consist of three separate time-periods; October through November,
December, and January. With the implementation of the preferred alternative in the CY/FY
section, the December and January time-periods would fall in separate fishing years. The
situation of having an active fishery occurring across fishing years did not occur prior to the
1999 FMP, which originally adjusted the BFT fishery from a calendar year to a fishing year that
spans two calendar years. Under the preferred alternative, the January time-period would be
allocated 5.3 percent of the coastwide General category quota as and annual baseline quota. As
indicated in Section 4.3.1.1, there are several options that may be used to address the disposition
of carryover of any under or overharvest during the December time-period. In the first
alternative, any under or overharvest could be entirely rolled over into January of the following
fishing year and added to the baseline 5.3 percent allocation. Under this scenario, the entire
underharvest would be added to the January time-period subquota, or the entire overharvest
would be subtracted from the time-period subquota. In another potential alternative, 5.3 percent
of the under or overharvest may be applied to the January time-period in addition to the baseline
5.3 percent allocation. In a third alternative, no under or overharvest may be applied in addition
to the January time-period subquota. NMFS will work with the affected constituents through the
annual BFT specification process to determine the most appropriate approach based on
constituent needs and Federal regulatory requirements.
Comment 8: The allocations between domestic quota categories should be adjusted,
specifically increasing the quota for the Angling category.
Response: The Agency did not consider a modification to the sector allocations in this
action; therefore, a separate rulemaking and FMP amendment would be needed to consider an
increase in the allocation to the Angling category. The original allocations are a reflection of the
sector’s historical share of the landings during the 1983 through 1991 time period and were
codified as part of the 1999 FMP process. The Agency would need to initiate an amendment to
the FMP to modify the sector allocations for BFT.
Comment 9: NMFS received numerous comments for and against the adjustment of the
General category time-periods and associated subquotas. Those comments in support of an
adjustment include: September through December have been the strongest months for BFT
fishing and should have their allocations increased; General category time-period subquota
allocations should allow for a dependable winter BFT fishery according to the percentages in the
NCDMF Petition for Rulemaking; General category time-period and subquota allocations should
reflect the migration of the fish through a particular area; there needs to be a balance between
flexibility and predictability; the General category should be split across 12 months of equal
portions and any arbitrary closure date should be removed to allow full harvest of the quota; is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-98

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

there a biological reason we do not allow the General category BFT fishery to be prosecuted in
the months of February through May; all preferred alternatives should allow for the full
utilization of the available quota so the United States can prove we have a stake in these
fisheries. Vessels need to be able to catch fish and then make money off those fish to reinvest
into the fishery in the following years as this is a sign of a healthy fishery; catching wild BFT
throughout the year is in the best interests of U.S. fishermen and the United States should remove
any arbitrary controls (e.g., seasonal closures) to allow for the harvest of U.S. quota; and,
regardless of which alternative is preferred, when the fishery converts back to the calendar year,
a methodology needs to be developed to allow quota to carry forward from December into
January, i.e., across years, in a timely fashion. In addition, there was broad support at the March
2005 AP meeting for revising the General category time-periods and subquotas to allow for a
winter fishery, due to the slight increase in quota as well as on informal agreements between user
groups and the Agency.
Comments in opposition of an adjustment include: the Agency needs to manage the BFT
fishery in the traditional manner; and changing the General category time-periods and subquotas
will have negative impacts on the traditional New England fishermen.
Response: The preferred subalternative to amend the coastwide General category timeperiods and their associated subquota allocations would strike a balance between formalizing a
winter fishery, acknowledging recent trends in the BFT fishery, as well as recognizing the
traditional patterns of the fishery. The preferred alternative would also allow for proper business
planning throughout the entire General category season. In light of recent underharvests in the
General category, NMFS is acutely aware of the need to provide reasonable opportunities to
harvest the General category quota, and how this relates to requests to extend the fishery
throughout the year. However, as catch rates in the BFT fishery can increase quite dramatically
in a short time period, there are concerns in allowing a fishery to emerge that may be
unsustainable or cause overcapitalization on a species that is currently designated as overfished.
Comment 10: NMFS received comments both in favor of and opposed to the preferred
alternative to establish General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic set-asides via
annual framework actions. The comment in favor stated the preferred alternative allows for a
balance between flexibility and predictability in the General category BFT fishery. The
comment opposed stated the overall BFT management program should not be modified.
Response: Annual regulatory framework actions would be used to establish and adjust the
General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic set-asides. This procedural change to
the management of this category would expedite the process, providing the agency with greater
flexibility to adapt to changes in the fishery and the industry with greater predictability in the
management of the General category’s upcoming fishing year. The General category would
have consistent time-periods and subquota allocations from one year to the next unless ICCAT
provides a new recommendation for the U.S. BFT TAC.
Comment 11: NMFS received a number of comments opposing the removal of the
Angling category North/South dividing line and one comment supporting its removal. The
comments include: the BFT North/South dividing line should be maintained as it was created to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-99

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

provide “fair and equitable” distribution of the BFT quota; it appears that the reason for
removing the North/South line is not due to a lack of real time data, but because of participant
noncompliance with the current call-in system; NMFS should maintain the North/South line and
devise a reliable real-time data collection system for recreational BFT landings; the North/South
line should be maintained and the funds used to support the current LPS program should be
reallocated to implement tail tag programs at the state level, similar to North Carolina and
Maryland; and, the agency should develop more recreational set-asides to further ensure that
recreational participants are provided an equitable opportunity to harvest a portion of the
Angling category quota.
Response: NMFS has modified the preferred alternative, F4, from the Draft HMS FMP
by removing the proposal to eliminate the North/South Angling category dividing line and
thereby maintaining the status quo regarding this recreational management tool.
NMFS acknowledges the recreational fishery supports the North/South line for a variety of
socio-economic reasons. Based on the social and economic impacts associated with the status
quo alternative, NMFS has opted to prefer retaining the North/South line at this time. However,
for this management tool to be most effective, NMFS requires real-time BFT landings data from
the recreational sector. To date, compliance with the recreational Automated Landing Reporting
System (ALRS) has been low, thus hindering the real-time effectiveness of this management
tool. If compliance with the ALRS requirements increases or, as recreational catch monitoring
programs are improved over time, the effectiveness of this management tool may increase.
Comment 12: NMFS received two comments regarding the clarification of the school
size-class BFT tolerance calculation. One comment supported the preferred alternative which
would calculate the school size-class tolerance amount prior to accounting for the NED set-aside
quota because it brings the calculation more in line with the ICCAT recommendation regarding
school size-class BFT tolerances. The second comment stated there was no recreational input
when the tolerance limit was implemented, and the tolerance limit should be 15 or 16-percent of
the total quota.
Response: The preferred alternative would clarify the procedure NMFS uses to calculate
the ICCAT recommended eight percent tolerance for BFT under 115 cm (young school and
school BFT), thus implementing the ICCAT recommendation more accurately based on the
specific language contained in the recommendation. Regarding the comment stating a lack of
recreational input in developing the eight percent tolerance limit for the smaller size classes of
BFT, ATCA authorizes domestic implementation of ICCAT- adopted management measures,
and provides that no U.S. regulation may have the effect of either increasing or decreasing the
quota or fishing mortality level adopted by ICCAT. ATCA also provides that not more than
three Commissioners shall represent the United States in ICCAT. Of the three U.S.
Commissioners, one must have knowledge and experience regarding recreational fishing in the
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean Sea. In addition to having a recreational
commissioner, the U.S. Commissioners are required to constitute an Advisory Committee to the
U.S. National Section to ICCAT. This body, to the maximum extent practicable, consists of an
equitable balance representing the interests of various groups concerned with the fisheries
covered by the Convention, including those of the recreational community.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-100

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 13: NMFS received a number of comments for and against implementing a
rollover limitation for each domestic quota category. Those in support of the limitation include:
a rollover cap should be implemented, but the cap should be set lower because a rollover of up to
100 percent of a category’s baseline allocation could be harmful to the fishery in future years as
it would lead to unsustainable overcapitalization; and NMFS must develop a way to track size
classes of BFT entering the Reserve category as a result of this cap, so there are no conflicts with
overall mortality estimates.
Comments in opposition of the rollover limitation include: rollover of quotas should be
eliminated to increase conservation; limiting the amount of quota that categories can roll over is
not appropriate at this time; NMFS should not get ahead of ICCAT as it compromises the U.S.
delegations' ability to negotiate multilateral implementation in the future; long term ramifications
of lost quota have not been fully explored on both domestic and international fronts; and the
United States should not ask any more of its citizens while quota is not harvested, and
international conservation measures are not equivalent.
Other comments NMFS received regarding this issue include: when there is surplus quota
in commercial categories, recreational anglers should be permitted to take part of this surplus;
categories should not be punished or rewarded for not harvesting the quota until all arbitrary
regulations have been removed; the Agency needs to proceed cautiously with rolling over quota
in case there is a stock issue; however, the United States needs to maintain control of the
underharvests due to the lack of conservation of other member nations; rollovers from the
previous fishing year should be accessible in January time period if the preferred alternative to
change back to a calendar year is implemented; uncaught sub-period quota should be rolled
forward to allow for year-round General category landings. If the fishing year is changed to
January 1, then any prior year’s uncaught quota should be allowed to be caught between
February 1 and May 31; implementing a domestic rollover limitation would adversely affect our
ability to negotiate at ICCAT as the bottom line remains the same regardless of which domestic
category the underharvest resides in; rollover limitations are helpful, however this item should be
addressed at ICCAT; and, the Agency needs to be aware of the ripple effects quota rollovers
have on business planning late in the season.
Response: The preferred alternative would grant NMFS the authority to limit the amount
of BFT quota that may be carried forward from one fishing year to the next. By establishing a
limitation that may be imposed on each domestic quota category, except the Reserve, NMFS
would be better equipped to address quota stockpiling situations if they arise. The
implementation of the preferred alternative would not preclude the use of inseason quota
transfers to any of the domestic quota categories if warranted. Due to the different size classes
that each category may target, the number of BFT per metric ton may differ; therefore the origin
of the quota entering the must be noted, to ensure mortality levels are consistent with those
accounted for in the stock assessment. NMFS is also aware that the preferred alternative would
have minimal if any conservation benefits on the Western Atlantic BFT stock as a whole. NMFS
supports an international discussion on the use of rollover caps, as well as their pros and cons.
Implementing the potential use of a cap domestically should not adversely affect the U.S.
delegation's ability to negotiate and play a strong role on this issue as U.S. BFT quota levels will
remain consistent under this alternative.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-101

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 14: NMFS received comments supporting the consolidation of the inseason
action determination criteria. These comments consisted of: revising and consolidating the
criteria for BFT management actions improves the agencies flexibility and consistency in making
determinations; and the preferred alternative should be preferred, however, it needs to be
clarified if the criteria have a different ranking of importance.
Response: Consolidating and refining the criteria that NMFS must consider prior to
conducting any inseason, and some annual, actions would assist in meeting the consolidated
HMS FMP's objectives in a consistent manner, providing reasonable fishing opportunities,
increasing the transparency in the decision making process, and balancing the resource's needs
with users’ needs. The criteria listed are in no particular order of importance and would be fully
considered, as appropriate, in making a determination; however, in some circumstances, not all
criteria will be relevant to the decision making process.
Comment 15: NMFS received a number of comments that did not directly speak to
actions being proposed in the Consolidated HMS FMP, but are more general in nature or are
more pertinent to the recently proposed 2006 Atlantic BFT Quota Specification and effort
controls. These comments consist of: the maximum three fish per day General category bag
limit should be eliminated. Flexibility to set it higher may be needed as the fishery evolves and
to allow for the possibility of a distant water General category fishery; NMFS should relax the
“tails on tuna” requirement. The tail is not necessary for species identification. This
requirement prevents higher quality cleaning and storage at sea. Many years of data confirm that
prohibited undersized tunas are either not encountered or are extremely rare in this fishery.
ICCAT has eliminated the minimum size for some Atlantic tunas. The tails on requirement is an
unnecessary and costly burden that should be removed; NMFS is using RFDs to deny fishermen
a reasonable opportunity to catch the quota and to make U.S. fishermen do more to conserve
BFT than fishermen from other countries with ICCAT BFT quotas. NMFS should not
implement RFDs unless the General category quota is in immediate danger of being exceeded.
NMFS should remove every domestic restriction that denies U.S. fishermen a reasonable
opportunity to catch the quota.
Response: This action does not address these specific items, however, the 2006 Atlantic
BFT quota specifications and effort controls address retention limits, as well as the use of RFDs
in the coastwide General category. The final initial 2006 specifications published on May 30,
2006 (71 FR 30619). Regarding the removal of tuna tails, NMFS has received past comments
and from the industry, particularly the HMS CHB sector, to investigate this possibility.
However, it remains a concern that the proposal to process HMS at sea would compromise
enforcement of domestic size limits. To date, NMFS has been able to enforce the domestic size
limits for HMS through curved measurements. This has been an efficient and effective way of
enforcing size limits.
Comment 16: NMFS received comments requesting changes in the allowable use of
harpoons on CHB vessels. These comments include: NMFS should authorize the use of
harpoons as primary gear to target giant BFT from the pulpit of CHBs to allow maximum
flexibility. With the cost of doing business rising daily and the fishery changing dramatically
over the past few years, this antiquated prohibition needs to be modified to allow CHB operators
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-102

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

the opportunity and versatility to harpoon BFT on days that they are not carrying paying
passengers. This rule was originally written to curb the sale of undersized BFT, which is no
longer an issue.
Response: In 1993, NMFS created a recreational Atlantic tunas permit that was required
for those CHB or privately operated vessels targeting any of the regulated Atlantic tuna species.
This rulemaking also established a list of allowable gears that can be used to harvest tunas. In
1995, NMFS removed the ability for vessels to hold more than one permit at a time. In that 1995
rulemaking, NMFS proposed, collected comment on, and finalized a list of authorized gears for
the CHB sector of the fishery. Harpoons were not proposed as an authorized gear, nor were any
comments received requesting this gear type be authorized for CHB vessels at that time;
therefore, harpoon gear was not listed as an authorized primary gear type at that time. As NMFS
has conducted a number of rulemakings regarding permits, permissible gears, and targeted
species, NMFS intends to conduct a comprehensive rulemaking regarding all HMS permits that
could include, among other things, further rationalizing some segments of the HMS fisheries or
restructuring the permit process (gear-based, species-based, or both). This future rulemaking
may be better suited to address further revisions to authorized gears and the permitting structure
for managed HMS. The issue of allowing the use of various gears to subdue HMS caught on
authorized primary gears was analyzed in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. Please refer to
discussions of Authorized Fishing Gear.
D.3.2 Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
Comment 1: Support and opposition for administratively adjusting all HMS fisheries to a
calendar year were expressed in public comments. Commenters asked the following: what has
changed since fisheries were originally shifted from a calendar year; Is the United States in
compliance with ICCAT reporting requirements using a fishing year? Several commenters
stated that use of a fishing year was not a disadvantage at ICCAT.
Response: The preferred alternative would adjust tuna, swordfish, and billfish fisheries
so that all HMS fisheries occur on a calendar year. The previous shift from a calendar year to a
fishing year (1996 for swordfish, 1999 for tuna and billfish) accommodated domestic markets for
swordfish and provided additional time for rulemaking to implement ICCAT recommendations,
since ICCAT traditionally meets in November of each year. Use of a fishing year is allowed by
ICCAT. Since the fishing year was implemented for these species, several aspects of the
fisheries and their management have changed. For the past several years, the United States has
not fully harvested its swordfish quota, and has carried-over quota underharvest from one year to
the next. Because of this underharvest, summer swordfish markets have not been limited by the
amount of quota available, and starting the fishing year in early summer to avoid quota shortfalls
has been unnecessary. In addition, after several years of experience with ICCAT negotiations
since the United States implemented the fishing year, NMFS and the United States’ ICCAT
delegation have found that it is difficult to be assertive in pursuing international enforcement of
ICCAT recommendations when the catch data the United States submits is misunderstood and/or
suspect because of the confusing fishing year reporting schedule. NMFS has determined that
adjusting tuna, swordfish, and billfish fisheries to a calendar year would increase transparency in
U.S. data and statistics, and help focus on achieving domestic and international fishery
management objectives such as reducing/eliminating IUU fishing.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-103

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 2: Commentors expressed concern about the timely implementation of ICCAT
recommendations under a calendar year, the potential disadvantage to U.S. fishermen if ICCAT
recommendations were not implemented in a timely fashion, and the need for fishery
specifications to be available prior to the start of calendar year fisheries.
Response: NMFS recognizes that switching back to a calendar year would reduce the
amount of time between the adoption of ICCAT recommendations in November and the start of
calendar year fisheries on January 1. This HMS FMP would adjust the process for issuing
annual BFT specifications by consolidating the analysis in the FMP itself, and thus reducing the
annual burden and associated amount of time necessary for promulgation of the annual
specifications. NMFS anticipates that BFT specifications would usually be issued on time using
these newly adopted procedures. Although ICCAT recommendations that can adjust quotas may
be adopted at any time, usually such adjustments occur after stock assessments, which are
performed at several year intervals. Thus, on average, more complex rulemakings are
anticipated to occur less frequently. NMFS notes that rulemakings that adjust quotas or
implement other significant changes in fishery management programs usually require more than
the amount of time (e.g. seven months) that would have been available between adoption of a
recommendation at ICCAT and start of the fishing year, if fisheries had been maintained on a
fishing year schedule rather than adjusted to a calendar year.
Comment 3: Commentors expressed opposition to the adjustment to a calendar year
because of potential socio-economic impacts of a shift to calendar year in combination with the
proposed ICCAT 250 marlin limit, particularly for billfish tournaments. Commenters stated the
following: a basic analysis demonstrating the economic importance of billfish tournaments
should be included, and millions of dollars of prize money is missing from the current analysis;
what is the impact if a large tournament that happened later in the year was restricted to catch
and release fishing only; and, it appears that adjusting all HMS fisheries to a fishing year would
socio-economically benefit most HMS fisheries.
Response: The HMS FMP identifies that the potential for reaching the ICCAT marlin
250 limit is low and subsequent prohibition of marlin landings unlikely. Over the past several
years, U.S. billfish landings have only been attained in a single year. In addition, the FMP
includes a measure that would allow increases in size limits as a means of reducing landings to
avoid attaining the limit and implementation of catch and release fishing only. Despite the
limited potential for reaching the limit, the Consolidated HMS FMP analyzes potential impacts
should the limit be attained, using the worse case scenario that tournaments would be cancelled if
the limit were attained. This analysis indicates that socio-economic impacts could be higher
under a calendar year scenario. These impacts could be mitigated if tournaments implemented a
requirement for catch and release. On balance, NMFS anticipates that the benefits provided by
switching to a calendar year and other regulatory adjustments set forth in the Consolidated HMS
FMP will outweigh potential negative impacts. NMFS did not identify, nor did commenters
provide, any positive socio-economic impacts for switching the shark fishery to a fishing year.
Impacts of concern for ICCAT managed fisheries (e.g. tuna, swordfish, and billfish) are
discussed above.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-104

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 4: Several commentors questioned the effect of a change to calendar year on
the January General category BFT fishery, particularly the disposition of quota underages that
may have occurred in the previous calendar year. Commentors stated the following: I oppose a
shift to calendar year because of the potential negative impacts to southeastern fishermen; and, I
support a roll-over provision from December to January similar to the rollover provision that
exists between sub-periods during a fishing year.
Response: The HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(1) divide the General category
quota into three subperiods including June through August, September, and October through
January. These regulations further state that NMFS will adjust General category subperiod
quotas based on under- or overharvest during the previous subperiod. Currently, the last
subperiod spans the winter south Atlantic BFT fishery which usually begins in November until
the General category closes (at the latest on January 31). Under the Consolidated HMS FMP,
these subperiods would be adjusted so that the winter fishery would include separate subperiods
in December and January, each of which occur in a separate fishing year. The situation of
having an active fishery occurring across the change of quota years did not occur prior to the
1999 FMP, which originally adjusted the BFT fishery to a fishing year. In addition, prior to
2003, the BFT fishery rarely experienced underharvest and roll-over of unharvested quota.
Under this Consolidated HMS FMP, the January subperiod would be provided with a quota of
5.3 percent of the annual ICCAT allocation. In consideration of a potential underharvest and
rollover of General category quota from one calendar year to the next (i.e., December to
January), NMFS has explored various ways to manage this situation. A preferred approach
would depend upon the magnitude of the underharvest and the needs of the fishery at the time.
Several potential alternatives regarding the disposition of carryover of any under or overharvest
during the December subperiod are discussed in Chapter 4 of the Consolidated HMS FMP. In
the first alternative, any under or overharvest could be fully rolled over into January of the
following fishing year in addition to the baseline 5.3 percent. Under this scenario, the entire
underharvest would be added to the January subperiod quota, or the entire overharvest would be
subtracted from the subperiod quota. In another potential alternative, 5.3 percent of the under- or
overharvest would be applied to the January subperiod in addition to the baseline 5.3 percent. In
a third alternative, no under- or overharvest would be applied in addition to the January
subperiod 5.3 percent allocation. NMFS will work with the affected constituents through the
annual BFT specification process to determine the most appropriate approach based on
constituent needs and Federal requirements.
D.3.3 Authorized Fishing Gear
Comment 1: NMFS received several comments in support of and opposed to the
introduction of new gear. Comments supporting the introduction of new gears include:
expansion of authorized gears would be acceptable in underexploited fisheries. Gears without
bycatch problems could improve the availability of swordfish to the American public; and, gear
innovations should not be stymied. Comments opposed to the introduction of new gears include:
I am opposed to the introduction any new commercial fisheries; do not allow new effective gears
in fisheries that are undergoing rebuilding; do not allow any new gear types, especially for BFT;
why should NMFS authorize new gears?; NMFS has reported that all HMS fisheries are fully
harvested or overfished. NMFS’s proposal to legalize new commercial gear violates National
Standard 1, which is to prevent or end overfishing of tuna, swordfish, billfish, and sharks; this
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-105

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

will not permit overfished stocks to rebuild. Additional new commercial gear can only result in
fully harvested HMS becoming overfished; we do not support allowing new gears into
overfished fisheries except for use as experimental fishing permits; NMFS proposes to authorize
new commercial gear types that can only increase the harvest of HMS; and, there is a lot of
resistance to new gears in the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: As current or traditional gears are modified and new gears are developed,
NMFS needs to be cognizant of these advances to gauge their potential impacts on target catch
rates, bycatch rates, and protected species interactions, all of which can have important
management implications. While new and innovative gears and techniques need to be evaluated
by NMFS to increase efficiency and reduce bycatch in fisheries for Atlantic HMS, the Agency
does not prefer any new fishing gears for the HMS commercial fisheries at this time. Further,
this action would not authorize any new gears for the bluefin tuna commercial or recreational
fisheries.
In this action, NMFS considered the definition and authorization of speargun gear, greenstick gear, and buoy gear, as well as the clarification of the allowable use of handheld cockpit
gears. At this time, NMFS prefers to authorize only one new gear for the HMS fisheries,
recreational speargun fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas. BFT are excluded from the list of
allowable target species for speargun gear due to the recent declining performance of the existing
BFT fishery, recent quota limited situations within the BFT Angling category, and ongoing
concerns over stock status. All sale of tuna harvested with this gear type would be prohibited in
order to clarify the intent of authorizing this gear type, which would allow a small group of
fishermen an opportunity to use spearguns to recreationally target BAYS tuna. Relative to the
current number of participants in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery, and taking into account
the estimated low encounter rates for target species, the additional anticipated effort from
spearfishermen would likely result in minimal increased landings compared with the landings by
current Angling and CHB category participants. A limited number of additional individual
fishermen would be expected to use this gear type, and spearfishermen may actually fish for
months or years without having an opportunity to spear a tuna.
The preferred buoy gear alternative would not authorize a new gear; rather, it would
rename the handline fishery for commercial swordfish and limit the number of gears deployed in
this fishery. Defining buoy gear was necessary because the Final Consolidated HMS FMP
would also modify the handline definition to require that the gear be attached to a vessel.
Therefore, under the preferred alternative, the commercial swordfish handgear fishery would be
the only fishery where free-floating handlines, now referred to as buoy gear, would be
authorized. Under the preferred alternative, buoy gear fishermen would be limited to possessing
or deploying no more than 35 floatation devices, with no more than two hooks or gangions
attached to each individual gear. Prior to this action, buoy gear had been utilized with no limit
on the number of gears deployed, as long as each gear had no more than two hooks attached and
it was released and retrieved by hand. Also, both recreational and commercial fishermen were
able to use this gear in areas closed to PLL gear. Under the preferred alternative, buoy gear
would be prohibited for use by all commercial fishermen without a swordfish handgear or
directed limited access permit and by all recreational fishermen. Additionally, when targeting
swordfish commercially, the number of individual gears a vessel may possess or deploy would
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-106

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

be limited to no more than 35. Vessels with directed swordfish or swordfish handgear LAPs
may use this gear type to capture swordfish in pelagic longline closed areas, provided all longline
gear has been removed from the vessel. While buoy gear would be allowed in the Gulf of
Mexico, the swordfish handgear fishery does not appear to be widespread and operates primarily
off the East Coast of Florida, according to public comment.
Based on public comment, the Agency prefers to clarify the authorized configuration of
green-stick gear, rather than proceed with authorization and definition of the gear-type that may
further add to the confusion and have unintended negative consequences to the fishery and
resource. Public comments were opposed to and supported authorizing green-stick gear for the
commercial harvest of Atlantic BAYS tunas; expressed considerable confusion over the current
regulatory regime; were concerned about the need for better reporting, monitoring, and overall
data collection for this gear-type; and expressed a need to further understand the gear’s technical
nature.
Comment 2: Commercial HMS handline gear, buoy gear, and green-sticks should be
prohibited in the closed areas.
Response: The current HMS closed areas were specifically developed for a particular
gear type (e.g., PLL or BLL) to reduce bycatch and discards. There are no time/area closures for
buoy and handline gear. If a green-stick is configured with more than two hooks, then it would
meet the definition of longline, and thus, would also be prohibited from certain closed areas.
Comment 3: NMFS received comment from individuals concerned about the bycatch
associated with the introduction of new gears. Those comments include: small tuna fisheries,
like NMFS is trying to promote with the handline, buoy, and green-stick fisheries will negatively
impact marlin stocks because they target marlin prey species; and, were any bycatch analyses
conducted for the proposed authorized gears?
Response: This action would not change the currently allowed and authorized use of
green-stick gear in any HMS commercial fishery. This action would make a distinction between
handlines and buoy gear, such that handlines must be attached to the vessel and buoy gear would
be allowed to float freely; however, both handlines and buoy gear were authorized and used in
HMS fisheries commercially and recreationally prior to this action. The preferred alternative
would limit buoy gear use to the commercial swordfish fishery for individuals with a swordfish
handgear or directed limited access permit. No HMS other than swordfish could be harvested
with buoy gear. Because swordfish is not a marlin prey species, the Agency does not believe
buoy gear will have a negative impact on marlin stocks. No bycatch analyses are available for
handline or buoy gear, but data from the logbooks were reviewed. The HMS logbook does not
distinguish between attached and unattached handlines, so specific information on unattached
handline (or buoy gear) catch is limited. In general, the HMS commercial handline fishery has
relatively few discards. While there are no bycatch analyses available for recreational speargun
fishing, public comment suggests that the number of individuals using this gear would be small
and those that do use the gear, expect low encounter rates with target species. According to
public comment, this fishery is highly selective and the gear has been designed to retain speared

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-107

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

fish and reduce fish loss. With the authorization of this gear for the recreational harvest of
BAYS tunas only, information about speargun catch will be captured via the MRFSS and LPS.
Comment 4: NMFS should clarify the HMS authorized gear regulations to allow for gear
stowage provisions. Such provisions would enable vessels to diversify, and would also provide
vessels with the ability to operate in other fisheries. The Northeast gear stowage provision needs
to be acknowledged in the HMS regulations.
Response: A gear stowage provision for HMS permitted vessels was not considered in
this action and, therefore, is not authorized at this time. NMFS has concerns about the
enforceability of such a provision in HMS closed areas. The Agency would appreciate
additional comments on situations where gear stowage provisions are necessary, as well as for
which particular gears and areas. A gear stowage provision may be considered in a future
rulemaking, if appropriate.
Comment 5: NMFS received comment from individuals concerned about the use of
gillnets in HMS fisheries. These comments include: the Georgia Coastal Resources Division
supports the removal of shark gillnet from the list of authorized HMS gear; and, gillnets should
not be an authorized gear, particularly sink gillnets due to interactions with protected resources
and other bycatch. If NMFS is going to continue to allow gillnets, the vessels should be required
to use VMS year round.
Response: NMFS considered prohibiting the use of shark gillnet gear as part of a range of
commercial management measures to prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks, but did not pursue
this option because finetooth sharks would continue to discarded dead in other non-HMS
fisheries, and thus, would not likely prevent overfishing. In this action, NMFS is preferring an
alternative that would require shark gillnet vessel owners and operators to obtain the protected
species safe handling and release workshop certification. The goal for this workshop would be
to reduce the mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other protected species. At this
time, vessels issued a directed shark LAP with a gillnet on board that are away from port during
the right whale calving season must have VMS on board. This action did not consider expanding
this condition to require VMS on shark gillnet vessels year round.
Comment 6: There is a lot of confusion regarding the proposed gears. The process needs
to slow down, and we need to make sure we understand what our goal is. We should be
encouraging innovation. Each gear needs to be reviewed to determine where each gear
appropriately fits; the public is going to need more education on the proposed gears and
associated requirements. The Agency needs to clarify before authorizing; and, the language in
the alternatives needs to be looked at, it appears some alternatives are allowing use to continue
and others are allowing its entry.
Response: While NMFS encourages the use of clean and efficient gears, this action
would authorize the use of only one new gear type due to the stock status of several HMS.
Speargun fishing gear would be authorized in the HMS Angling category and users would be
allowed to target Atlantic BAYS tunas recreationally. It would not be authorized for BFT, or
any other HMS. The preferred alternative for buoy gear would not be an introduction of new
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-108

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

gear, rather a clarification of an existing gear and a restriction on the number of floatation
devices used in the existing commercial swordfish handgear fishery. In an effort to reduce
confusion and increase compliance, NMFS will modify the HMS compliance guide and other
outreach materials to reflect these changes to the HMS authorized gears.
Comment 7: NMFS must clarify that a longline vessel is allowed to use the following
fishing gears when not longline fishing: handgear including, harpoon, handline, and rod and reel
(plus the green-stick method, if authorized).
Response: The HMS regulations at § 635.21(e)(1) state that if an Atlantic BFT is retained
or in possession, the vessel may employ only the gear authorized for the particular Atlantic tunas
or HMS permit category issued to the vessel. In other words, with a BFT on board and an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit issued to the vessel, only longline gear may be possessed or
employed. When fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas, the vessel may employ fishing gear
authorized for any Atlantic Tunas permit category. The two exceptions are that purse seine gear
may be used only on board vessels permitted in the Purse Seine category and pelagic longline
gear may be used only on board vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline category tuna permit
as well as LAPs for both swordfish and sharks. When targeting Atlantic BAYS tunas with an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, a vessel may use handgear (i.e., harpoon, handline, rod and reel,
and bandit gear) provided BFT are not in possession or retained on board the vessel. However,
the vessel must possess all applicable and valid Federal permits, possess the safe-handling and
release placard and equipment, and abide by the longline gear restrictions (e.g., closed areas and
circle hooks). If a vessel is fishing in a closed area and has longline gear on board, it is a
rebuttable presumption that longline gear was used to catch any fish on board that vessel. Greenstick and rod and reel gear may be utilized on a pelagic longline vessel, so long as all other PLL
management measures are adhered to, including the use of circle hooks.
Spearfishing
Comment 8: NMFS received numerous comments supporting the authorization of
speargun gear in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery, specifically alternative H2, which would
authorize speargun fishing gear in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery. The comments include:
authorizing speargun fishing gear for Atlantic tunas would provide very high economic benefits
and produce very low ecological impacts; the impact of tuna spearfishing would be minimal and
the number of participants would be low; spearfishermen were left out of the List of Fisheries for
tunas and sharks when initially established; and, a speargun fisherman can choose his target,
assess his chances, and be more discriminate in his hunting, which is not something a hook and
line fisherman can do. Comments received in support also stated affirmation that recreational
divers would be allowed to be transported to the site by a charter dive boat; and, the tuna
regulations would allow the taking of tuna in the Atlantic with handheld, rubber band or
pneumatic power spearguns by recreational fishermen while underwater.
Response: The preferred alternative would authorize the use of spearguns in the
recreational Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery. Holders of recreational HMS Angling and HMS CHB
permits would be allowed to carry spearguns and fish for, retain, and possess any of the BAYS
tunas using speargun gear. Speargun gear would not be authorized under any other HMS or
Atlantic tuna vessel permit or for any other HMS species. Speargun gear would not be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-109

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

authorized to fish for, retain, or land Atlantic BFT. BAYS tunas killed and landed with the use
of speargun gear may not be sold under any circumstances, including by owners, operators, or
participants on HMS CHB vessels. Fishermen using speargun fishing gear would be allowed to
freedive, use SCUBA, or other underwater breathing devices, and would be required to be
physically in the water when they fire their speargun. Only free-swimming fish, not those
restricted by fishing lines or other means, could be taken. The use of powerheads, or any other
explosive devices, would not be allowed to harvest or subdue BAYS tunas with this gear type.
In addition, spearfishermen would be required to abide by all existing recreational management
measures under the Angling category regulations when recreationally fishing for BAYS tunas
(i.e., minimum size requirements of 27 inches curved fork length for BET and YFT, three YFT
retention limit per person per day, as well as all current state and Federal reporting
requirements).
Comment 9: NMFS received several comments that supported spearfishing gear but
requested allowing its expansion beyond recreational tuna fishing while other comments
supported additional restrictions. Comments in support of expansion include: adding spearguns
as an allowed gear for sharks; and, all HMS fisheries should eventually open to spearfishing.
The GMFMC specifically supported spearfishing as an approved gear for all HMS fisheries,
including sharks, and recommended that the gear be authorized for recreational and commercial
harvest. In contrast, other comments supported restricting the use of spearguns as proposed,
stating no sale should be allowed for anyone when a tuna is harvested with a speargun under any
circumstances, and speargun fishermen should not be allowed to sell tuna catches from CHB
vessels as proposed. A commenter stated his concern that the ability to sell fish might be viewed
as an impediment to allow participation in this fishery and, thus, NMFS should not allow sale of
fish to avoid jeopardizing any chance of authorizing recreational use of speargun fishing gear.
NMFS also received comment to further restrict the use of speargun fishing gear to allow only
freedivers to harvest tuna (i.e., not allow SCUBA gear) consistent with original public comment
on use of this gear-type.
Response: The preferred alternative would authorize the use of spearguns in the HMS
recreational fishery only for Atlantic BAYS tunas. This alternative would provide speargun
fishermen an opportunity to use this gear-type and would increase the social and economic
benefits for this user-group. While providing this opportunity, NMFS is also balancing concerns
of introducing a new gear type in fisheries with considerable numbers of existing fishermen
participating in severely exploited fisheries. Since publication of the list of authorized gears and
fisheries and the 1999 FMP, spearfishermen have consistently argued for access to HMS
fisheries. Spearfishermen have argued in particular for recreational access to the Atlantic tuna
fishery to target big tuna for the social and recreational opportunity rather than the desire for
economic gain. The preferred alternative would prohibit the sale of Atlantic BAYS tunas
captured by speargun to minimize the possibility of additional expansion of the user-group to
those interested in commercial gain from the activity and inconsistent with intent of the preferred
alternative. Spearguns would not be allowed to target BFT, primarily due to the severely
depleted status of the western Atlantic stock, uncertainty over the status of the stock, and
continuing poor performance of the fishery. The use of spearguns in HMS fisheries other than
the Atlantic tuna fishery, (i.e., shark, billfish or swordfish fishery) was not considered in the
Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, although as these stocks improve some additional fishing
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-110

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

opportunities for new and efficient gear-types may be considered in the future. NMFS
considered further restricting speargun activity to only free-divers, (i.e., no SCUBA gear or other
types of underwater breathing apparatus) to further limit the universe of participants. Free-divers
were the original group of speargun fishermen who had requested the opportunity to participate
in the recreational tuna fishery. However, it was determined that not allowing SCUBA gear
would have raised additional safety concerns.
Comment 10: NMFS received several comments regarding aspects of speargun fishing
that would keep participation and catch low. Those comments include: technical knowledge
barriers for a novice and inexperienced individual that wish to engage in this activity; harvesting
two or three tunas in a lifetime would be lucky because a speargun fisherman needs to know
what they are doing and where to go fishing; there are not a lot of opportunities to learn how to
spear BAYS tuna; the cost of the equipment including the initial cost of upgrading spearfishing
gear (e.g., larger gun, shafts, spearpoints, floats, lines, and safety items) will exceed $3,000 and
that is before chartering a vessel; and, the need to use a boat to access BAYS fishing grounds.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the number of participants using spearguns in a
recreational BAYS tuna fishery is likely to be low and the number actually encountering and
successfully striking a BAYS tuna lower still. NMFS understands that the primary intent of
allowing the use of spearguns in the recreational BAYS tuna fishery is to allow participants the
opportunity and access to the fishery for the recreational and social benefits it affords.
Successful participation would still mean adequate preparation and/or possible training (e.g.,
dive certificate) and the correct equipment. However, willing participants would no longer be
prohibited by regulation from using spearguns in the recreational BAYS fishery.
Comment 11: NMFS received comments related to the level of bycatch associated with
speargun fishing. Those comments include: most recreational fishermen practice catch-and­
release fishing, but speargun fishermen practice release-and-catch fishing; speargun fishermen
are very selective about the fish being targeted and use one shot, usually resulting in no bycatch;
and spearfishermen can see the fish and do not take unwanted species or undersized fish; and
they leave no lines or other gear on the bottom to snag other fish, lobster, or turtles. A few
comments stated concerns that some spearguns under this gear type may not have the capability
to land large HMS, resulting in a source of unreported mortality and that spearing a fish that dies
without being harvested would be considered bycatch.
Response: There are minimal data available to support or refute concerns regarding
bycatch by spearguns in the BAYS fisheries. It is evident that the nature of the gear-type can be
highly selective and targeted to specific fish, unlike traditional hook-and-line fishery.
Spearfishermen are unlikely to injure other species such as HMS, sea turtles, or marine mammals
as they can selectively target their catch. However, it remains unknown how many strikes of
targeted BAYS may result in mortality and retention versus wounding and subsequent escape
with some unknown proportion mortally wounded. Public comment by spearfishermen states
that it is possible to accurately identify species and size class before firing the spear and thus the
bycatch and mortality of incorrect species (e.g., BFT) or undersized tuna (i.e., less than 27
inches) should be minimal.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-111

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 12: NMFS received several comments regarding potential gear and user
conflict that may arise with the authorization of speargun gear such as: nothing prevents divers
from dropping a dive flag in the middle of a group of rod and reel vessels or on a specific wreck,
and driving rod and reel vessels off the fish/wreck. In contrast, other commenters noted that
spearfishermen and diver interactions with boat traffic should not be an issue in offshore
fisheries, as it can be in inshore waters, that the spearfishing community has taken as many
precautions as possible, and that no accidents have occurred in New Hampshire or Rhode Island
where speargun fishing gear is currently allowed in state waters when targeting striped bass.
Response: Speargun users and rod-and-reel recreational fishermen would need to respect
each other’s activities and safety when sharing the same fishing grounds to avoid gear and user
conflicts. Speargun fishermen would likely choose fishing areas and tuna hunting grounds away
from other rod-and-reel vessels to maximize the diver’s recreational opportunity and minimize
safety concerns. Likewise, under existing vessel safety regulations, recreational vessels must
give adequate berth to dive-flags in the water and vessels flying diver-down signals.
Comment 13: NMFS received several comments on the economic benefits associated
with speargun fishing. These comments include: allowing recreational speargun fishing for tuna
would create an economic boost to coastal communities. When spearfishing, one would usually
fill up the car with gas, have lunch, buy souvenirs or gear, and sometimes pay for a boat ride and
not spear many fish; and, at the 4th Annual Hatteras Blue Water Open this year, there were 50
entrants from all over the world and eight charter vessels generating $60-$75,000 in revenue to
the area in four days and that there would have been more participants if tunas were included.
Response: It is expected that allowing spearguns into the recreational tuna fishery would
provide an economic benefit to the fishery even though the actual sale of landed BAYS tuna
would be prohibited. Recreational speargun fishermen are likely to invest in fishing stores and
dive-shops for appropriate gear and contribute to local economies by renting hotel rooms and
chartering vessels or renting equipment, etc.
Comment 14: NMFS received comments stating that if spearfishing gear is allowed to
harvest Atlantic tunas, then the Agency must devise and implement mandatory permitting,
reporting, monitoring, and enforcement. One comment specifically stated that if NMFS cannot
guarantee this, there should not be an additional uncontrollable fishery.
Response: All HMS recreational spearfishing activity must be conducted from a
Federally permitted HMS Angling or HMS CHB category vessel. NMFS currently requires
mandatory reporting of all recreational landings of BFT, swordfish, and billfish via automated
telephone systems. Although the Agency does not currently have similar requirements for
recreational landings of BAYS tunas, NMFS monitors HMS recreational effort and landings
through Federal recreational surveys, such as the MRFSS and LPS in addition to State
monitoring programs. NMFS enforcement works in cooperation with local and State
enforcement programs to ensure compliance with management measures in both recreational and
commercial fisheries. NMFS will monitor compliance with reporting requirements and may
consider modifications to requirements, as appropriate, in the future.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-112

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 15: NMFS received a comment stating that there are fishermen currently using
spearguns to harvest YFT that do not realize it is illegal to use the gear to target Atlantic tunas.
Spearfishing has been included as a category in some of the tournaments.
Response: Until the final rule authorizing recreational speargun fishing for BAYS tunas
takes effect, any use of spearguns to fish for any HMS is illegal. The list of authorized gears has
been published since the end of 1999 (Dec 1, 1999, 64 FR 67511) and numerous brochures and
guides that have been published since that date clearly list the authorized gears for HMS with
valid permits. Currently, speargun gear is not an authorized gear for any HMS. After the
effective date of the final rule implementing this preferred alternative, speargun gear may be
legal for BAYS tunas, but not for other HMS.
Comment 16: NMFS should not allow another directed commercial fishery (e.g.,
speargun fishing gear) for giant BFT.
Response: None of the preferred alternatives would authorize another directed
commercial fishery for giant BFT. The preferred alternative H2 would not authorize the use of
spearguns to fish for, retain, or land any Atlantic BFT, in either the recreational or commercial
fishery.
Comment 17: Speargun fishermen would want to target the largest fish available due to
the difficulty in taking smaller fish, the trophy nature of the fishery itself, and the largest take for
time and money invested in the opportunity.
Response: NMFS recognizes that a prime motivation for spearfishermen to enter the
Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery is the opportunity to recreationally fish for a big fish.
Spearfishermen would need to abide by all existing recreational management measures,
including the minimum size for YFT and BET of 27 inches curved fork length and retention
limits. There is no minimum size for albacore or skipjack tuna. Blackfin tuna are not Federally
regulated.
Green-Stick Gear
Comment 18: NMFS received several comments supporting the preferred alternative to
authorize green-stick gear for the commercial BAYS tuna fishery. These comments include:
green-stick gear is much better than longlines and could be an alternate gear; green-stick gear is
the most environmentally sound way to harvest tuna; if green-stick gear is a viable U.S. HMS
fishery, then NMFS needs to be flexible in allowing its use; and, the use of green-stick gear for
directed fishing by pelagic longline vessels when targeting BAYS should be approved. In
contrast, NMFS received several comments opposed to authorizing green-stick gear for tunas.
The GMFMC commented that green-stick gear is classified as longline gear in the Gulf of
Mexico and if it is authorized, it is likely to become very abundant and could have a negative
impact on stressed and overfished stocks; green-stick gear is an excuse for more longline fishing
using a slightly different method; and, green-stick gear is similar to longline gear and therefore
should not be allowed into closed areas.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-113

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: The preferred alternative would not provide a regulatory definition of greenstick gear as a separate authorized gear and as differentiated from already authorized forms of
handgear (rod-and-reel or handline) and longline gear. This is a change from what was
proposed. Under existing regulations, green-stick gear is already authorized depending on how it
is configured and how many hooks are on each line. Due to the current confusion over what is
already allowed and how the draft preferred alternative may or may not have changed current
uses of green-stick gear, NMFS is not modifying the list of authorized gears for green-stick gear
at this time. In addition to the existing confusion and the potential to exacerbate the situation by
changing the regulations, there is conflicting opinion and little data to support or refute its
efficiency and impact on target and non-target stocks. NMFS intends to publish a brochure
clarifying acceptable configuration of green-stick gear under the existing HMS regulations. In
the meantime, NMFS will also work with current logbook and monitoring programs to examine
ways to collect additional information on the use of green-stick gear and its impact on the
environment as well as its social and economic benefits and consequences.
Comment 19: NMFS received numerous comments in support of authorizing green-stick
gear for targeting BFT, as well as BAYS. These comments include: green-sticks are
permanently attached to the vessel, so why do the proposed regulations state that a vessel could
never possess a BFT onboard if green-stick gear is onboard; green-stick gear is the same as the
trolling fishery, meaning the same boats, same gear, and same permits are used as those used to
target BFT; the Japanese use this gear to harvest BFT because minimal lactic acids build during
the fight; green-stick gear should be allowed for all Atlantic tunas provided there are mandatory
permitting, reporting, monitoring, and enforcement of this fishery; BFT have been harvested
using green-stick gear in the past and should be allowed to be continued; in North Carolina,
green-stick gear has been used to catch BFT; past BFT landings using this gear type have been
reported as rod-and-reel therefore a group of individuals are going to be adversely impacted if
BFT are not allowed; this rule will make it even harder to catch the BFT quota; and, curiosity as
to what conservation benefits are to be had by not allowing BFT to be retained as there are other
management measures in place for BFT such as size and retention limits as well as quotas. One
comment stated support for General category fishermen to target BFT with green-stick. The
same commenter only supported the authorized use of green-sticks by longline permitted vessels
as an allowed gear for directed YFT fishing and did not support the use of green-sticks by
pelagic longline fishermen to target BFT while aboard a permitted pelagic longline vessel.
Response: Throughout the development of the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, most of
the analysis and comment from scoping led the Agency to determine that green-stick gear was
primarily used to target BAYS tunas and that the methods of fishing with the gear were not
conducive to targeting BFT. In addition, due to the current severely depleted status of the BFT
stock, the introduction of a new gear-type and adding fishing pressure in this already heavily
capitalized fishery is not appropriate at this time. Thus, it was determined in the Draft HMS
FMP that it was possible to consider the use of green-stick gear, in a modified manner to the
status quo, for a BAYS only fishery. Furthermore, it was determined that excluding BFT from
the allowed list of target species would still provide marginal positive economic and social
impacts to the BAYS fishery with neutral biological impacts to the BFT stock. However, at
several public meetings on the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP and in written comment,
particularly from the mid-Atlantic area, it was made evident that there is an active interest in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-114

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

using the gear to target BFT. The preferred alternative in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP
could have eliminated this opportunity allowed under the status quo, provided the gear is
configured to conform to the current regulations. For BFT fishing, these conditions exist
generally when commercial fishing for BFT in the General category (or with an HMS CHB
permit) using handgear (rod-and-reel, handline, or bandit gear) with two hooks or less. These
conditions also exist when recreationally fishing for BFT in the Angling category (or with an
HMS CHB permit) using handgear (rod-and-reel or handline) with two hooks or less. The limit
on the number of hooks for both recreational and commercial handgear has helped limit effort in
currently overcapitalized fisheries targeting species with weak stock status (i.e., either overfished
or approaching overfishing). Furthermore, the incidental retention of BFT by green-stick gear,
trailing more than two hooks, is authorized under a Longline category permit so long as all other
corresponding management measures are adhered to such as target catch restrictions, use of
circle hooks, avoidance of closed areas, etc.
Since the publication of the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP in August 2005, NMFS
received data on the performance of both the recreational and commercial BFT fishery, which
exacerbated concerns over the ecological health and management of this stock. In the case of the
commercial fishery, landings were low throughout the 2005 fishing season. The 2005 season
was also marked by a noticeable lack of availability of commercial sized BFT throughout their
traditional fishing range and, in particular, BFT were largely absent off southern states during the
winter of 2005/2006. Although there is a high magnitude of available quota in the commercial
size classes, scientists continue to be concerned over the status of this stock, especially the
abundance of these larger fish that represent the potential spawners for future recruitment,
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. An international stock assessment on the current status, and
future prognosis, of BFT is scheduled this year by the SCRS and new recommendations, if any,
by ICCAT would not be available until November 2006. NMFS will continue to analyze
potential impacts of authorizing green-stick gear and may consider modifications in the future, as
appropriate.
Comment 20: NMFS received several comments regarding the technical nature of greenstick gear including comments comparing and contrasting the gear type to longline gear and
commercial or recreational handgear such as handline and rod-and-reel. Comments included:
green-stick gear is very different from longline gear in that when deploying green-stick gear the
greatest distance the hooks are from the boat is 500 feet, whereas PLL gear has one hook a
football field length away from one another; longline gear is set in the water column with many
hooks while green-stick is trolled at a high speed with the artificial baits suspended above or
skipping across the waters surface; this gear is trolled and is not set out to drift, which makes it
very different from the definition of a longline gear; green-stick is similar to longline gear
therefore it should be prevented from entering into closed areas; this gear is still a longline
because of the use of hydraulics and several hooks; there are two distinct types of green-stick
fishing and each should be carefully defined separately; the commercial green-stick method uses
multiple hooks with artificial baits on a single line to catch Atlantic tunas, including BFT; the
recreational green-sticking is an “angling” method primarily using rods-and-reels to catch
Atlantic tunas, including BFT; some recreational gear is being pulled with more than two hooks
per line; teasers without hooks should be allowed; the definition should include using no more
than two hooks per any single line attached to the green-stick that basically acts as a vertical outCONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-115

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

rigger; green-stick gear should be restricted to hand powered reels; green-stick gear is also
appropriate for use in the Angling and General category fisheries; and, recreational fishermen
using green-stick gear could open up illegal commercial sale opportunities.
Response: NMFS notes that there are considerable similarities between the use of greenstick gear and recreational and commercial handgear as well as longline gear depending on how
green-stick gear is configured and used under current definitions at 50 CFR part 600 and 635 and
in accordance with all gear operation and deployment restrictions at 50 CFR 635.21. Longline
means fishing gear that is set horizontally, either anchored, floating, or attached to a vessel, and
that consists of a mainline or groundline with three or more leaders (gangions) and hooks,
whether retrieved by hand or mechanical means. Any hook and line gear with three or more
hooks is considered to be a longline. In addition to the use of rods and reels, handline gear
means fishing gear that consists of a mainline to which no more than two leaders (gangions) with
hooks are attached, and that is released and retrieved by hand, rather than by mechanical means.
Finally, the use of bandit gear and downriggers is also an authorized means of deploying and
retrieving the hook and line. Bandit gear means vertical hook and line gear with rods that are
attached to the vessel when in use. Lines are retrieved by manual, electric or hydraulic reels. A
downrigger is a piece of equipment attached to a vessel and with a weight on a cable that is in
turn attached to hook-and-line gear to maintain lures or bait at depth while trolling. In addition
to the above definitions and gear restrictions, specific additional management measures may
apply to the use of gear depending on the targeted fishery and HMS or tuna vessel permits (i.e.
50 CFR 635 Subpart C as well as general permitting, recordkeeping, and monitoring
requirements at 50 CFR 635 Subpart A).
Comment 21: NMFS received several comments and questions noting the level of
confusion regarding what constitutes the technical nature of 'green-stick' gear, and how it can
already be used versus modified by the proposed alternative. Comments include: the definition
of longline gear is the problem, not green-stick gear; over one hundred green-sticks have been
sold and you need to change the definition; it is not the stick that is the most important part of
this gear, rather the suspended bait attracts the fish, not the number of baits; fishermen can use
only one rod due to tangling; green-sticks are permanently attached to the vessel; green-stick
gear is used to catch larger tuna, and that the gear is set-up vertically allowing the bait to fish
further from the vessel; we support the use of green-stick gear by commercial vessels, but only if
restricted to hand powered reels, but not if used with electric or hydraulic reels; this trolling
method does not require any large device and is easy to set up on a small vessel and it is used to
catch BFT and YFT around the world; the name “green-stick” comes from the original color of
the pole, but today it is available in a variety of colors; and, as green-stick gear is permanently
attached to the vessel there could be enforcement issues as the gear can be configured either as
commercial or recreational. Questions include: what permit would be required to use this gear;
would live bait be allowed with this gear; will configuration of the gear use rods and reels or
hydraulic drum, how would one know the type of gear used to catch the fish if different gear
types are allowed on the same vessel but not authorized to land the same species; is there a
length limit on a rod and reel to distinguish it from green-stick gear; what does it matter how
many hooks are on the line when operating under a General category permit; If we have longline
and incidental BFT permits can we use green-stick gear; how do the incidental limits apply to
longline vessels using green-stick gear; under the current regulations, what permit would be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-116

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

required for someone who fishes with green-stick gear for YFT; which will have more hooks green-stick gear versus recreational gear; can green-stick gear fish in the closed areas; do the
reporting requirements for General category permit holders call for reporting the gear employed;
would green-stick fishermen be able to use live bait as it is proposed currently; in which fishery
can the gear be authorized; is green-stick gear currently used in the Gulf; and can it be used at all
in the Gulf of Mexico where BFT cannot be targeted since it is a spawning area?
Response: NMFS acknowledges that there is considerable confusion over the status of
green-stick in the HMS fisheries under current management measures. NMFS intends to publish
a brochure to clarify the current situation. The preferred alternative would maintain the current
definitions for use of longline gear in the longline fishery and handgear in the commercial
General category, the recreational HMS Angling, and the HMS CHB fishery. Thus, the use of
green-stick gear is still allowed as in the past and in conformance with the appropriate
management measures and existing reporting requirements for these HMS fisheries. No new
regulatory definitions or permits are preferred at this time. Green-stick gear can be used in any
configuration so long as it conforms to current definition of the use of longline or hook-and-line
handgear as currently defined in the regulations and as listed above.
Comment 22: NMFS received several comments regarding the need for additional data
regarding this gear-type. One comment stated the fishery needs further analysis on the use and
configuration of green-stick gear and one commenter questioned what information would NMFS
need collected to conduct a more detailed analysis of the impacts of using this gear. A comment
stated that there needs to be some accommodation of this gear type, even if it is through an EFP
to collect further information. A comment stated that the information used from the North
Carolina Sea Grant paper referenced in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP is out of date and that
the gear has been altered as individuals have gained experience using it.
Response: NMFS agrees that the Agency and the fishery could benefit from additional
data on the use of green-stick gear and its impact on both the recreational and commercial
constituencies, HMS stocks, and any bycatch. In the past, green-stick gear was identified as a
unique gear type on HMS Vessel Pelagic Logbook reports, but was discontinued as it was not a
uniquely identified and defined gear. It also appears that fishermen had already been reporting
green-stick HMS landings under either hook and line gear or longline gear. As a first step,
NMFS intends to publish a brochure to clarify current allowable uses of the gear and how
existing vessel and dealer permit and reporting requirements apply. NMFS also intends to
examine whether or not existing monitoring programs should be modified to understand more
adequately the uses and impacts of this gear or whether some additional program is necessary,
including potential use of the EFP program. Finally, it would be helpful to the Agency to know
how many fishermen use, or have used, this gear and in what configurations that conform with or
differ from the current definitions. In addition, it would be valuable to know the locale and
distribution of its use, preferred target species, efficiency over other gear-types, amounts and
rates of bycatch, and social and economic costs and benefits of using the gear, among other
research questions. Some useful historical and background data on green-stick gear is available
in the North Carolina Sea Grant paper published by Westcott that was especially helpful defining
and graphically laying out different ways to configure the gear. More recent updates and
publications would be helpful to assist with the development of the planned brochure.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-117

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 23: NMFS received comment on the bycatch associated with green-stick gear.
Those comments include: almost all tuna are hooked in the mouth and could be released
relatively unharmed, there are no turtle interactions, and other bycatch is limited because billfish
and shark species have difficulty reaching bait that spends so much time in the air; and, that
green-stick gear is a gear that minimizes the interactions of billfish with commercial handgear
and should be promoted. Other comments noted a need to be cautious about potential bycatch
issues and that NMFS needs to confirm the level of bycatch associated with this gear type;
NMFS needs to prohibit this gear’s use in the Gulf of Mexico due to potential bluefin tuna
bycatch; the description of green-stick gear sounds like longline gear, which could mean greater
bycatch and there should be no additional gear used in the Gulf of Mexico; and, we are opposed
to green-stick gear because it appears to be a trolled longline and the biggest bycatch of marlin is
in the yellowfin tuna fishery.
Response: The preferred alternative would not modify the regulations to define greenstick gear and thus NMFS does not expect the levels of bycatch to change as a result of
implementing the No Action alternative. Trolled green-stick gear, configured as a version of
rod-and-reel handgear, is likely to have few bycatch issues. Minimal data are available to
analyze the bycatch issues associated with green-stick gear deployed as a form of handgear or as
a longline, however, data from Pacific green-stick fisheries indicate that increases in billfish
bycatch are possible. Under the current regulations, the use of green-stick gear is allowed (as
clarified above) in the Gulf of Mexico although it remains prohibited to target BFT with any gear
in this area to protect spawning BFT. NMFS continues to be concerned about levels of bycatch
in HMS fisheries as well as in other fisheries that encounter HMS as bycatch. Overall, the
Agency has continued to address bycatch issues in Federally managed fisheries and, consistent
with National Standard 9, to implement management measures that minimize bycatch. Since
1999, NMFS has implemented a number of time/area closures to reduce bycatch to the extent
practicable and, in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, examined numerous alternatives to
determine if the closures were still meeting their original goals. Many of these measures, but not
all, were designed to reduce bycatch in the pelagic longline fleet. In addition, the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP examined alternatives to train and certify fishermen in the safe
handling, release, and disentanglement of protected resources from pelagic and bottom longline
and gillnet gear. With the addition of new measures in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP,
NMFS expects to continue minimizing bycatch throughout HMS fisheries.
Buoy Gear
Comment 24: NMFS received several comments supporting alternative H5, which would
authorize the use of buoy gear only in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery. Some of
those comments include: buoy gear should be for commercial use and handlines for recreational
use; there are currently more recreational fishermen using buoy gear than commercial fishermen;
buoy gear should be used to target swordfish because it is an effective gear; I do not support the
use of recreational buoy gear, but it should be a commercial subcategory; buoy gear should be
allowed, but not where it will have conflicts with recreational vessels/gear; and, this alternative is
trying to establish a commercial fishery. Pelagic longline vessels could remove their longline
gear and set buoy gear in closed areas.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-118

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: Free-floating buoyed lines are currently in use in many areas; however, they
are being fished as handline gear, as defined by current HMS regulations. Currently, there are no
limits on how many handlines a vessel may deploy, as long as each gear has no more than two
hooks attached. The preferred alternatives would change the definition of handline gear to
require that the gear be attached to a vessel and allow free-floating handlines, renamed as buoy
gear, to be utilized in the swordfish handgear fishery only. The preferred alternative takes steps
to limit the number of individual gears a vessel may possess or deploy when targeting swordfish
commercially and would eliminate their use in all other HMS fisheries, both recreational and
commercial. Vessels with directed swordfish or swordfish handgear LAPs would be authorized
to utilize this gear type to capture swordfish in pelagic longline closed areas as long as the
longline gear had been removed from the vessel.
Comment 25: NMFS received several comments opposed to alternative H5, which would
authorize buoy gear for the commercial swordfish handgear fishery and limit vessels to
possessing or deploying no more than 35 individual buoys, with each gear deployed consisting of
one buoy supporting a single mainline with no more than two hooks or gangions attached. The
comments include: buoy gear is needless and would be harmful to recreational interests;
recreational fishermen are concerned about the use of this gear type; buoy gear would increase
fishing effort on swordfish when it is still overfished; opening up the buoy fishery to fill the
quota is a mistake; buoy gear is indiscriminate and destructive and has no place in a sustainable,
viable fishery; buoy gear is nothing more than a vertical longline and we need reductions in
bycatch or bycatch mortality. We are opposed to any fishing that allows unattended gear; buoy
gear should not be allowed in the HMS fisheries for numerous reasons, including: a hazard to
navigation; an indiscriminate killer like longlines; and deployment of the gear with live baits will
increase discards and dead discards of numerous species; if buoy gear use continues, it is
probable that the gear will interact with marine mammals in the U.S. EEZ; and, it is morally
incomprehensible that NMFS is going to shut down the recreational white marlin fishery and yet
allow thousands of hooks to be deployed with live baits on buoy gears.
Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the Consolidated HMS FMP, this gear type is
currently in use as handline gear and anecdotal information suggests that it is being used by both
commercial and recreational fishermen to target swordfish as well as other species. The
preferred alternative would re-name the gear to buoy gear, limit its use to only those vessels
permitted to participate in the limited access commercial swordfish handgear fishery, and
significantly limit the number of individual gears that vessels could possess or deploy (from an
unrestricted number to a maximum of 35). Consistent with the current definition of handline
gear, each buoy gear would be limited to having no more than two hooks or gangions attached.
Vessels deploying buoy gear would be allowed to use live or dead baits and may only retain
swordfish captured on the gear. All tunas, sharks, marlins, or sailfish captured on buoy gear
must be released in a manner that maximizes their probability of survival. This gear differs
significantly from longline gear, which is defined as having three or more hooks or gangions
attached. The preferred alternative would allow vessels deploying this gear type to use multiple
floatation/gear marking devices, including but not limited to, buoys, floats, lights, radar
reflectors, reflective tape, and high-flyers, to minimize any hazards to navigation. Logbook data
from 2004 show that 68 percent of swordfish captured on commercial handline trips were
retained. These same data show that over 75 percent of swordfish discarded from these trips
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-119

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

were released alive. NMFS monitors gears for interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles
and would continue to monitor buoy gear catch, bycatch, and any interactions with protected
resources though the HMS logbook program.
Comment 26: If handgear must be attached to the vessel, how do the buoy gear
requirements impact alternative H5, which authorizes buoy gear in the commercial swordfish
handgear fishery, and limits vessels employing buoy gear to possessing and deploying no more
than 35 individual buoys, with each buoy having no more than two hooks or gangions attached?
Response: Handgear (handline, harpoon, rod and reel, and bandit gear) are not all
currently required to be attached to a vessel. A preferred alternative would modify the definition
of handline to require that handlines be attached to a vessel. The buoy gear alternatives would
not be impacted by the handline definition change as the preferred buoy gear alternative defines
buoy gear as a separate gear type.
Comment 27: NMFS received a few comments opposed to alternative H6, authorize buoy
gear in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery and limit vessels to no more than 50
individual buoys, each supporting a single mainline with no more than 15 hooks or gangions
attached. These comments include: we do not support alternative H6; and, alternative H6 is
mini-longlining and should be limited to vessels with all three permits (Directed or Incidental
Swordfish, Atlantic Tunas Longline, and Directed or Incidental Shark).
Response: The Agency is not preferring alternative H6. In this action, the Agency is
preferring a modification of alternative H5 which would authorize buoy gear for the commercial
swordfish handgear fishery and limit vessels to possessing or deploying no more than 35
floatation devices, with each gear consisting of one or more floatation devices supporting a
single mainline with no more than two hooks or gangions attached. This gear differs
significantly from longline gear, which is defined as having three or more hooks or gangions
attached. Fishermen deploying buoy gear must possess a commercial swordfish handgear or a
swordfish directed limited access permit.
Comment 28: NMFS received a number of comments regarding buoy gear capturing
undersized swordfish, including: 35 individual buoys fished at one time is in direct conflict with
the HMS FMP objective to reduce bycatch and to minimize mortality of juvenile swordfish; this
alternative will produce dead juvenile swordfish that are hooked and not successfully released
due to lost gear or gear that cannot be checked in a timely manner; what studies show the
successful release of juvenile swordfish when using 35 individual buoys with two hooks?; buoy
gear fishermen currently catch approximately 25 - 30 percent juvenile swordfish (< 33 inches);
circle hooks can reduce post–release mortality of juvenile swordfish and non-targeted species,
they should be considered for this gear; and, about 50 percent of fish caught on well tended buoy
gear can be released.
Response: In response to public comment, the Agency has modified the preferred
alternative to allow buoy gear fishermen the option of deploying multiple floatation devices on
individual buoy gears. The modified alternative would maintain the maximum limit of 35
floatation devices possessed or deployed. Under the modified alternative, fishermen who opt to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-120

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

fish three floatation devices per gear would be limited to deploying approximately 11 individual
buoy gears. Similarly, fishermen using four floatation devices per gear would be limited to
deploying approximately eight buoy gears. Logbook data from 2004 show that 68 percent of
swordfish captured on commercial handline trips were retained. These same data show that over
75 percent of swordfish discarded from these trips were released alive. Commenters requested
the ability to use several floatation devices per gear to allow for the use of a “bite indicator”
float, which will let fishermen know when a fish is captured by the gear. This modification
could allow fishermen to easily identify those gears that have captured fish and may allow
fishermen to release any undersized swordfish or non-target species more quickly and with a
greater probability of survival. Additionally, the modification to allow multiple floatation
devices per gear may reduce the number of gears deployed and may minimize lost gear by
making the gears more buoyant and visible. Although the Agency received public comment
supporting the use of circle hooks with buoy gear, a circle hook option was not included in the
alternatives in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS may analyze a circle hook requirement
for buoy gear in a future rulemaking.
Comment 29: NMFS received a few comments related to the monitoring requirements for
buoy gear. Such comments include: can fishermen use additional locating devices in addition to
the single buoy required (e.g., high flier to locate the buoy in bigger seas) to improve
monitoring?; all four methods of marking buoy gear are needed to avoid lost fish and gear; there
should definitely be a requirement for marking and monitoring; a visual radius or reasonable area
a fisherman could fish with buoy gear should be defined; buoy gear “tending” requirements
should be defined, like in the shark gillnet fishery, to prevent fishermen from tending buoys that
belong to others; it would be impossible to monitor all 35 buoys that are free floating in rough
weather conditions; while the handgear operator is retrieving a buoy that has hooked a swordfish
of sustainable size, the other 34 buoys will not be attended; there are no minimum requirements
for flags, radar reflectors, radio beacons, or strobe lights; and, is there any information about the
loss of buoys?
Response: In response to public comment, the Agency has modified the preferred
alternative to allow buoy gear fishermen the option of deploying multiple floatation devices on
individual buoy gears. The modified alternative would maintain the maximum limit of 35
floatation devices possessed or deployed. Under the modified alternative, fishermen who opt to
fish three floatation devices per gear would be limited to deploying approximately 11 individual
buoy gears. Similarly, fishermen using four floatation devices per gear would be limited to
deploying approximately eight buoy gears. If a gear monitoring device used by a fisherman were
positively buoyant, it would be included in the 35 floatation device vessel limit. Consistent with
current regulations, each floatation device attached to a buoy gear must be marked with either the
vessel’s name, registration number, or permit number. At this time, NMFS is not requiring any
specific gear tending requirements for vessels deploying buoy gear; however, the Agency
recommends that fishermen remain in the general area where they have set their gear and
monitor each gear as closely as possible. NMFS realizes that different vessels and crews will
have varying abilities to monitor gear and that weather and sea condition may also impact their
ability to monitor gear closely. The Agency cautions fishermen to limit the number of gears they
deploy to a reasonable number that they can realistically monitor and retrieve safely. At this
time, the Agency does not possess any data regarding gear loss in this fishery. The Agency may
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-121

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

conduct additional rulemaking in the future, if additional data indicates that gear tending
requirements or other bycatch reduction measures are needed.
Comment 30: NMFS received a number of comments regarding the definition of buoy
gear, including: consider modifying the definition of buoy gear because one buoy and all the line
fished vertically will make it difficult to keep visual contact with the gear; without some way of
knowing when a small fish is hooked, it may be several hours before the gear is retrieved;
consider allowing a maximum of 20 feet of horizontal line on the surface for the purpose of
identifying and monitoring buoy gear allowing space for “bite indicator” float and an
identification buoy/hi-flier; additional equipment may be necessary to prevent large swordfish
from sounding; allow additional gear at each buoy for retrieval and to determine if a fish is on
the line; why is there no length or distance specified between buoys for the commercial buoy
gear?; do the regulations stipulate how far apart the buoy gear can be spaced?; are buoy gears
allowed to be attached to a hydraulic drum when being used commercially?; circle hooks, VMS,
light sticks, live bait, and Careful Handling/Release training and certification should be
mandatory; could you require the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) on the buoy gear?;
there should be a prohibition on using live bait; an electronic monitoring system must be
required for each buoy; there is no data to justify limitations on the number of buoys and/or
hooks at this time; and, there is no criteria for what would constitute an acceptable buoy for this
type of gear.
Response: As discussed above, NMFS has modified the preferred alternative in response
to public comment and included a definition of floatation device. The modified alternative
would allow fishermen deploying buoy gear to attach multiple floatation devices to each buoy
gear, including “bite indicator floats,” however the alternative would maintain the limit of 35
floatation devices possessed or deployed. A floatation device would be defined as any positively
buoyant object rigged to be attached to a fishing gear. Buoy gear would be required to be
released and retrieved by hand. If gear monitoring devices used by fishermen are positively
buoyant and rigged to be attached to a fishing gear, they would be included in the 35 floatation
device vessel limit and would need to be marked as per the gear marking regulations.
Additionally, if more than one floatation device is used, no hook or gangion could be attached to
the mainline or a floatation device on the horizontal portion of the gear. At this time, NMFS is
not specifying any maximum or minimum length of horizontal line at the surface. However, to
limit any hazard to navigation and potential gear loss by ship strike, NMFS recommends that
fishermen set only the amount of gear that is needed at the surface. Similarly, NMFS is not
preferring an alternative to specify a minimum or maximum distance between deployed buoy
gears. NMFS urges fishermen to be responsible in their fishing activities and to only fish gear
over a distance that they can realistically monitor. NMFS would not require GPS, electronic
monitoring equipment, circle hooks, light sticks, live bait, or Careful Handling/Release training
and certification for buoy gear fishermen at this time. NMFS may investigate some of these
options for the buoy gear fishery in future rulemakings.
Comment 31: NMFS received a few comments regarding permit requirements for using
buoy gear and comments supporting a limit on the number of vessels using buoy gear. These
comments include: buoy gear should be limited to current permit holders only and no increase in
its use should be allowed in future permit considerations; what kind of permit do you need for
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-122

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

buoy gear?; buoy gear users should have the three permits that PLL needs; approximately 10
boats have used buoy gear in the past, however, it is now likely that only about three vessels use
this gear type; how many participants are actively using buoy gear?; and, how many swordfish
permits are there? Effort is going to increase.
Response: The preferred alternative would only authorize buoy gear in the commercial
swordfish handgear fishery. Vessels deploying buoy gear must have a commercial swordfish
handgear limited access permit or a swordfish directed limited access permit. As of February
2006, there were 88 commercial swordfish handgear permits and 191 directed swordfish permits.
In 2004, seven vessels reported using handline gear in the HMS logbook. The logbook does not
differentiate between trolled handlines, free-floating handlines, or attached handlines; however,
some of those seven vessels likely fished free-floating handlines (buoy gear) and targeted
swordfish. Based on historic participation and new restrictions, NMFS does not anticipate large
increases in participation in this sector of the swordfish fishery.
Comment 32: NMFS received two comments inquiring about 35 buoys as the appropriate
limit for buoy gear. These comments are: what is the basis for selecting 35 buoys as the limit?;
and, how did the Agency select 35 buoys?
Response: NMFS selected the 35 buoy limit based on support from public comment and
because the Agency identified this number as the manageable upper limit for the commercial
sector that would prevent excessive amounts of unattended floating gear from being lost while
allowing vessels to possess spare gear onboard.
Comment 33: NMFS received a number of comments on the proposed limit of 35 buoys,
including: tending 35 buoys will be inefficient, taking 2 - 2.5 hours to set 35 buoys and 3 - 3.5
hours to check each one; no more than 12 buoys should be allowed when operating alone; with
two crew members, up to 20 buoys could be fished; can the number of permissible buoys be
linked to people onboard the vessel; participants currently cannot fish 35 buoys but may be able
to in the future; 35 buoys with two hooks a piece is almost like hauling a 30 mile longline with
the current; define and allow this gear type for swordfish commercial harvest, but limit the
number of buoys to a more manageable number for protection of juvenile swordfish, allowing no
more than 10 buoys makes the gear maintainable and produces a high quality product with
minimal impact on juvenile fish; 35 buoys are unmanageable and are tended exactly like a short
pelagic longline with overnight soak time violating the intent of the area closure; 10 to 12 buoys
with a maximum of two hooks is the most that should be allowed, a prudent skipper and crew
could not manage more than 10 buoys at a time and that would be under ideal sea conditions;
The regulations should allow a maximum of 10 to 12 buoys, otherwise bycatch cannot be
prevented; 35 buoys with two hooks each is not considered “handgear”; and, 35 buoys are far too
many and may allow bigger vessels from the NED to move in and use this gear in closed areas,
this shift could create tension between user groups and, displace the smaller vessels that
pioneered this type of gear. This already happened in the FEC area with a boat using 20 - 25
radio buoys; 35 buoys are unmanageable; more than 12 buoys are unmanageable. The definition
of this gear should be by the drop line, not the number of buoys; pelagic longline fishermen
would need more than 35 buoys to make a go of the buoy fishery; and, there is no data that
shows a limit on buoy gear is needed.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-123

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: In response to public comment, the Agency is preferring a modification of
alternative H5 which would authorize buoy gear for the commercial swordfish handgear fishery
and limit vessels to possessing or deploying no more than 35 floatation devices, with each gear
consisting of one or more floatation devices supporting a single mainline with no more than two
hooks or gangions attached. As discussed above, the modified alternative would allow
fishermen deploying buoy gear to attach multiple floatation devices to each buoy gear, including
“bite indicator” floats, however the alternative maintains the limit of 35 floatation devices
possessed or deployed. This alternative gives greater flexibility in the gear configuration by
allowing fishermen to alter the gear depending on weather or sea conditions, crew size, and
characteristics of different fishing vessels. If gear monitoring devices used by fishermen are
positively buoyant and rigged to be attached to a fishing gear, they would be included in the 35
floatation device vessel limit and would need to be marked as per the gear marking regulations.
Additionally, if more than one floatation device is used, no hook or gangion could be attached to
the mainline or a floatation device on the horizontal portion of the gear. Under the modified
alternative, fishermen who opt to fish three floatation devices per gear would be limited to
deploying approximately 11 individual buoy gears. Similarly, fishermen using four floatation
devices per gear would be limited to deploying approximately eight individual buoy gears.
NMFS realizes that different sized vessels and crews will have varying abilities to monitor gear
and that weather and sea conditions may also impact their ability to monitor gear closely. The
Agency cautions fishermen to limit the number of buoy gears they deploy to a reasonable
number that can be realistically monitored and retrieved safely. NMFS realizes that the limits on
buoy gear would likely reduce the chances that large distant water vessels could make profitable
trips with buoy gear. During the scoping process, the Agency received comment indicating that
the swordfish handgear fishery does not appear to be widespread and appears to operate off the
East Coast of Florida. The preferred alternative was developed in an attempt to maintain positive
economic benefits for the commercial sector currently utilizing the gear type.
Comment 34: NMFS received a number of comments opposed to authorizing buoy gear
and the use of buoy gear in pelagic longline closed areas. Those comments include: the
proposed buoy gear would operate in a manner similar to longline gear. Do not reopen the
longline fishery to further commercial exploitation in our waters; buoy gear is proposed for use
in areas currently closed to longline gear; this commercial gear violates the intent and purpose of
closed areas and the basic reason these areas were originally created; how do these new proposed
gears mesh with the current closed areas?; longline fishermen are by far the most indiscriminate
killers of the very species that recreational fishermen and conservation groups try to protect.
Yet, they are being allowed back into closed areas and are allowed to continue using longline
tackle that has been renamed; these areas were closed to PLL and allowing buoy gear in will
eliminate any benefits that the closures had; and, all the issues for PLL seem to be there for buoy
gear. Bycatch issues are still there.
Response: The preferred buoy gear alternative would re-name free-floating handline gear
as “buoy gear,” limit vessels deploying the gear to possessing or deploying no more than 35
floatation devices, and would limit its use to commercial swordfish handgear fishermen. This
alternative represents a limitation on the handgear fishery over the status quo, and is not
modifying any current restrictions on longline fishing. This gear has been utilized with no gear
limits by both recreational and commercial fishermen in areas closed to pelagic longline fishing
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-124

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

in the past and would be prohibited for use by recreational fishermen and all commercial
fishermen not possessing a swordfish handgear or swordfish directed limited access permit. The
continued use of this gear by a limited number of fishermen would not violate the intent and
purpose of the East Florida Coast closed area (or other PLL closed areas), which was to
minimize bycatch in the PLL fishery while maximizing the retention of target species.
Comment 35: NMFS received several comments expressing concern over the
authorization of buoy gear in the East Florida Coast PLL closed area, including: pelagic longline
vessels once contributed to a vast amount of dead discards of juvenile swordfish in the East
Florida Coast area and buoy gear will have the same effect; the East Florida Coast closed area is
a vital nursery area that needs to be protected; there should be no free-floating gear allowed in
the Florida Straits; buoy gear is like longline gear, and NMFS should ban longlining for
swordfish in the Florida Straits; to fish buoy gear in the Straits of Florida the handgear operator
must ensure 100 percent release of juvenile swordfish; and, a limit might be necessary off
Florida, but there might be possibilities in other areas where limits are not needed.
Response: As discussed in the response above, the preferred alternative would restrict the
number of unattached handlines or buoy gear that may be deployed and would limit the number
of permit holders authorized to utilize the gear type relative to the status quo. This gear is
currently authorized for use with no limitations on numbers of buoy gears deployed by both
recreational and commercial fishermen in the East Florida Coast closed area. The preferred
alternative would prohibit all recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen not possessing a
swordfish handgear or swordfish directed limited access permit from utilizing the gear type.
According to 2004 logbook data, 64 commercial handline trips were reported with 404 swordfish
reported caught. Of those 404 swordfish captured, 67.8 percent (274 fish) were retained, 24.3
percent (98 fish) were released alive, and 7.9 percent (32 fish) were discarded dead.
Comment 36: NMFS received several comments concerned about allowing buoy gear to
operate in the Gulf of Mexico. Those comments include: buoy gear should not be allowed in the
DeSoto closures area, nor should it be allowed in the Southern Canyon area. There should be no
free floating gear because it could get entangled with oil rigs; buoy gear may need greater
restrictions in the Gulf. I am worried about excessive gears and bycatch with the currents and
weather; concerns on how buoy gear will be deployed in the Gulf of Mexico with free floating
drilling barges and their multiple thrusters, may lead to pollution issues; future generations will
suffer and only one group will benefit from allowing 30 - 50 hook sets with no radar reflectors
into the DeSoto area south of Destin. After the buoy fishermen have moved on, there will never
be another blue marlin, swordfish, tuna, or shark in the Gulf of Mexico; the De Soto Canyon
pelagic longline closure has been successful over the past five years with more tuna, dolphin,
swordfish, and wahoo; and, buoy gear should be banned completely from the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: During the scoping process, the Agency received comment indicating that the
swordfish handgear fishery does not appear to be widespread and appears to operate off the East
Coast of Florida. As discussed under Comment 34, the preferred alternative would restrict the
number of unattached handlines or buoy gear that may be deployed and the number of permit
holders authorized to utilize the gear type relative to the status quo. In addition, the preferred
requirement to affix gear monitoring equipment is intended to reduce the likelihood of gear loss.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-125

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Additionally, under the preferred alternative, buoy gear would only be authorized to harvest
swordfish, no other HMS species may be targeted with buoy gear. All other HMS species
captured must be released in a manor that maximizes their probability of survival. NMFS will
monitor bycatch and gear loss, and may make adjustments, as needed, in the future.
Comment 37: NMFS should consider geographic limitations for buoy gear to minimize
negative gear conflicts in a future action.
Response: During the scoping process, the Agency received comment indicating that the
swordfish handgear fishery does not appear to be widespread and appears to operate off the East
Coast of Florida. However, if circumstances warrant changes, the Agency may consider making
adjustments to minimize negative impacts in the future, if necessary.
Comment 38: There is no penalty for clipping the buoy gear together to create a longline.
Response: Under the current regulations, lines with three hooks or more are longlines.
Vessels clipping buoy gears together and having more than two hooks on any combination of
lines would need the appropriate permits allowing the operators to harvest HMS with longline
gear. Additionally, these vessels could only set this type of gear in areas not closed to longline
fishing. The preferred alternative would prohibit linking buoy gear together.
Comment 39: Buoy gear exponentially increases the footprint of the vessel because it is
not attached to the vessel. It will become entangled in offshore oil platforms and dynamic
positioning vessels, and other oilfield related facilities and will result in more stand-off
regulations for the recreational and commercial fisheries from these structures, not to mention
the additional expense to the oil companies of removing this gear and repairing damage caused
by it.
Response: As discussed under Comment 34, the preferred alternative would restrict the
number of unattached handlines or buoy gear that may be deployed and the number of permit
holders authorized to utilize the gear type relative to the status quo. In addition, the requirement
to affix gear monitoring equipment is intended to reduce the likelihood of gear loss.
Secondary Cockpit Gear
Comment 40: NMFS received comments on the types of cockpit gears that would be
authorized under the proposed Consolidated HMS regulations. Those comments include: what
are the primary cockpit gears included for authorization?; will the regulations have a list of
acceptable cockpit gears because that list is going to be extremely long to cover all the methods
currently used?; people are going to need to provide NMFS with a list of gears currently used to
be sure they are included; do not allow dart harpoons and other secondary gears to be used as
primary authorized gears; mechanical harpoons should not be used as secondary cockpit gear;
and, if there is choice between a gaff, flying gaff, and cockpit harpoon, I am going for a cockpit
harpoon every time to kill fish and protect myself.
Response: Under the preferred alternative, the regulations would not list specific
acceptable secondary cockpit gear; rather, secondary gears would be authorized for assisting in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-126

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

subduing an HMS already brought to the vessel with an authorized primary gear. Primary
authorized gears are listed in the current HMS regulations at 50 CFR § 635.21(e). This action
would clarify the regulations to state that secondary cockpit gears would not be allowed to
capture undersized or free-swimming HMS, but only to gain control of legal-sized HMS brought
to the vessel with an authorized primary gear with the intent of retaining the HMS. This measure
would acknowledge and account for the current HMS regulations at 50 CFR § 635.21(a), which
state that an Atlantic HMS harvested from its management unit that is not retained must be
released in a manner that will ensure maximum probability of survival, but without removing the
fish from the water.
Comment 41: NMFS received comments supporting the use of secondary gears. Those
comments include: I support alternative H7, clarify the allowance of hand-held cockpit gears
used at boat side for subduing HMS captured on authorized gears; hand darts need to be
authorized as secondary gear so that the people in Florida’s swordfish recreational fishery are not
fishing illegally; and, this action is necessary to avoid enforcement conflicts over what gear is
legal for subduing HMS.
Response: The preferred alternative would authorize the use of hand-held cockpit gears to
aid anglers in subduing large HMS captured by authorized primary gear types to reduce the loss
of fish at the side of the boat, increase safety when subduing large HMS, minimize enforcement
problems, and respond to requests from fishery participants to clarify the regulations. This
action would not specify acceptable secondary cockpit gears, rather it would clarify the HMS
regulations to state that secondary cockpit gear may be used to aid in the landing or subduing of
HMS after they are brought to the vessel using a primary authorized gear type only. Secondary
hand-held cockpit gears may also reduce the loss of fish at boat side, increasing retention rates.
Primary authorized gears are listed in the current HMS regulations at 50 CFR § 635.21(e).
D.3.4 Regulatory Housekeeping
Issue 1: Definitions of Pelagic and Bottom Longline
Comment 1: NMFS received comments in support of the no-action alternative to
maintain the current PLL and BLL gear definitions, and a comment in support of the two
alternatives that were preferred in Draft HMS FMP. These included: I support Alternative I1(a)
– no action. The other alternatives tend to micromanage directed shark fishermen out of the
closed areas, in particular the NC BLL time/area closure, by reducing profits and causing
unnecessary economic impacts; if fishermen can tell the difference between BLL and PLL gears,
they should be able to teach NMFS enforcement agents the difference; it is still clear that there is
a problem with the BLL and PLL definitions. NMFS should reexamine this issue with some
fishing industry assistance; and, NMFS is making a big deal and creating potential additional
economic impacts for enforcement’s convenience. It is not an enforcement necessity; and, PLL
and BLL gears should be differentiated by the number of floats (alternative I1(b)) as well as the
types of species landed (alternative I1(c)).
Response: NMFS believes that the existing regulations defining pelagic and bottom
longline gear at § 635.21(c) and (d), respectively, are generally sufficient. However, there could
be situations where it is difficult for law enforcement to differentiate between the two gear types
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-127

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

while enforcing the closed areas or VMS regulations. Difficulties could arise, for example, in
determining whether the weights and/or anchors are capable of maintaining contact between the
mainline and the ocean bottom in the case of bottom longlines, or whether the floats are capable
of supporting the mainline in the case of pelagic longlines. These difficulties could result in
lengthier boardings at sea by law enforcement, temporary curtailment of fishing activities, and
potential legal proceedings. For these reasons, NMFS sought to reexamine the current PLL and
BLL definitions in this amendment to ascertain whether improvements were warranted. Based
upon public comment and consultations with law enforcement, NMFS found that the current
PLL and BLL definitions could be strengthened by establishing limits on the types of species
that could be possessed when fishing in HMS closed areas with these gears. However, in order
to maintain operational flexibility for the HMS longline fleet, and in recognition of the
impracticality of defining and limiting the number of “fishing floats” possessed or deployed,
gear-based alternative I1(b) is no longer preferred. The overall objective of this issue, preserving
the integrity of the HMS time/area closures, can effectively be achieved by implementing
preferred alternative I1(c) alone, species composition of catch. This alternative addresses the
crux of the issue, which is to discourage catches of pelagic species in PLL closed areas (and vice
versa), without the adverse economic impacts associated with additional gear restrictions. This
alternative is expected to accommodate the majority of commercial fishing operations, yet still
provide a quantifiable method to differentiate between PLL and BLL vessels. As a result, the
ecological benefits associated with HMS closed areas are expected to remain intact, including
reductions in discards of swordfish, bluefin tuna, dusky sharks, sandbar sharks, other HMS, other
finfish, and protected species. By implementing preferred alternative I1(c) alone, NMFS
anticipates that HMS longline vessel operators will be prudent when fishing in the HMS closed
areas and catch predominantly pelagic species in BLL closed areas, or demersal species in PLL
closed areas. However, the establishment of quantifiable gear-based criteria to differentiate
between PLL and BLL gear could still potentially offer an effective method to further eliminate
ambiguities between the two gear types. The Agency intends to continue to assess the need for,
and potential effectiveness of, gear-based criteria. If needed, such criteria could be developed in
consultation with the fishing industry to further improve the monitoring of, and compliance with,
HMS closed areas.
Comment 2: NMFS received several comments indicating that HMS longline vessel
operators need to maintain their operational flexibility. These comments include: Longline
vessels need to maintain their ability to change between PLL and BLL gear in order to ensure
versatility. For economic survival and efficiency, vessels often conduct both PLL and BLL sets
on a single trip. This is especially true for PLL vessels that fish with BLL gear during rough
weather days on a PLL trip. There will be an economic loss if NMFS restricts this flexibility;
definitions for PLL and BLL gear should be developed to facilitate identification by law
enforcement, while not precluding fishermen from choosing between gear types; and, in order to
allow flexibility to conduct both PLL and BLL sets, the final regulations may need to specify
differences between active gear and gear onboard the boat and not in use, because there have
been some enforcement errors.
Response: NMFS recognizes that HMS longline vessels need to maintain their ability to
change between PLL and BLL gear in order to ensure versatility. The reason for addressing the
gear definition issue in this amendment was not to impose additional economic costs on longline
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-128

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

vessels, but rather to preserve the conservation benefits associated with the HMS time/area
closures. The HMS longline closed areas were implemented to provide important protection to a
variety of HMS and other protected species. This protection could be compromised if HMS
longline vessels are catching large amounts of pelagic species in the PLL closed areas, while
under the guise of BLL fishing, and vice-versa. The critical factor in maintaining the integrity of
the HMS time/area closures is, therefore, to ensure that the proper species are hooked. This
could potentially be accomplished in a variety of ways. NMFS believes that establishing a limit
on the species composition of the catch when fishing in the HMS closed areas (preferred
alternative I1(c)) is an efficient method to discourage illegal fishing activities in these areas,
without imposing additional gear requirements that could restrict operational flexibility. As long
as a vessel is in compliance with the current PLL or BLL definitions when fishing in the HMS
closed areas, the operator will retain the flexibility to choose how to comply with the catch limits
specified in preferred alternative I1(c). Importantly, however, these catch limits must be adhered
to if any portion of a trip is in an HMS closed area. NMFS believes that it is not unreasonable,
or unduly burdensome, for HMS longline vessels to adhere to the intent of the HMS closed areas
and to avoid pelagic or demersal species, especially when legally fishing in these areas with BLL
or PLL gear, respectively. Because NMFS is implementing a species-based, rather than a gearbased, alternative to differentiate between pelagic and bottom longlines, a gear stowage
provision is not necessary at this time.
Comment 3: Comments were received indicating that vessel monitoring systems (VMS)
could be used to help differentiate between PLL and BLL vessels. These comments included:
Since VMS are already required for the closed areas, NMFS should establish a declaration
system allowing the VMS monitors to know what gear type is being utilized and why. Law
enforcement and/or observers could verify compliance, and impose penalties for non­
compliance; and, it has been suggested that vessels “call-in” and declare their intentions prior to
engaging in fishing in a closed area. This would be an unnecessary burden, but it is feasible.
Response: This comment was also raised by both the public and the Office of Law
Enforcement during scoping hearings, and was considered during the development of
alternatives for the DEIS. However, NMFS decided against including an alternative with a VMS
declaration because it would not alleviate the need for a quantifiable method to differentiate
between PLL and BLL gear. Although a vessel operator could declare to be fishing with PLL or
BLL gear, it would still be necessary to verify compliance. Nevertheless, there may be a
potential benefit to a VMS declaration system, and NMFS will continue to assess the need for
such a system.
Comment 4: Comments opposed to alternative I1(b), defining BLL or PLL gear based on
the number of floats onboard, included: We are strongly opposed to alternative I1(b); defining
BLL and PLL gear by the number of floats will not work; and, alternative I1(b) would impose an
unnecessary additional economic and logistic burden on already over-regulated fisheries.
Response: Although the analysis in the Draft HMS FMP indicated that relatively few
HMS longline vessels would be impacted by the float requirement in alternative I1(b), this
alternative is no longer preferred in the Final HMS FMP. As discussed above, several
commenters stated that a float requirement would diminish the flexibility of vessel operators to
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-129

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

participate in different fishing activities, depending upon the circumstances. Also, consultations
with NMFS Law Enforcement indicated that defining “fishing floats” and limiting the number
that could be possessed or deployed would not be practical. In light of these concerns, NMFS
believes that the overall objective of this issue, preserving the integrity of the HMS time/area
closures, can effectively be achieved by implementing preferred alternative I1(c) alone, species
composition of catch. By not preferring alternative I1(b), any potential adverse economic
impacts associated with restricting the allowable number of floats should be mitigated.
Comment 5: NMFS received many comments regarding the float requirement in
alternative I1(b), and suggestions for developing other gear-based methods to better differentiate
between PLL and BLL. These comments include: There is some confusion in preferred
alternative I1(b) between the terminology that the industry is accustomed to using versus what
NMFS is using; how do the proposed regulations define PLL and BLL gear and floats?; floats
are used for recovery and monitoring sections of the gear. The types of mainline and anchor are
related to where the gear is fishing in the water column. The mainline and anchors onboard a
vessel would be better indicators of what type of longline gear is onboard a vessel; if NMFS
proceeds with alternative I1(b), it is important to make sure that an anchor ball is accounted for
in the float enumeration; there is no critical need for BLL vessels to possess “bullet” type floats.
Such floats can be replaced with polyballs on BLL vessels at minimum costs. On the contrary,
PLL vessels must carry large quantities of both polyball and “bullet” floats, this difference would
enable enforcement officers to differentiate between PLL and BLL vessels while underway
and/or fishing. NMFS could allow PLL vessels to retain the necessary flexibility if they required
all “bullet” type floats to be stowed below deck and/or completely covered before engaging in
BLL fishing in a PLL closed area. It would be awkward but it is feasible; NMFS enforcement
should not require an adjustment to the definition. A PLL vessel is easy to spot by the amount of
“bullet” floats and balls. While deployed, the gear is easy to determine by the consecutive
“bullet” floats along the line. When a PLL vessel is engaged in BLL fishing, there is no
consecutive string of “bullet” floats and a BLL vessel does not require hundreds of bullet floats;
and, on the Grand Banks, fishermen use polyballs, bullet floats and radio buoys, but I do not
know the exact number of each; Radio buoys are probably used more with PLL than with BLL
gear.
Response: NMFS appreciates these comments. The proposed regulations did not contain
new definitions for PLL and BLL gear, and did not define “fishing floats.” Rather, comments
were specifically requested on potential definitions for “fishing floats.” While differences
between PLL and BLL gear might be readily apparent, these comments highlight the difficulties
associated with developing definitions that are quantifiable, understandable, practical,
enforceable, and can accommodate a variety of different fishing techniques. These limitations
greatly restrict the ability to develop practical, quantifiable definitions for PLL and BLL gear
that are improvements over the existing definitions. For these reasons, as discussed above,
NMFS believes that the current PLL and BLL definitions do not require significant modification,
but can be strengthened by establishing limits on the types of species that can be possessed when
fishing in HMS closed areas. In order to maintain operational flexibility for the HMS longline
fleet, and in recognition of the impracticality of defining and limiting the number of “fishing
floats” possessed or deployed, gear-based alternative I1(b) is no longer preferred. Nevertheless,
the establishment of quantifiable gear-based criteria to differentiate between PLL and BLL gear
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-130

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

using the recommendations contained in this comment could help to eliminate ambiguity
between gear types in the future, if necessary. NMFS will continue to assess the need for, and
potential effectiveness of, gear-based criteria. If needed, such criteria could be developed in
consultation with the fishing industry to further improve the monitoring of, and compliance with,
HMS closed areas.
Comment 6: Comments regarding the numbers of floats specified in alternative I1(b)
included: The number of floats proposed for the PLL/BLL designation in alternative I1(b) (i.e.,
71 or more floats for PLL) is appropriate, but fishermen could run into trouble with enforcement
during test sets. These are sets fishermen use to determine what fish, if any, are in the area. Test
sets are usually shorter and have fewer floats; NMFS is proposing too many floats to
differentiate between BLL and PLL gear in alternative I1(b). BLL gear would have far fewer
floats. Most BLL may have two to four floats with maybe a 12 to 15 maximum; and, a
fisherman may do a short PLL set that would have less than 71 floats when fishing in closed
areas and might be able to catch demersal fish, like sandbar sharks, on PLL gear.
Response: Based upon an analysis of the HMS logbook in the Draft HMS FMP, NMFS
believes that the number of floats specified to differentiate between PLL and BLL gear in
alternative I1(b) is appropriate. The analysis indicated that at least 90 percent of all reported
BLL sets in 2002 and 2003 possessed fewer than 70 floats, and approximately 95 percent of all
reported PLL sets in 2002 and 2003 possessed more than 70 floats. However, public comment
indicated that, in some instances, the float requirement could adversely impact operational
flexibility. For this reason and the others discussed above, the float requirement in alternative
I1(b) is no longer preferred. NMFS believes that the concern expressed in this comment
regarding catching demersal fish on PLL gear in BLL closed areas would be adequately
addressed by alternative I1(c), which would limit the amount of species (either pelagic or
demersal, as appropriate) that may be possessed or landed from HMS closed areas.
Comment 7: Alternative I1(b) may assist in defining greenstick gear by specifying the
numbers of floats for pelagic and bottom longlines.
Response: The issues involved in defining greenstick gear are addressed in the
Authorized Fishing Gear section of the Final HMS FMP (see Section 4.3.3). NMFS is no longer
preferring alternative I1(b), which would specify the number of floats for PLL and BLL gear. If
needed in the future, NMFS may consider distinguishing between greenstick and longline gear
based upon the number of floats.
Comment 8: NMFS received comments in opposition to alternative I1(c), including: I
vehemently oppose preferred alternative I1(c) which differentiates between BLL and PLL gear
based upon the species composition of the catch. There is no difference between PLL and BLL
gear. BLL gear takes so long to set and retrieve that it can kill pelagic species while the hooks
are being retrieved. Enforcement will be ineffective on this alternative. What is a vessel
considered to be, PLL or BLL, after it has just switched from one mode to the other prior to
harvest in the second mode?; and, I am opposed to this alternative because it will limit the
abilities of the directed shark fishery.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-131

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: There is a difference between PLL and BLL gear. PLL gear fishes for pelagic
species in the water column, while BLL gear fishes for demersal species and is in contact with
the seafloor. Although the gears can each catch both types of species, the catch rates of demersal
and pelagic species are very different between the gears. This fact is evident in the Coastal
logbook where, on average, from 2000 – 2004, over 95 percent of the reported landings were
demersal “indicator” species, as measured relative to the total amount of “indicator” species.
Similarly, in the PLL logbook, from 2000 – 2004, on average, over 95 percent of the reported
landings were pelagic “indicator” species, as measured relative to the total amount of “indicator”
species. For this reason, a 5-percent threshold of pelagic and demersal “indicator” species would
be established for BLL and PLL gear, respectively, in preferred alternative I1(c). NMFS
recognizes that a small percentage of species caught on BLL and PLL gear will be the
unavoidable bycatch of pelagic and demersal species, respectively. Also, the logbook data
indicate that the five-percent threshold would have been exceeded on a fishery-wide basis in
2004, whereas both fisheries (PLL and BLL) would have been well below the threshold from
2000 – 2003. If necessary, both the 5-percent threshold and the list of indicator species can be
modified in the future based upon a review of current and historic landings and the effectiveness
of the regulation. Presently, the Agency does not expect that preferred alternative I1(c) would
significantly limit the abilities of either fishery. NMFS further believes that it is not
unreasonable, or unduly burdensome, for HMS longline vessels to adhere to the intent of the
HMS closed areas and to avoid pelagic or demersal species, especially when legally fishing in
these areas with BLL or PLL gear, respectively. If any portion of an HMS longline trip occurs
within a BLL or PLL closed area, then that vessel would be required to adhere to the 5-percent
threshold for pelagic or demersal species, respectively. This management measure is readily
enforceable, either through dockside verification of landings or by at-sea boardings. If
difficulties arise in determining whether a vessel is fishing with PLL or BLL gear in a closed
area using the existing definitions, the species composition of catch methodology described in
the alternative provides a quantifiable method to verify fishing technique.
Comment 9: Comments specifically referencing the five-percent species composition
threshold for differentiating between gears include: In order to differentiate between PLL and
BLL gear, NMFS should prevent fishermen with BLL gear from landing any pelagic species in
preferred alternative I1(c). This prohibition would eliminate the profit incentive and motive for
violating closed areas and manipulating set time, depth at which gear is set, and the number of
buoys; I am opposed to the 5-percent tolerance for species because there is too much variability
in the catch. This ratio could also be problematic when combined with the alternative addressing
dealers and vessels buying and selling fish in excess of retention limits, because there is no room
for error and no way to dispose of catch that is useful; NMFS must make sure that the species
composition lists in preferred alternative I1(c) are complete enough to allow for gear definitions
based on species; and, tilefish should be added to the list of demersal indicator species.
Response: NMFS appreciates these comments. As discussed above, both types of gear
can occasionally catch both types of “indicator” species, pelagic and demersal. The
establishment of a zero-tolerance for pelagic “indicator” species when fishing in PLL closed
areas with BLL gear could create a situation where regulatory discards occur, due to the
unavoidable bycatch of pelagic species. Alternative I1(c) would strike an appropriate balance by
establishing a 5-percent tolerance, which should discourage directed fishing on pelagic species
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-132

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

by BLL vessels and vice-verse, but not increase regulatory discards. Data from the Coastal and
HMS logbooks indicate that, on average, vessels remained below this threshold from 2000 –
2004, although it would have been exceeded in 2004. Based upon public comment, NMFS has
modified the list of demersal “indicator” species by removing hammerhead and silky sharks, and
by adding tilefish to the list. If necessary, both the 5-percent threshold and the list of indicator
species could be modified in the future based upon a review of current and historic landings.
Comment 10: More enforcement time should be spent at the docks rather than spending
resources on investigating boats at sea. At-sea enforcement of alternative I1(c) could initiate
unnecessary de-icing of fish in the hold while at sea, which has a substantial economic impact.
Response: As discussed above, preferred alternative I1(c) is readily enforceable, either
through dockside verification of landings or by at-sea boardings. If difficulties arise in
determining whether a vessel is fishing with PLL or BLL gear in a closed area using the existing
definitions, the species composition of catch methodology described in the alternative provides a
quantifiable method to verify fishing technique.
Comment 11: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and others have
recommended that the preferred alternative be changed from I1(b) to I1(e): Base HMS time/area
closures on all longlines (PLL and BLL); alternative I1(e) would be the easiest alternative to
enforce. This is the only way to achieve a meaningful reduction in bycatch; billfish feed
throughout the water column. To provide the proper protection needed, both types of longline
gear should be prohibited from closed areas; alternative I1(e) should also prohibit buoy gear
from the closed areas; alternative I1(e) is the only way to reduce bycatch and facilitate
enforcement; and, how deep must BLL gear be set before it does not adversely affect pelagic
species?
Response: NMFS agrees that alternative I1(e) would be the easiest to enforce, but
believes that preferred alternative I1(c), which would implement limits on bycatch, can be
effective at preserving the conservation benefits associated with the closed areas while
simultaneously mitigating adverse economic impacts on longline vessels fishing in the areas.
When deployed and fished properly, available logbook information suggests that BLL and PLL
gear can be set and retrieved with only minor impacts on pelagic and demersal species,
respectively. Closing these areas to all gears, therefore, would impose economic costs while
achieving only minimal ecological benefits. NMFS anticipates that HMS longline vessels will
continue to be prudent, especially when fishing in the HMS closed areas by catching
predominantly pelagic species in BLL closed areas, and demersal species in PLL closed areas.
NMFS does not agree that closures for PLL or BLL gear also need to be closed to buoy gear. As
described earlier, NMFS prefers to authorize buoy gear in the commercial swordfish handgear
fishery with gear marking requirements and limits on the number that may be deployed. Those
measures would prevent the uncontrolled future expansion of this gear sector, while
simultaneously providing a reasonable opportunity for the U.S. to harvest its ICCAT swordfish
quota.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-133

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Issue 2: Shark Identification
Comment 12: We support alternative I2(a) which would retain the current regulations
regarding shark landing requirements (No Action) because the preferred alternative, I2(b), could
have a negative economic impact on the fish houses due to degradation of the product. The
sharks could be overexposed to heat after unloading and weighing, instead of going directly into
the ice vats after weighing. It costs time and money to stop and try to cut off all the secondary
fins, particularly small ones after the boat has docked and the fish house has began the unloading
efforts.
Response: In an effort to improve data collection, quota monitoring, and stock
assessments of shark species, the Agency prefers alternative I2(b). While initial adjustments
may have to be made to the offloading and processing procedures, NMFS believes that efforts to
improve shark identification and enforcement of regulations would improve the overall status of
the shark fishery. Alternative I2(b) would be an intermediate action (relative to I2(a) and I2(d))
in terms of economic impacts, in that the second dorsal and anal fins are typically the least
valuable and are usually sold as the lowest quality grade. Either the dealer or the fishermen can
remove these fins after landing. If removing the fins at the dock becomes problematic, it is
possible that fishermen could pre-cut fins, so that they are only partially attached, to decrease
processing time. Alternatively, dealers could remove the fins later when processing the rest of
the carcass.
Comment 13: NMFS received the following comments supporting the preferred
alternative: I support preferred alternative I2(b) which requires fishermen to retain the second
dorsal and anal fins on sharks; these measures will greatly enhance species-specific shark
landing data and improve identification; retention of the second dorsal fin and anal fins of landed
sharks, including nurse and lemon sharks, will improve quota monitoring, prohibited species
enforcement, and species-specific identification of sharks; and, lemon sharks and great
hammerheads have valuable fins- they should be ok to remove after landing.
Response: NMFS agrees. The preferred alternative, I2(b), is expected to generate
ecological benefits by enhancing and improving species identification and data collection,
particularly in coordination with the preferred alternative for dealer identification workshops,
thereby leading to improved management and a sustainable fishery.
Comment 14: Maintaining the second dorsal fin in alternatives I2(b) and I2(c) will do
little to improve shark identification.
Response: The second dorsal and anal fins of sharks vary in color, shape, and size
(relative to the body). While retaining these fins may not allow for all shark species to be
distinguished from each other, NMFS believes that it would aid identification at landing, which,
in conjunction with HMS species identification workshops, should reduce the number of
unclassified sharks reported. While retaining these fins is expected to enhance identification,
non-preferred alternative I2(c) could confuse identification by allowing some sharks to be
completely finned, and could have adverse ecological impacts compared to either the no action
or the preferred alternative.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-134

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Issue 3: HMS Retention Limits
Comment 15: NMFS received the following comment in support of the no action
alternative I3(a): Proceeds from fish caught in excess of a vessel’s trip limit should be donated to
NMFS to help fund the observer program up to a certain limit, such as five percent, and
fishermen should get fined for anything above that percentage.
Response: For each of the regulated HMS, specific trip limits have been developed based
upon a number of biological, social, and/or economic reasons, such as the nature of the trip
(commercial or recreational), the gear types used to harvest the fish, or the status of the stock in
question. Thus, tolerance limits need to be developed for each individual species on a fishery­
by-fishery basis, and may not be appropriate for all regulated species. Also, even with tolerance
limits, the likelihood of exceeding these limits would still exist and NMFS would likely continue
to receive comments to adjust the limit or tolerance limit. The suggestion to fund the observer
program through proceeds from fish landed above the trip limit raises a number of practical and
legal concerns. If these can be satisfactorily resolved, NMFS may consider this suggestion in the
future, as needed.
Comment 16: Does the inclusion of alternative I3(b) mean that we are currently allowed
to exceed the retention limits?
Response: No. Currently all vessels fishing for, retaining, or possessing Atlantic HMS,
with the intent to sell that catch, must abide by the commercial retention limits as stated in §§
635.23 and 635.24. The current prohibitions located in § 635.71 reinforce the applicability of
these commercial limits. This alternative would implement a new prohibition, not a new
regulation, making it illegal for any person to, “Purchase any HMS from an individual vessel in
excess of the commercial retention limits.” As such, dealers or buyers of HMS in excess of
commercial retention limits would be held responsible for their actions. This prohibition is
intended to improve compliance with HMS retention limits by extending the regulations to both
of the parties involved in a transaction. It would reinforce and clarify other existing regulations
regarding landings of HMS in excess of commercial retention limits.
Comment 17: NMFS received comment both in support of and opposition to alternatives
I3(b) and I3(c). Those comments in support stated that NMFS needs to make all parties involved
in violating the intent of the fishery regulations accountable, both vessel owners and dealers
regardless if they are commercial or recreational. Those comments opposed stated: Alternatives
I3(b) and I3(c) eliminate flexibility when it comes to shark landings. As scales are not used on
small boats vessel owner/operators can only estimate a trip limit at sea based upon a carcass
count and an estimated average weight; and, concerns exist regarding the five-percent shark
fin/body ratio. The ratio is not correct as it was based on one species. Thus, we need to have
species-specific ratios for these alternatives to be fair.
Response: The final action is intended to improve compliance with HMS retention limits
by extending the regulations to both of the parties involved in a transaction where HMS
exceeding trip limits are sold or purchased. It would also reinforce and clarify other existing
regulations regarding landings of HMS in excess of commercial retention limits. As with any
limitation on catch, vessel owner/operators must use their experience and professional judgment
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-135

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

in determining where their harvest stands in regard to catch/possession/trip limits to ensure that
they do not exceed those limits. Regarding the five-percent tolerance limit on shark fins, this
limit is currently dictated by the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. NMFS does not have the ability
to alter this limit.
Comment 18: In addition to the selected alternatives, NMFS should enforce the existing
prohibition on the sale of recreationally caught HMS. NMFS should levy heavy fines and
permanent permit sanctions on the fishermen, vessel owner, and buyer if any bag limit fish are
sold, traded, or bartered. NMFS should make additional provisions in the Final HMS FMP to
prevent the illegal sale of recreational catches.
Response: The current suite of regulations and prohibitions contained in 50 CFR § 635
address the illegal sale, trade, and bartering of recreationally landed HMS. As the range of
violations regarding these types of activities can vary greatly, the current penalty schedule
provides enforcement agents and prosecutors with the flexibility to determine a suitable fine,
based on information pertaining to each specific infraction.
Issue 4: Definition of East Florida Coast Closed Area
Comment 19: NMFS received contrasting comments on preferred alternative I4(b), which
would modify the outer boundary of the East Florida Coast Closed Area so that it corresponds
with the EEZ. These comments include: I support alternative I4(b), which amends the
coordinates of the Florida East Coast closure; and, I am opposed to expanding any of the existing
closed areas, including the East Florida Coast closed area described in preferred alternative I4(b).
The PLL fleet needs every inch of available fishing grounds.
Response: NMFS does not expect a reduction in HMS catches associated with the
preferred alternative because the geographic size increase is very small (0.5 nm) and, according
to the PLL logbook data, there have not been any recent catches or PLL sets in this area. Fishing
effort that would have occurred in this area would likely relocate to nearby open areas with
similar catch rates. Therefore, overall fishing effort is not expected to change under this
alternative. NMFS is correcting the coordinates to reflect the original intent of the East Florida
Coast closed area to extend to the outer boundary of the EEZ.
Issue 5: Definition of Handline
Comment 20: I support preferred alternative I5(b), which requires that handlines be tied
to the boat. If it is tied to the boat it is a handline, if it is not, it is a longline.
Response: NMFS prefers to implement alternative I5(b), which would require that all
handlines be attached to, or in contact with, a vessel. However, by authorizing buoy gear in the
commercial swordfish handgear fishery (see section 4.3.3), unattached lines would not, by
default, automatically be considered longline gear. Buoy gear would be authorized only in the
commercial swordfish handgear fishery with gear marking requirements, hook limitations, and
limits on the number that may be deployed. Both handlines and buoy gear would still be limited
to no more than two hooks per line.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-136

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Comment 21: We support alternative I5(c), which would require fishermen to attach their
handlines to their vessels, because handlines should remain as recreational gear (attached to the
vessel) and buoy gear should be designated as commercial gear. However, there are times when
fishermen need to detach their handlines, particularly when a large captured fish has spooled
several reels, in order to retrieve the gear. Is that now going to be prohibited?
Response: Buoy gear would be authorized only for the commercial swordfish fishery.
However, handlines are, and will continue to be, authorized in both the commercial and
recreational fisheries. The preferred alternative I5(b) would require that handlines be attached to
the vessel. It does not change which fisheries the gear is authorized for. The situation where a
large fish spools several reels and must be “tethered-off” to retrieve the gear and/or the fish is an
uncommon, but not rare, occurrence. The important factor in determining if this is an allowable
practice is whether or not the handline was attached to the vessel when the fish was first hooked.
Primarily to facilitate safety at sea, the handline could be “tethered-off” if it was attached to the
vessel when the fish was hooked. NMFS anticipates that these situations would need to be
examined on a case-by-case basis, in consideration of the circumstances affecting the decision to
detach the handline.
Comment 22: How is the definition of handline gear different from buoy gear?
Response: Under the preferred alternatives, the main difference between the two gears
would be whether or not the gear is attached to the vessel. If the gear is attached, it would be
considered handline and could be used, with the appropriate permits, in any of the tunas,
swordfish, or shark fisheries. If the gear is not attached, it would be considered buoy gear and
could be used only in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery. Specifically, preferred
alternative I5(b) would define handline as fishing gear that is attached to, or in contact with a
vessel; that consists of a mainline to which no more than two hooks or gangions may be
attached; and that is released and retrieved by hand rather than by mechanical means. Preferred
alternative H5 would define buoy gear for the commercial handgear fishery as a fishing gear
consisting of one or more floatation devices supporting a single mainline to which no more than
two hooks or gangions are attached. Buoy gear would be required to be constructed and
deployed so that the hooks are attached to the vertical portion of the mainline. Flotation devices
may be attached to one, but not both ends of the mainline, and no hooks or gangions may be
attached to any horizontal portion of the mainline. If more than one floatation device is attached
to a buoy gear, no hook or gangion would be allowed to be attached to the mainline between
them. Individual buoy gears may not be connected together in any way. All buoy gears would
be required to be released and retrieved by hand. Fishermen using buoy gear would be required
to also affix monitoring equipment to each individual buoy gear. Gear monitoring equipment
may include, but would not be limited to, radar reflectors, beeper devices, lights, or reflective
tape. If only reflective tape is used, the vessel deploying the buoy gear would be required to
possess an operable spotlight capable of illuminating deployed flotation devices. Additionally, a
floatation device would be defined as any positively buoyant object rigged to be attached to a
fishing gear.
Comment 23: Are floating handlines being used to catch juvenile swordfish in the East
Florida Coast closed area?
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-137

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: Available HMS logbook data from 2000 to 2004 indicates that the “handline­
only” fishery grew significantly in 2004, and that catches and discards of swordfish in the
“handline-only” fishery increased as well. However, the HMS logbook does not differentiate
between “attached” and “unattached” handlines, and recreational data are limited. Given these
limitations, it is not possible to determine conclusively if floating handlines are being used to
catch juvenile swordfish in the East Florida Coast closed area. However, given that the legal
minimum size is below the size of maturity, the average size of swordfish caught across all
fisheries is below the size of maturity, and because the area off the east coast of Florida is a
known nursery ground for swordfish, it is likely that any fishing gear, including rod and reel or
handlines, used to catch swordfish off the east coast of Florida catches juvenile swordfish, to at
least some degree.
Issue 6: Possession of Billfish on Vessels Issued HMS Commercial Permits
Comment 24: What types of permits would be affected by preferred alternative I6(b),
which prohibits vessels issued commercial permits and operating outside of a tournament from
possessing or taking Atlantic billfish?
Response: Under the preferred alternative I6(b), only persons issued an HMS Angling or
HMS Charter/Headboat, or who have been issued an Atlantic Tunas General Category permit
and are participating in a registered HMS tournament, would be allowed to possess or take an
Atlantic billfish. Persons only issued Federal swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas permits
(including General Category permits outside of registered HMS tournaments) would not be
allowed to possess or take an Atlantic billfish. Persons issued both commercial and recreational
HMS permits could take billfish, but only if the HMS species possessed onboard the vessel do
not exceed the HMS recreational retention limits.
Comment 25: NMFS needs to make sure that the language in preferred alternative I6(b) is
very clear in specifying that a commercial permit refers to HMS commercial fisheries.
Response: The regulations would be clear that only persons issued an HMS Angling or
HMS Charter/Headboat, or who have been issued an Atlantic Tunas General Category permit
and are participating in a registered HMS tournament, would be allowed to possess or take an
Atlantic billfish. Persons issued non-HMS commercial permits may possess or take Atlantic
billfish only if they have also been issued the appropriate HMS permits.
Comment 26: NMFS received several comments in support of, or in opposition to, the
preferred alternative I6(b) including: I support preferred alternative I6(b) until Atlantic billfish
stocks are rebuilt; we support prohibiting commercial vessels from possessing, retaining, or
taking Atlantic billfish (alternative I6(b)); I support preferred alternative I6(b), because it would
help to eliminate gillnet fisheries that kill billfish and other non-target species; I am opposed to
preferred alternative I6(b) because all commercial vessels should be able to retain recreational
bag limits; and, the preferred alternative I6(b) would have more negative impacts than NMFS
has listed presently in the DEIS.
Response: The preferred alternative I6(b) would clarify that commercial HMS vessels
cannot possess or take Atlantic billfish. The preferred alternative would also clarify that the
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-138

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

current Atlantic billfish fishery is a recreational fishery and that Atlantic billfish should only be
possessed or retained when taken recreationally by rod and reel. The preferred alternative would
not eliminate any existing fisheries, but it would mean that commercial fishermen onboard
gillnet or bottom longline vessels could not retain a billfish taken with rod and reel for personal
use, unless the vessel possessed both the recreational and commercial permits (e.g., a
commercial shark limited access permit and an HMS Charter/Headboat permit) and if the other
HMS onboard did not exceed the HMS recreational retention limits. Furthermore, General
Category fishermen fishing for Atlantic tunas with rod and reel would not be allowed to possess
billfish outside of registered HMS tournaments. To the extent that some fishermen with
commercial HMS permits may take billfish, there could be minimal impacts in terms of
commercial fishermen taking fish off the vessel for personal use. Current regulations do not
allow commercial HMS fishermen to take recreational limits of HMS. NMFS believes that few
commercial HMS fishermen take billfish, this alternative would clarify the regulations, and this
alternative reinforces the recreational nature of the Atlantic billfish fishery. Once Atlantic
billfish are rebuilt, NMFS may consider alternatives that would allow persons issued HMS
commercial permits to possess a limited number of Atlantic billfish for personal use.
Issue 7: Bluefin Tuna Dealer Reporting
Comment 27: I support preferred alternative I7(b), which provides tuna dealers with an
option to submit their required reports using the Internet; NMFS should move towards
alternative I7(c), which would require mandatory internet reporting, as soon as possible.
Response: Due to the importance NMFS places on reporting, the Agency wants to ensure
that reporting is both convenient and fair for all user groups. Mandatory Internet reporting
would not be enacted until NMFS is confident that such an action would not impede the
reporting process.
Issue 8: “No-Fishing”, “Cost-Earnings”, and “Annual Expenditures” Reporting Forms
Comment 28: I support preferred alternative I8(b), which requires the submission of “no­
fishing” forms. Is there latitude with logbooks coming in from different countries? If you do not
have all the parts of the logbook submission, should you send in what you have or wait until you
have everything? For instance, I often do not have the offload tally by the time the logbook is
due (seven days after offloading).
Response: As specified in the Atlantic HMS regulations 50 CFR §635.5, owners of
vessels issued an HMS permit must submit a fishing record that reports the vessel’s fishing
effort, and the number of fish landed and discarded. This information should be entered in the
logbook within 48 hours of completing that day’s activities on a multi-day trip, or before
offloading on a single day trip. Additionally, if HMS are sold, the vessel owner must acquire
copies of the weigh out slips for submittal with the logbook forms. All forms must be
postmarked within seven days of offloading HMS, regardless of offloading location. The
preferred alternative I8(b) would not change these requirements.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-139

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Issue 9: Non-Tournament Recreational Landings Reporting
Comment 29: Vessel owners should not have to report their recreationally-caught fish
because they are often too busy (e.g., absentee boat owners that fly into Florida from New York
City for the weekend).
Response: Because vessel owners are issued HMS permits, the recreational nontournament reporting requirement should logically, and for compliance purposes, be incumbent
upon vessel owners. Furthermore, since vessel owners are the permit holders, they are more
likely to be familiar with the regulations governing their fishery than non-permitted anglers who
might be onboard, possibly for just a day on a charter trip. The preferred alternative would
achieve better consistency with other HMS recreational reporting requirements, and could also
enhance the accuracy of, and compliance with, non-tournament HMS recreational data
collection. However, in response to this comment and other comments, NMFS will slightly
modify the preferred alternative to allow an owner’s designee to report non-tournament
recreational landings of Atlantic billfish and swordfish. The vessel owner would still be held
responsible for reporting, but the owner’s designee could fulfill the requirement.
Issue 10: Pelagic Longline 25 mt NED Incidental BFT Allocation
Comment 30: NMFS should clarify whether “carryover” provisions would apply to the
underharvest of the 25 mt NED BFT quota set-aside described in alternative I10(b).
Response: The alternative that was formerly preferred in the Draft HMS FMP, I10(b),
would have clarified that carryover procedures apply to the NED set-aside, and that any
under/overharvest of the 25 mt (ww) NED set-aside would be carried forward into, or deducted
from, the subsequent fishing year’s set-aside allocation. This alternative was originally preferred
in the Draft HMS FMP, but after subsequent analysis of the recommendation and in response to
comments seeking clarification, the Agency has determined that the ICCAT recommendation
provides the flexibility to avoid some of the potential negative consequences associated with
alternative I10(b). Alternative I10(c) is now the preferred alternative.
Comment 31: NMFS received a comment in support of alternative I10(b), which would
allocate 25 mt (ww) for PLL incidental catch in the NED each year.
Response: This alternative was originally preferred in the Draft HMS FMP, because
NMFS believed that its interpretation would provide consistency between the regulations and
operational practices regarding rollovers and final set-aside quotas in excess of 25 mt (ww).
However, since publication of the Draft HMS FMP, additional analysis of the ICCAT
recommendation indicated that the previously preferred alternative, I10(b), might have some
potential negative consequences that could be avoided. Thus, under alternative I10(b), incidental
BFT landings from the NED Statistical area would be accounted for in this specific set-aside
quota and any under/overharvest of the set-aside quota would be added to, or deducted from, the
following year’s baseline quota allocation of 25 mt (ww). The under/overharvest accounting
procedures contained in this alternative may have some potentially adverse ecological impacts.
Specifically, if the NED set-aside was not attained in multiple successive years, this set-aside
quota could increase quite dramatically and, as the wording in the ICCAT recommendation
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-140

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

specifically allocates this quota to the longline sector of the U.S. fleet, NMFS would not have the
flexibility to transfer this quota to the Reserve or to another domestic user group, to avoid a
'stockpiling' situation from occurring. An unrestrained build-up of the incidental NED set-aside
quota may eventually undermine the intent of the set-aside itself by leading to additional effort
being deployed in the NED, and potentially providing an incentive to direct additional effort on
BFT. For example, this set-aside could increase to a level that makes it more attractive for
pelagic longline vessels to target BFT, which could possibly result in negative impacts to BFT
stocks. Therefore, this alternative is no longer preferred and, instead, alternative I10(c) is
preferred. Alternative I10(c) would not carry forward any under/overharvest, until such time as
further ICCAT discussions regarding quota rollovers are conducted.
Issue 11: Permit Condition for Recreational Trips
Comment 32: NMFS received comments in support of preferred alternative I11(b), a
permit condition in the regulations for recreational trips, including: We support preferred
alternative I11(b) because it will enhance Atlantic shark conservation efforts while ASMFC
develops an interstate FMP; and, I support the presumption that an HMS onboard a vessel was
caught in Federal waters because the current regulations cause enforcement problems.
Response: NMFS agrees that the recreational permit condition would enhance HMS
conservation efforts and would improve enforcement of HMS regulations. Currently, in many
states, fishermen are able to bypass both Federal and state regulations by stating they were
fishing in state waters, rather than Federal, or vice versa. With the permit condition, recreational
fishermen fishing in Federal waters, who have a Federal permit, would agree to abide by the
more restrictive regulation just by obtaining a Federal permit. Recreational fishermen who do
not have a Federal permit will continue to have to abide by only state regulations. Thus, under
the preferred alternative, enforcement officers would no longer need a statement from a
fisherman with a Federal permit regarding where the fish was caught. Rather, they could take
action under the more restrictive regulations. This permit condition has been in place for a
number of years for shark and swordfish commercial fishermen and has been useful in enforcing
commercial regulations.
Comment 33: Will NMFS consider the full suite of regulations implemented by states
with regards to HMS or will it simply look at each regulation individually? How does NMFS
intend to define “strict?”
Response: Each situation would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis; however, it
is likely that the regulations would be enforced individually rather than as a suite. For instance,
if a state has a larger bag limit and larger minimum size than the Federal regulations, the
fishermen would be limited by both the Federal bag limit and the state minimum size.
Comment 34: NMFS could say that all HMS vessels with Federal permits (instead of just
recreational-permitted vessels) should comply with Federal regulations when in Federal or state
waters.
Response: NMFS already has the permit condition in place for commercial shark and
swordfish fishermen. NMFS also already has the authority, under the Atlantic Tunas Convention
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-141

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Act (ATCA), to manage Atlantic tunas all the way to shore for most states. The preferred
alternative would improve the enforcement of the remaining fisheries (recreational shark,
swordfish, and billfish) without superseding the regulations of the states. Thus, the preferred
alternative would allow states to establish their own regulations for shark, swordfish, and billfish
fishermen who are fishing only within state waters (Maine and Connecticut can also establish
their own regulations for Atlantic tunas). NMFS has the authority to pre-empt states regarding
HMS under both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. However, NMFS prefers to work with
states and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions towards consistent
regulations that meet both international and domestic goals, because each state is different and
the fishermen in each state prefer to fish for different HMS and use different gears. If necessary
to ensure rebuilding under the HMS FMP or under an ICCAT Rebuilding Program, NMFS may
consider pre-empting state authority for specific HMS. Under this scenario, NMFS would
provide states and the public adequate time to comment and adjust regulations per the
appropriate process.
Comment 35: NMFS received related comments from the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC) and the State of Georgia. These comments are summarized
here. The preferred alternative I11(b) for state/Federal regulations does not implement the
correct intent as previously requested by the SAFMC and the State of Georgia, which is to have
the more restrictive requirements, whether they are Federal or state, apply in each area. For
example, if a state has a retention prohibition, then the adjacent Federal waters should also have
a retention prohibition. The SAFMC does not understand why the “more restrictive” clause was
not more simply stated, as in other FMPs. The permit condition should be a two-way street
where more restrictive state regulations should apply in adjacent federal waters. The specific
language should be: For allowable Atlantic billfish (and other HMS that can legally be included),
if a state has a catch, landing, or gear regulation that is more restrictive than a catch, landing, or
gear regulation in the HMS FMP, a person landing in such state Atlantic Billfish (and other HMS
to be included) taken from the U.S. EEZ must comply with more restrictive state regulation.
Response: NMFS does not agree. In many cases, the regulations are established based on
ICCAT recommendations (e.g., the billfish size limits). Under ATCA, the United States is
bound to implement the ICCAT recommendation. Extending a more restrictive state regulation
into Federal waters would be inconsistent with ATCA. Similarly, if the more restrictive
regulation is not part of or consistent with the HMS FMP, the regulations may also be
inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Comment 36: HMS needs to check with the Regional Fishery Management Councils to
make sure they are not running afoul of one another. The preferred alternative I11(b) could
create more confusion if there is not a consistent policy for all federal fishery regulations.
Response: While NMFS agrees that consistent policies across fisheries regulations are
often appropriate, NMFS disagrees that a permit condition in the regulations would cause
confusion if it were not consistent across the different Regional Fishery Management Councils.
The regulations across state and Federal boundaries depend upon the species involved. For
many HMS, the majority of the fishing opportunities are in Federal waters. For instance, a
fisherman is more likely to catch a billfish in Federal waters than fishing off a dock.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-142

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Additionally, HMS are managed both domestically and internationally unlike many of the
species that the Regional Fishery Management Councils manage. While Councils often manage
species jointly, in some cases, such as spiny dogfish, the fisheries in states are just as, if not
more, predominant than those in the Federal waters. Thus, a permit condition that is appropriate
for HMS may not be appropriate for a species managed by a Council or even by the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission. In all cases, fishermen need to be aware of and follow the
regulations of the specific permits they hold, just as they need to be aware of different laws as
they travel between states (e.g., speed limits, hunting laws, etc).
Comment 37: Texas Parks and Wildlife opposes the preferred alternative I11(b), which
would establish a permit condition on recreational permit holders. The alternative would
increase confusion because it applies only to HMS and not to the many other species in state
waters. Second, Texas regulations require that recreational landings in Texas meet Texas bag
and size limits regardless of where the fish was caught unless the regulations in the waters where
they were caught are more restrictive. Third, the preferred alternative applies only to Federal
permit holders and would therefore create a scenario where different regulations apply in the
same location. Lastly, the alternative does not simplify already confusing and complex
regulations.
Response: NMFS does not agree that the preferred alternative would increase confusion.
The preferred alternative would decrease confusion by clarifying that fishermen who decide they
want the opportunity to fish for HMS in Federal waters must abide by Federal regulations
regardless of where they are fishing, and that if they are fishing in state waters they must abide
by the more restrictive regulation. Without this regulation, fishermen may need to abide by one
regulation while fishing in Federal waters and another regulation while fishing in state waters.
The preferred alternative would especially clarify issues if the fishermen were fishing in both
state and Federal waters on the same trip. In regard to the second point, it appears that the State
of Texas has implemented the same regulation as the preferred alternative but in regard to state
waters. The preferred alternative would not change this and could complement the regulation by
ensuring that Federally permitted fishermen do not exceed either the Federal or Texas bag and
size limits when fishing in or near Texas waters. NMFS agrees that the preferred alternative
would mean that different regulations could apply to Federally permitted fisherman fishing in
state waters next to a state-only permitted fisherman. This should not be an issue since the more
restrictive regulation would apply. It may appear to be unfair to the Federally permitted
fisherman if the Federal regulations for that species are more restrictive than the state regulations
for that species. However, the Federally permitted fisherman also has the opportunity to fish for
HMS outside of state waters. If the Federally permitted fisherman decides that the opportunity is
not worth the additional restrictions, then that fisherman could decide not to obtain the permit.
The preferred alternative would not change the regulations for the state-only permitted
fisherman, who restricted to fishing within state waters and must abide by state, not Federal,
regulations.
Comment 38: While the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources understands
the importance of consistent protection for HMS in state and Federal waters, we do not believe it
was the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act) to regulate fisheries in state waters except under unusual circumstances. We
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-143

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

request that preferred alternative I11(b) be deleted from the plan, and that HMS caught within
state waters be regulated through complementary state legislation and regulations, or through
provisions already existing in the Act that address special cases.
Response: NMFS does not agree that the permit condition is regulating fisheries in state
waters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does give the Secretary of Commerce the authority to
manage HMS fisheries to ensure their conservation and achievement of optimum yield
throughout their range, both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone (16 U.S.C. 1812
section 102). Implementing a permit condition on recreational fishermen to abide by Federal
regulations regardless of where they are fishing, unless a state has more restrictive regulations,
allows NMFS to manage these fisheries in a more effective manner. Additionally, the permit
condition only applies to those fishermen who obtain a Federal permit and who, presumably, fish
in Federal waters at least some of the time. The permit condition would not change state
regulations. Thus, states still have the opportunity to establish their own regulations for
fishermen who fish in their waters and not in Federal waters. Fishermen still have the
opportunity not to obtain a Federal permit and to abide only by state regulations. NMFS could
follow the process that would pre-empt states rights under either the Magnuson-Stevens Act or
under ATCA. However, as stated above, NMFS would prefer to work with states as each state
has different needs and fishermen.
Proposed Regulatory Changes that Do Not Need Alternatives
Comment 39: We support the regulatory changes that do not have alternatives.
Response: NMFS appreciates this comment. The regulatory changes that do not need
alternatives include corrections, clarifications, minor changes in definitions, and modifications to
remove obsolete cross-references. It is occasionally necessary to make these types of regulatory
changes as dates expire, or as minor issues are brought to the Agency’s attention.
Comment 40: NMFS received a comment regarding the changes to clarify the definition
of shark and the shark management unit: I am concerned about any item that lessens
conservation on deepwater sharks; and, deepwater sharks should be added to the prohibited list
rather than removed from the management unit in Regulatory Housekeeping.
Response: The minor changes to the shark definition and management unit would not
lessen the conservation of deepwater sharks. Deepwater sharks were previously removed from
the management unit in Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP. The referenced changes clarify the
regulations by linking the definition of “shark” more directly to the definition of the shark
“management unit.” NMFS will continue to collect information on deepwater sharks and may
add them to the management unit or implement additional management measures in the future.
Comment 41: The proposed changes to the HMS tournament registration process appear
to complement proposed improvements to HMS tournament registration, data collection, and
enforcement described in Alternative E9. Data collection should be mandatory for all
tournaments, just as it has been for all non-tournament landings since 2003. There must be more
accurate estimates of billfish mortality.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-144

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Response: These regulatory changes, which would specify that HMS tournament
registration is not complete unless the tournament operator receives a confirmation number from
the HMS Management Division, would serve a very similar purpose to non-preferred alternative
E9, which would implement a mandatory HMS tournament permit. HMS tournament
registration is already mandatory, so the issuance of a confirmation number would provide
verification that the process is complete in a manner that is much less burdensome on the public
than the issuance of a tournament permit. Currently, NMFS has the authority to select all
registered HMS tournaments for mandatory reporting. Data obtained from HMS tournament
reporting is used for a variety of purposes.
D.4

Essential Fish Habitat

Comment 1: NMFS should look at recent Sargassum research that suggests that
Sargassum is essential fish habitat for juvenile billfish. The United States should pursue all
appropriate opportunities to ensure that this unique EFH is protected in international waters from
excessive harvest and degradation.
Response: NMFS is aware of recent research on Sargassum regarding the role of
Sargassum as EFH for certain species, including HMS. However, NMFS does not have the
authority to identify and describe EFH in international waters. Furthermore, NMFS is not
modifying the current descriptions or boundaries of EFH in the Consolidated HMS FMP.
Rather, NMFS gathered all new and relevant information and presented it in the Draft FMP to
determine whether changes to EFH may be warranted. If NMFS determines that EFH for some
or all HMS needs to be modified, then that would be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking, at
which point Sargassum could also be considered as potential EFH. With regard to harvest, the
final South Atlantic Fishery Management Council FMP for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat in the
South Atlantic Region was approved in 2003 and implemented strict restrictions on commercial
harvest of Sargassum. The approved plan includes strong limitations on future commercial
harvest. Restrictions include prohibition of harvest south of the boundary between North
Carolina and South Carolina, a total allowable catch (TAC) of 5,000 pounds wet weight per year,
limiting harvest to November through June to protect turtles, requiring observers onboard any
vessel harvesting Sargassum, prohibiting harvest within 100 miles of shore, and gear
specifications.
Comment 2: The U.S. proposal at ICCAT to identify Sargassum as EFH was met with
absolute resistance. NMFS has to be careful in dealing with this subject in an international
forum. It can undermine what NMFS is trying to do.
Response: NMFS is aware that there are many issues to consider with regard to
identifying and describing Sargassum as EFH for HMS species. In addition, there are potential
international concerns, as expressed at ICCAT, regarding Sargassum as sensitive and valuable
habitat. NMFS will continue to examine these issues carefully, and work to improve our
understanding of the role of Sargassum as valuable habitat for HMS.
Comment 3: Does NMFS have data to justify not designating the entire northern Gulf of
Mexico as EFH, where the “Nature” paper shows the presence of adult BFT from January to
June?
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-145

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Response: As described in response to comment 1, NMFS is not currently changing any
of the EFH areas identified for HMS, including EFH for BFT through this FMP. However, it
should be noted that large portions of the Gulf of Mexico are already identified as EFH per the
original EFH descriptions in the 1999 FMP for several life stages of BFT, including adult and
larval BFT.
Comment 4: The HMS regulations should acknowledge and comply with Gulf of
Mexico EEZ EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) designation and regulations,
including any future designations that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council may
make when conducting the subsequent rulemaking mentioned in the Draft HMS FMP.
Response: NMFS agrees that any future modifications to EFH or new HAPC areas in the
Gulf of Mexico, or any region for that matter, should be coordinated with appropriate Regional
Fishery Management Council designations and regulations. the EFH guidelines require NMFS
to consider fishing and non-fishing impacts of other fisheries on HMS EFH, as well as the
impact of HMS fishing activities on EFH for other Federally managed species.
Comment 5: What process did NMFS use to identify shark EFH areas north of Cape
Hatteras? EFH boundaries appear to follow bathymetric contour intervals. Is this deliberate or
just a coincidence?
Response: EFH areas north of Cape Hatteras were identified and described in the 1999
FMP through a combination of fishery dependent and independent surveys and data collection,
research, and the input of fishery managers and scientists. References to peer-reviewed scientific
publications that were used to help identify important spawning and nursery habitat for sandbar
and dusky shark are included in the 1999 FMP as well as the Consolidated HMS FMP. As
described in the 1999 FMP, in some cases bathymetric contours were used to help delineate EFH
boundaries because they can mirror the observed distributions of HMS and important areas for
spawning, feeding, and growth to maturity.
Comment 6: NMFS should not use the same process the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council did in identifying EFH and impacts to EFH. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council managed areas are completely different, and people fish differently here
(in the Atlantic) than in the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: The species managed by each of the Regional Fishery Management Councils
are unique, with characteristics that require different approaches and methodologies for
identification and description of EFH, including addressing both fishing and non-fishing impacts.
Similarly, HMS have unique habitat requirements that require a unique approach to identification
of EFH. However, EFH guidelines require NMFS to consider fishing and non-fishing impacts of
other fisheries on HMS EFH, as well as the impact of HMS fishing activities on EFH for other
Federally managed species. Therefore, NMFS must coordinate with the relevant Regional
Fishery Management Councils as part of the process of modifying EFH.
Comment 7: Does HMS EFH include liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities?

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-146

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Response: NMFS has not specifically identified the structures associated with LNG
facilities as EFH, however, these structures may be located within waters that have been
identified as HMS EFH. For example, there are energy production facilities off the coast of
Louisiana and Texas that may fall within EFH identified and described for BFT, yellowfin tuna,
swordfish, and other HMS species.
Comment 8: NMFS received several comments regarding BFT EFH in the Gulf of
Mexico including, NMFS must identify the Gulf of Mexico spawning area as EFH for BFT and
consider appropriate measures to minimize the impact of fishing on this EFH, and if NMFS
identifies the Gulf of Mexico BFT EFH, then NMFS should include the rest of Atlantic and
Mediterranean also.
Response: Portions of the Gulf of Mexico, Florida east coast, and Atlantic were identified
and described as adult and larval BFT EFH in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks, and the areas remain in effect to this day. NMFS is reviewing new and existing
information, including data on potential BFT spawning areas, and will take that information into
account if any modifications to EFH areas are proposed in a future rulemaking. NMFS does not
have the authority to identify and describe EFH outside of the U.S. EEZ.
Comment 9: NMFS is to be commended for substantial progress in development of the
HMS EFH Plan. NMFS has come a long way in identifying EFH and should be congratulated on
the work completed in the EFH review and the review of fishing impacts. However, there is still
a disconnect between the available data, especially with sharks, and what is in the Draft
Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS should do a better job of including data from research
institutions and grants. NMFS should include individual researcher’s names that have
contributed toward identifying EFH.
Response: NMFS appreciates the favorable comment, while acknowledging that there is
considerable work left to do in order to accurately identify and describe EFH for HMS. As
described in the Final Consolidated FMP, there are significant hurdles that must be overcome
and NMFS is attempting to address these. For example, NMFS is continually working with
NMFS scientists and other experts to update relevant data regarding HMS EFH as it becomes
available. NMFS will also include the names of researchers responsible for collecting the data.
Where possible and appropriate, NMFS has already included the names of individual researchers
in the text, maps, and tables.
Comment 10: NMFS needs to update EFH for sandbar sharks, all age groups, by
including a nursery area in the western Gulf of Mexico off the Texas coast, which is a straddling
stock with Mexico. It gets into the straddling stock issue instead of the closed stock scenario.
NMFS needs to recognize the reality of the straddling stock. This area is referred to in Stewart
Springer’s “The Natural History of the Sandbar Shark.”
Response: NMFS is aware of research done by Springer (1960) who proposed the
existence of two breeding populations of sandbar sharks, one off the mid-Atlantic coast, and one
in the Gulf of Mexico. One of the research recommendations of the 2005 LCS Stock
Assessment was to identify nursery areas of sandbar sharks in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-147

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

NMFS will consider this information in any subsequent updates or modifications to sandbar
shark EFH. Although the Springer research showed a few neonates in the Gulf of Mexico, there
may not have been enough to consider this area a primary nursery habitat like the Mid-Atlantic.
Comment 11: NMFS has identified HAPCs off of North Carolina and other areas further
north. Since NMFS has implemented a closure off North Carolina, NMFS should also bring
Virginia into compliance to discourage shark fishing during pupping periods.
Response: NMFS agrees, and has asked Virginia to implement state regulations that
complement the Federal regulations. Recently Virginia implemented a 4,000 lb trip limit
consistent with the Federal regulations. NMFS is continuing to work, through ASMFC and the
development of a coastwide state fishery management plan, with Virginia and other states to
implement similar regulations as the Federal fishery.
Comment 12: NMFS should consider differences between monofilament and cable
bottom longline when it comes to gear and impacts to coral reefs and sponges. Bottom longline
gear would not much damage on mud bottoms.
Response: NMFS agrees that the type of gear used to fish in sensitive habitat areas may
make a considerable difference in terms of the overall impacts. NMFS will also be looking at
overall fishing effort in sensitive coral reef areas to determine whether fishing impacts are more
than minimal and not temporary. If NMFS finds that the adverse fishing effects on EFH are
more than minimal and not temporary in nature, then NMFS will have to consider alternatives to
reduce fishing impacts.
Comment 13: Most HMS gears such as pelagic longline would not have an impact on
HMS EFH.
Response: NMFS agrees that pelagic longline along with all other gears used to fish for
HMS, with the possible exception of bottom longline gear, would have little or no impact on
HMS EFH.
Comment 14: NMFS should look at sink gillnets and possible impacts on EFH.
Fishermen may not want to fish on live bottom and reefs, but they do hit them as evidenced by
the catch, which includes various reef species that they catch incidentally. These may include
HMS forage species as well. NFMS should investigate the possible impacts of sink gillnet gear
on offshore hard bottoms and reefs. This gear is being deployed on sensitive sponge-coral areas.
Response: The full extent of sink gillnet impacts on benthic habitat is not known at this
time. NMFS agrees that the primary adverse impact of sink gillnets to sensitive habitat would be
to areas containing coral reefs or soft sponges. Sink gillnets set on sandy or mud bottom would
be less likely to have an adverse effect, as there would be little vertical structure that could be
damaged. NMFS will continue to gather information to assess whether sink gillnets are having
adverse effects on EFH and whether actions to minimize adverse impacts should be taken in a
future rulemaking.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-148

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Comment 15: Will NMFS be documenting where the prey species are found?
Response: Similar to what was done in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks, NMFS will document areas that are important to HMS for spawning, feeding, breeding,
and growth to maturity. This will require identification of prey species and the degree to which
they overlap both temporally and spatially with HMS in a given area.
Comment 16: NMFS should consider EFH designation for forage species for BFT in the
Gulf of Maine. By removing prey species such as herring, mid water trawling has been
destroying BFT in the Northeast. Fish are moving to Canada, and Canada would be happy to
take our fish. Mid-water trawling is banned in Canadian waters, and they have a booming BFT
fishery right now. We have seen in the past that the BFT will modify their migrations, and we
would not want to see that happen now. We are disappointed to see that this has not been
addressed at all in the FMP. The New England Fishery Management Council is taking
Amendment 7 under consideration, and we would like to see an emergency rule take place to ban
mid-water trawling gear.
Response: In the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, NMFS identified
and described large portions of the Gulf of Maine as EFH for adult BFT, and smaller portions of
the Gulf as EFH for juvenile BFT. As set forth in the EFH guidelines, loss of prey species may
be an adverse effect on EFH and managed species because the presence of prey makes waters
and substrate function as feeding habitat. Therefore, actions that reduce the availability of a
major prey species, either through direct harm or capture, or through adverse impacts to the prey
species’ habitat that are known to cause a reduction in the population of the prey species, may be
considered adverse effects on EFH if such actions reduce the quality of EFH. However, as
described in the FMP, BFT are opportunistic feeders that prey on a variety of schooling fish,
cephalopods, benthic invertebrates, including silver hake, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic herring,
krill, sandlance, and squid. Thus, NMFS needs to determine the extent to which herring or other
prey species contribute to BFT EFH, and whether the removal of a portion of herring in the Gulf
of Maine constitutes a negative effect on BFT EFH prior to taking any action. The EFH areas
identified and described as EFH for adult BFT in the Gulf of Maine may overlap with a number
of different prey species in the area in addition to Atlantic herring. These types of analyses
would be part of a follow up rulemaking in which any changes to EFH boundaries, as well as any
measures to minimize adverse effects, would be proposed. NMFS will continue to examine the
importance of forage species on BFT and other HMS EFH.
Comment 17: NMFS should implement measures taken by the New England Fishery
Management Council recommendations. Even though herring are not an HMS species, HMS is
part of sustainable fisheries, and NMFS has an interest at stake. HMS should speak up for
NMFS when NMFS is considering what to do with the herring plan.
Response: NMFS is aware that the New England Fishery Management Council has
proposed several measures for the Atlantic herring fishery in the Gulf of Maine, including
limited access permits, a mid-water trawl restricted area, area specific total allowable catches,
and vessel monitoring systems, among others. NMFS is following the development of the FMP
and will provide comments on the plan as appropriate.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-149

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Comment 18: EFH designations are intended to address the physical habitat and not
forage species. EFH is not an appropriate forum to address forage issues. For example, herring
fishermen could say that they cannot catch herring because the BFT are eating them all. The
timing and location of harvest is a management issue, not a habitat issue. This is a question
about access.
Response: The EFH guidelines state that FMPs should list the major prey species for the
species in the fishery management unit and discuss the location of prey species habitat, and that
loss of prey may be considered an adverse effect on EFH. Thus, NMFS considers it appropriate
to examine the presence of Atlantic herring and their role as a forage species for BFT.
Comment 19: NMFS should not draw too many conclusions on less than complete data.
HMS species are ocean-wide. NMFS needs to get the international forum involved. They have
done some research utilizing very progressive techniques. Predator-prey relationships are
important to every species.
Response: NMFS has been cautious in the interpretation of data based largely on
presence or absence (level 1). While there is a great deal of ongoing research to identify and
describe EFH, in many instances the research is localized or regional in nature, whereas HMS
exhibit trans-regional movement and migrations. This makes identifying and describing EFH for
HMS particularly challenging. For example, even though researchers may identify an area in the
Gulf of Mexico as EFH for a particular species, those habitat characteristics may not necessarily
constitute EFH for the same species in other regions.
Comment 20: The definition of EFH for Atlantic HMS should be modified to include the
geographic range of the species and to add the availability of forage for HMS in critical areas, in
time and space.
Response: The EFH guidelines require EFH to be distinguished from the geographic
range of the species. The principle of the EFH provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act was to
identify only those areas that are essential for feeding, breeding, or growth to maturity, and not
all areas where a particular species is present. For example, if only level 1 information is
available, distribution data should be evaluated to identify EFH as those habitat areas most
commonly used by the species. Level 2 through 4 information, if available, should be used to
identify EFH as the habitats supporting the highest relative abundance, growth, reproduction, or
survival rates within the geographic range of a species. The geographic range for HMS is
extremely large and would likely result in identifying all areas in the EEZ as EFH. Due to the
vastness of such an area, it would be difficult to propose effective conservation measures.
Narrowing or refining the extent of EFH can improve NMFS’s ability to focus its conservation
and management efforts on those habitats most important to the health of the managed species.
NMFS agrees that forage species may be an important component of HMS EFH and has taken
steps to identify those areas.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-150

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Comment 21: Shark pupping and nursery areas remain unprotected. Conserving shark
habitat is closely linked with state cooperation. NMFS should continue to fund and encourage
research into shark EFH and to publish and distribute the results of such studies.
Response: NMFS disagrees that shark pupping and nursery areas remain unprotected. In
2005, NMFS implemented a time/area closure off North Carolina in shark pupping and nursery
areas to reduce the bycatch and mortality of neonate and juvenile sandbar sharks as well as all
life stages of prohibited dusky sharks. While there are many other areas that may not have the
same level of protection, NMFS currently closes the large coastal shark (LCS) fishing season
from April through June to reduce impacts on pregnant females who may be moving into coastal
areas for pupping. Many states have implemented a similar closure of state waters for LCS shark
fishing during these months consistent with the Federal regulations. Finally, most HMS gears
have little or no impact on HMS EFH. Bottom longline gear is the only HMS gear that may have
impacts on hard bottom habitat such as corals and sponges, but many shark pupping and nursery
areas are located outside of these habitat types. NMFS continues to fund shark research, such as
surveys conducted through the Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery Areas
(COASTSPAN) and a similar survey in the Gulf of Mexico (GULFSPAN), and will continue to
distribute the results of such studies.
Comment 22: NMFS must continue to recognize that these HMS must be conserved
through out their range internationally. Assumptions made on partial information may not
necessarily be valid Atlantic-wide.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to consider habitat conservation measures
throughout the range of HMS which may include international waters, particularly for tunas,
swordfish, billfish, and pelagic sharks. NMFS has taken steps in the past to raise the level of
awareness of the importance of certain habitats such as Sargassum at ICCAT, and will continue
to try to lead the effort in promoting conservation of HMS EFH. However, as discussed in an
earlier response, NMFS is only authorized to identify and describe EFH within the U.S. EEZ
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
D.5

Economic and Social Impacts

Comment 1: The high fuel costs are having a tremendous negative economic impact on
all U.S. commercial fisheries. While prices for fuel and fuel products have dramatically risen,
the price of fish has nearly collapsed our markets far below the levels necessary for profitable
operations, due in part to a flow of imports from largely unregulated sources.
Response: NMFS recognizes that fuel prices have recently risen to above average levels
and continue to fluctuate. The Agency is monitoring the impacts of high fuel costs and other
expenses as part of ongoing cost and earnings data collection efforts in the HMS fisheries. The
Agency encourages fishermen to participate in this data collection effort on a voluntary basis in
order to improve the quality of information available on HMS commercial fisheries. The trend
in ex-vessel prices for HMS fish has varied by species and is detailed in Chapter 3 of the Final
HMS FMP. The flow of imports of many HMS products are managed by international
agreements, include ICCAT and the supply of imports will vary based on market forces. Details
regarding information concerning imports are also detailed in Chapter 3 of the Final HMS FMP.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-151

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Comment 2: Holding workshops for just owners and captains could have an impact on
the market. A number of captains coming in at the same time to the workshop means they will
end up fishing at the same time and bringing fish to the market at the same time.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that holding workshops that bring together owners and
captains at the same time could have an impact on local markets. As discussed in Chapter 4 of
the Final HMS FMP regarding workshops, the Agency plans to minimize these impacts by
timing workshops to coincide with closed seasons, moon phases, and other events that normally
are down times for local HMS fishing operations where workshops will be held. Fishermen will
also have the option of attending workshops in other neighboring regions on different dates.
Comment 3: NMFS received comments emphasizing the economic importance of
recreational fishing for HMS and concern regarding the economic impacts additional regulations
could have on the recreational sector of local economies. Comments include: fishing is a key
part of the whole coastal economy and NMFS should take care not to over-regulate; tourists have
many options, and may choose not to fish if the regulations are too burdensome and decrease
enjoyment; Mid-Atlantic $500,000 tournament brings over 2,000 people to Cape May County
who will eat, sleep, and shop in this tourism dependent area for the length of the tournament
spending an estimated $450,000 in lodging alone and this event is very important to this tourism
driven economy, providing jobs for year-round residents and students who earn college money
during the summer months; and the economic value of recreational fishing is much greater than
that of commercial fishing, and according to a 2001 United States FWS report, the value of the
recreational fishery is $116 billion.
Response: NMFS recognizes the economic importance of recreational fishing for HMS,
including its impact on tourism, lodging, and local employment. Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final
HMS FMP have sections regarding billfish that provide extensive information regarding the
economic importance of recreational anglers and tournaments.
Comment 4: We are disturbed by the lack of any economic data or references for the
recreational sector. This indicates a lack of concern for the recreational sector and ignores the
enormous economic impact of this sector.
Response: NMFS has taken measures to improve the amount of economic data and
references regarding the recreational sector of the HMS fishery. This information is detailed in
Chapters 3 and 4 regarding billfish, and Chapter 4 regarding authorized gear. Direct measures in
this HMS FMP regarding the recreational sector include, but are not limited to, the authorization
of speargun fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas, improving BFT quota management, and improving
information gathering by requiring vessel owners to report non-tournament recreational landing
of swordfish and billfish. The speargun authorization was designed specifically to enhance
economic opportunities associated with HMS recreational fishing sector.
Comment 5: The Draft HMS FMP does not discuss the socioeconomic impact to the
recreational fishing sector. The fishing and boating industry is essential. Nationally, it generates
$34 billion annually, which is more than the longliners. The Destin Charterboat fleet has a study
that it generates $134 million annually to the local economy. A 2003 article in the Destin Log
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-152

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ECONOMIC & SOCIAL IMPACTS

quotes a Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development at the University of
West Florida study, which says that the Charter boat fleet alone has a $349 million economic
impact on Okaloosa and Walton counties.
Response: The HMS FMP assesses the impacts of regulatory alternatives on the HMS
recreational fishery. Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion of the socioeconomic impacts of
the recreational HMS fleet. A full assessment of the total economic impacts of all recreational
fishing is beyond the scope of this FMP.
The Agency notes the Destin Charterboat fleet study on the impacts of that fleet on the
local economy. However, the impact of the HMS portion of the Destin Charterboat fleet is not
discernable from that study and thus only represents a portion of the $134 million total annual
impact of recreational fishing on the local economy.
Comment 6: In 1989, the SAFMC documented the HMS commercial fisheries above the
$100 million threshold. NMFS has a range of values in various documents but certainly below
$40-45 million ex-vessel value. Who is responsible for the economic losses over $100 million
from unnecessary and cumulative regulatory discard policies?
Response: A combination of long-term market forces, biological changes to species
populations and necessary regulatory activities have had an impact on the ex-vessel value of the
HMS fisheries. In Chapter 3 of the Final HMS FMP, the Agency notes that the ex-vessel value
of the HMS fisheries has been estimated to be between $44 and $92 million over the past six
years.
Comment 7: The information in the community profiles is so dated that they do not
present an accurate current portrayal, at least concerning the HMS fisheries, which has very
rapidly declined since the implementation of the 1999 HMS FMP measures, especially the
time/area closures implemented in 2000.
Response: While information in community profiles included in this document are now
several years old, it represents the best available information and includes the latest U.S. Census
data from 2000. However, NMFS intends to update this information regarding community
profiles. Chapter 9 documents a list of communities that need to be further examined. The
Agency recently published a solicitation to update these profiles.
Comment 8: In terms of social and economic issues, the data need to be standardized to
recent dollars. I am troubled by NMFS staying with limited knowledge. There is additional
work that can be done to understand social and economic changes. There are lots of other things
that can be done to understand how people are impacted. Recreational data is a whole area
lacking data. The cumulative impacts section is the soft underbelly of this plan. You need to
work on this section. It characterizes the impacts without providing much evidence of
assessment. NMFS uses soft language. NMFS does not know much about the people that are
being regulated, and that is a problem.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-153

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
ECONOMIC & SOCIAL IMPACTS

Response: Economic data was standardized to 2003 dollars in the Draft HMS FMP and to
2004 dollars in the Final HMS FMP using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). NMFS has taken
measures to enhance the information available regarding social and economic changes. The
Agency has added information regarding charter boat rates for HMS trips and angler expenditure
data. Other research projects throughout the Agency regarding the impacts of the 2005
hurricanes and a recreational fishing survey currently being conducted will further enhance the
Agency’s knowledge of the characteristics of the regulated community.
D.6

Consolidation of the FMPs

Comment 1: NMFS received comments in support and in opposition to the consolidation
of the FMPs. Those in support included: we support consolidation of the FMPs contingent on
preserving the objectives of the Atlantic billfish plan and the original objectives pertaining to
swordfish and traditional swordfish handgear (harpoon and rod-and-reel) fisheries; and we had
concerns that several of the most important objectives from the billfish FMP had been left out,
but we are pleased that NMFS has addressed those concerns by including them in this draft. As
a result, we now support the consolidation. Those comments opposed to the consolidation
include: The GMFMC and others recommend that the HMS and Billfish FMPs and APs be kept
separate; the GMFMC and others noted that the Billfish FMP is primarily a recreational FMP
whereas the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks FMP is both recreational and commercial; the
U.S. billfish fisheries are unique and recreational only while swordfish, tunas, and sharks are
managed to utilize country-specific quotas; the billfish fishery is the only HMS fishery to
practice catch-and-release; those whose efforts have saved and conserved these species should
govern it; Atlantic billfish fishery is the most valuable fishery in the country and ought to retain
its distinct and separate status; I have some concerns regarding the consolidation of FMPs and
managing billfish for maximum sustainable yield, when it is primarily a catch-and-release
fishery, as no social or economic impacts are assessed; Puerto Rico Game Fish Association
opposes the consolidation due to the recreational nature of the billfish fishery and because they
do not fish for shark or tunas in tournaments. They are concerned that by combining plans,
billfish will be viewed as a bycatch species; tuna and other offshore “meat fish” species should
not be “consolidated” with billfish in regulatory legislation; tunas have been traditionally treated
as fish to be harvested, not as a “catch-and-release” species, and they should have the issues
which concern them addressed separately from the unique circumstances concerning marlin and
sailfish; economic expenditures involved in the bluefin tuna fishery are just as important as that
in the marlin fishery; I favor more micro-management rather than one FMP because it takes so
long for changes to occur if everything is consolidated. This way, any particular species will
need an entire FMP to take regulatory action; combining fishery management plans is an
example of how you prejudice your research and analyses. The longline fishermen come in and
take the bait that the billfish seek reducing the number of billfish coming in to areas that were
once critical to their life history. A billfish FMP approach would have been to look at bait
removal or spawning and nursery areas.
Response: NMFS agrees that commercial fisheries aim to fully utilize a quota and many
recreational fisheries practice catch-and-release fishing. NMFS also agrees that the billfish
fishery is unique in many aspects, and notes that the individual tunas, swordfish, and shark
fisheries also have many unique aspects. NMFS believes that these differences between the
commercial and recreational fisheries, and the different aspects of the individual recreational
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-154

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

CONSOLIDATION OF THE FMPS

fisheries, can be accommodated in a consolidated FMP just as those differences are already
accommodated in the existing Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP. Given the
interconnected nature of the billfish fishery with other HMS fisheries, both on the water and in
the regulatory and policy arenas, as well as the current permitting structure, changes in any of the
non-billfish fisheries are likely to have impacts on the billfish fishery. Combining the FMPs
should allow those changes to be analyzed more holistically with clearer links among the impacts
and issues between fisheries. For example, the Billfish FMP has only directed billfish measures
while the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks has bycatch reduction measures for
billfish caught in the swordfish and tuna fisheries. Combining the FMPs will present the whole
suite of billfish management measures in one document. NMFS believes that the decision in
1999 to combine the FMPs for tunas, swordfish, and sharks and to consolidate the actual
regulations for all HMS, while a challenge at first, has led to a more holistic view of the fishery.
This view has allowed the impacts of management measures on all sectors of tunas, swordfish,
and shark fisheries to be fully analyzed whereas before, the links between these fisheries may not
have been seen or analyzed so readily. By combining both FMPs now, NMFS is moving toward
an ecosystem-based approach to the management of HMS. Such an approach could ultimately
benefit the resource and the people involved. As an example of potential links, at public
hearings and in written comments, recreational billfish fishermen have noted that using circle
hooks while trolling for blue marlin is impracticable. Similarly, at public hearings and in written
comments, recreational tuna fishermen have asked for the use of circle hooks on rod and reel. In
many cases, these fishermen fish for tunas and billfish, sometimes on the same trip. While
NMFS could implement different regulations for recreational tuna trips and recreational billfish
trips, more effective and appropriate management can only be done by considering the
implications on all recreational HMS trips. Combining the FMPs will not change the
composition of the APs in terms of representation by states and sectors (commercial,
recreational, academic, or conservation). Also, combining the FMPs will not change the
priorities of managing HMS, which are dictated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
domestic law. Combining the regulations should not affect the length of time it takes to amend
or change the regulations. NMFS has not experienced any delays in changing the regulations for
a specific species or gear since combining the tunas, swordfish, and shark FMPs. To the extent
that combining the FMPs will allow NMFS and the public to see links between the fisheries
easier, combining the FMPs should allow for more efficient and effective regulations.
Comment 2: NMFS received a number of questions regarding the consolidation
including: How will the consolidation change HMS management? How is this FMP easier to
comprehend? I understand NMFS needs to consolidate, but how does this improve management?
Response: Consolidating the FMPs will not change the existing regulations since they are
already consolidated. Rather, consolidating the FMPs should change how HMS fisheries are
viewed and the ecological and economic impacts analyzed. Having two separate FMPs can give
the impression that the billfish fishery does not affect the tunas, swordfish, and shark fisheries
and vice versa. This impression is incorrect. The same fishermen fish for and/or catch all HMS,
often on the same trip. Thus, changes in the regulations need to be analyzed and considered
across all HMS fisheries. For example, regulations that limit the recreational catch of one
species or the gear that can be used could result in changes in recreational effort on other species
or on social and economic impacts on the entire recreational community. As described above,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-155

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

CONSOLIDATION OF THE FMPS

consolidating the FMPs should allow NMFS to take a more holistic view of HMS fisheries and
analyze these links. Those analyses should also be more apparent to the affected and other
interested parties. Together the analyses and the public comment on the analyses of the impacts
and the potential alternatives to a regulation should lead to more efficient and effective
management.
Comment 3: NMFS received comments regarding the combination of the APs. These
comments included: the number of people on the Billfish AP should not decline; we support
combining the APs; it is redundant, confusing and inefficient to have separate APs; the
customary joint meetings of the HMS and Billfish APs over the past six years ensured an
imbalance of representation by the recreational fishing sector and the result has been lopsided
and ineffective advice; and the combined AP should be fair in representing the various user
groups.
Response: NMFS is not expecting to change the composition of the APs as a result of
consolidating the FMPs. Once this document and its final rule are finalized, NMFS intends to
combine the APs in their entirety. Over time, NMFS will adjust the number of people on the AP
and/or representing each group as needed to ensure a balanced representation of all interested
sectors and regions.
D.7

Objectives of the FMP

Comment 1: The proposed objectives of the Consolidated HMS FMP are acceptable,
including all suggested deletions and revisions, but it is not possible to continuously reduce
bycatch and mortality. Logically, as the status of stocks improve, these numbers will likely
increase. At some point, NMFS must recognize that incidental catches and mortality will occur
and set practical and reasonable levels of allowable incidental catch.
Response: Consistent with National Standard 9, NMFS aims to minimize bycatch to the
extent practicable, and to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of
such bycatch. As described in the time/area section above, NMFS continues to examine the
impact of closures and other bycatch reduction measures to ensure the goals are met. Consistent
with protected species incidental take statements, the results of the stock assessments, and the
impact of circle hooks on bycatch rates, NMFS may consider modifying the existing time/area
closures or changing existing trip limits of the incidental limited access permits.
Comment 2: Regarding Objective 2, “Atlantic-wide” is a more appropriate term than
using “management unit” because even a total prohibition on any domestic fishing effort would
not recover the fish stock for most ICCAT species.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Comment 3: We are concerned about Objective 3, to reduce landings of Atlantic billfish
in directed and non-directed fishery. It is completely unnecessary to reduce directed landings
which only come from the recreational sector.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-156

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

OBJECTIVES OF THE FMP

Response: Objective 3 does not address landings of Atlantic billfish. Rather, Objective 3
addresses bycatch in all HMS fisheries and post-release mortality of billfish in the directed
billfish fishery.
Comment 4: Objective 4, establish a foundation for international negotiation of
conservation and management measure, sounds as though the intent would be to propose the
creation of additional international management entities, other than ICCAT, creating a
tremendous amount of unnecessary bureaucracy that ultimately weakens the efficient
management of these important species. This objective needs to be clarified before final
approval.
Response: Objective 4 states that NMFS would establish foundations to work with other
international organizations to manage Atlantic HMS. NMFS already works with, and intends to
continue working with, several international organizations regarding Atlantic HMS including
ICCAT, NAFO, FAO, and CITES.
Comment 5: Regarding Objective 4, the old practice of “the United States goes farthest
first” simply does not work and often results in the United States being diminished in its
capabilities and influence within ICCAT.
Response: Objective 4 does not state that the United States should work unilaterally to
rebuild or maintain Atlantic HMS stocks. Rather, Objective 4 builds in the concept that NMFS
would work with international bodies, such as ICCAT, to rebuild or maintain sustainable
fisheries.
Comment 6: Objective 7 calls for the management of Atlantic HMS to achieve optimum
yield and to provide the greatest benefit to the Nation, including food production. Atlantic
billfish should not be managed with the intent to increase food supply and the 250 marlin landing
limit is not managing in terms of optimum yield. This landing limit is not based on maximum
sustainable yield, nor does it take into account relevant social, economic, or ecological factors.
This objective should be reworded to say that Atlantic billfish will be managed to provide the
greatest benefit to the nation with respect to recreational opportunities, preserving traditional
fisheries to the extent practicable, and taking into account protection of marine ecosystems.
Response: NMFS agrees that Atlantic billfish should not be managed with the intent to
increase food supply. NMFS did not mean to imply that in the proposed change to Objective 7.
NMFS has reworded this objective to clarify its intent.
Comment 7: Objective 12 calls for the promotion of live release and tagging of Atlantic
HMS. We do not believe it is in the Nation’s best interest to promote live release for all HMS of
legal size and those caught within a legal season because any HMS poundage under the quota
resulting from live release stands the likely fate of being transferred to a country that will harvest
the difference, ultimately reducing the U.S. ICCAT quota. This objective should be reworded to
state that NMFS would promote live release and tagging of Atlantic billfish and sub-legal HMS.
Response: NMFS agrees and has reworded the objective to address this issue.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-157

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

OBJECTIVES OF THE FMP

Comment 8: Regarding Objective 12, all hook and line fishing post-release mortality
should be addressed.
Response: NMFS believes that this concern is already addressed in Objective 12.
Comment 9: NMFS should make the proposed deletions to Objectives 13 and 14;
however, if NMFS does not make these deletions, it must reevaluate its proposed revisions to
Objectives 2, 4, 5, and 7.
Response: While NMFS did suggest removing these objectives at the Predraft stage,
NMFS did not proposed removing them in the Draft HMS FMP due to the concern expressed by
the recreational billfish community. NMFS does not believe that these objectives conflict with
objectives 2, 4, 5, and 7. Therefore, no changes to those objectives are needed.
Comment 10: Please eliminate the word “almost” from Objective 14: “Optimize the
social and economic benefits to the nation by reserving the billfish resource for its traditional
use, which in the continental United States is almost entirely a recreational fishery.”
Response: The word almost has been removed and the objective clarified to refer only to
Atlantic billfish.
Comment 11: Objective 16 needs to be rewritten or eliminated because there is no
method for measuring over capitalization in the recreational fleet. Recreational fisheries should
not be managed by fleet capacity and over capitalization.
Response: NMFS has decided to delete Objective 16 for this and other reasons, as
explained in response to comment 12 below.
Comment 12: Objective 16, the consideration of fishing effort, should not be explicit to
commercial fisheries. Latent effort is only a problem in overcapitalized fisheries and the U.S.
pelagic longline fishery is undercapitalized. NMFS needs to encourage latent pelagic longline
effort to become active or reopen the “directed” swordfish permit category in a measured,
incremental manner to allow new entrants.
Response: NMFS has deleted Objective 16. While Objective 16 was an important part of
the limited access program established in the 1999 FMP, it does not apply to all HMS
commercial fisheries. Instead, NMFS has reworded Objective 17, create a management system
to make fleet capacity commensurate with resource status, in order to express more fully NMFS’
intent.
Comment 13: Regarding Objective 18, NMFS should not condone a reallocation that is
contrary to the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: Objective 18 does not address reallocation contrary to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-158

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

OBJECTIVES OF THE FMP

D.8

Comment Period/Outreach

Comment 1: NMFS received several comments regarding the length of the comment
period as a result of hurricanes. These comments are: due to the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on
the fishing fleets in the Gulf of Mexico and the lack of communication with people in that area,
NMFS should consider a substantial extension of the comment period and consideration of
suspending the scheduled public hearings; a large portion of the longline fleet is damaged and
without communications - they cannot respond to the proposal at this time; we are sensitive to
extension of comment period to accommodate the Gulf of Mexico Area, but we do not want to
see an overly lengthy delay in the process.
Response: NMFS agrees that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita severely impacted the
fishermen, infrastructures, communication, and the communities in the Gulf of Mexico region.
As a result, NMFS extended the comment period on the Draft HMS FMP and proposed rule from
October 18, 2005, to March 1, 2006. NMFS also rescheduled three public hearings in the area
from September/October to January and February. NMFS believes that this extension in the
comment period and rescheduling of public hearings gave affected entities an opportunity to
review and comment on the Draft HMS FMP and its proposed rule without delaying the
implementation of the management measures significantly.
Comment 2: NMFS received a number of comments about the advertisement of public
hearings and the Draft HMS FMP including: many of the public hearings are not well publicized,
which leads the Agency to miss a lot of key people at those hearings; a lot people at the fish pier
did not know about this hearing; NMFS should hold additional hearings in the same areas;
without better publication to increase participation, NMFS is not going to get enough comment
from the people who are going to be impacted by this rule; NMFS should improve their outreach
to magazines; NMFS needs to buy mail and email lists of anglers from publicly available sources
and send them meeting notices to ensure adequate public participation; NMFS should use the
mailing and email addresses provided when applying for permits to notify the industry; NMFS
has adequately informed us through various sources (e.g., internet, facsimile, and public hearing
notices) of all germane and relevant issues, options, and comment deadlines; your notices are all
fuzzy, full of Federal Register type language - they should be earlier in the process, more widely
distributed, and focused on the user groups in simple language.
Response: NMFS agrees that public participation and outreach regarding proposed or
final management measures is critical to the management of HMS. NMFS attempts to notify all
interested parties of all actions using a variety of methods. The official notification is through
the Federal Register. The Federal Register is available on the web at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Alternatively, interested parties can go to
http://www.regulations.gov to review and comment on all proposed rules and documents open
for public comment throughout the Federal government. Documents can be searched by
Agency, topic, and date. NMFS also releases information regarding proposed and final rules and
fishing seasons for HMS through the HMS fax network. NMFS intends to develop an email
system that would allow anyone to sign up to receive these information packages. These
information packages are also usually published on Fishnews, an electronic newsletter produced
weekly by NMFS. To sign up for this newsletter, go on the web to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov.
NMFS releases Press Releases, which the media can publish in local fishing magazines and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-159

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

COMMENT PERIOD/OUTREACH

newspapers, regarding public hearings and proposed rules. However, NMFS cannot require
these sources of information to publish information regarding proposed rules or public hearings.
NMFS has tried using the email addresses included in the permit application to provide HMS
fishermen with information about their permits. Often times, the email addresses have proved
incorrect and the information was not delivered. Nonetheless, NMFS is working to improve
communication with constituents and is open to additional suggestions on how to improve
outreach.
Comment 3: I found the public hearing presentations completely frustrating with
biomass, metric tons, and other words and numbers used as if I were in a marine biology class.
At the end of the presentation, the billfish and tuna changes were slipped in as if to lull us into
sleep so that the changes slip by unnoticed. It appeared as if the intent of the presentation was to
confuse the average angler with statistical data.
Response: NMFS agrees that information regarding stock status and quotas can be
confusing. However, this information is the basis for many of the management measures that
were proposed and will be the basis of many of the final management measures. Without an
understanding of the basic information regarding life history, stock status, maximum sustainable
yield, and other concepts, the reasons and impacts of all the alternatives considered cannot be
explained. NMFS did not present the information to confuse anyone; rather, NMFS presented
the information to explain the basis of any proposals or decisions and why one alternative was
preferred over another. NMFS welcomes any specific comments on the presentations that would
improve the clarity of the presentations.
Comment 4: If NMFS accepts comments by email, the Agency should implement a
requirement for using Digital Certificates to authenticate that the comments were from the
identified party and was not contaminated in transit.
Response: NMFS accepts comments by email. To date, NMFS has not had any problems
regarding authenticating the sender of the comment. However, NMFS will continue to examine
this and other technological issues.
Comment 5: Please limit your future rulemakings to fewer topics. Large documents like
this one are too difficult for many of your constituents comprehend.
Response: NMFS agrees that large documents with many issues are difficult to
understand. To the extent that rulemakings can be limited, NMFS will attempt to simplify and
reduce the issues in the future. However, to some extent, rulemakings are dictated by priorities
and the need to act on certain issues. Thus, some rulemakings may have more issues than others.
D.9

General

Comment 1: NMFS received several comments on how the overall rulemaking process
works. These comments include: NMFS needs to clarify if we have a choice or if the decision
on these proposed actions is already made?; what agency is pushing for these changes?; there is
an overriding opinion that NMFS does not listen during these comment periods; it is difficult for

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-160

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES

COMMENT PERIOD/OUTREACH

us to know how and where to get involved; during scoping, it would be nice to know that the
information we provide is helping to form future regulations.
Response: NMFS relies on public comment and participation at all stages when
conducting rulemaking. The comments received during scoping were crucial for defining the
scope of this rulemaking and the alternatives considered. The issues explored in the rulemaking
were not pushed by any particular agency. Rather they were considered as a result of the
comments received during scoping and management needs as dictated by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and other domestic laws. Public comment at the proposed rule stage is critical in helping
NMFS decide to implement certain measures or not. Often, as a result of public comment,
NMFS decides not to implement one or more of the proposed management measures or to
redesign how to implement some of the management measures. For example, in this rulemaking
NMFS is not implementing several of the proposed measures including removal of the Angling
Category North/South line and clarifying the commercial definition of greenstick. When
considering public comments, NMFS does not look at the quantity of public comments received
but the quality and issues raised in each individual comment. Every written comment and every
statement made at a public hearing is considered. In every final rule, NMFS responds to the
comments received during the public comment period. At that time, interested parties can see
how their comments affected the decisions of the Agency.
Comment 2: NMFS would have more cooperation from fishermen if managers got out on
the water instead of sitting at a desk all the time.
Response: While fishery managers do spend much of their time behind a desk writing
regulations and related documents, NMFS staff try to go out on the water and interact with
fishermen as possible.
Comment 3: I am opposed to management via Petition for Rulemaking. It undermines
the role of the Advisory Panels and the International Advisory Committee.
Response: The public may petition an agency for rulemaking. NMFS is required to
respond to any petition that is filed. This process does not undermine the role of the Advisory
Panel or the ICCAT Advisory Committee as these parties can comment on the adequacy of the
Petition for Rulemaking, as appropriate, or any rulemaking that results from the Petition.
Comment 4: NMFS received several comments regarding the relationship of the FMP to
the Magnuson-Stevens Act including: Will this FMP be consistent with the
revisions/reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act?; NMFS is not following its own rules in
regard to National Standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (fair and equitable distribution of
fishing privileges).
Response: The Final HMS FMP will be in full compliance with the current MagnusonStevens Act, including the National Standards. In regard to National Standard 4, none of the
preferred alternatives discriminate between residents of different states. While NMFS is tracking
congressional actions to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it cannot predict the outcome of
these efforts. If needed, NMFS would make the appropriate changes in a future rulemaking.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-161

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 5: What management measures are applicable to the Caribbean?
Response: All management measures for HMS are applicable to fishermen fishing in the
Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.
Comment 6: NMFS is allowing so much overfishing of one species after another that our
children have no expectation of there being fish in the ocean when they grow up.
Response: NMFS disagrees. While overfishing does continue to happen for some
species, other species have formal rebuilding plans and are being rebuilt. In the case of HMS,
since the 1999 FMP, blacktip sharks have been rebuilt and other species such as bigeye tuna and
Atlantic sharpnose sharks are still considered healthy. NMFS continues to monitor the status of
all HMS and take appropriate action, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, to
prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and maintain optimum yield.
Comment 7: For any HMS management program to be effective, fair, and reasonable to
U.S. fishermen and anglers, international transference and comparable compliance of
management mitigation measures must be adopted by the global HMS fishing community. Our
fishermen practice and embrace the most effective and stringent conservation measures in the
world and U.S. fishermen and anglers suffer economic hardships and fishing days due to these
measures. However, few international partners practice any conservation at all. The United
States needs to continue to lead the conservation initiative but it is unfair to assume that other
countries will follow our example if we only put our fishermen out of business or deny them the
opportunity to fish for quota.
Response: NMFS agrees that effective management of HMS requires international
cooperation and compliance to management measures. NMFS also agrees that the United States
needs to indicate that U.S. fishermen can meet conservation goals while also remaining
economically viable. To that end, NMFS and the Department of State continue to work through
ICCAT to enforce compliance of existing management measures and an end to illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing. Additionally, in this rulemaking, NMFS either allows for
additional opportunities for U.S. fishermen to take the quota (e.g., changing the time periods and
subquotas for the General category) or provides the groundwork for future opportunities (e.g.,
establishes criteria to modify existing time/area closures).
Comment 8: Remove “including landings” from the third bullet on the bottom half of
page 1-40 of the Draft Plan. The emphasis is properly on reducing mortality and post-release
mortality.
Response: This comment refers to one of the specific goals of this rulemaking, not one of
the objectives of the FMP. NMFS agrees and has reworded the goal accordingly.
Comment 9: In the Management History (section 1.1), include ATCA provision, “shall
not disadvantage U.S. fishermen relative to their foreign counterparts.”
Response: That provision (evaluate the likely effects of conservation and management
measures on participants and minimize, to the extent practicable, any disadvantage to U.S.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-162

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

fishermen in relation to foreign competitors) is not a requirement of ATCA. It is a requirement
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. §1854 (g)(1)(B)). A description of this provision is
included in the description of the management history in Chapter 1 and the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act in Chapter 11 of the HMS FMP.
Comment 10: In the section of Chapter 1 regarding the pre 1999 Atlantic tunas
management section, NMFS needs to clarify that the longline fishery does not seek a directed
fishery on the currently overfished stock of bluefin tuna.
Response: This section has been moved to Chapter 3 in the Final HMS FMP. Together,
this section along with the other sections in Chapter 3 regarding the landings by gear and the
status of the stocks indicate that the pelagic longline fishery is prohibited from targeting bluefin
tuna.
Comment 11: The HMS longline fishery was unaware of NMFS’s “technical revisions”
following completion of the HMS FMP in 1999, which changed the Atlantic Tunas longline
permit to a “limited access” status. NMFS should create an opportunity for longline vessels with
valid swordfish and shark permits to obtain an Atlantic Tunas longline permit. This will help to
reduce or eliminate unnecessary discarding and encourage the return of pelagic longline fishing
effort.
Response: As described in the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP, NMFS
made the Atlantic tunas longline permit a limited access permit, along with the swordfish and
shark permits, at the request of the fishing industry in order to close a potential loophole in the
regulations. The technical revisions to the rule implementing the 1999 FMP clarified that intent
and did not make any substantial changes. Nonetheless, NMFS intends to conduct a rulemaking
to reform certain aspects of the HMS permitting system and may consider changes based on this
concern in that rulemaking.
D.9.1 Recreational
Comment 12: NMFS received general comments related to recreational fishing
including: I will not stand for the over-regulation of recreational fishing; and, NMFS has done
nothing for the recreational fisherman but give him table scraps and ruined fishery resources.
Response: NMFS recognizes the value and important contribution of recreational
fishermen throughout HMS fisheries. The Agency continues to take numerous steps to recognize
this critical sector of the fishery, while ensuring that recreational effort is properly accounted for
and managed to assist stock recovery. Comments from the recreational sector, and others, were
fully considered in deciding upon the management measures in the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP. For example, NMFS no longer prefers the alternative that would have prohibited landings
of white marlin based, in part, upon comments indicating that this alternative could produce
sizeable adverse social and economic impacts upon recreational fishermen. NMFS believes,
however, that the preferred alternative to require circle hooks when using natural baits in billfish
tournaments is appropriate, and is not overly burdensome. Many HMS recreational anglers
already possess a strong personal conservation ethic and practice catch and release fishing for
white marlin and other species. However, the mortality rate associated with these releases is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-163

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

now estimated to be substantially higher than previously thought. The use of circle hooks when
deploying natural bait in billfish tournaments is an important step towards reducing billfish
fishing mortality, and will help to maintain the highest availability of billfishes to the United
States recreational fishery. Billfish tournament anglers must comply with the new circle hook
requirement so that these species may better survive the catch and release experience. NMFS
strongly disagrees with the comment that recreational fishermen have been given table scraps
and ruined fishery resources. Numerous examples could be cited to demonstrate the balanced
consideration that is given to recreational HMS fishery interests. Foremost, the recreational
sector is, and will continue to be, prominently represented on the HMS Advisory Panel.
Additionally, several large areas are closed year-round or seasonally to commercial HMS
longline vessels, whereas recreational anglers retain full access to these areas. The recreational
sector has benefited greatly from this access, and is currently enjoying the resurgence of
recreational fishing for swordfish and other species in these areas. Also, the commercial sale of
Atlantic billfish has been prohibited since 1988. To reinforce the recreational nature of this
fishery, a preferred alternative in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP would prohibit the
possession or retention of any Atlantic billfish for vessels issued a commercial permit and
operating outside of a tournament. Another preferred alternative in the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP would prohibit fishing for HMS in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine
Reserves, with the notable exception that high-speed trolling is allowed during the prime
recreational summer fishing months. NMFS believes that these comments are not supported
factually, and are inappropriately directed at the Agency in response to recreational management
measures that are currently necessary to reduce recreational fishing mortality in the directed
billfish fishery and to rebuild other HMS.
Comment 13: Recreational fishing should be truly recreational fishing. A CHB vessel
operator knows where to go fishing, so it gives the recreational fisherman onboard an advantage.
CHB vessel operators use this expertise to sell the catch from the recreational fishery. This
practice gives access to the recreational fishery where only the commercial fishermen typically
go. The CHB vessel is already getting paid to go out there, he does not need to also get money
from selling the tunas. NMFS should decrease bag limits on charter/headboats to avoid incentive
to sell recreationally caught fish.
Response: NMFS regulates and manages HMS CHB permit holders differently than
HMS recreational or commercial permit holders due to the unique characteristics of the CHB
sector. These vessels may be both recreational and commercial, so the regulations governing
them are necessarily different. For instance, some CHB captains may fish commercially for
tunas on one trip, and then fish under recreational retention limits when carrying paying
passengers the next day. NMFS believes that the regulations governing the sale of HMS from
CHB vessels are appropriate. CHB vessels that also possess commercial limited access permits
are subject to recreational catch limits when engaged in for-hire fishing, but may sell tunas
(except for BFT caught under the recreational angling category regulations, i.e. BFT between 27
inches and 73 inches CFL or trophy fish greater than 73 inches) on non for-hire trips. CHB
vessels may sell sharks and swordfish only if the appropriate commercial shark and/or swordfish
permits have also been issued to the vessel.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-164

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

D.9.2 Commercial Fishery
Comment 14: The United States should inflict penalties and tariffs on countries that do
not follow similar rules as the United States; push to stop longlining worldwide; stop all
longlining in the United States now; and make it illegal to import any fish from other countries
that longline, do not follow conservation limits, and do not require longlines to only use circle
hooks.
Response: The United States has been a leader internationally in promoting fishing
practices that reduce bycatch and promote conservation of HMS and other fish stocks. Pelagic
longlining gear is not being prohibited at this time due to reasons discussed in the response to
Comment 36 of the Time/Area Closures section. NMFS believes that international cooperation,
including sharing science and technology such as circle hooks and bycatch reduction gears, is the
primary and most effective means to achieve conservation goals. The United States will
continue to promote these types of measures both domestically and internationally, and will
encourage efforts by other countries to implement similar measures.
Comment 15: Are fish that are caught by commercial permit holders and retained for
personal use counted against the quota?
Response: NMFS is preferring an alternative that would prohibit vessels issued
commercial permits and operating outside of a tournament from possessing, retaining, or taking
Atlantic billfish from the management unit. Under this alternative, only fishermen issued either
an HMS Angling or Charter/headboat permit could take or possess Atlantic billfish.
Additionally, General category fishermen fishing in a registered tournament could take and
possess Atlantic billfish. In the case of General category fishermen participating in a
tournament, the tournament operator must report any billfish landed in the tournament.
Charter/headboat vessel owners are required to report billfish under the recreational reporting
requirements. Atlantic marlin landings are counted against the 250-fish landing limit. All
landings from commercial shark or swordfish vessels must be reported in the HMS logbook, if
selected for reporting, regardless of whether the fish are retained for personal use. Sharks landed
by commercial permit holders are counted against commercial quotas. A swordfish from the
North Atlantic stock caught prior to a directed fishery closure by a vessel with a directed or
handgear swordfish permit is counted against the directed fishery quota. A North Atlantic
swordfish landed by a vessel issued an incidental swordfish permit or a Charter/headboat permit
or landed after the directed swordfish fishery is closed is counted against the incidental catch
quota. Owners of Atlantic Tunas vessels must also report landings in the HMS logbook, if
selected for reporting. There are no quotas for bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, or skipjack tunas.
BFT landed but not sold must be reported and are applied to the quota category according to the
permit category of the vessel from which it was landed.
Comment 16: All commercial vessels that have not landed a fish in the past three years
should be “retired.”
Response: NMFS does not necessarily agree with this statement for HMS. Commercial
fishermen can take time away from fishing for certain species for numerous reasons including
repairs or replacement of vessels, a desire to help rebuild the stocks, or more opportunities in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-165

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

another fishery. In the current situation, many PLL or shark fishermen have stopped fishing for
HMS due to current restrictions such as the time/area closures and short shark seasons.
Additionally, for some commercial fisheries, such as the BFT General category fishery, the quota
does not allow for every permit holder to land a fish in every year. Thus, some vessels may not
land a BFT for several years. In some fisheries, such as those that are severely overfished, such
a measure may be needed to ensure that latent permit holders cannot re-enter the fishery and
increase effort. NMFS may conduct a rulemaking in the future to reform the current permit
structure. At that time, NMFS may consider measures such as this one, as necessary.
Comment 17: NMFS heard two opposing comments related to commercial vessels
impacted by the hurricanes last fall. These comments were: NMFS needs to provide buyout
programs for the commercial fishery, especially now that vessels active in this fishery have been
impacted by hurricane Katrina; and NMFS should not subsidize the replacement of commercial
vessels impacted by hurricane Katrina.
Response: NMFS is still analyzing the impacts of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina on
fishermen and communities in the Gulf of Mexico. At this time, NMFS does not know the
extent of lasting damage or the most appropriate measures needed to rebuild the affected
fisheries, either commercial or recreational. NMFS would take the appropriate actions in the
future, as needed.
D.9.3 Longline
Comment 18: Why are there no proposed measures for the commercial PLL fishery in the
Draft HMS FMP?
Response: Many measures in the HMS FMP could have ancillary impacts on PLL fishery
such as going to ICCAT regarding a rebuilding plan for northern albacore tuna and the change in
fishing years. There are also alternatives that specifically consider the PLL fishery. All of the
alternatives in the time/area section, except for alternative B6, were considered for the PLL
fishery in the Draft HMS FMP. NMFS is not preferring, at this time, to implement any new
closures, except the complementary measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps
Marine Reserves, which would prohibit fishing for and possessing all HMS by all HMS gears in
the marine reserves from November through April (except when transiting and the gear is
stowed). The possession of Gulf reef fish in these areas is already prohibited year-round (except
when transiting and the gear is stowed). From May through October, surface trolling would be
the only HMS fishing activity allowed. No new measures were proposed at this time because
there are already a number of restrictions, including time/area closures, gear requirements, VMS,
observers, and a host of other measures required to reduce bycatch in the PLL fishery. However,
NMFS would continue to examine the issue of targeted time/area closures to further reduce
bycatch in the future. Other alternatives that could affect specifically PLL fishermen include
workshops, changes to the definition of PLL gear, modifications to the definition of the East
Florida Coast closed area, and the decision regarding the 25 mt BFT available in the NED.
Comment 19: NMFS should allow the practice of using live baits on PLL gear again.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-166

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Response: The Agency is aware of the concern expressed in this comment. Currently in
the Gulf of Mexico, vessels with PLL gear onboard are prohibited from deploying or fishing with
live bait, possessing live bait, or setting up a well or tank to maintain live bait. This prohibition
was implemented in lieu of closing the western Gulf of Mexico through a final rule published on
August 1, 2000 (65 FR 47214), and became effective on September 1, 2000. It was established
to reduce the bycatch of billfish on PLL gear and this remains an important priority. However,
given the recent mandatory requirement for PLL vessels to possess and deploy only large circle
hooks and to carry release and disentanglement gear, a reexamination of the live bait prohibition
may be warranted. Before this issue could be considered in a future rulemaking, it would be
beneficial to obtain additional gear research information, such as bycatch rates and post-release
mortality rates of billfish on PLL gear deploying large circle hooks with both live and dead baits.
Comment 20: Without a relaxation of the restrictions, the longline fishery will continue to
fail – not due to stock declines but due to over-restrictions.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the PLL fishery has decreased in size over time
possibly due to current time/area closures but also due to other factors, which are out of NMFS
control (i.e., hurricanes, fuel prices, etc.). NMFS is not preferring, at this time, to implement any
new closures, except the complementary measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps Marine Reserves. The United States has not been able to catch its swordfish ICCAT
quota allocation. While NMFS considered modifications to current time/area closures, none of
the modifications considered would have resulted in a large enough increase in target catch to
alleviate concerns over uncaught portions of the swordfish quota. NMFS is investigating ways
to revitalize the swordfish fishery and is waiting on the results of the ICCAT stock assessments
to help determine domestic measures with regard to management of these species.
D.9.4 Swordfish
Comment 21: NMFS received comments regarding the trade of swordfish including: Is
there anything in the Draft HMS FMP regarding the import of swordfish from countries that
have exceeded their ICCAT quota? This exceedance has been a perennial problem at ICCAT
Advisory Committee Meetings and it is annoying when fishermen say that this type of fishing
encroaches on “our” fishery when it is the fishery as a whole, not only the U.S. swordfish
fishery; U.S. swordfish fishermen should be provided reasonable opportunity to harvest quota United States has a high demand that U.S. fishermen should have an opportunity to fill; NMFS
should prohibit all imports on swordfish and tuna.
Response: ICCAT is an international organization that addresses quota overages and
penalties associated with those overages through a process that requires the adoption of
recommendations and then implementation of those recommendations by contracting parties.
The United States is a contracting party at ICCAT and participates in the evaluation of
compliance with quotas. Quota compliance is an important issue right now for the United States
during ICCAT negotiations. However, ICCAT would be the lead in imposing trade sanctions or
other appropriate penalties on a particular country if found to be violating ICCAT agreements.
Such actions have been taken by ICCAT in the past. Also, NMFS agrees that overharvests of
ICCAT quotas impact the entire swordfish fishery and not just the U.S. allocation, and it is
important to manage the fishery as a whole and not to become too focused on just the U.S. quota.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-167

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

NMFS is currently working on different ways to revitalize the U.S. swordfish fishery. An SCRS
stock assessment is scheduled for 2006, and the results from this stock assessment will help
determine domestic measures for this species.
Comment 22: NMFS received comments regarding the need to revitalize the PLL and/or
swordfish fishery including: in the face of our consistently rolled-over quota and fully-rebuilt
swordfish stock, why are there no provisions to allow for U.S. fishermen to get newer, more
efficient, and safer vessels?; NMFS should eliminate the vessel upgrading restrictions to help
revitalize the PLL fishery; what is there in the draft HMS FMP that would allow the U.S. ICCAT
Delegation to convince foreign ICCAT Delegations that the United States is serious about
revitalizing its swordfish fishery in order to utilize the full United States ICCAT swordfish
quota?; NMFS should make reasonable adjustments to the offshore borders of existing closed
areas; eliminate the limited access upgrading criteria; re-evaluate the use of “live bait” for circle
hooks only; provide a more reasonable trip limit for incidental PLL to eliminate wasteful and
unnecessary regulatory discarding; re-open the swordfish handgear fisheries, especially in light
of the inability of the United States to land its current ICCAT quota; the United States is looking
at a stockpile for swordfish and BFT; if the United States does not have any quota it will be
difficult to have a voice in international negotiations; $86 million of swordfish was not caught;
this domestic fleet is so over restricted that it cannot harvest the quota; count recreational
swordfish live and dead releases as well as commercial catches when negotiating the United
States quota at ICCAT; eliminate the recreational bag limit to be replaced with a higher
minimum size of 47 inches LJFL and authorize anyone holding a general category tuna permit to
land swordfish; increase the number of swordfish that may be kept by swordfish incidental
permit holders in the Gulf of Mexico or convert all Gulf of Mexico incidental permits to directed
permits.; adjust the existing PLL time/area closures within the U.S. EEZ in consideration of a
fully rebuild North Atlantic swordfish stock and the U.S. swordfish fishery’s ability to harvest its
ICCAT quota share; longline fishermen made great sacrifices to rebuild this fish stock and have
been the world’s leading innovators of “bycatch friendlier” pelagic hook and line fishing –
NMFS must take action to revitalize this fishery.
Response: For the past several years, the swordfish fishery has been unable to catch the
full quota. This is a change from the fishery in the 1990s where the quota was usually taken. In
1997, the quota was overharvested and the fishery was closed. There are a number of possible
explanations for the inability of the fleet to harvest the quota including time/area closures to PLL
(the primary gear used to harvest swordfish), the reduction in permit holders through limited
access, the restrictions on vessel upgrading, the incidental take limits, and the paucity of
reporting from the recreational sector. Given the anticipated rebuilt status of swordfish (the next
stock assessment is scheduled for September 2006), a number of fishermen and others have
asked NMFS to revitalize this fishery. Many people are concerned that without a plan to
revitalize the fishery, the quota would be taken from the United States and given to other
countries, many of which do not view conservation as the United States does. NMFS is also
concerned about the status of this fishery and its quota. While this rulemaking was not intended
to revitalize the swordfish fishery, many of the actions would allow for actions to be taken in the
future. For example, NMFS does not prefer to modify any existing closures at this time but the
preferred criteria would allow for modifications to the closed areas and/or experiments to test
gears or other fishing methods in the closed areas. Additionally, NMFS is defining a “new”
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-168

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

swordfish commercial gear type (i.e., buoy gear) and clarifying the difference between this
commercial gear and the primarily recreational gear of handline. Depending on the stock
assessment and the upcoming ICCAT recommendations, NMFS expects to do rulemaking in the
near future that could help revitalize the swordfish fishery. Any effort to revitalize the fishery
must take care not to increase sea turtle takes (the PLL fishery has a jeopardy conclusion under
ESA for leatherback sea turtles), marine mammal interactions (there is a PLL Take Reduction
Team that is considering methods of reducing interactions under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act), and catches of marlin, BFT, and other overfished species. Over time, consistent with the
objectives of this FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
ESA, NMFS intends to revitalize the fishery so that swordfish are harvested in a sustainable and
economically viable manner and bycatch is minimized to the extent practicable.
Comment 23: NMFS received comments regarding the trip limit for swordfish incidental
limited access permit holders. These comments included: NMFS must reevaluate the incidental
swordfish trip limits in order to reduce or eliminate unnecessary discards by valid permit holders;
there was an allowance of five swordfish in the squid fishery. If a swordfish comes aboard in a
trawl, it is dead. Mid-water trawls are not directing or targeting swordfish. So, can there be an
allowance for 15 swordfish in a mid-water trawl? It seems to be a waste to throw dead swordfish
overboard.
Response: The current trip limits for incidental permit holders and permit holders using
mid-water trawls were implemented in 1999 as part of the limited access program for swordfish.
At that time, swordfish were overfished, there were a number of latent permit holders, and the
quota was being landed. Thus, the limited number of swordfish that could be landed by
incidental permit holders or permit holders using mid-water trawls (an unauthorized gear) was
appropriate and was aimed at reducing swordfish mortality by fishermen not targeting swordfish,
to the extent practicable. The situation has now changed and, depending on the results of the
upcoming 2006 stock assessment, NMFS may reconsider these limits in a future rulemaking.
Comment 24: U.S. recreational fishermen should be allowed to sell their swordfish.
Response: Under current HMS regulations, recreational fishermen are not allowed to sell
HMS. If fishermen wish to sell their swordfish, they can obtain a commercial swordfish limited
access permit from commercial fishermen who are leaving the fishery. Anecdotal information
indicates there are a number of commercial swordfish permits available. However, depending on
the type of swordfish permit obtained, these permits may limit fishermen to the commercial suite
of permits and they would not be able to obtain either an HMS Angling or HMS
Charter/Headboat permit. All recreational landings are counted against the domestic quota for
swordfish (300 mt dw of the quota are allocated for recreational landings). Comments in the past
have indicated concern to the public health regarding the quality of recreationally-caught
swordfish. These commenters have noted that while commercial fishermen are trained and have
the facilities to maintain fresh swordfish, recreational fishermen generally keep the swordfish in
a cooler. Nevertheless, as discussed above, fishermen have requested NMFS to revitalize the
swordfish fishery. The suggestion in this comment may be one potential option for such a goal.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-169

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

D.9.5 Tunas
Comment 25: The draft HMS FMP does not consider the uncertainty associated with
estimates of recent BFT recruitment in recent years, the probable outcomes for BFT under
different estimates, or the impact on rebuilding of the current high mortality in the Gulf of
Mexico. The draft HMS FMP needs to consider this while also keeping in mind the feasibility of
changing ICCAT management measures and quotas at the upcoming ICCAT meeting.
Response: The ecological impacts of this final action on BFT are at most, minimal. The
overall quotas for each domestic fishing category are not changed, nor are the size classes of
BFT that each domestic category targets. The preferred alternatives for BFT comply with the
ICCAT BFT rebuilding plan, which considers the uncertainty associated with BFT stock
assessment analyses. The preferred alternatives also continue the prohibition on directed fishing
for BFT in the Gulf of Mexico, and review the efficacy of additional management options to
reduce BFT bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico. The West Atlantic BFT stock is scheduled to be re­
assessed by ICCAT in June 2006, and the assessment will be evaluated at the upcoming annual
ICCAT meeting in November 2006. Any changes to the rebuilding plan would be implemented
by NMFS as required under ATCA.
Comment 26: Filleting tunas at-sea should be acceptable on HMS CHB vessels. By
allowing filleting at-sea, the catch can be prepared and put on ice much sooner than if cleaning
occurs upon returning to the dock; it will be better for public safety because tuna deteriorate
quickly in warm summer and fall months; and preparing tuna sooner also improves the quality of
the meat, and ultimately, angler satisfaction. The season is relatively short, so filleting at-sea
allows for a quicker turn around time between trips. It will not compromise enforcement of size
limits, retention limits, and species identification. Retaining the racks can facilitate enforcement.
Response: Under current regulations at 50 CFR 635.30(a), “persons who own or operate
a fishing vessel that possesses an Atlantic tuna in the Atlantic Ocean or that lands an Atlantic
tuna in an Atlantic coastal port must maintain such Atlantic tuna through offloading either in
round form or eviscerated with the head and fins removed, provided that one pectoral fin and the
tail remain attached.” Eviscerated is defined as a fish that has only the alimentary organs
removed. The regulations are intended to aid in enforcing the minimum size limit, retention
limits, and species identification. Over the past several years, the HMS CHB industry, more
specifically the headboat sector, has requested that it be exempt from the current regulations and
allowed to fillet Atlantic tunas at sea. While authorizing filleting at-sea may have social and
economic benefits for the industry as set forth above, waiving the current regulations could
render enforcement of size limits, retention limits, and species identification difficult.
D.9.6 Sharks
Comment 27: NMFS has placed sharks as the lowest priority. NMFS has not adequately
addressed persistent overfishing, population depletion, and the need for a precautionary approach
with regard to a number of exceptionally vulnerable, coastal, and pelagic shark species. The
draft HMS FMP lacks goals, timetables, and milestones toward conserving sharks and their
habitats.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-170

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Response: NMFS disagrees that sharks are the lowest priority. The implementing
regulations for Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks
(December 24, 2003, 68 FR 74746) included management measures to address overfishing and
population depletion of sharks. These management measures included, but were not limited to:
aggregating the LCS shark complex, using MSY as a basis for setting commercial quotas,
implementing a 4,000 lb trip limit in the commercial LCS fishery, establishing regional
commercial quotas and trimester seasons, establishing gear restrictions to reduce bycatch, and
establishment of a time area closure in the mid Atlantic region from January to July each year to
reduce interactions with sandbar and prohibited dusky sharks. There are also several preferred
shark management measures in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP that would address
overfishing of finetooth sharks, improve shark dealer identification of commercially harvested
shark species, and require fishermen to leave the second dorsal and anal fin on all commercially
landed sharks to facilitate improved identification, among others. Furthermore, the HMS
Management Division is currently engaged in a proposed rulemaking (March, 29, 2006, 71 FR
15680) that may facilitate improved handling, release, and disentanglement of non-target
bycatch, including sharks, sea turtles, and smalltooth sawfish. NMFS recently released a dusky
shark assessment (May 25, 2006, 71 FR 30123), and is considering the results of the Canadian
porbeagle assessment. The final LCS stock assessment review workshop was held in June of this
year, and the SCS stock assessment workshops will begin in 2007. Additional management
measures for shark fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean may be implemented in the future, as
necessary.
Comment 28: NMFS should release and begin work to address the findings of LCS
assessment as soon as possible.
Response: The LCS stock assessment is following the SEDAR process, which
emphasizes constituent and stakeholder participation in assessment development and
transparency in the assessment process. As they are completed, all documents related to the LCS
assessment have been placed on the SEDAR webpage at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/.
The final LCS review workshop was held on June 5-9, 2006. As per all stock assessments,
NMFS will review the final determinations from the workshop and proceed with regulatory or
management actions as necessary, consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act, the HMS FMP, and
other federal laws.
Comment 29: NMFS has relaxed the conservation framework for exceptionally
vulnerable deepwater sharks by removing this special grouping from the management unit.
Contrary to NFMS assertions, the finning prohibition alone is not sufficient to conserve these
species. NMFS should work towards adding deepwater sharks to the list of prohibited shark
species in subsequent rulemaking.
Response 30: The deepwater sharks were added to the management unit in 1999 because
the Agency wanted to ensure that finning was prohibited for all sharks, including deepwater
sharks. NMFS however, does not contend that the finning prohibition was sufficient to conserve
these species. When deepwater sharks were included in the management unit, there were no
other management regulations in place (i.e, permitting, reporting, trip limits, minimum size).
NMFS believes that maintaining data collection only on the deepwater sharks is sufficient
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-171

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

because they are not targeted in the shark fishery. Prohibiting landings of these species would
not likely reduce mortality, as most of these sharks are dead at haulback and take of these species
is a rare occurrence. Furthermore, NMFS does not want to further jeopardize the collection of
data on these species, which is a rare event, by including them in the prohibited species
management unit. If deepwater sharks were prohibited, scientists and fishermen would need to
have an exempted fishing permit to retain them. Currently, on the rare occasions when
fishermen catch a deepwater shark, they can give it to a scientist. If the species were prohibited,
every fisherman and scientist who might catch a deepwater shark and who would want to retain
any part of it for research would need to have an EFP on the off chance that such a shark would
be caught. NMFS currently receives complaints from scientists about disruption to research for
other species that are prohibited and caught more often than deepwater sharks, such as white
sharks. Nonetheless, if directed fisheries for deepwater sharks are developed and/or extensive
landings of these species begins to occur as bycatch in other fisheries, the Agency may
implement additional measures.
Comment 31: NMFS needs to review and release the long-awaited population assessment
for dusky sharks, as a matter of priority. We are concerned about the more than 23,000 dusky
sharks landed in 2003, despite their prohibited species status. NMFS should investigate and
address this problem immediately.
Response: The Southeast Fishery Science Center recently released the dusky shark
assessment (May 25, 2006, 71 FR 30123). This document is available on the internet
(http://www.sefscpanamalab.noaa.gov/shark/pdf/Dusky_Shark_Assessment.zip). NMFS is also
concerned about the status of dusky sharks; hence, this species has been on the prohibited species
list since 1999. In 2003, there were 23,288 lbs dw of dusky sharks reported landed in
commercial shark fisheries. In 2004, only 1,025 lbs dw of dusky sharks were landed. Effective
January 1, 2005, the mid-Atlantic time area closure closed commercial shark fishing with bottom
longline gear from January 1 through July 31 of every year. This area was closed in part to
reduce commercial fishery interactions with dusky sharks. NMFS may also implement
additional management measures as a result of the recently released dusky shark assessment.
Comment 32: NMFS received comments regarding management of porbeagle sharks
including: The porbeagle population is eleven percent of its size in 1961 which is too low;
Canada has already listed porbeagle sharks as endangered - the United States needs to prohibit
all landing immediately and eliminate the directed quota for porbeagle sharks; we are concerned
about the continuation of the directed quota for Northwest Atlantic porbeagles, given that this
population has been proposed as “Endangered” by the IUCN SSG and Canada; NMFS should
end the directed fishery for porbeagles by eliminating the directed commercial quota and
allowing only incidental landings; we support NMFS stated interest in working with Canada to
address porbeagle conservation - such negotiations will be more successful if the United States
takes action to end directed porbeagle fisheries in U.S. waters; the United States should
aggressively pursue no directed porbeagle shark fisheries with Canada and within ICCAT.
Response 33: The United States has, on average, landed less than 1 mt of porbeagle
sharks in the last four years, most of which was incidental, not directed catch. NMFS, however
recognizes the ecological significance of the historical decline in porbeagle sharks, and is
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-172

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

currently considering the stock assessment report recently completed by Canada in the fall of
2005. Management alternatives and regulations to prevent further declines in the porbeagle
stocks will likely be considered in upcoming rulemaking actions, if necessary.
Comment 34: NMFS needs to make permits available to Puerto Rican shark fishermen or
allow them to retain sharks since they are retaining sharks anyway.
Response: All fishermen, fishing for HMS, are already required through state regulations
to have the appropriate HMS permits when fishing in state waters. Additionally, shark
fishermen fishing in Federal waters are required to have the appropriate Federal HMS permit
consistent with Federal regulations. The limited access permits are available from people
leaving the fishery, and the recreational permits are available to anyone and may be obtained
online at: http://www.nmfspermits.com/initialapp.asp. Fishermen from all states and territories,
including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, may face legal action if they do not comply with
Federal regulations.
Comment 35: NMFS received two comments regarding the need to propose options for
adding sharks to the prohibited species list including: NMFS has offered no alternatives at all to
address depletion of these species in the draft HMS FMP (oceanic whitetip, silky sharks, and
hammerheads); these species are not targeted but measures to avoid and reduce bycatch of these
species are urgently needed. To reduce regulatory discards within the directed and incidental
shark fishing fleets, NMFS should consider removing certain species of sharks from the
prohibited species list, such as bignose, Caribbean reef, dusky, Galapagos, night, sand tiger, and
Caribbean sharpnose.
Response: NMFS did not consider changes to the prohibited species management unit in
this rulemaking. Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks
established criteria for addition or removal of species to/from the prohibited species group.
These four criteria include: there is sufficient biological information to indicate that stock
warrants protection, the species is rarely encountered or observed caught in HMS fisheries, the
species is not commonly encountered or caught as bycatch in fishing operations, and the species
is difficult to distinguish from other prohibited species. NMFS may consider changes to the
prohibited species management unit in a future rulemaking, if necessary.
Comment 36: Because smooth dogfish is the only U.S. Atlantic shark that is subject to a
directed fishery and not covered by management measures, NMFS should conduct an evaluation
of this fishery and assess the population. NMFS should begin this work immediately, present the
findings to the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC), and suggest a way
forward as soon as possible.
Response: During the summer of 2005, NMFS received a request from the MAFMC to
transfer management of smooth dogfish to the council. NMFS asked for more information
regarding why the MAFMC should have sole jurisdiction over the stock. NMFS continues to
wait for a response and will work with any Regional Fishery Management Council(s) to
determine the appropriate management body for this species.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-173

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 37: EPA noted that bycatch of SCS in the Gulf shrimp fishery fell
approximately 46 percent following the introduction of turtle excluder devices in 1999. If this
trend continues, this represents an encouraging level of success for the use of turtle excluder
devices. EPA also noted that data entries for Table 3.90 in the Draft HMS FMP for the year
1999 and 2000 were the same and assumed that 2000 data were estimated.
Response: NMFS agrees that turtle excluder devices should reduce the amount of
bycatch. Regarding 1999 and 2000 data, 1999 data were calculated as the average of the value
of 1992 to 1997 divided by two in order to account for the effect of the turtle excluder devices.
Data from 2000 were assumed to be the same as the 1999 data.
Comment 38: EPA notes that Table 3.90 indicates that the dressed weights of SCS are
approximately one pound per shark. This suggests that these are small sharks and that would
have little commercial value.
Response: SCS are generally the small sharks, and they have the lowest commercial
value of all Atlantic sharks, generally less than $0.50 per pound. Many fishermen use these
species as bait. In 2004, not including shark fin values, the SCS fishery was worth
approximately $340,000 compared to $2.7M for LCS and just over $500,000 for pelagic sharks.
D.9.7 Fishing Mortality and Bycatch Reduction
Comment 39: Table 3.24 contains an error that has been repeated in several documents.
The Technical Memorandum – SEFSC-515 cited as Garrison 2003 contains an error in addition
concerning the total number of observed sets (both Total and non-NED) for 2001. The correct
Total is 584 and non-NED is 398, which would change the correct percentages to 5.4 percent and
3.7 percent, respectively. Also the 2002 Non-NED percentage should be 3.9 percent. Lance
Garrison confirms these inadvertent errors in his published errata affixed to the document.
Response: NMFS has made the requested corrections.
Comment 40: Has NMFS considered the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is a special region
with special needs? Could there be regulations on a regional basis (i.e., regulations different for
the Gulf of Mexico from that of other regions)?
Response: It is possible to implement regulations on an area-specific basis to fit the
special needs of a fishery whenever possible. NMFS has implemented different regulations for
the pelagic longline fishery on an area-specific basis in the past. For instance, a live bait
prohibition for this fishery has been implemented in the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to reduce
the bycatch of billfish. NMFS has also implemented regional allocations and seasons for LCS
and SCS including ones for the Gulf of Mexico, and BFT regulations in the Gulf of Mexico are
different than those along the east coast. Another example of regionally-specific regulations is
the requirement to use only 18/0 or larger circle hooks in the NED for the pelagic longline
fishery while requiring 16/0 or larger circle hooks elsewhere. NMFS will continue to evaluate
alternative management measures in light of the specific needs of a fishery when possible.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-174

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 41: NMFS should request that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council and the Gulf states cooperate with NMFS to minimize shark bycatch associated with
fisheries under their purview (i.e., Gulf of Mexico shrimp and menhaden fisheries).
Response: NMFS agrees that cooperation amongst the States, Regional Fishery
Management Councils, and the Agency can help to address bycatch issues, particularly in those
fisheries that cross jurisdictional boundaries. NMFS has contacted the Gulf and South Atlantic
States and Regional Fishery Management Councils in an attempt to identify fisheries where
finetooth shark bycatch may be occurring. NMFS also consulted with all Regional Fishery
Management Councils and both the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions
regarding the Draft HMS FMP and its proposed measures.
Comment 42: NMFS has failed to make any meaningful reductions to longline bycatch
since 1997. While time/area closures give the appearance that something is being done, this is
not the only answer.
Response: NMFS disagrees that no meaningful reductions in longline bycatch have been
realized. NMFS analyzed the reported landings and bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery from
1997-99 versus 2001-03 to measure the effectiveness of the time/area closures implemented in
2000-01. The analyses showed that the existing closures have been effective at reducing bycatch
of protected species and non-target HMS and have provided positive ecological benefits. For
example, the overall number of reported discards of swordfish, bluefin and bigeye tunas, pelagic
sharks, blue and white marlin, sailfish, and spearfish have all declined by more than 30 percent.
The reported discards of blue and white marlin declined by about 50 percent and sailfish discards
declined by almost 75 percent. The reported number of sea turtles caught and released declined
by almost 28 percent.
It appears that bluefin tuna discards in the MAB and NEC have been reduced
considerably since the implementation of the June closure in 1999. Reported discards of BFT
prior to implementation of the closure ranged from 558 to over 2,700 per year. Since 1999, the
number of bluefin tuna reported discarded has remained below 500 per year. The number of
swordfish kept in the MAB and NEC has increased since the closure was implemented while the
number of billfish discarded has declined.
NMFS agrees that time/area closures are not the only management tool that can be
utilized to reduce bycatch. NMFS has also implemented circle hook and bait requirements for
the pelagic longline fishery and a live bait prohibition for that fishery in the Gulf of Mexico as
well. These measures are intended to reduce the bycatch of non-target species and protected
resources in the pelagic longline fishery.
Comment 43: NMFS should allow longline fishermen to sell their bycatch for charity.
Response: Commercial fishermen are already allowed to sell their catch for whatever
purpose unless it is a prohibited species or specific regulations prohibit its retention such as the
season is closed, quota has been met, the fish is undersized, or the animal is a protected resource.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-175

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 44: NMFS received several comments regarding the need for additional
research including: NMFS should research live baiting using circle hooks as a technique to
increase catch of YFT and reduce bycatch; NMFS should conduct and/or continue experiments
on non-offset circle hooks, circle hooks 20/0 and larger, bait options, and post-hooking effects.
Response: NMFS agrees that additional research can be conducted on a number of topics
to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing bycatch of non-target species and protected resources.
NMFS intends to continue to evaluate research proposals in many of these areas. New research
is dependent on funding availability.
Comment 45: In our scoping comments, we set forth a proposal to count, cap, and control
bycatch as required. NMFS left that proposal out of the draft FMP even though it is required
under international and domestic laws to develop fully and analyze that proposal.
Response: NMFS disagrees that all comments offered during the scoping process need to
be developed fully and analyzed. The Agency analyzed a broad range of alternatives for the
measures included in the draft FMP, however, not all of these were fully developed and analyzed
for a variety of reasons. There may have been more effective alternatives considered for further
analysis or a proposed measure was found to not meet the needs or objectives of the FMP, and
therefore was not considered further.
Comment 46: NMFS received comments about the need to implement a cap or quota on
bycatch. These comments include: to reduce bycatch, NMFS should implement a hard cap
system. Such a system would, among other things, set limits on fishing mortality of marine life,
provide accountability by dividing limits between fishing sectors, set limits that would stop
fishing for that sector, reward clean fishing, prevent a race to fish, and result in a reduction in
bycatch. Such caps should be set for commercially targeted species, spawning species,
recreationally targeted species, endangered species, marine mammals, and other species, such as
sea birds, that are needed to promote the health of the marine ecosystem; NMFS should
implement a hard cap on the takes of protected species similar to the one successfully
implemented in the Western Pacific. This would remedy the historic failure of the pelagic
longline fleet to maintain up-to-date records of turtle bycatch, allow for timely corrective action
to reinitiate under the ESA, and help the fleet stay within take levels intended to protect against
the jeopardy to the species. Such a system would require real time observer reporting and a
“yellow light” system to warn fishermen when takes are approaching the limit.
Response: NMFS agrees that additional measures designed to reduce bycatch can be
examined in the future, possibly on a sector by sector basis, if the data are available to provide an
analysis. However, a hard cap system may not necessarily be appropriate or feasible in every
sector due to resource constraints and other restrictions that are already in place for the fishery.
There are also international concerns related to rebuilding plans, fishing effort and mortality
rates, and bycatch that would need to be considered prior to establishing hard caps. A hard cap
on the number of sea turtle interactions in all HMS fisheries already exists. Each fishery is
operating under an Incidental Take Limit that once reached can close that fishery and/or result in
a re-initiation of consultation under Section 7 of the ESA.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-176

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 47: NMFS has a study that indicates a default standardized bycatch reporting
methodology (SBRM) must include observer coverage of at least 20 percent (or 50 percent when
endangered species are at risk). Rather than analyzing its needs to meet the conservation and
management goals of the fishery, NMFS claims the study was simplistic and failed to account for
“limited resources.” This arbitrary failure to analyze alternatives for establishing a reporting
methodology violates NEPA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NEPA requires NMFS to
undertake an analysis to determine the level of observer coverage necessary to provide accurate
and precise data for each conservation and management need addressed in the draft FMP.
Congress and the Magnuson-Stevens Act do not give NMFS the ability to ignore the reporting
methodology based on “limited resources.” Nevertheless, a NEPA analysis could consider them.
Response: The effectiveness of any SBRM depends on its ability to estimate the type and
quantity of bycatch precisely and accurately enough to meet the conservation and management
needs of a fishery. The National Bycatch Report contains an in-depth examination of the issues
of precision and accuracy in estimating bycatch and how precision relates to sampling and to
assessments. The precision of an estimate is often expressed in terms of the coefficient of
variation (CV) defined as the standard error of the estimator divided by the estimate. The lower
the CV, the more precise the estimate is considered to be. A precise estimate is not necessarily
an accurate estimate.
The National Working Group on Bycatch recommended that at-sea sampling designs
should be formulated to achieve precision goals for the least amount of observation effort, while
also striving to increase accuracy. This can be accomplished through random sample selection,
developing appropriate sampling strata and sampling allocation procedures, and by
implementing appropriate tests for bias. Sampling programs should be driven by the precision
and accuracy required by managers to address management needs for estimating management
quantities such as allowable catches through a stock assessment, for evaluating bycatch relative
to a management standard such as allowable take, and for developing mitigation mechanisms.
The recommended precision goals for estimates of bycatch are defined in terms of the coefficient
of variation (CV) of each estimate. For marine mammals and other protected species, including
seabirds and sea turtles, the recommended precision goal is a 20-30 percent CV for estimates of
interactions for each species/stock taken by a fishery. For fishery resources, excluding protected
species, caught as bycatch in a fishery, the recommended precision goal is a 20-30 percent CV
for estimates of total discards (aggregated over all species) for the fishery; or if total catch cannot
be divided into discards and retained catch, then the goal is a 20-30 percent CV for estimates of
total catch (NMFS, 2004a). The report also states that attainment of these goals may not be
possible or practical in all fisheries and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Rago et al., (2005) examined potential sources of bias in commercial fisheries of the
Northeast Atlantic by comparing measures of performance for vessels with and without
observers. Bias can arise if the vessels with observers onboard consistently catch more or less
than other vessels, if trip durations change, or if vessels fish in different areas. Average catches
(pounds landed) for observed and total trips compared favorably and the expected differences of
the stratum specific means and standard deviations for both kept weight and trip duration was
near zero (Rago et al., 2005).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-177

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

The report cited by this commenter suggests that relatively high percentages of observer
coverage are necessary to adequately address potential bias in bycatch estimates from observer
programs. However, the examples cited in that report as successful in reducing bias through
high observer coverage levels are fisheries comprised of relatively few vessels compared to
many other fisheries, including the Atlantic HMS fishery. Their examples are not representative
of the issues facing most observer programs and fishery managers, who must work with limited
resources to cover large and diverse fisheries. It is also incorrect to assume that simply
increasing observer coverage ensures accuracy of the estimates. Bias due to unrepresentative
sampling may not be reduced by increasing sample size due to logistical constraints, such as if
certain fishermen refuse to take observers, or if certain classes of vessels cannot accommodate
observers. Increasing sample size may only result in a larger, but still biased, sample. Observer
programs strive to achieve samples that are representative of both fishing effort and catches.
Representative samples are critical not only for obtaining accurate (i.e., unbiased) estimates of
bycatch, but also for collecting information about factors that may be important for mitigating
bycatch. Bias may be introduced at several levels such as when vessels are selected for coverage
or when only a portion of the haul can be sampled due to weather or other concerns.
NMFS has conducted analyses to determine the level of observer coverage needed for the
pelagic longline, bottom longline and shark gillnet fisheries to produce estimates for protected
resource interactions with a CV of 0.3 (30 percent) or less. NMFS will continue to provide
observer coverage at this level, subject to available resources.
Comment 48: NEPA requires that the EIS analyze the cumulative effect of all takes on
sea turtles, not just the effects of takes in the HMS fisheries. While the pelagic longline fishery
is one of the most damaging fisheries to sea turtle populations, a true determination of
environmental impacts of this fishery cannot be made without examining the effects of all U.S.
fisheries cumulatively.
Response: NMFS agrees that impacts to sea turtles and other protected resources are not
limited to takes in HMS fisheries. The environmental impacts of the pelagic longline fishery and
a description of the fishery are covered in Chapters 3 and 4 of the draft FMP. It is beyond the
scope of the analyses for this draft amendment to consider all fisheries and non-fisheries impacts
on the status of each protected resource. Much of that is already analyzed in the biological
opinion for the PLL fishery. In addition, the impacts of not only U.S. fisheries, but foreign
fisheries and non-fisheries impacts would need to be examined to evaluate the true impacts to
protected resources world-wide.
Comment 49: The EIS provides only a cursory analysis of the impacts of HMS fisheries
on marine mammals. The current bycatch monitoring methodology is not adequate for the
conservation and management needs of marine mammals. Collecting the information is
necessary to allow NMFS to devise specific bycatch reduction measures based on the actual
behavior of marine mammals in HMS fisheries. NMFS should require fishermen to report in
real-time where they are place gear and where gear is lost and to mark gear with colors to
indicate the type and location of fishing gear. NMFS must also prioritize the granting of
scientific research permits.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-178

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Response: As a requirement of the MMPA, all marine mammal interactions are required
to be reported within 24 hours. Marine mammal interactions have been documented in the
pelagic longline fishery and the shark gillnet fishery. Both fisheries are subject to observer
coverage at levels that produce estimates of marine mammal interactions with a CV less than
thirty percent. For marine mammals and other protected species, including seabirds and sea
turtles, the recommended precision goal in the National Bycatch Report is a 20-30 percent CV
for estimates of interactions for each species/stock taken by a fishery. In June 2005, NMFS
convened the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team to assess and reduce the takes of marine
mammals, specifically pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins, by the pelagic longline fishery. NMFS
will take action based on the results of the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan, as necessary.
Comment 50: NMFS must implement comparable bycatch and sea turtle safe
conservation certification program on all HMS product imports.
Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and may evaluate the efficacy and feasibility
of requiring this type of certification program as part of a future action.
Comment 51: While NMFS received a number of comments on ways to better monitor
recreational landings including logbook data that is tied to renewing permits, catch cards, and
Vessel Trip Reports (VTR), the issue was relegated to one paragraph in the “Issues for Future
Consideration and Outlook” section. The AP wants to move from survey methods to census
methods and that idea is lost in this draft. NMFS should work with ACCSP to implement a
mandatory VTR program that provides timely, accurate catch and effort data for the for-hire
fleets. And NMFS received a comment that NMFS should state that it supports a comparison of
existing for-hire VTR catch data with LPS data for the same time periods.
Response: NMFS recognizes the desire to make improvements in the collection of
recreational landings data. At the request of NMFS, the National Academy of Science recently
conducted a review of marine recreational fishery surveys, both state and federal. The review
committee’s report has been published and the Agency is evaluating the recommendations.
Comment 52: The Agency has a lack of attention to recreational fisheries data collection
resulting in negative impacts to the recreational fishery.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The Agency spends considerable time
and money collecting data from recreational fisheries, including recreational fisheries for HMS.
Considerable time and effort is also spent by NMFS staff monitoring data collection and
reviewing recreational fishery data for HMS fisheries. The Agency is evaluating the
recommendations of the recent review of marine fishery surveys by the NAS to identify where
improvements may be made. The Agency agrees that more data from the commercial fisheries
for HMS is collected each year given the mandatory reporting requirements for these fisheries.
Outside of the complementary time/area closures for Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps,
the recreational HMS fishery has very few restrictions. In addition to mandatory reporting,
commercial fishermen are negatively impacted by area closures, gear restrictions such as the
circle hook requirement, and mandatory observer coverage if selected.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-179

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 53: Maryland catch card data should be used to determine total BFT catch
instead of using LPS catch data for Maryland.
Response: NMFS has reviewed the Maryland BFT catch card data from 2002-2005 to
evaluate its utility for management purposes. Although current reporting appears to be high,
there is a measured level of non-compliance with the program. This non-compliance has been
determined by comparing directly observed BFT in the intercept portion of the LPS with catch
card records. Non-compliance with the Maryland catch card program is currently estimated to
be fifteen percent. NMFS will continue to work with the Maryland DNR to integrate the catch
card program into the monitoring and management program for BFT.
D.9.8 Permitting, Reporting, and Monitoring
Comment 54: NMFS received a number of comments regarding HMS permitting in
general. These comments consisted of: NMFS should provided updated HMS regulations to
permit holders when they are issued a permit; permit renewals should be conducted on a calendar
year basis so fishing groups can notify their memberships and therefore improve renewal
compliance; and, NMFS should implement a salt water fishing license for all fishermen in order
to develop a database for data collection and observer coverage.
Response: NMFS agrees that the idea of providing copies of relevant regulations when
an HMS permit is applied for and sent has merit; however that are also some negative aspects to
this as well. Due to the ever changing dynamics of HMS fisheries, the rules and regulations that
may apply to individuals may change throughout the season. Providing permit holders with a
snapshot of the rules and regulations that exist early in the season may lead to a false sense of
security that these regulations would remain consistent for the entire season. In an attempt to
strike a balance, NMFS has included a number of useful pieces of information on the Atlantic
tunas and HMS permits that allow the permit holder to access the most recent information. For
instance, NMFS includes a web address and toll-free telephone number where permit holders can
locate the most up to date regulations. For those permits that authorize the user to participate in
recreational HMS fisheries, NMFS has included the appropriate telephone numbers to report
their catch. In the Management Program Structure section of this document, NMFS has
preferred an alternative to adjust the annual management time-frame of HMS fisheries to a
calendar year, versus a wrap around fishing year, i.e., June through May of the following year.
As a result of implementing this preferred alternative, NMFS would realign the HMS permitting
to coincide with the calendar year. For consistency purposes the shark and swordfish
commercial permits, both vessel and dealers, would still be issued according to birth month, as
per the business rules of the Southeast Permitting Office. NMFS encourages organization
leaders to remind their membership when permits are available for renewal, whether or not it
coincides with the calendar year.
Comment 55: NMFS received a comment stating that NMFS should redesign vessel
permits based on fishing methods and geographic area. NMFS should combine vessel permitting
for coastal pelagics and HMS for the charter boats, headboats, and commercial handgear vessels.
Response: Since the inception of the 1999 FMP, a number of issues pertaining to the
permitting program have been identified by constituents, advisory panel members, NMFS staff,
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-180

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

and others. These have included, but are not limited to, further rationalizing some segments of
the HMS fisheries, streamlining or simplifying the permitting process, restructuring the permit
process to a gear-based permit system from the current species-based permit system, and
reopening some segments of the limited access system to allow for the issuance of additional
permits. Addressing these issues in the future may be important to the successful long-term
stewardship of HMS fisheries, and therefore NMFS may consider restructuring these elements in
future rulemakings.
Comment 56: A mandatory HMS tournament permit (alternative E9) would help to
provide an exact count of the number of marlin landed in tournaments.
Response: In the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, a mandatory HMS tournament permit
(alternative E9) was considered, but not further analyzed, because improvements to tournament
registration, data collection, and enforceability may be achieved with considerably less burden to
the public and the government by issuing a confirmation number, rather than a permit, to
tournament operators who have registered their tournaments with NMFS. Because HMS
tournaments frequently change operators, names, and dates, a tournament permit would be very
burdensome to administer and enforce. Therefore, a clarification is being added to the
regulations, as described in the Regulatory Housekeeping section of the Final Consolidated HMS
FMP, specifying that HMS tournament registration is not considered complete unless the
operator has also received a confirmation number from the HMS Management Division of
NMFS. Requiring a tournament confirmation number, issued by the HMS Management
Division, will achieve the same objective (i.e., increased compliance) as a tournament permit.
Since all tournaments awarding points or prizes for HMS are currently required to be registered
with NMFS, and because all billfish tournaments are currently selected for reporting, the Agency
is already obtaining an exact count of the number of marlin landed in tournaments.
Comment 57: NMFS received general comments regarding the recreational reporting
requirements including: Non-compliance with recreational swordfish and billfish reporting
occurs because it takes too much time to report fish to NMFS using the telephone. NMFS needs
to simplify the telephone reporting system and increase Customer Service; to increase
compliance with recreational reporting requirements, NMFS should provide a bumper sticker, or
token reward, to those fishermen that have reported their catch. This technique has been
successful in other fisheries.
Response: The recreational billfish and swordfish telephone reporting system has recently
been modified to provide quicker and more convenient access. HMS Angling category permit
holders (or their designees) must report landings of these species within 24 hours of landing by
calling 800-894-5528, and then pushing 21 to provide information regarding the catch. A
representative from NMFS will later contact the permit holder (or designee) to obtain
verification of the landing and provide a confirmation number. The initial telephone call should
only take a few minutes. Since the system has been modified to provide quicker access, the
number of first-time callers has increased. Additionally, NMFS is actively working towards
implementing an Internet reporting system for these species. The Agency appreciates
suggestions to increase compliance with the mandatory recreational reporting requirement and
will consider these in the future, if necessary.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-181

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 58: Until NMFS seriously invests in comparable permitting, reporting,
monitoring, and enforcement across all HMS fisheries, commercial and recreational, it will not
be able to appropriately manage Atlantic HMS fisheries. Currently, NMFS has adequate data for
only a couple of commercial fisheries.
Response: NMFS realizes the importance permitting, reporting, monitoring, and
enforcement in maintaining viable management of Atlantic HMS. There are several measures
included in this rulemaking that address these issues. Quality stock assessments, accurate quota
monitoring, fishing effort control, and complying with current HMS regulations are paramount to
the HMS management program and the Agency agrees that these programs are worth serious
investments of personnel and financial resources. The Agency currently maintains a
comprehensive permitting system for both commercial and recreational fisheries, including both
limited and open access regimes. Reporting is required of all shark and swordfish commercial
fisheries participants, and some commercial tuna fishery participants, including costs and
earnings reports from selected commercial fisheries participants. Landings are monitored
consistently to ensure that landings are within their allotted quotas. Recreational reporting is
currently required for all non-tournament landings of bluefin tuna, swordfish, and billfish.
Tournaments are also required to register and report any landings of HMS. NMFS is dependant
on several entities for dockside and at sea enforcement, including NMFS/NOAA Office of Law
Enforcement, the United States Coast Guard, and individual states that maintain a Joint
Enforcement Agreement with NMFS. NMFS is perpetually involved in activities to enhance,
update, and/or modify the permitting, reporting, monitoring, and enforcement systems currently
in place.
Comment 59: NMFS received comments pertaining to the longline sector of the HMS
fishery. The comments consisted of: NMFS must monitor and account for all sources of fishing
mortality, not just mortality from the PLL fleet; and, is the VMS requirement meeting its
intended purpose and who needs to possess one?; and, NMFS should put 100 percent observer
coverage on commercial vessels around Puerto Rico for a few years due to gear conflicts
between PLL vessels and other commercial vessels. These conflicts are attributed to PLL
vessels operating closer to shore and thus interfering with traditional trolling practices.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to account for all sources of fishing
mortality, not just the mortality from the PLL fleet. NMFS accounts for recreational landings in
stock assessments and uses the best available science regarding post-release mortality of billfish
in the recreational sector to consider impacts on billfish and other HMS taken in fisheries other
than commercial longlining. VMS is required on all vessels fishing for HMS with pelagic
longline gear onboard, on all directed shark bottom longline vessels between 33 º North and 36 º
30' North from January through July, and on all gillnet vessels with a directed shark permit
during the Right Whale Calving Season from November 15 to March 31. VMS is meeting its
intended purpose by assisting in the monitoring and enforcement of closed areas. It is one of
several tools including logbooks, observer programs, gear requirements, quotas, and limited
access permits that NMFS uses to manage HMS fisheries. Resources for observer programs are
limited, and having 100 percent observer coverage on commercial vessels around Puerto Rico
would likely not be possible due to funding constraints. Furthermore, observers are not trained
as enforcement personnel, and would not be in a position to reduce conflicts between different
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-182

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

gear sectors in and around Puerto Rico. These types of issues are more appropriately handled by
enforcement personnel.
Comment 60: NMFS received a number of comments regarding the deployment of
observers in HMS fisheries. These comments consisted of: Observer coverage on the pelagic
longline fishery must be significantly increased from current levels, especially in areas with high
levels of sea turtle take (e.g., the Northeast Distant and the Gulf of Mexico). Higher level of
coverage is essential to provide data on the effectiveness of the gear and bait modifications and
the rate and location of sea turtle capture. The 2004 BiOp required eight percent coverage but
this increase was established by ICCAT for the purpose of assessing the bycatch of tuna species
and will not be effective at assessing the bycatch of rarely encountered species such as sea
turtles; proper measurement for observer coverage levels should be based on the number of
observed hooks out of the number of hooks reported to have been fished, rather than number of
observed sets; a voluntary HMS CHB observer program should be tested; and, NMFS should
implement electronic reporting and mandatory observer coverage for all HMS fisheries.
Response: NMFS increased observer coverage in the pelagic longline fishery to eight
percent in 2004 in order to effectively monitor bycatch after implementation of new gear
requirements. The pelagic longline observer program coverage level was raised to eight percent
not just to meet ICCAT targets, but also to improve the precision of catch and bycatch estimates
specified in NMFS’ guidelines for fisheries observer coverage levels. The number of sets is the
standard effort used by other fisheries in calculating the level of observer coverage required.
Additionally, the set location is more easily tracked to the statistical reporting areas in the
Atlantic than logbook or fishing effort based on the number of hooks would be. NMFS agrees
that voluntary observer coverage would be helpful in a number of different fisheries, as would
electronic reporting if it were technologically feasible and not cost prohibitive. NMFS will
continue to explore these options in the future.
Comment 61: An operator's permit should be required for all HMS fisheries.
Response: NMFS did not include measures to requiring a vessel operator’s permit in all
HMS fisheries in this rulemaking. The HMS Management Division is aware of several other
federally managed fisheries that have imposed this requirement, however, have not proposed
similar measures for HMS at this time. This requirement may be considered in the future as
necessary and appropriate.
D.9.9 Enforcement
Comment 62: NMFS received several comments related to the lack of enforcement of
HMS regulations, including: the Agency needs to enforce the HMS regulations for all people
fishing for HMS, there is virtually no fisheries enforcement in the United States Virgin Islands,
lack of enforcement is a big problem in Puerto Rico, law enforcement should increase effort
around places where marlin are sold illegally and there are many issues with billfish landings in
Puerto Rico and there should be continued focused efforts to better understand how many billfish
are being landed in the Caribbean.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-183

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Response: NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement (NOAA OLE) has Special
Agents stationed in Puerto Rico conducting enforcement of all federal fisheries laws, included
those involving HMS. In addition, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) conducts fisheries
enforcement in all federal waters, including the waters off the coast of Puerto Rico. With regard
to the specific concerns that the commenter raised about billfish, NMFS has very little hard data
on the extent of illegal sales of billfish in Puerto Rico, and as such cannot verify the veracity of
the commenter’s claims or assess their impact. NMFS has received a significant number of
anecdotal reports of sales of Atlantic marlin in Puerto Rico. The number of these anecdotal
reports suggests that a sizable number of Atlantic marlin may be illegally sold and implies that
more than just those fish that come to the boat dead are illegally entered into commerce. NMFS
acknowledges that there is some uncertainty associated with marlin landings statistics from the
U.S. Caribbean, and the Agency is working to improve these statistics by increasing enforcement
of existing permitting and reporting requirements, including those for tournaments.
Comment 63: One commenter was confused by the 3 and 12 mile limits, other confusing
rules, and whom they should call to complain and ask for patrols.
Response: Most states on the Atlantic Ocean, with the exception of Texas and the west
coast of Florida, have a 3 mile limit which delineates their states’ waters. Individual states (or
commonwealths) have jurisdiction over fisheries management and enforcement in their waters.
The west (Gulf of Mexico) coast of Florida and Texas have jurisdiction out to nine miles within
their respective states. Puerto Rico, a U.S. Territory, has jurisdiction out to nine miles. The
2005 Guide for Complying With the Regulations for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, Sharks, and
Billfish provides detailed information and responses to frequently asked questions concerning
HMS regulations. The contact numbers for law enforcement are also provided in this document
which can be downloaded from the HMS website or by contacting NMFS.
Comment 64: NMFS must do a better job in protecting and preserving our marine
resources in general. Possible strategies that NMFS should consider include: discouraging
overfishing by increasing fees, implementing stricter regulations, and improving enforcement.
Response: NMFS is concerned about protecting and preserving our marine resources.
NMFS has implemented numerous rules and regulations that are intended to prevent overfishing,
rebuild overfished stocks, reduce bycatch, and limit fishing capacity in efforts to ensure that
viable stocks of HMS are enjoyed by future generations of stakeholders. Enforcement of HMS
regulations is one of several priorities shared the NOAA OLE, USCG, and states that have a
Joint Enforcement Agreement with the Federal government. NOAA OLE, USCG, and
individual states are constantly striving to improve enforcement of not just HMS regulations, but
regulations pertaining to all fisheries. This particular rulemaking includes regulations aimed at
rebuilding overfished stocks of billfish, preventing overfishing of finetooth sharks, reducing post
release mortality of sea turtles and other protected resources, simplifying management of bluefin
tuna, authorizing additional fishing gears for HMS, and improving identification of sharks by
dealers, among other measures. Increasing fees was not analyzed in this rulemaking, however,
NMFS has implemented a suite of other regulations, in this rulemaking and otherwise, that
prevents or discourages overfishing.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-184

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

Comment 65: There is a provision under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act stating
that U.S. flagged vessels must comply with U.S. regulations when pursuing ICCAT managed
species, regardless of where they are fishing. This would impact recreational vessels fishing
outside the U.S.
Response: Generally, U.S. flagged vessels are required to comply with U.S. domestic
regulations that pertain to Atlantic HMS while fishing anywhere in the Atlantic Ocean.
Depending on circumstances, however, the requirements may change. Some U.S. citizens, even
on foreign flagged vessels, may need an Exempted Fishing Permit from NMFS.
Comment 66: Possession of HMS angling permits in South Florida is still an issue.
Many anglers do not possess the appropriate permit. Could the Sun Sentinel or Miami Herald be
involved in reporting cases where anglers are caught for fishing without the proper permits?
Response: NMFS agrees that it is important for all participants in HMS fisheries to
possess the appropriate permit and is interested in exploring options to improve outreach in all
areas of the Atlantic with the objective of increased compliance with HMS permitting
requirements. Advertising the requirements in newspapers or other media may be a viable
option to improve compliance. However, individuals have the primary responsibility for
knowing the laws surrounding their participation in all activities, including the pursuit of HMS.
Many freshwater, estuarine, and/or marine fisheries require compliance with regulations that
include, but are not limited to: permitting, size and bag limits, and seasons. HMS fisheries are
no exception.
Comment 67: NOAA OLE needs to prioritize which violations are the most significant
and pursue these cases first.
Response: NOAA OLE, in conjunction with the NMFS Regional Administrator, does set
regional enforcement priorities. These priorities are set based on the threat that a certain
violation or category of violations presents to marine resources, identified trends in
noncompliance, as well as other factors. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as the
Agency’s own civil monetary penalty schedule, provides that the egregiousness of the offense
and the violator’s history of prior violations is considered, along with other factors, in
determining the appropriate civil monetary penalty.
D.9.10

ICCAT

Comment 68: NMFS received a number of comments pertaining to ICCAT, the 250
recreationally caught marlin landing limit, U.S. participation at ICCAT, and U.S. negotiating
positions at ICCAT, including: ICCAT should look at a longer billfish time series so they can see
the increase in biomass overtime; the bargaining power of the United States may be reduced at
ICCAT if the full quota is not being utilized; the United States impact on Atlantic blue and white
marlin is probably considerably less than five percent. The White Marlin Status Review Team
noted that if the United States were to stop all commercial and recreational fishing mortality for
white marlin, the impact on the stock trajectory would be minimal. The United States cannot
have a meaningful impact acting alone. ICCAT does not give credit for unilateral conservation
measures. If the United States implements the preferred alternatives measures now, we will
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-185

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

greatly reduce our ability to negotiate with other nations to further reduce their impacts on these
overfished stocks; we do not favor additional domestic regulations on catches of marlin until
after further development of a rebuilding plan by ICCAT; we would be better off if NMFS
waited until the other countries reduced their commercial landing by 50 percent before we agree
to the 250. We would like to see verification of the 50 percent and 66 percent landing reductions
that other countries have agreed to; United States ICCAT representatives should demand the
unjustified 250 marlin limit be remanded. Particularly, when across the ocean, foreign longliners
harvest these species for sale, with no thought of conservation; if NMFS wants angler support of
recreational limits, they need to prove to recreational anglers that the United States will take a
tougher stand at ICCAT; ICCAT may not be enough to deal with global conservation concerns
relating to billfish; I support aggressive efforts to attain international agreements regarding HMS;
more pressure needs to be applied on countries that are not complying with ICCAT
recommendations; the United States should reconsider how we participate in the ICCAT process
due to its effectiveness and the inability to get other member nations to comply with
recommendations; and, NMFS must strengthen its ability to establish responsible fishing
practices in other countries and protect this global resource.
Response: Contrary to the assertion of one commenter that an examination of data over a
longer time series would reveal an increase in billfish biomass overtime, an examination of
Atlantic billfish biomass, catch, CPUE, and fishing mortality rate data back to the late 1950s
shows an even more extreme decline in biomass than an examination of more recent time series.
To use Atlantic blue marlin as an example, biomass of Atlantic blue marlin fell from an
estimated 200 percent of MSY in the late 1950s to just 40 percent of MSY in 2000. CPUE
during the same period fell by more than eighty percent and total Atlantic catches of blue marlin
fell from approximately 9,000 mt to just over 2,000 mt. These dramatic declines were
accompanied by similarly large increases in the fishing mortality rate, which rose from less than
0.3 to approximately 4.0. Catches of U.S. flagged vessels represent 4.5 percent of catches
reported to ICCAT. NMFS agrees that U.S. action alone is not sufficient to fully recover stocks
of Atlantic billfish, and believes that reductions in catches, landings, and post-release mortalities
from the pelagic longline and recreational fisheries, at both the international and domestic levels,
are essential to the recovery of the Atlantic billfish. NMFS is further convinced that there are
appropriate domestic management measures, including implementation of circle hook
requirements and implementation of ICCAT recommendations, as per the preferred alternatives
in this rulemaking, among others, that can and should be implemented at this time. A unilateral
decision by the United State to tie implementation of the 250 fish limit to the actions of other
ICCAT nations, as suggested by one commenter, is not an option and NMFS rejects the notion
that the annual 250 recreationally landed marlin limit is unjustified or unfair. The 250 marlin
landing limit was contained in a recommendation (00-13) championed by the United States and
supported by the U.S. recreational, commercial, and government ICCAT commissioners.
Recommendation 00-13 established a number of additional stringent conservation measures on
other nations intended to improve the stock status of Atlantic marlin, including mandatory
reductions in landings of blue and white marlin by 50 percent and 67 percent, respectively,
among others. On average for the period 2001 through 2004, the United States has averaged 189
recreationally landed marlins, or approximately 75 percent of the landing limit each year. In two
of those four years, the United States was more than 100 marlin, or the equivalent of more than
40 percent, below the U.S. landing limit, and U.S. fishermen are free to practice catch and
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-186

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

release unabated, which is the dominant component of the fishery by choice. While it may be
appropriate to reexamine the 250 marlin limit, NMFS rejects the notion that it is unjustified.
NMFS further believes that establishing a policy of delaying any further management measures
until international bycatch issues are fully addressed would result in a detrimental and
unnecessary continuation of elevated levels of fishing mortality of Atlantic billfish when
appropriate domestic management measures became available. As mentioned previously, NMFS
agrees that aggressive international action is needed to reverse current trends in billfish stock
status and that ICCAT is the only viable mechanism to address these issues at this time. The
United States has championed, and will continue to champion, billfish conservation
internationally, and important components of a successful international strategy is to abide by
U.S. international obligations and lead by example when appropriate. NMFS agrees that
substantial quota stockpiles of certain species may present some negotiating challenges, but also
believes that such stock piles may present certain opportunities.
Comment 69: The biggest threat to Atlantic billfish is illegal, unregulated, and unreported
(IUU) fishing activities by foreign longline vessels. ICCAT nations must agree to eliminate
these activities. No further restrictions should be placed upon U.S. recreational billfish
fishermen until the problems associated with IUU fishing are addressed, and a further reduction
in bycatch by legitimate longline vessels is achieved.
Response: NMFS agrees that IUU fishing represents a substantial threat to the health of
Atlantic billfish populations, and as such, the United States continues to work through ICCAT to
address this issue as rapidly and efficiently as possible. NMFS is convinced that reductions in
bycatch and bycatch mortality from the pelagic longline and recreational fisheries, at both the
international and domestic levels, are essential to the recovery of the Atlantic billfish. NMFS is
further convinced that there are appropriate domestic management measures, including
implementation of circle hook requirements and implementation of ICCAT recommendations, as
per the preferred alternatives in this rulemaking, among others, that can and should be
implemented while concurrently working to end IUU fishing. Establishing a policy of delaying
any further management measures until IUU fishing and international bycatch issues are fully
addressed would result in a detrimental and unnecessary continuation of elevated levels of
fishing mortality of Atlantic billfish when appropriate domestic management measures became
available.
Comment 70: NMFS received suggestions recommending consideration or adoption of a
number of international positions and trade restrictive actions by the United States, including: To
effectively reduce billfish mortality, NMFS should first impose trade penalties and tariffs on
other countries that do not adhere to their ICCAT billfish recommendations; initiate action at
ICCAT to stop longlining worldwide; prohibit all longlining in the United States immediately;
and, prohibit the importation of any fish from other countries whose vessels deploy longlines, do
not adhere to ICCAT quotas, and do not require circle hooks on longlines.
Response: NMFS appreciates these suggestions and encourages the public to continue to
provide suggestions to the Agency to help address billfish issues. The above suggestions are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but NMFS may consider such proposals in future
rulemakings, as necessary and appropriate. NMFS has imposed import restrictions on swordfish
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-187

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

below the ICCAT minimum size, and may consider imposing future trade restrictions on any
ICCAT species, in accordance with adopted ICCAT recommendations to impose trade
restrictions. The United States continues to believe multilateral trade restrictions, as approved
via ICCAT recommendations, are an effective tool for addressing nations whose vessels fish in a
manner that undermines the effectiveness of ICCAT conservation recommendations. Pelagic
longline gear is the predominant gear type for harvesting highly migratory species and, with
application of appropriate management measures, can provide for the sustainable harvest of
fisheries resources in many instances. NMFS is not convinced that an international or domestic
prohibition on pelagic longline fishing is appropriate at this time.
Comment 71: NMFS should not implement any additional management measures on
billfish until after the ICCAT meeting following the next assessments of blue and white marlin; I
support alternative E1 (no action) because I disagree that we need to put more regulations on US
fishermen. Our State department needs to be listening to the United States, but they don’t care
that they are putting U.S. fishermen out of business. What the United States cares about is
leading by example without compliance. The United States still does not take international
compliance at ICCAT seriously. The United States should say that it would not do anything to
domestic fishermen unless we see better international compliance through ICCAT. Why is
NMFS in such a hurry to put more regulations on U.S. fishermen?
Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 69 above, NMFS is convinced that
reductions in bycatch and bycatch mortality from the pelagic longline and recreational fisheries,
at both the international and domestic levels, are appropriate at this time and essential to the
recovery of the Atlantic billfish. NMFS is further convinced that there are appropriate domestic
management measures, including implementation of circle hook requirements and
implementation of ICCAT recommendations, as per the preferred alternatives in this rulemaking,
among others, that can and should be implemented while concurrently working with the
international community to improve management and compliance with existing ICCAT
recommendations. Establishing a policy of delaying any further management measures until
compliance measures are fully addressed would result in a detrimental and unnecessary
continuation of elevated levels of fishing mortality of Atlantic billfish when appropriate domestic
management measures became available. The United States takes compliance issues at ICCAT
very seriously and has led efforts at ICCAT to improve compliance at every available
opportunity. The United States has been the driving force behind most measures at ICCAT that
have resulted in improved compliance with management recommendations and data collection
requirements.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

D-188

APPENDIX D: COMMENT & RESPONSES
GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX E TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX E TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. E-i

E
OMB PEER REVIEW BULLETIN ..........................................................................E-1

E.1 Peer Review by Gregory Skomal, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of
Marine Fisheries, December 21, 2005 ..........................................................................E-2
E.2 Response to OMB Peer Review by Gregory Skomal, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Division of Marine Fisheries, December 21, 2005 .....................................................E-15
E.3 Peer Review by Chris Boggs and Keith Bigelow, NMFS SWFSC, January 9, 2006.E-19
E.4 Response to OMB Peer Review by Chris Boggs and Keith Bigelow, NMFS SWFSC,
January 9, 2006 ...........................................................................................................E-25
E.5 Peer Review by Paul J. Rago, NMFS NEFSC, January 25, 2006 ..............................E-33

E.6 Response to OMB Peer Review by Paul J. Rago, NMFS NEFSC, January 25, 2006 E-36

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-i

APPENDIX E
OMB PEER REVIEW BULLETIN

E

OMB PEER REVIEW BULLETIN

On December 16, 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a directive
requiring Federal Agencies to have “influential scientific information” and “highly influential
scientific assessments” peer reviewed. NMFS decided that certain sections of the Draft
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP could contain “influential scientific information,” which is
defined as: scientific information (factual inputs, data, models, analyses, technical information,
or scientific assessments) that the agency reasonably can determine does have or will have a
clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. As such,
NMFS requested three scientists who were not involved in the drafting of HMS FMP to review
certain sections of the HMS FMP. Specifically, NMFS asked them to review the standardized
bycatch reporting methodology (Sections 3.8.2 through 3.8.5), time/area closure analyses
(Section 4.4.2 and Appendix A), and essential fish habitat (EFH) sections (Chapter 10 and
Appendix B).
Per the OMB peer review bulletin, NMFS noted that such a peer review should evaluate
the clarity of hypotheses, the validity of the research design, the quality of data collection
procedures, the robustness of the methods employed, the appropriateness of the methods for the
hypotheses being tested, the extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and the
strengths and limitations of the overall product. The peer reviews will be used, as appropriate, to
clarify assumptions, findings, and conclusions of the bycatch, time/area closure, and EFH
sections of the Final HMS FMP. Their reviews are reproduced in their entirety below. A copy
of Gregory Skomal’s certification of no conflict of interest is on file with the HMS Management
Division.
The following sections provide each peer reviewer’s complete comments, followed by a
response section by NMFS. In the response section, NMFS uses the same section headings used
by the peer reviewer to respond to the comments. NMFS used this approach of providing the
peer reviewer’s comments in their entirety to offer the reader the full context of the reviewer’s
comments, for ease of reading, and to avoid any confusion between the reviewer’s comments and
NMFS’ response which follows each reviewer’s section.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-1

APPENDIX E
OMB PEER REVIEW BULLETIN

E.1

Peer Review by Gregory Skomal, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of
Marine Fisheries, December 21, 2005

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries

Paul J. Diodati
Director

Martha’s Vineyard Field Station
P.O. Box 68

Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts 02568

(508)693-4272
fax (508)693-4157

December 21, 2005
Mr. John H. Dunnigan
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Dunnigan:
As per your request, I’ve conducted a peer review of the following sections of the Draft
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan: Sections 3.8.2-3.8.5
(Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology), 4.4.2 (Time/Area Closures), Chapter 10
(Essential Fish Habitat) and associated appendices (A, B).
In doing so, I made every effort to evaluate the clarity of hypotheses, the validity of the
research design, the quality of the data collection procedures, the robustness of the methods
employed, the appropriateness of the methods for the hypothesis being tested, the extent to which
the conclusions follow from the analysis, and the strengths and limitations of the overall product.
My comments on each of the sections follow.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for any additional information. I thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this important Fishery Management Plan.
Sincerely,
Gregory Skomal
Senior Marine Fisheries Biologist

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-2

APPENDIX E
P
EER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Section 3.8.2: Standardized Reporting of Bycatch
This section describes and discusses the three major sources of bycatch data for HMS: selfreported logbook data, at-sea observer data, and survey data. While this would imply three
discrete sources, fishery-specific information indicates that there are multiple self-reporting
programs (e.g. HMS logbook, vessel trip reports, supplemental discard forms), two observer
programs, and two recreational dockside surveys. I suggest that a table or two be added to this
section to clarify each of these programs on a fishery-specific basis and to eliminate any
potential redundancies.
Section 3.8.2.6: Recreational Handgear Fishery
For the last several years, members of the US Advisory Committee to ICCAT have questioned
the validity of HMS catch and bycatch estimates derived from the two recreational surveys
(MRFSS and LPS). Specifically, the BAYS species working group stated in 2005 that “MRFSS
and LPS landings data collection programs are fatally flawed and have failed. It is time to
acknowledge that they cannot be further modified or adapted for the current needs of fishery
management. The BAYS SWG recommends the development of a HMS landings data collection
program that meets high standards for accuracy and precision.” While NMFS notes that CV’s
are very high for most HMS estimates derived from these sources, there has been little effort to
alleviate this longstanding problem over the last several years.
Section 3.8.5: Bycatch Mortality
This section presents very qualitative information on fishery-specific bycatch mortality. In my
view, this section is incomplete. Although NMFS purports to have estimates of bycatch and
bycatch disposition, these data are not reported on a fishery-specific or species-specific basis. I
suggest that this section or section 3.4.6 be augmented to include these data so that the reader has
a quantitative sense of this issue. For example, a table containing annual fishery-specific
estimates of HMS bycatch (e.g. blue shark) including catch disposition (released alive, dead
discards) would be very useful.
Bycatch mortality comprises two issues, direct mortality and post-release mortality, which have
been combined into a single section. These two issues should be addressed separately to avoid
confusion. Estimates of direct mortality are derived from bycatch data sources, but estimates of
release mortality require catch disposition information coupled with species and fishery-specific
release mortality rates. Although the latter is largely lacking for most HMS bycatch species, the
section on release mortality should consolidate what is known to date on a fishery-specific basis.
The new section would include the published information on billfish release mortality currently
referenced under “Recreational Handgear Fishery”. It should be noted that Kerstetter et al.
(2003) conducted similar research on longline-caught blue marlin.
Moreover, section 3.8.2 states that “post-release mortality of HMS is accounted for in stock
assessments to the extent that the data allow”. However, there is no indication in the current
section that post-release mortality rates are incorporated into stock assessments. The section

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-3

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

should include a table summarizing fishery and species-specific estimates of post-release
mortality rates and post-release bycatch mortality (numbers of fish) used in stock assessment.
Section 4.1.2/Appendix A: Time/Area Closures
NMFS provides an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the ecological/economic/social
benefits and impacts of existing and proposed time/area closures. In virtually all cases, the
ecological benefits are inversely related to the economic impacts and both are greatly influenced
by the potential redistribution of effort. Without redistribution of effort, there are ecological
benefits and discard reductions across all species, but economic and social impacts. With
redistribution of effort, all of the time/area closures analyzed have positive and negative
feedbacks that render none of them fully effective. Given the assumption of effort redistribution,
it is difficult to believe that NMFS will be able to implement a time/area closure that does not
have ecological impacts that counter positive gains. Hence, for time/area closures to be
effective, assumptions on effort redistribution need to be rigorously tested. There are strong
indications that there was not a significant spatial redistribution of effort resulting from the
current time/area closures (Table 4.9). Moreover, discard reductions realized by the current
closures met or exceeded those predicted without the redistribution of effort (Tables 4.7, 4.8).
However, as stated in the draft FMP, reality likely lies between no effort redistribution and
complete redistribution.
In light of this conundrum, I concur with the preferred option (B5) to establish criteria to
consider when implementing new time/area closures or making modifications to existing
time/area closures. These criteria must include objective quantitative thresholds for bycatch
reduction taking into account those factors listed under this alternative (page 4-34) as well as
status of the stocks, assessment information, and stock rebuilding schedules. In addition, as
stated above, discard reduction analyses should make every attempt to test hypotheses of effort
redistribution while taking into account the potential influence of declining stocks.
Minor edit: There is an inconsistency between the percent reduction of bluefin tuna discards
reported in Table 4.6 and Table 4.11. For alternatives B2(d), B2(e), and B2(a)/B2(b)(year
round) the former lists -3.3%, 5.7%, and -24.3% respectively; these are reflected in the text.
However, Table 4.11 reports different values of 38%, -40.7%, and -19.1%, respectively. Two of
these values counter the arguments presented in the text.
Chapter 10/Appendix B: Essential Fish Habitat
In this chapter and the associated appendix (B), NMFS presents a comprehensive five-year
review of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for all HMS. In addition, the chapter makes every effort
to identify fishing and non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH. EFH is defined as
“those habitats necessary to the species for spawning, breeding, or growth to maturity”.
Section 10.2.1: Descriptions of Datasets Used in the Review
In addition to the datasets used in the current analyses, two surveys are conspicuously absent.
The NEFSC Longline Shark Survey has been conducted by the NMFS Apex Predators
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-4

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Investigation for no less than 30 years. These biological surveys targeted pelagic sharks,
swordfish, and tunas in the early years and large coastal sharks in recent years. Like the
Southeast Fishery Longline Shark Survey, biological and associated environmental data are
collected from all captures and most fishes are tagged and released. This survey would
contribute useful fisheries independent data. Also, the now defunct CETAP (Cetacean and
Turtle Assessment Program) survey is another fisheries independent historical source of
distribution data on large pelagic fishes (see Kenney et al., 1985). This is particularly important
for shark species that are not routinely taken in fisheries (e.g. basking shark).
Section 10.2.2: Methods Used to Map and Analyze EFH Data
While it is clear that size stratified spatial data from multiple sources were plotted to identify
areas of high concentration, it is unclear how this grid will be used to designate EFH.
Section 10.3: Summary of Review and Findings
Reference to the McCandless et al. (2002) study should note that 15 separate research studies
were conducted from Massachusetts to Texas, not New York to Texas.
As written, the text in this and the previous section implies that new EFH has been designated
based on recent information. However, it is stated in the Introduction (Section 10.1) that EFH
has not been modified from the 1999 designations and that the current review is simply to
provide new EFH information and data collected since that time. Since there is a great deal of
discussion regarding new EFH information and species-specific descriptions of EFH,
clarification is warranted.
Section 10.3.2: Swordfish
Reference to juvenile swordfish in the vicinity Long Island Sound needs to be substantiated.
Perhaps this information refers to historical reports of swordfish east of Long Island in the
vicinity of Block Island and Nomans Island south of Martha’s Vineyard.
Appendix B: Essential Fish Habitat
Many of the species-specific descriptions in this appendix present life history information that
has been updated or replaced with new or more applicable research findings. In the following
sections, I’ve noted recently published literature that may assist NMFS in identifying EFH for
several species of HMS.
B.1.4.1: Basking Shark
Distribution data for the basking shark is incomplete largely because the species is not
commonly taken by fisheries. EFH for the basking shark should include waters east of the Great
South Channel and the Gulf of Maine to the Bay of Fundy. Pertinent information on life history
and distribution of the basking shark in the North Atlantic may be found in Templeman (1963),

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-5

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Owen (1984), Kenney et al. (1985), Sims and Merrett (1997), Sims and Quayle (1998), Sims
(1999), Sims et al. (2000), Skomal et al. (2004), and Wilson (2004).
B.1.4.2: Hammerhead Sharks
Scalloped Hammerhead
Additional life history information can be found in Lessa et al. (1998), Hazin et al. (2001), and
Bush and Holland (2002).
B.1.4.3: Mackerel Sharks
White Shark
In all likelihood, EFH of the white shark will need to be modified. The review by Casey and
Pratt (1985) is a comprehensive size-specific examination of white shark distribution, life
history, and nursery habitat in the western North Atlantic. Preliminary estimates of age and
growth of this species were recently conducted by Natanson (2002). Estrada et al. (in press)
present new information on the trophic ecology of this species in the western North Atlantic
based on stable isotopes.
Nurse Shark
This species should not be listed under Mackerel Sharks (Section B.1.4.3).
B.1.4.4: Requiem Sharks
Blacktip Shark
Additional information on blacktip shark nursery habitat can be found in Heupel and Hueter
(2002), Heupel and Simpfendorfer (2002), Keeney et al. (2003), Heupel et al. (2004), Keeney et
al. (2005), and Heupel and Simpfendorfer (2005a; 2005b).
Bull Shark
Additional information on bull shark life history and nursery habitat can be found in Tremain et
al. (2004), Neer et al. (2005), and Simpfendorfer et al. (2005).
Dusky Shark

Age and growth information can be found in Natanson et al. (1995).

Lemon Shark

Additional life history information can be found in Sundstrom et al. (2001) and Barker et al.

(2005).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-6

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Night Shark
Hazin et al. (2000) and Santana and Lessa (2004) provide additional information on reproduction
and age and growth, respectively.
Spinner Shark
Additional life history information on the spinner shark can be found in Allen and Wintner
(2002), Capape et al. (2003), Bethea et al. (2004), Carlson and Baremore (2005), and Joung et al.
(2005).
Tiger Shark

More recent age and growth information on the tiger shark can be found in Natanson et al.

(1999) and Wintner and Dudley (2000).

B.1.4.5: Sand Tiger Sharks
Sand tiger shark
Additional information on the sand tiger shark may be found in Gelsleichter et al. (1999) and
Lucifora et al. (2002).
B.1.4.6: Whale Sharks
Additional life history information can be found in Chang et al. (1997), Colman (1997), and
Wintner (2000).
B.1.4.8: Hammerhead Sharks
Bonnethead
Additional life history information can be found in Cortes et al. (1996), Cortes and Parsons
(1996), Cortes et al. (1996), Carlson and Parsons (1997), Lessa and Almeida (1998), MarquezFarias et al. (1998), Carlson et al. (1999), and Lombardi-Carlson et al. (2003).
B.1.4.9: Requiem Sharks
Atlantic Sharpnose Shark
Additional life history information can be found in Cortes (1995), Marquez-Farias and CastilloGeniz (1998), Gelsleichter et al. (1999), Carlson and Baremore (2003), Hoffmayer and Parsons
(2003), Loefer and Sedberry (2003), and Bethea et al. (2004).

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-7

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Blacknose Shark

Additional life history information can be found in Carlson et al. (1999), Hazin et al. (2002), and

Driggers et al. (2004a; 2004b).

Finetooth Shark

Additional life history information can be found in Carlson et al. (2003), Hoffmayer and Parsons

(2003), and Bethea et al. (2004).

Smalltail Shark

Additional life history information can be found in Lessa and Santana (1998) and Lessa et al.

(1999b).

B.1.5.1: Cow Sharks
Sixgill Shark
Additional life history information can be found in Ebert (2002) and McFarlane et al. (2002).
B.1.5.2: Mackerel Sharks
Porbeagle Shark
More recent life history information can be found in Francis and Stevens (2000), Jensen et al.
(2002), Joyce et al. (2002), Natanson et al. (2002), Campana and Joyce (2004), and Francis and
Duffy (2005).
Shortfin Mako Shark
Additional life history information can be found in Stillwell and Kohler (1982), Pratt and Casey
(1983), Heist et al. (1996), Mollet et al. (2000), Campana et al. (2002), Estrada et al. (2003),
Francis and Duffy (2005), Loefer et al. (2005), and MacNeil et al. (2005).
B.1.5.3: Requiem Sharks
Blue Shark
Additional life history and ecological information can be found in Kenney et al. (1985), Estrada
et al. (2003), and Skomal and Natanson (2003).
Oceanic Whitetip Shark
Additional life history information can be found in Lessa et al. (1999a), Lessa et al. (1999c), and
Whitney et al. (2004).
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-8

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

B.1.5.4: Thresher Sharks
Bigeye Thresher
Additional life history information can be found in Chen et al. (1997), Liu et al. (1998), and
Weng and Block (2004).
Thresher Shark
New age and growth information can be found in Gervelis (2005).

Literature Cited
Allen, B.R. and S.P. Wintner. 2002. Age and growth of the spinner shark Carcharhinus
brevipinna (Muller and Henle, 1839) off the Kwazulu-Natal Coast, South Africa. South
African Journal of Marine Science 24: 1-8.
Barker, M.J., S.H. Gruber, S.P. Newman and V. Schluessel. 2005. Spatial and ontogenetic
variation in growth of nursery-bound juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris: a
comparison of two age-assigning techniques. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72: 343­
355.
Bethea, D.M., J.A. Buckel and J.K. Carlson. 2004. Foraging ecology of the early life stages of
four sympatric shark species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 268: 245-264.
Bush, A. and K. Holland. 2002. Food limitation in a nursery area: estimates of daily ration in
juvenile scalloped hammerheads, Sphyrna lewini (Griffith and Smith, 1834) in Kane'ohe
Bay, O'ahu, Hawai'i. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 278: 157-178.
Campana, S.E. and W.N. Joyce. 2004. Temperature and depth associations of porbeagle shark
(Lamna nasus) in the northwest Atlantic. Fisheries Oceanography 13: 52-64.
Campana, S.E., L.J. Natanson and S. Myklevoll. 2002. Bomb dating and age determination of
large pelagic sharks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 450-455.
Capape, C., F. Hemida, A.A. Seck, Y. Diatta, O. Guelorget and J. Zaouali. 2003. Distribution
and reproductive biology of the spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna (Muller and
Henle, 1841) (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae). Israel Journal of Zoology 49: 269-286.
Carlson, J.D., E. Cortes and D.M. Bethea. 2003. Life history and population dynamics of the
finetooth shark (Carcharhinus isodon) in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery
Bulletin 101: 281-292.
Carlson, J.K. and I.E. Baremore. 2003. Changes in biological parameters of Atlantic sharpnose
shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae in the Gulf of Mexico: evidence for density-dependent
growth and maturity? Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 227-234.
Carlson, J.K. and I.E. Baremore. 2005. Growth dynamics of the spinner shark (Carcharhinus
brevipinna) off the United States southeast and Gulf of Mexico coasts: a comparison of
methods. Fishery Bulletin 103: 280-291.
Carlson, J.K., E. Cortes and A.G. Johnson. 1999. Age and growth of the blacknose shark,
Carcharhinus acronotus, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Copeia: 684-691.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-9

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Carlson, J.K. and G.R. Parsons. 1997. Age and growth of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo,
from northwest Florida, with comments on clinal variation. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 50: 331-341.
Casey, J.G., and H.L. Pratt, Jr. 1985. Distribution of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias,
in the western North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences
9:2-14.
Chang, W.B., M.Y. Leu and L.S. Fang. 1997. Embryos of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus:
early growth and size distribution. Copeia: 444-446.
Chen, C.T., K.M. Liu and Y.C. Chang. 1997. Reproductive biology of the bigeye thresher shark,
Alopias superciliosus (Lowe, 1839) (Chondrichthyes: Alopiidae), in the northwestern
Pacific. Ichthyological Research 44: 227-235.
Colman, J.G. 1997. A review of the biology and ecology of the whale shark. Journal of Fish
Biology 51: 1219-1234.
Cortes, E. 1995. Demographic analysis of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon­
terraenovae, in the Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 93: 57-66.
Cortes, E., C.A. Manire and R.E. Hueter. 1996. Diet, feeding habits, and diel feeding chronology
of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, in southwest Florida. Bulletin of Marine
Science 58: 353-367.
Cortes, E. and G.R. Parsons. 1996. Comparative demography of two populations of the
bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
53: 709-718.
Driggers, W.B., J.K. Carlson, B. Cullum, J.M. Dean, D. Oakley and G. Ulrich. 2004a. Age and
growth of the blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus, in the western North Atlantic
Ocean with comments on regional variation in growth rates. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 71: 171-178.
Driggers, W.B., D.A. Oakley, G. Ulrich, J.K. Carlson, B.J. Cullum and J.M. Dean. 2004b.
Reproductive biology of Carcharhinus acronotus in the coastal waters of South Carolina.
Journal of Fish Biology 64: 1540-1551.
Ebert, D.A. 2002. Some observations on the reproductive biology of the sixgill shark Hexanchus
griseus (Bonnaterre, 1788) from Southern African waters. South African Journal of
Marine Science 24: 359-363.
Estrada, J.A., A.N. Rice, M.E. Lutcavage and G.B. Skomal. 2003. Predicting trophic position in
sharks of the northwest Atlantic Ocean using stable isotope analysis. Journal of the
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83: 1347-1350.
Estrada, J.A., A.N. Rice, L.J. Natanson, and G.B. Skomal. I n Press. The use of isotopic analysis
of vertebrae in reconstructing ontogenetic feeding ecology in white sharks. Ecology.
Francis, M.P. and C. Duffy. 2005. Length at maturity in three pelagic sharks (Lamna nasus,
Isurus oxyrinchus, and Prionace glauca) from New Zealand. Fishery Bulletin 103: 489­
500.
Francis, M.P. and J.D. Stevens. 2000. Reproduction, embryonic development, and growth of the
porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 98: 41­
63.
Gelsleichter, J., J.A. Musick and S. Nichols. 1999. Food habits of the smooth dogfish, Mustelus
canis, dusky shark, Carcharhinus obscurus, Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon
terraenovae, and the sand tiger, Carcharias taurus, from the northwest Atlantic Ocean.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 54: 205-217.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-10

APPENDIX E
P
EER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Gervelis, B. 2005. Age and growth of the thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus, in the northwest
Atlantic Ocean. MS Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Hazin, F., A. Fischer and M. Broadhurst. 2001. Aspects of reproductive biology of the scalloped
hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini, off northeastern Brazil. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 61: 151-159.
Hazin, F.H.V., F.M. Lucena, T. Souza, C.E. Boeckman, M.K. Broadhurst and R.C. Menni. 2000.
Maturation of the night shark, Carcharhinus signatus, in the southwestern equatorial
Atlantic Ocean. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 173-185.
Hazin, F.H.V., P.G. Oliveira and M.K. Broadhurst. 2002. Reproduction of the blacknose shark
(Carcharhinus acronotus) in coastal waters off northeastern Brazil. Fishery Bulletin 100:
143-148.
Heist, E.J., J.A. Musick and J.E. Graves. 1996. Genetic population structure of the shortfin mako
(Isurus oxyrinchus) inferred from restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of
mitochondrial DNA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 583-588.
Heupel, M.R. and R.E. Hueter. 2002. Importance of prey density in relation to the movement
patterns of juvenile blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) within a coastal nursery
area. Marine and Freshwater Research 53: 543-550.
Heupel, M.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2002. Estimation of mortality of juvenile blacktip sharks,
Carcharhinus limbatus, within a nursery area using telemetry data. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 624-632.
Heupel, M.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2005a. Quantitative analysis of aggregation behavior in
juvenile blacktip sharks. Marine Biology 147: 1239-1249.
Heupel, M.R. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2005b. Using acoustic monitoring to evaluate MPAs for
shark nursery areas: the importance of long-term data. Marine Technology Society
Journal 39: 10-18.
Heupel, M.R., C.A. Simpfendorfer and R.E. Hueter. 2004. Estimation of shark home ranges
using passive monitoring techniques. Environmental Biology of Fishes 71: 135-142.
Hoffmayer, E.R. and G.R. Parsons. 2003. Food habits of three shark species from the Mississippi
Sound in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 271-280.
Jensen, C.F., L.J. Natanson, H.L. Pratt, N.E. Kohler and S.E. Campana. 2002. The reproductive
biology of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the western North Atlantic Ocean.
Fishery Bulletin 100: 727-738.
Joung, S.J., Y.Y. Liao, K.M. Liu, C.T. Chen and L.C. Leu. 2005. Age, growth, and reproduction
of the spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna, in the northeastern waters of Taiwan.
Zoological Studies 44: 102-110.
Joyce, W.N., S.E. Campana, L.J. Natanson, N.E. Kohler, H.L. Pratt and C.F. Jensen. 2002.
Analysis of stomach contents of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus Bonnaterre) in the
northwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 1263-1269.
Keeney, D.B., M. Heupel, R.E. Hueter and E.J. Heist. 2003. Genetic heterogeneity among
blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus, continental nurseries along the US Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico. Marine Biology 143: 1039-1046.
Keeney, D.B., M.R. Heupel, R.E. Hueter and E.J. Heist. 2005. Microsatellite and mitochondrial
DNA analyses of the genetic structure of blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus)
nurseries in the northwestern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Molecular
Ecology 14: 1911-1923.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-11

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Kenney, R.D., R.E. Owen and H.E. Winn. 1985. Shark distributions off the northeast United
States from marine mammal surveys. Copeia 1985: 220-223.
Kerstetter, D.W., B.E. Luckhurst, E.D. Prince and J.E. Graves. 2003. Use of pop-up satellite
archival tags to demonstrate survival of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) released from
pelagic longline gear. Fishery Bulletin 101: 939-948.
Lessa, R. and F.M. Santana. 1998. Age determination and growth of the smalltail shark,
Carcharhinus porosus, from northern Brazil. Marine and Freshwater Research 49: 705­
711.
Lessa, R.P. and Z. Almeida. 1998. Feeding habits of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, from
northern Brazil. Cybium 22: 383-394.
Lessa, R., R.C. Menni and F. Lucena. 1998. Biological observations on Sphyrna lewini and S.
tudes (Chondrichthyes, Sphyrnidae) from northern Brazil. Life and Environment 48: 203­
213.
Lessa, R., R. Paglerani and F.M. Santana. 1999a. Biology and morphometry of the oceanic
whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus (Carcharhinidae), off northeastern Brazil.
Cybium 23: 353-368.
Lessa, R., F. Santana, R. Menni and Z. Almeida. 1999b. Population structure and reproductive
biology of the smalltail shark (Carcharhinus porosus) off Maranhao (Brazil). Marine and
Freshwater Research 50: 383-388.
Lessa, R., F.M. Santana and R. Paglerani. 1999c. Age, growth and stock structure of the oceanic
whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, from the southwestern equatorial Atlantic.
Fisheries Research 42: 21-30.
Liu, K.M., P.J. Chiang and C.T. Chen. 1998. Age and growth estimates of the bigeye thresher
shark, Alopias superciliosus, in northeastern Taiwan waters. Fishery Bulletin 96: 482­
491.
Loefer, J.K. and G.R. Sedberry. 2003. Life history of the Atlantic sharpnose shark
(Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) (Richardson, 1836) off the southeastern United States.
Fishery Bulletin 101: 75-88.
Loefer, J.K., G.R. Sedberry and J.C. McGovern. 2005. Vertical movements of a shortfin mako in
the western North Atlantic as determined by pop-up satellite tagging. Southeastern
Naturalist 4: 237-246.
Lombardi-Carlson, L.A., E. Cortes, G.R. Parsons and C.A. Manire. 2003. Latitudinal variation in
life-history traits of bonnethead sharks, Sphyrna tiburo, (Carcharhiniformes: Sphyrnidae)
from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 875-883.
Lucifora, L.O., R.C. Menni and A.H. Escalante. 2002. Reproductive ecology and abundance of
the sand tiger shark, Carcharias taurus, from the southwestern Atlantic. ICES Journal of
Marine Science 59: 553-561.
MacNeil, M.A., G.B. Skomal and A.T. Fisk. 2005. Stable isotopes from multiple tissues reveal
diet switching in sharks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302: 199-206.
Marquez-Farias, J.F. and J.L. Castillo-Geniz. 1998. Fishery biology and demography of the
Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, in the southern Gulf of Mexico.
Fisheries Research 39: 183-198.
Marquez-Farias, J.F., J.L. Castillo-Geniz and M.C.R. de la Cruz. 1998. Demography of the
bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo (Linnaeus, 1758), in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico.
Ciencias Marinas 24: 13-34.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-12

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

McFarlane, G.A., J.R. King and M.W. Saunders. 2002. Preliminary study on the use of neural
arches in the age determination of bluntnose sixgill sharks (Hexanchus griseus). Fishery
Bulletin 100: 861-864.
Mollet, H.F., G. Cliff, H.L. Pratt and J.D. Stevens. 2000. Reproductive biology of the female
shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus Rafinesque, 1810, with comments on the embryonic
development of lamnoids. Fishery Bulletin 98: 299-318.
Natanson, L.J. 2002. Preliminary investigations into the age and growth of the shortfin mako,
Isurus oxyrinchus, white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, and thresher shark, Alopias
vulpinus, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers
ICCAT 54:1280-1293.
Natanson, L.J., J.G. Casey and N.E. Kohler. 1995. Age and growth estimates for the dusky shark,
Carcharhinus obscurus, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 93: 116­
126.
Natanson, L.J., J.G. Casey, N.E. Kohler and T. Colket. 1999. Growth of the tiger shark,
Galeocerdo cuvier, in the western North Atlantic based on tag returns and length
frequencies; and a note on the effects of tagging. Fishery Bulletin 97: 944-953.
Natanson, L.J., J.J. Mello and S.E. Campana. 2002. Validated age and growth of the porbeagle
shark (Lamna nasus) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 100: 266-278.
Neer, J.A., B.A. Thompson and J.K. Carlson. 2005. Age and growth of Carcharhinus leucas in
the northern Gulf of Mexico: incorporating variability in size at birth. Journal of Fish
Biology 67: 370-383.
Owen, R.E. 1984. Distribution and ecology of the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus
(Gunnerus 1765). MS thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Pratt Jr., H.L. and J.G. Casey. 1983. Age and Growth of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus,
using four methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 1944-1957.
Santana, F.M. and R. Lessa. 2004. Age determination and growth of the night shark
(Carcharhinus signatus) off the northeastern Brazilian coast. Fishery Bulletin 102: 156­
167.
Simpfendorfer, C.A., G.G. Freitas, T.R. Wiley and M.R. Heupel. 2005. Distribution and habitat
partitioning of immature bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) in a southwest Florida
estuary. Estuaries 28: 78-85.
Sims, D.W. 1999. Threshold foraging behaviour of basking sharks on zooplankton: life on an
energetic knife-edge? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B-Biological
Sciences 266: 1437-1443.
Sims, D.W. and D.A. Merrett. 1997. Determination of zooplankton characteristics in the
presence of surface feeding basking sharks Cetorhinus maximus. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 158: 297-302.
Sims, D.W. and V.A. Quayle. 1998. Selective foraging behaviour of basking sharks on
zooplankton in a small-scale front. Nature 393: 460-464.
Sims, D.W., C.D. Speedie and A.M. Fox. 2000. Movements and growth of a female basking
shark re-sighted after a three year period. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of
the United Kingdom 80: 1141-1142.
Skomal, G.B. and L.J. Natanson. 2003. Age and growth of the blue shark (Prionace glauca) in
the North Atlantic Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 101: 627-639.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-13

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Skomal, G., G. Wood and N. Caloyianis. 2004. Archival tagging of a basking shark, Cetorhinus
maximus, in the western North Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of
the United Kingdom 84: 795-799.
Stillwell, C.E. and N. Kohler. 1982. Food, feeding habits, and estimates of daily ration of the
shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the northwest Atlantic. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 407-414.
Sundstrom, L.F., S.H. Gruber, S.M. Clermont, J.P.S. Correia, J.R.C. de Marignac, J.F.
Morrissey, C.R. Lowrance, L. Thomassen and M.T. Oliveira. 2001. Review of
elasmobranch behavioral studies using ultrasonic telemetry with special reference to the
lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris, around Bimini Islands, Bahamas. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 60: 225-250.
Templeman, W. 1963. Distribution of sharks in the Canadian Atlantic. Bulletin of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 140.
Tremain, D.M., C.W. Harnden and D.H. Adams. 2004. Multidirectional movements of sportfish
species between an estuarine no-take zone and surrounding waters of the Indian River
Lagoon, Florida. Fishery Bulletin 102: 533-544.
Weng, K.C. and B.A. Block. 2004. Diel vertical migration of the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias
superciliosus), a species possessing orbital retia mirabilia. Fishery Bulletin 102: 221-229.
Whitney, N.M., H.L. Pratt and J.C. Carrier. 2004. Group courtship, mating behaviour and siphon
sac function in the whitetip reef shark, Triaenodon obesus. Animal Behaviour 68: 1435­
1442.
Wilson, S.G. 2004. Basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) schooling in the southern Gulf of
Maine. Fisheries Oceanography 13: 283-286.
Wintner, S.P. 2000. Preliminary study of vertebral growth rings in the whale shark, Rhincodon
typus, from the east coast of South Africa. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59: 441-451.
Wintner, S.P. and S.F.J. Dudley. 2000. Age and growth estimates for the tiger shark, Galeocerdo
cuvier, from the east coast of South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 43-53.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-14

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

E.2

Response to OMB Peer Review by Gregory Skomal, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Division of Marine Fisheries, December 21, 2005

Section 3.8.2: Standardized Reporting of Bycatch
The reviewer indicated that there was some confusion as to the various reporting
programs for the different fisheries which harvest HMS. Additional clarification was added to
the descriptions in the text.
Section 3.8.2.6: Recreational Handgear Fishery
The reviewer indicated that the catch and bycatch estimates derived from the programs
used to monitor recreational landings of HMS have been questioned by members of the U.S.
ICCAT Advisory Committee and that changes should be made to ensure that high standards of
accuracy and precision are met. NMFS recognizes the desire to make improvements in the
collection of recreational catch and landings data. At the request of NMFS, the NAS recently
conducted a review of marine recreational fishery surveys, both state and federal. The review
committee’s report has been published and the Agency is evaluating the recommendations.
Section 3.8.5: Bycatch Mortality
The reviewer suggested that this section be augmented by adding estimates of bycatch
and bycatch disposition on a fishery-specific basis. This information has been included for those
fisheries where it is available and can be found in Section 3.4.
Section 4.1.2/Appendix A: Time/Area Closures
The review noted that the criteria must include objective, quantitative thresholds for
bycatch reduction taking into account those factors listed under this alternative as well as status
of the stocks, assessment information, and stock rebuilding schedules. In addition, the reviewer
stated that discard reduction analyses should make every attempt to test hypotheses of effort
redistribution while taking into account the potential influence of declining stocks.
NMFS does not believe that established quantitative thresholds for strict bycatch
reduction percentages need to be created for specific time/area closures. Pre-determined target
reduction goals for specific species are inappropriate because it does not consider the impact on
the remaining portion of the catch. By not setting such thresholds, NMFS retains the flexibility
of considering percent change of bycatch for all species before implementing a time/area closure.
Consideration of the overall catch is critical when implementing a multispecies or ecosystembased approach to management. Furthermore, while the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS
the authority to manage all species, NMFS must balance the impacts of management measures
on all managed species and may not choose protections for one species to the detriment of
protected or overfished species (e.g., NMFS may not choose to protect BFT even if sea turtle
interactions may increase substantially). Under the approach preferred in this rulemaking (the
criteria), NMFS can consider the largest range of alternatives when considering time/area
closures. For example, if NMFS is given a specific goal (e.g., a jeopardy conclusion regarding
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-15

APPENDIX E
R
ESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

the PLL fishery and leatherback sea turtles), this flexibility outlined in the criteria allows NMFS
to close certain areas or take other actions to protect that specific species while also protecting, to
the extent practicable, the other species and the rest of the fishery. Absent this flexibility, NMFS
might potentially have to implement more restrictive measures to protect one species causing
potential cascade effects (e.g., closing one area may increase the bycatch of another species,
which could result in closing another area, etc.).
NMFS already considers the status of the stocks when implementing time/area closures.
Closed areas like the Northeastern U.S. closed area, the mid-Atlantic shark closed area, and the
Northeast Distant closed area were all implemented to address specific overfished or protected
species. The other closed areas, while implemented to reduce bycatch in general, also
considered the status of the stocks before implementation. In addition, considering the status of
a stock is one criterion in the preferred alternative, B5.
NMFS currently does not test “hypotheses” of effort redistribution, but agrees that
assumptions of the redistribution of effort need to be tested. To test this model, NMFS explored
different assumptions regarding the movement of the PLL fleet and how more limited
movements by the fleet may affect predictions regarding bycatch reduction. NMFS investigated
the movement of the PLL fleet from 2001 through June of 2004 to see where vessels fished in
relation to their reported homeports. This mobility analysis broke the Atlantic, Caribbean, and
Gulf of Mexico into six distinct areas, with one area, Area 2, split along the west and east coasts
of Florida (Areas 2A and 2B, respectively). Using GIS, NMFS plotted the locations vessels
reported fishing (i.e., made sets) in six different areas in relation to their reported homeport in
order to determine the distance different vessels traveled. Overall, of the vessels that moved out
of the Gulf of Mexico, the majority (80 percent in terms of hooks) moved out of the Gulf of
Mexico (Areas 1 and 2A) into Area 6, the high seas, but other vessels also moved from the Gulf
to the eastern seaboard. Conversely, a few vessels that fished along the eastern seaboard also
moved into the Gulf of Mexico, although the movement was somewhat limited.
NMFS also investigated the physical characteristics of vessels to see if there were any
differences in the vessels that reported fishing only in the Gulf of Mexico compared to vessels
that reporting fishing out of the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS found no significant difference in the
vessels’ length (t104 = 0.43, P = 0.35) or vessels’ horsepower (t104 = 0.43, P = 0.66) for vessels
that fished only in the Gulf of Mexico versus those that fished out of the Gulf of Mexico. These
results indicate that vessels that fish exclusively in the Gulf of Mexico have the physical
capability (in terms of vessel size and horsepower) to fish outside of the Gulf of Mexico.
Furthermore, despite the upgrading restrictions, this indicates that the Gulf of Mexico vessel
owners could sell their permits to fishermen who may want to fish outside the Gulf of Mexico.
Based on these analyses, NMFS evaluated different scenarios of the redistribution of
effort model where each scenario had a different assumption regarding where effort from a
closure would be displaced. NMFS calculated redistribution of fishing effort only to open areas
along the eastern seaboard for a closure in the Northeast [B2(b)]. NMFS also redistributed
fishing effort in the open areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 for two closures in the Gulf of
Mexico [B2(a) and B2(c)]. Taken with the results of not considering redistribution of effort to
the full effort redistribution model, these additional scenarios provide estimates of changes in
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-16

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

bycatch and retained catch somewhere in-between the two base scenarios (i.e., some movement
is expected, and thus, some redistribution of effort is expected into a particular area (in this case,
Area 6)). However, these additional scenarios assume that the same amount of effort is moved
out of the Gulf of Mexico regardless of the size of the closure in the Gulf of Mexico, when in
reality, larger closures may result in more movement out of the Gulf of Mexico. These scenarios
also assume that fishermen do not relocate, possibly due to community ties to unloading docks,
processing plants, etc. However, it should be noted that while fishermen may prefer not to
disrupt ties to their communities, the 2001-2004 HMS logbook data indicate that fishermen from
the Gulf of Mexico already fish outside of the Gulf of Mexico. If a large closure were
implemented in the Gulf of Mexico, it is likely that additional fishermen would move their
fishing locations or sell their permits rather than go out of business. However, in the future,
NMFS intends to investigate the choices fishermen have made regarding previous closures (i.e.,
did they move, sell their permits, go out of business, retain their permit but fish for something
else, etc?). This type of analysis could help NMFS improve the effort redistribution models used
in the future.
The reviewer also noted that there was an inconsistency between the percent reduction of
BFT discards reported in Table 4.6 and Table 4.11 of the Draft HMS FMP. For alternatives
B2(d), B2(e), and B2(a)/B2(b)(year round) the former listed -3.3%, 5.7%, and -24.3%
respectively; these were reflected in the text. However, Table 4.11 reported different values of
38%, -40.7%, and -19.1%, respectively. Two of these values countered the arguments presented
in the text. NMFS found that the values reported in Table 4.6 were incorrect and the values
listed in Table 4.11 of the Draft HMF FMP were correct. NMFS has corrected these
discrepancies in the tables and the text of the Final HMS FMP. However, these changes did not
affect the overall conclusions.
Chapter 10/Appendix B: Essential Fish Habitat
Section 10.2.1.: Descriptions of Dataset Used in the Review
The reviewer noted that two data sources were conspicuously absent: the NEFSC
Longline Shark Survey conducted by the NMFS Apex Predators Investigation, and the CETAP
(Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program) survey which would be particularly important for
shark species not normally taken in fisheries such as the basking shark. The NEFSC Longline
Shark Survey data was included in the data compiled during the review, but was labeled as
Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP). Thus all shark data collected during the NEFSC
Longline Shark Survey were included (C. McCandless pers. comm.). The CETAP survey was
not obtained but references have been included in the life history section for basking sharks.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-17

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY GEORGE SKOMAL

Section 10.2.2: Methods Used to Map and Analyze EFH Data
It was unclear to the reviewer how the grid used to plot data for each of the species would
be used to designate EFH. As described in the FMP, the grid has a dual purpose, to allow the
viewer to distinguish between low and high number of observations which would be difficult
with point data only, and to serve as a guide for potential future modifications to EFH
boundaries. The grid could be used to include or exclude a given number of observations per
100 nm2 area in the EFH boundary. NMFS could establish criteria for each species and use the
grid to decide whether to include or exclude those areas. This would allow NMFS to consider
different alternatives for EFH boundaries based on different criteria. For example, in
Amendment 1 to the FMP, criteria (presented here for reference only) for including or excluding
a given number of observations per square were established for each species based on the status
of the stock, and used as a guide to identify appropriate EFH areas. For a rebuilt species like
blacktip shark, a criteria of greater than 10 observations per 100 nm2 was used to help identify
and map areas as EFH. For an overfished species such as finetooth shark, a more precautionary
criteria of > 1 observation per 100 nm2 was used to help identify and map EFH areas. Thus, the
grid might be used in a future rulemaking to analyze potential alternatives based on including or
excluding a specific number of observations per 100 nmi2 area.
Section 10.3: Summary of Review and Findings
Based on the reviewer’s comment, the reference to the McCandless et al. (2002) study
was modified to note that 15 separate research studies were conducted from Massachusetts to
Texas, not New York to Texas. The reviewer commented that the document seemed to imply
that new EFH had been designated based on recent information, contrary to what was stated in
the Introduction that EFH was not being modified in this FMP. NMFS did not mean to imply
that EFH was being modified in this FMP. Rather, NMFS was attempting to provide NOAA
technical reviewer’s comments and concerns regarding the existing EFH boundaries and whether
they considered changes to EFH to be warranted. In some cases the reviewers seemed to
indicate that this was the case, but NMFS did not mean to imply that those changes would be
made in this FMP. Any references to EFH being modified have been clarified to indicate that no
changes are being made at this point.
Section 10.3.2: Swordfish
The reviewer noted that references to juvenile swordfish in the vicinity of Long Island
Sound would need to be substantiated. NMFS agrees, and has asked NMFS technical experts to
confirm whether they consider the datapoints to be valid. NMFS is awaiting a response from the
NMFS technical experts, and would make any necessary changes prior to amending any
swordfish EFH boundaries.
Appendix B: Essential Fish Habitat
The peer reviewer noted that many of the references in the life history section had been
updated or replaced with new or more applicable research findings. NMFS incorporated all
references provided by the peer reviewer in the life history section.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-18

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

E.3

Peer Review by Chris Boggs and Keith Bigelow, NMFS SWFSC, January 9, 2006

GENERAL COMMENTS:
This consolidated FMP is a mammoth undertaking. The breadth and detail of the
information that has been reviewed considered and presented is staggering. The quality of the
data information is highly variable and the document does a good job of indicating problems and
issues with data sources, and with the appropriateness of their application to management
measures. And the document identifies the many areas that require improvement in information
and management alternatives based on future study and deliberation. The greatest limitations to
the overall products reviewed by PIFSC seems to be in the closed area alternatives, but this is to
be expected. The other sections reviewed by PIFSC do not lead directly to management
decisions that immediately affect fishery operations.
The section on bycatch could be improved by some clarification of terminology (as
indicated in the specific comments). A few areas of information regarding bycatch mortality
appear to have been missed, but the document is a comprehensive and thorough compendium of
our current position in terms of knowledge and application to management issues as well as the
needed direction for improvement. The theory behind establishing a standardized methodology
for precision and accuracy in bycatch estimation exceeds the practice, which has been slow to
develop and thus is not extensively covered. However the agency is hamstrung by lack of
resources even to conduct analyses of cost/improvement ratios in any but a few fisheries, let
alone to increase the myriad of observer and other monitoring programs that would be required
for all fisheries. Documenting the present status of this effort is the appropriate first step for the
FMP, which can present no more than what is the best available information.
The section on area closures presented the most difficulty and the specific comments may
prompt clarification of the presentation. The rationale for the preferred alternatives could use
strengthening where indicated. It is clear that a very large amount of information and comment
was considered and a host of differing objectives had to be balanced. This will always produce
choices which reflect compromise. The rationale for some of these choices appears to need some
bolstering, especially as they face challenge from specific interest groups.
The section on EFH benefits from a greater wealth of published scientific information
than the other sections, and results in no specific management alternatives to be considered at
this time. The one identified area for future consideration appropriately awaits further data
collection (bottom longline impacts on reef habitat). The rationale for expecting little impact of
the fisheries on EFH at present is convincing. The issues for this section revolve around the
practice of EFH designation, and these issues are well described and critiques from previous
reviews made available. To be more thorough on scientific content this section would have to
become encyclopedic, which would not be appropriate to its purpose. Possible errors for one
species (specific comment) stood out only because of the focus by the PIFSC on the habitat of
this species. The coverage of coastal anthropogenic effects on the HMS EFH is much more
thorough than in our FMP for the central and western Pacific…but that seems appropriate given
the greater ratio of coasts to ocean.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-19

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
Bycatch
3.8
Regarding the 2nd par:
“The national goal of the Agency’s bycatch plan activities is to implement conservation and
management measures for living marine resources that will minimize, to the extent practicable,
bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. Inherent in this
goal is the need to avoid bycatch, rather than create new ways to utilize bycatch. The plan also
established a definition of bycatch as fishery discards, retained incidental catch, and unobserved
mortalities resulting from a direct encounter with fishing gear.”
Fishery Councils may disagree that utilization (and thus reduction) of bycatch is not a valid goal
under Magnusson. Can the statement to the contrary be supported more thoroughly?
And in the next section
3.8.1 Bycatch Reduction and the Magnuson-Stevens Act
”The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which
are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic and regulatory discards. Fish is
defined as finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life
other than marine mammals and birds. Seabirds and marine mammals are therefore considered
‘incidental catch.’”
Rather than re-visit here all the discussion about the National Plan’s different (from Magnuson)
definition of bycatch, it is suggested that the text avoid using incidental catch in two
contradictory ways in two succeeding paragraphs. There are clearer and widely-used terms for
catch of seabirds and marine mammals, such as “takes of protected species” or “protected
species interactions”. NOAA Fisheries claims important successes in reducing bycatch” when
referring to reductions in seabird and mammal takes, and can continue to do so in a broadly
understood use the term “bycatch”. But it isn’t a broadly understood that “incidental catch” to
refer to protected species. “Incidental take” might be better understood.
Next par
“National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery conservation
andmanagement measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and minimize the
mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. In many fisheries, it is not practicable to eliminate
all bycatch and bycatch mortality. Some relevant examples of fish caught in Atlantic HMS
fisheries that are included as bycatch or incidental catch…”
Should turtles also be listed as examples? They were includsed as fish bycatch under MagnusonStevens (was this changed recently?) and some of the subsequently listed options for bycatch
reduction in this section are specific to turtles and have no documented utility for reducing any
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-20

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

other bycatch (e.g. large circle hooks reduce turtle bycatch, but otherwise reduce mostly injury or
mortality of other bycatch).
Then in a following par
“Therefore, to totally eliminate bycatch of all non-target species in Atlantic HMS fisheries would
be impractical. The goal then is to minimize the amount of bycatch to the extent practicable and
minimize the mortality of species caught as bycatch.”
This statement is laudably practical, and such a statement was requested in the council/public
reviews. However, the statement and the preceding discussion leave moot the issue of whether
incidental takes of protected species (or just “fish” including [?] turtles) are addressed by the
statement. The latter (just fish bycatch) is implied by the heading “Magnuson-Stevens” but the
preceding section mentioned broader issues, and the mention of incidental takes in this section
implicates protected species due to the use of incidental takes to refer to them in the previous
section.
3.8.2 Standardized Reporting of Bycatch
“The National Bycatch Report (NMFS, 2004a) contains an indepth
examination of the issues of precision and accuracy in estimating bycatch. Precision of an
estimate refers to its variability, or how repeatable the estimate is. The more precise an estimate
is, the less variable it is. Precision of estimates is usually expressed in terms of a statistical value,
the coefficient of variation (CV) of the estimate (NMFS, 2004a), which is the ratio of the square
root of the estimate (also known as the standard error) to the estimate itself.”
Both yellow highlighted words should be “variance”. I’m not sure the blue highlighted captures
the proper meaning. Marti McCracken (PIFSC mathematical statistician) provided the
following, more rigorous explanation which might avoid some criticisms regarding your use of
“variability” (for your consideration).
“The National Bycatch Report( NMFS, 2004a) contains an in depth examination of the issues of
precision and accuracy in estimating bycatch. Accuracy refers to the closeness between the
estimated value and the (unknown) true value that the statistic was intended to measure.
Precision refers to how closely multiple measurements of the same statistic cluster to one another
when obtained under the same protocol. The more precise an estimate is the tighter the cluster.
The precision of an estimate is often expressed in terms of the coefficient of variation (CV)
defined as the standard error of the estimator divided by the estimate. A precise estimate is not
necessarily an accurate estimate.”
One might add that “A more precise estimate is more easily distinguished from a second estimate
(different time, place, treatment, etc) especially when they are close in value. Testing hypotheses
about changes or differences from reference values or limits is the motivation for our interest in
the precision and accuracy of bycatch estimates. We frequently need to evaluate whether or not
bycatch is altered by events or actions.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-21

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

Three pars down the document states:

“The CV of an estimate can also be reduced and the precision increased by increasing

sample size.

Delete the highlighted “also” which is confusing because no other means of improving CV has

yet been mentioned. The prior paragraph listing of randomization, stratification, sampling

allocation, and testing for bias pertain to “while striving to achieve accuracy” not to precision.

Balancing “precision goals and the least amount of observation effort” is basically the issue of

what sample size (= precision) one can afford.

In the following paragraph:

“While the relationship between precision and sample size is relatively well known

(NMFS, 2004), the relationship between sample size and accuracy is not so easily determined.”

It might be better to say “is not reliable” or “can often be complex” to better anticipate the

following paragraph. More samples can mean more or less accuracy. For example, when

observer coverage is increased late in a season to catch up to a target level of coverage, the

increased sample size may reduce accuracy if not properly stratified and weighted.

3.8.2.3 Shark Bottom Longline Fishery
The par starting with “Effective August 1, 2001 …” is u necessarily reproduced in full in the
following Section 3.8.2.4.
3.8.4 Evaluation and Monitoring of Bycatch
3rd par. Fix “estimated…estimates”. It seems overly cautious to apologize for a lack of bycatch
estimates in harpoon fisheries. How does one harpoon an unwanted catch? A proper approach
is used under mortality in the next section and should be used here as well.
3.8.5 Bycatch Mortality
3.8.5.2 Mortality by Fishery
Pelagic longline Last sentence says to see section 3.4.1 for more information, inferring more
information will be found there on “hook location, trailing gear and injury status of protected
species interactions”. I couldn’t find that information in section 3.4.1 (did I miss it
somewhere?). There is a literature on estimating turtle longline mortality, including US policies
for estimating turtle mortality from hook location and trailing gear, and extensive tagging
studies of post-release mortality, that could be cited and discussed. This lack is particularly at
odds with the detailed discussion given on tagging study of released fish mortality below in the
recreational handgear section. Nor is the turtle bycatch condition (alive/dead) or estimated postrelease mortality covered in the ESA section which follows…where some information on marine
mammal and seabird mortality is provided. Turtles seem to be given comparatively short shrift.
The longline turtle bycatch mortality estimation also relies on gear configuration (i.e. shallow
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-22

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

and deep setting). And the illustration of longine gear configuration in Section 3.4.1 taken from
the Honolulu Advertiser (p.3-89) may be misleading in several ways. For one, this illustration
has a strong vertical exaggeration/horizontal compression that gives a “wall of death” impression
of the gear configuration. There are better technical illustrations of longline gear configuration
in the literature. Second, none of the 5 types of US longline fishing described underneath the
figure is close to the illustrated “tuna set” configuration. The latter best describes certain Asian
and European fleets in the Atlantic, but not the US. This should be made clear. In a world
context, all of the U.S. fisheries (except maybe the Carribean fishery?) are relatively shallow
compared with Asian tuna longline fishing.
Purse Seine Fishery
This section is hard to believe. There are huge finfish bycatch mortality issues in Pacific tuna
purse seines. The fish can not be easily released alive. Small fish are gillnetted by the mesh and
larger ones smothered in the brail. There is an active research program in Europe looking for
grids or gratings that can release purse seine bycatch that could be referenced. Pacific purse
seine fisheries bycatch of small bigeye and yellowfin tunas is a major cause of overfishing, and
there are also huge discarded (dead) bycatches of mahimahi, sharks, and other finfishes
documented in IATTC reports. Why assume that discards are small and can easily be released
in the U.S. Atlantic purse seine fishery for bluefin? Is it a very different operation? Explain.
Bottom Longline Fishery
Shark Gillnet Fishery Again both of these sections refer the reader to section 3.4.?.? for more
information but there is no information on mortality in the cited sections.
4.1.2 Time/Area Closures
Alternative B1 is to maintain the existing time/area closures; no new time/area closures (No
Action). There are no tables which present the results from Alternative B1. Isn’t this necessary as
some of the closures were not in effect (e.g. Mid-Atlantic Closure (effective Jan. 1, 2005,
Northeast Distant Restricted (effective June, 30, 2004)) for the entire 2001−2003 period? Maybe
these closures are for non-Pelagic fishing. Additionally, on p. 4-21 it says “To determine the
effectiveness of the current closures, NMFS compared data prior to implementation of the closed
areas (1997−1999) with effort and catch rates from 2001−2003 for various species”. I couldn’t
locate this comparison or a reference. As such this would be a different comparison then
Alternatives B2−B7 which compare catch and effort from 2001 to 2003.
Statistical validity − under-reporting in logbooks, assumptions on the redistribution of fishing
effort and CPUE. Perhaps the following is addressed in additional documentation, but these are
concerns regarding the presented statistics and associated assumptions for the catch and effort
analyses. While I realize that the time-frame of a final FMP is rapidly approaching, perhaps the
statistical validity of some of these concerns can be better documented or referenced.
Two data sources are used – the Pelagic Observer Program (POP) data and Pelagic Longline
Logbook [HMS logbook] data. There is no doubt that various species will either be non-reported
or under-reported in logbook data. Figures 4.1 through 4.8 clearly illustrate difference in
interaction rates between PPL and POP sets. A comparison of Table 4.5 and 4.6 (A.7) indicates
that the percent reduction for most species is greater with the Pelagic Longline Logbook data
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-23

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

than Observer data which may have led to the statement for Alernative B2(a) that “the percent
reductions in most bycatch were similar for the observed and reported data, and for the yearround versus May through November closures (4−26)”. This is counter-intuitive given the
comparison of Figures 4.1−4.8, but may relate to spatio-temporal effects. Is there any analysis or
reference by NMFS which compares observer and logbook data for observed longline sets? The
absolute numbers and percent reductions for bycatch species using logsheet data would
correspond to a minimum value given difficulties associated with under-reporting. In contrast,
the percent reductions/increases for retained species are probably more realistic as they are more
accurately reported in logbooks.
The assumptions on redistribution of effort and application of corresponding CPUE values are
problematic. The current model assumes that effort will be uniformly distributed into all
remaining ocean areas. Is a uniform distribution a valid assumption, or could other more
plausible assumptions be considered? Specifically, if a portion of the Gulf of Mexico (GOF) is
closed, is it reasonable to redistribute effort within open areas of the GOF as well as the Atlantic?
While I’m not familiar with longline fleet movements under this FMP, do the fleets routinely
move between the GOF and Atlantic and vice-versa? As noted periodically throughout the
document, there are interactions that increase due to closed areas because interaction rates are
higher in the open areas (e.g. loggerhead turtles). While the uniform distribution is easy to
comprehend, could another redistribution scenarios be considered to redistribute effort in the
same ocean basin?
The CPUE values are estimated as the number of animals per 1,000 hooks. I could not locate any
reference as to how CPUE indices were constructed given a prevalence of zero observations.
Given that some animal interactions (e.g. bluefin tuna, sea turtles) represent rare events it would
be better to represent the redistribution of effort and corresponding CPUE by a statistical subsampling technique rather than a mean CPUE. This would also provide corresponding
confidence intervals for bycatch reduction, albeit it is still based on the aforementioned logbook
data with potential under-reporting.
I couldn’t locate any objectives or decision matrix in deciding on the preferred HMS alternatives.
Most of the decisions seem to correspond to a percentage of reduction/increases for retained
species/bycatch and associated economics. Perhaps consider a re-evaluation of those alternatives
that represent a moderate closed area, such as B2(a) and B2(f) which provide substantial bycatch
reduction of white and blue marlin, sailfish and sea turtles. With the redistribution of effort, these
areas could have resulted in negative ecological impacts with increased discards of swordfish,
bluefin and bigeye tuna. Do the negative impacts result from a redistribution to the Atlantic and
associated higher catch rates?
The rational for preferred alternative B4 and benefit to HMS species appears extremely vague.
Alternative B4 implements complementary HMS management measures in Madison-Swanson
and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves. There is no indication as to the spatial size of such
reserves (it’s not illustrated on any of the maps) and curiously there is the statement that “any
positive ecological impacts on HMS are expected to be minimal (4-34)”. Again, I’m not familiar
with Gulf issues, but if this is a gag grouper issue why can’t the Gulf Council enact appropriate

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-24

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

regulations as the gag grouper problems and pelagic fishing exploitation appear mutually
exclusive?
Preferred alternative B5 appears straightforward, but I’m not certain that it adds much more to
the status quo. Doesn’t the current FMP have criteria for regulatory framework adjustments for
closures, given the fact that closures currently exist?
Appendix A was a very necessary appendix for following the discussion in section 4.1.2.
Chapter 10 – see general comments
Appendix B – see general comments
B.1.1.2 Atlantic Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus)
Regarding “Although its distribution with depth in the water column varies, it is regularly found
in deeper waters than are other tuna - to a depth of 250 m.” As a Pacific expert this seems
surprising to me, since archival tag data show routine behavior to 400 m and deeper, and much
older studies also indicate these depths as part of the habitat in the Pacific.
Habitat associations see the IATTC proceedings on the World Bigeye Tuna workshops. There
is an extensive literature on dissolved oxygen and temperature as the limiting factor on bigeye
tuna depth distribution. Since it is a world meeting with a review for each ocean it may cover
differences between oceans that could satisfactorily explain this discrepancy.
E.4

Response to OMB Peer Review by Chris Boggs and Keith Bigelow, NMFS SWFSC,
January 9, 2006

General Comments: Bycatch
The reviewers indicated that this section could be improved by some clarification of
terminology which they included in the specific comments. These clarifications have been made
as suggested.
General Comments: Time/Area
In the general comments section the reviewers noted that the rationale for the preferred
alternatives could use strengthening where indicated as well as the rationale for some of these
choices appears to need some bolstering, especially as they face challenges from specific interest
groups. NMFS used Chapter 2 of the Final HMS FMP to better explain the rationale for the
alternatives that were further analyzed. In addition, NMFS used Chapter 4 to clarify reasoning
for the preferred alternatives and conducted additional analyses in response to comments from
different interest groups.

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-25

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY CHRIS BOGGS & KEITH BIGELOW

Specific Comments:
3.8 Bycatch
The reviewer’s suggested edits have been incorporated where applicable.
3.8.5.2 Mortality by Fishery
Pelagic Longline
The reviewer’s noted that the cross-references for further information did not provide the
information as stated. In general, these sections have been revised under Section 3.4 to be more
concise and inclusive. The reviewer’s suggested that the illustration of longline gear
configuration in Section 3.4.1 may be misleading in that it has a strong vertical
exaggeration/horizontal compression. NMFS agrees that this illustration may not be
representative of how all U.S. longline gear is configured and that it was intended to only portray
the gear in a general sense. Additional illustrations of all possible combinations of longline gear
configuration would have been confusing to the reader.
Purse Seine Fishery
The reviewer’s raised concerns regarding bycatch issues in the Atlantic BFT purse seine
fishery by comparisons to the Pacific tuna purse seine fishery. Finfish bycatch and protected
species interactions in the Atlantic purse seine fishery have not been an issue to date and the
scope of the fishery is limited to only five vessels, whereas there are over one hundred purse
seine vessels listed in the 2005 LOF for the Pacific tuna fishery.
Bottom Longline Fishery
The reviewer’s noted that the cross-reference for further information did not provide the
information as stated. In general, these sections have been revised under Section 3.4 to be more
concise and inclusive.
4.1.2 Time/Area Closures
The reviewers stated that there were no tables which presented the results from
Alternative B1. The reviewers felt that this was necessary and questioned whether some of the
closures were not in effect (e.g. Mid-Atlantic Closure (effective Jan. 1, 2005, Northeast Distant
Restricted (effective June, 30, 2004)) for the entire 2001−2003 period.
In the no action alternative, B1, NMFS evaluated the effect of the June Northeastern U.S.
closure (effective June 1, 1999), the DeSoto Canyon (effective November 1, 2000), the
Charleston Bump and Florida East Coast closures (effective March 1, 2001), and the Northeast
Distant closed area (effective July 9, 2002, modified July 6, 2004). The Northeast Distant area is
currently a restricted fishing area with specific gear requirements (69 FR 40734, July 6, 2004).
Since most of the time/area closures were implemented in 2001 or earlier, data from 2001 - 2003
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-26

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY BOGGS & BIGELOW

provided the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the closures. NMFS did not re-evaluate the
mid-Atlantic shark closure because, as described in the response to a petition for rulemaking
from the State of North Carolina (October 21, 2005, 70 FR 61286), the closure was first effective
in 2005, and NMFS did not have any additional information on which to change the conclusions
of the rulemaking that established the closure (December 24, 2003, 68 FR 74746). In addition,
this is the only closure that is for bottom longline gear; the rest of the closures are for pelagic
gear. In the Draft HMS FMP Tables 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 showed the results the analysis for
alternative B1. NMFS has also made sure to reference the appropriate tables in Chapter 4 of the
Final HMS FMP.
The reviewers also noted that they could not locate the comparison of data prior to
implementation of the closed areas (1997−1999) with effort and catch rates from 2001−2003 for
various species, which NMFS used to evaluate the effectiveness of the current time/area
closures. As noted above, Tables 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 showed the results the analysis for
alternative B1 in the Draft HMS FMP. In the Final HMS FMP, NMFS clarified the references to
these tables.
The reviewers also noted concerns regarding underreporting in logbooks and how this
would affect the assumptions on the redistribution of fishing effort and catch-per-unit-effort
(CPUE). NMFS is aware that discards may be underreported in the HMS logbook data
compared to the POP data. However, NMFS tested to see if there were any differences in
underreporting for different species between different regions. If no differences in
underreporting occurred between regions, then the relative effect of each closure on bycatch
reduction for each species should be comparable across alternatives. In order to test this, NMFS
compared HMS logbook data to POP data for a dataset provided by Cramer (2000), which
compared dead discards from HMS logbook and POP data. In her paper, Cramer used POP data
to estimate dead discards of undersized swordfish, sailfish, white and blue marlin, and pelagic
sharks from the PLL fishery operating in the U.S. Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
Cramer (2000) provided the ratio of catch estimated from the POP data divided by the reported
catch in the HMS logbooks. This ratio indicated the amount of underreporting for different
species in a given area. NMFS analyzed the ratios in Cramer (2000) to test whether
underreporting varied for different species in different parts of the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf
of Mexico. NMFS used a Kruskal-Wallis test (a non-parametric test equivalent to a parametric
Analysis of Variance) to account for small sample sizes and non-normally distributed data.
NMFS found that there was no difference in the ratio of estimated catch versus reported catch for
undersized swordfish, sailfish, blue marlin, white marlin, or pelagic sharks (undersized
swordfish: Chi-square=3.63; d.f.=5; P=0.60; sailfish: Chi-square=1.72; d.f.=5; P=0.89; blue
marlin: Chi-square=3.89; d.f. =5; P=0.57; white marlin: Chi-square=2.97; d.f. =5; P=0.70;
pelagic sharks: Chi-square=4.78; d.f. =5; P=0.44). Therefore, there were no differences in
underreporting between the POP and HMS logbooks for the different species in the Atlantic,
Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico. Based on the available information, NMFS believes HMS
logbooks may underestimate the amount of bycatch, however, the relative effect of each closure
for each species should be comparable across alternatives. While the data used in the Cramer
(2000) study represented an earlier time period (1997-1998) compared to the 2001-2003 data
used here, it gives some indication that the use of HMS logbook data over POP data should not
invalidate or bias the results of the time/area analyses.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-27

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY BOGGS & BIGELOW

In addition, the reviewers noted that a comparison of Tables 4.5 and 4.6 in the Draft
HMS FMP indicated that the percent reduction for most species is greater with the HMS logbook
data than POP data, which may have led to the statement for alternative B2(a) that “the percent
reductions in most bycatch were similar for the observed and reported data, and for the yearround versus May through November closures...” The reviewers stated this was counter-intuitive
given the comparison of Figures 4.1−4.8, but may relate to spatio-temporal effects. It must be
noted that the POP data only represents, on average, effort of approximately five percent of the
PLL fleet, and extrapolated takes were not estimated in the Draft HMS FMP. While the POP
data may more accurately report all of the bycatch associated with a given trip, it does not
represent the entire PLL fishing effort. And, while underreporting may be occurring for certain
species in the HMS logbooks, the HMS logbooks represent all of the PLL effort by the U.S.
Atlantic PLL fleet; therefore, in absolute terms, the HMS logbook data would give the highest
number of discards, and thus, the highest amount of bycatch reduction for analyses without the
redistribution of effort. While the number of sets observed in the POP is much lower than the
total reported sets in the HMS logbook, the relative percent reductions in bycatch were similar
regardless of the dataset used.
The reviewers also asked if there was any analysis or reference by NMFS which
compares POP and HMS logbook data for observed longline sets. The reviewers noted that the
absolute numbers and percent reductions for bycatch species using logbook data would
correspond to a minimum value given difficulties associated with underreporting. In contrast, the
percent reductions/increases for retained species were probably more realistic as they are more
accurately reported in logbooks. NMFS agrees that underreporting for bycatch may occur in
logbook data whereas underreporting of target catch may occur in POP data. NMFS chose to use
HMS logbook data for all the analyses so as to maintain consistency among the alternatives and
species. If NMFS were to have used the POP data for all of the species, NMFS would have had
to calculate extrapolated takes for all the species considered. NMFS felt that this extrapolation
would introduce more assumptions and uncertainty than using HMS logbook data to analyze the
potential impacts of time/area closures. And, if, in fact, retained catch is underreported in the
POP data, then NMFS would have had the same problem with the retained catch as the reviewers
noted with bycatch with in HMS logbook data. Additionally, if the maximum bycatch reductions
would be seen using POP data, then the maximum bycatch increases would also be seen using
POP data once extrapolated takes were calculated and redistribution of effort was considered.
Therefore, NMFS felt that the relative effect of each closure could best be attained with the HMS
logbook data in terms of predicted changes in bycatch, discards, and retained catch. In addition,
NMFS was able to introduce the least amount of uncertainty and assumptions using HMS
logbook data over extrapolated POP data. NMFS will continue to investigate potential
differences in reporting between HMS logbook and POP data for all discarded species as well as
potential biases in reporting between geographical areas for different species.
The two reviewers also stated that the assumptions on redistribution of effort and
application of corresponding CPUE values were problematic. They asked if a uniform
distribution is a valid assumption, or could other more plausible assumptions be considered?
Specifically, they asked if a portion of the Gulf of Mexico is closed, is it reasonable to
redistribute effort within open areas of the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Atlantic? They also
asked if the fleets routinely move between the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic and vice-versa?
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-28

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY BOGGS & BIGELOW

Finally, they noted that while the uniform distribution is easy to comprehend, could another
redistribution scenario be considered to redistribute effort in the same ocean basin?
NMFS explored different assumptions regarding the movement of the PLL fleet and how
more limited movements by the fleet may affect predictions regarding bycatch reduction. As
explained in the response to the Skomal review, NMFS investigated the movement of the PLL
fleet from 2001 through June of 2004 to see where vessels fished in relation to their reported
homeports using 2001-2004 HMS logbook data. Based on these analyses, NMFS evaluated
different scenarios of the redistribution of effort model where each scenario had different
assumptions regarding where effort from a closure would be displaced. Taken with the results of
not considering the redistribution of effort to the full effort redistribution model, these additional
scenarios provide estimates of changes in bycatch and retained catch somewhere in-between the
two base scenarios (i.e., some movement is expected, and thus, some redistribution of effort is
expected into a particular area).
The reviewers claimed that the CPUE values were estimated as the number of animals
per 1,000 hooks. The reviewers stated that they could not locate any reference as to how CPUE
indices were constructed given a prevalence of zero observations. Given that some animal
interactions (e.g. BFT, sea turtles) represent rare events, the reviewers felt that it would be better
to represent the redistribution of effort and corresponding CPUE by a statistical sub-sampling
technique rather than a mean CPUE. The reviewers stated that this would also provide
corresponding confidence intervals for bycatch reduction, albeit it would still be based on the
aforementioned logbook data with potential underreporting.
NMFS believes that the reviewers misunderstood how the logbook data were analyzed to
evaluate the current/time area closures and to determine the effect of all the proposed closures.
To select areas for proposed closures, NMFS initially analyzed both absolute numbers of
discards as well as areas of highest catch and CPUE (number of animals per 1,000 hooks) for
non-target HMS and protected resources (white marlin, bluefin tuna (BFT), and sea turtles). In
some cases these areas overlapped, in others, they did not. This may be due to the fact that there
are localized areas of high CPUE that may not necessarily represent the areas of highest bycatch
in terms of absolute numbers. In order to avoid underestimation of bycatch reduction, in cases
where the highest CPUE did not overlap with the areas of highest absolute numbers of discards,
NMFS decided to further analyze the area that had the highest overall discards (in absolute
terms), rather than areas with the highest CPUE. Thus, NMFS selected proposed closed areas
and based the redistribution of effort analyses on absolute numbers to maximize the reduction in
overall number of discards.
To analyze the effect of current closures, the reported catch and discards for each species
and the number of hooks set were pooled by month. In a few of the tables that reported the
results of the current time/area closures the number of hooks were presented as “Number of
hooks set (x1000)”; NMFS believes that this led to the confusion where the reviewers thought
CPUE were calculated as the number of animals per 1,000 hooks. In these tables, however, the
number of hooks was meant to be multiplied by 1,000 to calculate the total monthly number of
hooks; these numbers were not standardized by 1,000 nor were CPUEs or the number of animals
captured per 1,000 hooks calculated in the tables. Instead, the monthly and annual Atlantic wide
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-29

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY BOGGS & BIGELOW

totals catch and discards were calculated for each species. In the Final HMS FMP, NMFS has
clarified in the text that absolute numbers were used for all analyses and refrains from using the
term “catch rates,” except where only appropriate. In addition, NMFS clarified the table legends
so that it is clear that the numbers of hooks presented in the table are meant to be multiplied by
1,000. Therefore, the statistical sub-sampling and corresponding confidence intervals for
bycatch reduction do not apply.
The reviewers stated that they could not locate any objectives or decision matrix in
deciding on the preferred HMS alternatives. The reviewers felt that most of the decisions seem
to correspond to a percentage reduction/increase for retained species/bycatch and associated
economics. While not a formalized decision matrix, NMFS used the analyses in time/area
closure section, which considered all species, to evaluate the effects of the proposed time/area
closures, including all species for a combination of closures. NMFS used the results of the
analyses to guide the Agency in determining which management measures are appropriate at this
time. NMFS, however, cannot place more value on one species over another species and
believes that setting pre-determined or pre-set reduction goals in bycatch and/or discards would
compromise NMFS’ ability to consider multiple species. However, the present criteria do not
preclude NMFS from considering the establishment of a more formalized decision matrix in the
future if such a matrix could be designed that would provide for the flexibility to consider all the
species involved. This may be more appropriate when NMFS has a longer temporal dataset on
the simultaneous effect of circle hooks and the current time/closures. At this time, NMFS
believes that the criteria contained in the preferred alternative B5 provides the guidance needed,
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and this FMP, to help NMFS make the appropriate
decisions regarding the use of time/area closures in HMS fisheries.
The reviewers stated that NMFS should consider a re-evaluation of those alternatives that
represent a moderate closed area, such as B2(a) and B2(f), which provide substantial bycatch
reduction of white and blue marlin, sailfish, and sea turtles. The reviewers also asked if the
negative impacts resulting from these closures could have been from redistribution of effort into
the Atlantic and associated higher catch rates. NMFS considered a range in closures both in time
and spatial size. NMFS re-evaluated the impact of B2(a) with redistribution of effort in the Gulf
of Mexico only as well as redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and into an area outside
of the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., Area 6; see response to the Skomal review) that NMFS has shown
vessels from the Gulf of Mexico currently fish in. With redistribution of effort in the Gulf of
Mexico only, NMFS predicted increases in sailfish discards (1.8 percent or 18 discards/over
three years; annual estimates can be obtained by dividing by three), spearfish discards (3.3
percent or 14 discards/over three years), pelagic shark discards (0.3 percent or 112 discards/over
three years), large coastal shark discards (3.6 percent of 598 discards/over three years), swordfish
discards (4.4 percent or 1,635 discards/over three years), yellowfin discards (22.3 percent or
1,224 discards/over three years), bigeye tuna discards (0.4 percent or 4 discards/over three
years), and BAYS tuna discards (1.0 percent or 91 discards/over three years). With
redistribution of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6, NMFS predicted increases in sailfish
(4.7 percent or 61 discards/over three years), pelagic sharks (4.4 percent or 834 discards/over
three years), BFT discards (1.6 percent or 35 discards/over three years), and BAYS tuna discards
(0.7 percent or 70 discards/over three years). Therefore, increases in bycatch are predicted from
the redistribution of effort into the Atlantic as well as the Gulf of Mexico. Given the potential
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-30

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY BOGGS & BIGELOW

negative ecological impact of B2(a) under the different redistribution of effort scenarios, NMFS
is not preferring alternative B2(a) at this time.
NMFS did not further analyze alternative B2(f) as outlined in Chapter 2. When
redistribution of fishing effort was considered, a seven-month closure for alternative B2(f) was
predicted to result in an increase in the number of swordfish, BFT, and bigeye tuna discards
(2,081, 219, and 150 discards over three years for the seven-month closure, respectively).
NMFS compared possible reductions and increases of discards and retained catch with the
redistribution of effort for B2(f) with results from other closures. For instance, B2(f) is larger in
size than B2(a). Thus, NMFS would expect a greater ecological benefit in terms of bycatch
reduction from the larger B2(f) closure rather than the smaller B2(a) closure. However, the
model predicted comparable results in terms of bycatch reduction between B2(a) and B2(f). In
addition, B2(a) would not have resulted in as many BFT discards or potentially had as large of a
negative economic impact in terms of a reduction in retained catch as B2(f). B2(f) is also
smaller than B2(d). However, NMFS choose to analyze the larger closure to better assess the
ecological, social and economic impacts of a large closure in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, by
further analyzing B2(a) and B2(d), NMFS was able to analyze a range in terms of potential
ecological, social, and economic impacts with regard to the size of a closure in this area of the
Gulf of Mexico.
The reviewers felt that the rationale for preferred alternative B4 and benefit to HMS
species appears extremely vague. Alternative B4 implements complementary HMS management
measures in Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves. The reviewers stated
that there was no indication as to the spatial size of such reserves and were confused by the
statement that “any positive ecological impacts on HMS are expected to be minimal.” The
reviewers asked why the Gulf Fishery Management Council cannot enact appropriate regulations
since the gag grouper problems and pelagic fishing exploitation appear mutually exclusive.
Complementary HMS management measures for the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps Marine Reserves are being preferred at the request of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council. The purpose of this alternative is to implement compatible HMS
regulations in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves to provide
protection for spawning aggregations of gag grouper to prevent overfishing, improve spawning
success, protect a portion of the offshore population of male gag grouper, and facilitate continued
evaluation of the effect and usefulness of marine reserves as a fishery management tool. Similar
management measures are already in effect for holders of southeast regional permits. The
complementary HMS management measures would close any potential loopholes by extending
the closure regulations to all other vessels that could potentially fish in the areas. As a result, this
alternative is expected to improve the enforcement of the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps Marine Reserves. Only minor impacts on HMS fisheries are anticipated because the
marine reserves are relatively small, and little HMS fishing effort has been reported in these
areas (i.e., a total of three sets were recorded between 1996 and 2004). In addition, in the Draft
HMS FMP and the Final HMS FMP, there is a figure that shows the spatial extent of these two
reserves. In Chapter 2 of the Draft HMS FMP and the Final HMS FMP, it is explained that the
Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve is 115 nm2 in size, rectangular-shaped, and is positioned
southwest of Apalachicola, FL (29° 17’ N. Lat., 85° 50’ W. Long. to 29° 17’ N. Lat., 85° 38’ W.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-31

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY BOGGS & BIGELOW

Long. to 29° 06’ N. Lat., 85° 38’ W. Long. to 29° 06’ N. Lat., 85° 50’ W. Long.). The
Steamboat Lumps marine reserve is 104 nm2 in size, rectangular-shaped, and is positioned due
west of Clearwater, FL (28° 14’ N. Lat., 84° 48’ W. Long. to 28° 14’ N. Lat., 84° 37’ W. Long.
to 28° 03’ N. Lat., 84° 37’ W. Long. to 28° 03’ N. Lat., 84° 48’ W. Long.
Finally, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council does not have the authority to
change HMS regulations. Therefore, they have requested that NMFS implement complementary
management measures in these areas.
The reviewers stated that the preferred alternative, B5, appeared to be straightforward,
but did not add much more to the status quo. The reviewers asked if the current FMP already has
criteria for regulatory framework adjustments for closures, given the fact that closures currently
exist. Currently, formalized criteria for establishing or modifying closures do not exist in
NMFS’ regulations. NMFS can implement time/area closures under framework actions;
however, the current regulations only allow for time/area restrictions under framework actions.
In the Final HMS FMP, NMFS prefers to change the regulations so that additions, changes, or
modifications to time/area closures would also be allowed under a framework action. The Final
HMS FMP would further allow NMFS to change or implement a new time/area without an FMP
amendment. Finally, NMFS prefers to establish the criteria to help make the overall process of
implementing and/or modifying current time/area closures more transparent.
Appendix A was a very necessary appendix for following the discussion in section 4.1.2.
Specific Comments:
Essential Fish Habitat
B.1.1.2 Atlantic Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus)
The reviewer stated that NMFS’ description of bigeye tuna depth distributions to a depth
of 250 m may have been incorrect. The reviewer was surprised, since archival tag data show
routine behavior to 400 m and deeper, and much older studies also indicate these depths as part
of the habitat in the Pacific. NMFS agrees that Atlantic bigeye tuna are regularly found deeper
than 250 m and has amended the section to reflect this change. The new description currently
reads “Although its distribution with depth in the water column varies, it is regularly found in
deeper waters than are other tuna, descending to 300–500 m and then returning regularly to the
surface layer (Musyl et al., 2003).”

CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-32

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY BOGGS & BIGELOW

E.5

Peer Review by Paul J. Rago, NMFS NEFSC, January 25, 2006

Assigned Sections:
A. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
1. Section 3.8.2 Standardized reporting of bycatch
B. Time/Area Closure Analyses
1. Section 4.1.2 Time Area Closures
2. Appendix A. Time/Area Closures
C. Essential Fish Habitat
1. Chapter 10. Essential Fish Habitat
2. Appendix B. Essential Fish Habitat
A.

Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
1. Section 3.8.2 Standardized reporting of bycatch, pp 3-191 to 3-201.

This section primarily contains descriptive material on Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Methodology (SBRM) and the data collection procedures for the various fisheries that harvest
highly migratory species. The descriptive material draws heavily from the work of the National
Working Group on Bycatch (NWGB) and other national initiatives on bycatch analyses. The
discussions of tradeoffs between precision and sampling effort, and measures to estimate bias are
useful. The report continues with a description of the two major sources of bycatch data—
mandatory logbooks and fisheries observers. It further notes that the two sources of information
can be used together to estimate total bycatch wherein logbook effort estimates are multiplied by
observer-based bycatch rates.
This approach is used in the Pelagic longline fishery (Sec. 3.8.2.1). In recent years,
observer sampling rates for this fishery were fairly high (6-9%) overall and 100% in the NED
experimental fishery. The stratification by area and quarter should be sufficient to address
spatial and temporal heterogeneity issues.
The purse seine fishery (3.8.2.2) also uses both observers and mandatory reporting but
bycatch rates are apparently too low to warrant much observer coverage in recent years.
The shark bottom longline fishery (3.8.2.3) uses a combination of voluntary observer
coverage (i.e., vessel is not required to take observer when asked) and a mandatory logbook for a
subsample (20%) of the fleet. The sampling design seems appropriate, but the lack of validation
of the bycatch rates reported by the selected fishermen compromises estimates based on this
approach. If fleet size and number of trips makes it infeasible to require logbooks for all vessels,
then some effort should be made to conduct experiments to validate voluntarily reported bycatch
rates. For example, one could compare bycatch rates from selected vessels with and without
observers present. In addition, use of observers on vessels not required to use logbooks, could be
useful. Such experiments would provide a measure of the validity of the self-reported bycatch
rates. As the report acknowledges earlier, self-reported bycatch estimates are likely to be
negatively biased.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-33

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO

The shark gillnet fishery (3.8.2.4) is the first section that mentions estimated precision
levels and required sampling effort. My comments regarding section 3.8.2.3 can be applied here
as well.
Discussions of commercial (3.8.2.5) and recreational (3.8.2.6) handgear fisheries note
either no estimates of bycatch or very imprecise estimates, respectively. These problems are
well known and the efforts to collect improved estimates from the Charter/Headboat component
should greatly improve our understanding of this harvest sector.
Section 3.8.4 (Evaluation and Monitoring of Bycatch) refers to section 3.4 for species
specific information. Estimates of the CVs of bycatch estimates do not appear to be reported in
this chapter. If available, a summary table showing the sampling coverage, bycatch rates, and
CVs would be a useful contribution to the EA. It would also be useful to describe the types of
estimators used in this EA. I have inferred that most are ratio based estimators within some sort
of stratified design. If model based estimators, such as Generalized Additive Models, have been
used, it would be useful to include some background information on same.
Section 3.8.5.2 on discard mortality is a useful summary of difficult topic. Inclusion of
information on the Code of Angling Ethics, is also a useful contribution.
Overall the SBRM describes the fisheries and monitoring systems well. Available data
may not yet permit useful estimates of precision or evaluations of accuracy. Research on both of
these topics should be continued. Voluntary submissions of bycatch can be difficult to decipher.
True zeros or low numbers are difficult to distinguish from under reporting or failure to report.
As noted earlier, large scale comparisons among bycatch rates for observed and non-observed
vessels should be conducted to support expansions based on subsets of total trips.
B.

Time/Area Closure Analyses
1. Section 4.1.2 Time Area Closures; Pp 4-20 to 4-101
2. Appendix A. Time/Area Closures

The time area closure model is based on generally accepted principles in fisheries
science. In general such models rely on a set of assumptions related of assumptions related to
static patterns of relative abundance at some temporal and spatial resolution, limited
consideration of fish movements, and incomplete understanding of the effects of closure areas on
redistribution of fishing effort. Nonetheless, such models can provide useful insights for
comparisons of alternative management strategies. This is the approach taken within this Draft
EIS. Twelve combinations of seasonal and spatial closures are evaluated in Section 4.1.2.
Without such a model there would be no pragmatic way of comparing the proposed closed areas.
In general it is probably safe to assume that the limitations of the model will be comparable
across alternatives. Thus the rankings of each alternative should be relatively insensitive to the
assumptions.
The model assumptions and application are well described in Appendix A. In particular
the comparisons of model results with and without redistribution of existing effort are shown
clearly. It should be noted however, that the use “plus” and “minus” signs in the Appendix is not
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-34

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO

consistent. Table A.1 uses a minus sign to denote a decrease in discards, and plus for increases.
In contrast, Table A.28 uses a minus to denote an increase in discards and plus sign to denote a
decrease. This can be seen in table A.1 for Loggerhead discards under alternative B2(d) with
redistribution of effort (p.A-6) which has a value of 117. In table A.28 in the total column for
column I (p. A-37) the comparable value is -117. It may be useful to make the example
consistent with the usage elsewhere in the document.
For any given management alternative, the lack of consistent effects across species is also
a useful conclusion from the time-area closure model. It highlights the complexity of the bycatch
estimation and illustrates the importance of general effort reduction in conjunction with closure
strategies. For example, it might be argued that the demonstrated declines in bycatch associated
with the existing closures (alternative B1) seem to be related to a 15% reduction in effort induced
by, or coincident with, the closure areas (p. 4-38).
The model discussion could be improved by emphasizing some of the assumptions more
explicitly. Past patterns can be used to predict future patterns of abundance only if the
distributions are persistent across years. The model assumes that CPUE or bycatch per unit effort
is independent of the amount of effort present in the open area. The initial distribution of CPUE
may be a valid estimate of conditions at the start of the closure. However, if fishing mortality is
sufficiently high to reduce abundance, then CPUE will decline. Under these conditions, the use
of a dynamic model that links abundance levels between closure periods or among closure areas
would be an appropriate tool. Data necessary to support such a model for management do not
appear to exist at present. Consideration should be given to the development of an
operational/simulation model that embeds hypothesized fish movement patterns, fleet dynamics,
and arbitrary closure area times and boundaries. Such a model would elucidate the effects of the
current model assumptions that do not appear to explicitly treat species-specific movements
among open and closed areas.
As noted in the report, the fleet itself is highly mobile and its ability to find fish
concentrations in the open areas would tend to further diminish the effectiveness of the closure
areas. By the same token, fleet mobility may also allow it to move away from high
concentrations of undesirable bycatch. Fleet mobility, coupled with appropriate incentives
(positive or negative) could lead to reduced bycatch. In the absence of such incentives, the
assumption that fleet effort is uniformly redistributed over the open areas, is compromised.
Fishermen seek profits rather than CPUE. Thus the assumptions about redistribution of effort in
response to management alternatives might be improved by considering redistributions based on
another simplified model, such as distance from shore or some other surrogate measure for
variable costs. It may be too facile to state that the “with” and “without” redistribution of effort
scenarios are sufficient to bound the effectiveness of management alternatives.
The efficacy of alternative B5 would be enhanced by developing a comprehensive
procedure for evaluating tradeoffs among alternatives. Otherwise the proposed process is rather
ambiguous and seems to mimic the standard Council process. All of the factors listed need to be
considered and the goals of transparency and predictability are noble. However, the huge number
of potential alternatives need to be evaluated and ranked quickly. Otherwise, the debates will
paralyze the process. Formal procedures for considering multiple objectives and constraints, and
establishing tradeoffs should be an adjunct to this alternative.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-35

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO

On an editorial note, I found the use of CPUE to describe both landings (kept) and
discard measures somewhat confusing. This ambiguity is especially confusing when one is
considering the effects of reallocating effort in response to closed areas. In general one would
expect the reallocation to be redirected toward areas of highest kept CPUEs rather than high
discard CPUEs.
Overall the analytical approach seems sound. It is consistent with the limitations of the
data and lack of explicit understanding of migrations. Improvements may be possible by
incorporating explicit movement patterns of the fish and protected resources, and fleet dynamics.
Such improvements to model structure would have to be weighed against the suitability of
existing data to support such a model, and the available time to implement such a model. If
sufficient time is not available, then development of such a model should be considered as part
of future management of HMS.
C.

Essential Fish Habitat
1. Chapter 10. Essential Fish Habitat
2. Appendix B. Essential Fish Habitat

This review of EFH appears to be very thorough. The review is not restricted to the
published literature and appears to fully, and appropriately use the existing databases from a
wide number of government and private institutions. Moreover, the review draws extensively
from experts in the scientific community. Both Chapter 10 and Appendix B are well written and
technically sound.
The difficulties of evaluating EFH for HMS are perhaps best stated on page 10-20
“…the quantitative relationships between fishery production and habitat are very complex, and
no reliable models currently exist. Accordingly, the degree to which habitat alterations have
affected fishery production is unknown.”
Appendix B appears to be an extraordinarily comprehensive and thorough compilation of
existing data on the life history and distribution of HMS. The only cautionary comment I would
have is that one should be careful when drawing conclusions about distributions derived from
multiple data sets. Apparent habitat associations can be aliased with the sampling domains of
specific programs. Different gears, sampling strategies and so forth can make it difficult to
distinguish differences in sampling intensity from differences in true habitat usage. Percentile
scale measures (e.g., quartiles) could be considered when multiple databases are depicted
E.6

Response to OMB Peer Review by Paul J. Rago, NMFS NEFSC, January 25, 2006

A. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
1. Section 3.8.2 Standardized reporting of bycatch. Pp 3-191 to 3-201
The reviewer appears to have been confused regarding the observer coverage and
reporting requirements for the shark bottom longline fishery. To clarify, vessels are currently
required to take an observer when selected, voluntary coverage was employed prior to this. In
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-36

APPENDIX E
PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO

addition, all vessels participating in the bottom longline fishery are required to submit logbook
reports for each trip. NMFS agrees that the analyses suggested by the reviewer to compare
bycatch rates between observed and reported trips are still valid and should be conducted.
Observer coverage and reporting requirements for the shark gillnet fishery are also similar in
addition to the one hundred percent observer coverage required during right whale season.
The reviewer notes the lack of or imprecise estimates of bycatch in the commercial and
recreational handgear fisheries. NMFS recognizes the desire to make improvements in the
collection of recreational (and commercial) handgear catch and landings data. At the request of
NMFS, the NAS recently conducted a review of marine recreational surveys, both state and
federal. The review committee’s report has been published and the Agency is evaluating the
recommendations.
B. Time/Area Closure Analyses
1. Section 4.1.2 Time Area Closures; Pp 4-20 to 4-101
2. Appendix A. Time/Area Closures
The reviewer noted that the use of “plus” and “minus” signs in the Appendix A was not
consistent. In the Draft HMS FMP, Table A.1 used a minus sign to denote a decrease in
discards, and a plus for increases. In contrast, Table A.28 used a minus to denote an increase in
discards and a plus sign to denote a decrease. This could be seen in Table A.1 for loggerhead
discards under alternative B2(d) with redistribution of effort, which had a value of 117. In Table
A.28 in the total column for column I, the comparable value was -117. The reviewer stated that
it may be useful to make the example consistent with the usage elsewhere in the document.
NMFS recognized this inconsistency and made all the minus and plus sign consistent throughout
Appendix A and other appropriate chapters.
The reviewer stated that it might be argued that the demonstrated declines in bycatch
associated with the existing closures (alternative B1) seem to be related to a 15 percent reduction
in effort induced by, or coincident with, the closure areas. While NMFS agrees that the
reduction in bycatch may be related to the current time/area closure, NMFS also realizes that
other factors may be attributing to the decline. These include: (1) stocks may be declining; (2)
time/area closures may have acted synergistically with declining stocks to produce greater
declines in catch than predicted; (3) fishermen may have left the fishery; and (4) fishing effort
may have been displaced into areas with lower CPUEs.
The reviewer stated that the model discussion could be improved by emphasizing some
of the assumptions more explicitly. The reviewer suggested that past patterns can be used to
predict future patterns of abundance only if the distributions are persistent across years. NMFS
explored different assumptions regarding the movement of the PLL fleet and how more limited
movements by the fleet may affect predictions regarding bycatch reduction. As explained in the
response to the Skomal review, NMFS investigated the movement of the PLL fleet from 2001
through June of 2004 to see where vessels fished in relation to their reported homeports. Based
on these analyses, NMFS evaluated different scenarios of the redistribution of effort model
where each scenario had different assumptions regarding where effort from a closure would be
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-37

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO

displaced. Taken with the results of not considering redistribution of effort to the full effort
redistribution model, these additional scenarios provide estimates of changes in bycatch and
retained catch somewhere in-between the two base scenarios (i.e., some movement is expected,
and thus, some redistribution of effort is expected into a particular area).
The reviewer stated that the model assumes that CPUE or bycatch per unit effort is
independent of the amount of effort present in the open area. The initial distribution of CPUE
may be a valid estimate of conditions at the start of the closure. However, if fishing mortality is
sufficiently high to reduce abundance, then CPUE would decline. Under these conditions, the use
of a dynamic model that links abundance levels between closure periods or among closure areas
would be an appropriate tool. Data necessary to support such a model for management do not
appear to exist at present. The reviewer suggested that consideration should be given to the
development of an operational/simulation model that embeds hypothesized fish movement
patterns, fleet dynamics, and arbitrary closure area times and boundaries. Such a model would
elucidate the effects of the current model assumptions that do not appear to explicitly treat
species-specific movements among open and closed areas.
NMFS acknowledges that the redistribution of effort model is incapable of making
predictions based on a declining CPUE. Instead, the model assumes a current CPUE that
remains constant in the remaining open areas when estimating reductions. While NMFS would
like to develop a dynamic model that links abundance levels between closure periods or among
closure areas, as the reviewer has pointed out, the data necessary to build such a model are not
available at the present time. NMFS is working on improving the effort redistribution models to
be used in the future as more appropriate data become available.
The reviewer stated that as noted in the VMS remand report, the fleet itself is highly
mobile, and its ability to find fish concentrations in the open areas would tend to further diminish
the effectiveness of the closure areas. By the same token, the reviewer argued that fleet mobility
may also allow it to move away from high concentrations of undesirable bycatch. Fleet mobility,
coupled with appropriate incentives (positive or negative) could lead to reduced bycatch. In the
absence of such incentives, the assumption that fleet effort is uniformly redistributed over the
open areas is compromised. The reviewer stated that fishermen seek profits rather than CPUE.
Thus, the reviewer suggested that the assumptions about redistribution of effort in response to
management alternatives might be improved by considering redistributions based on another
simplified model, such as distance from shore or some other surrogate measure for variable
costs. The reviewer stated that it may be too facile to state that the “with” and “without”
redistribution of effort scenarios are sufficient to bound the effectiveness of management
alternatives.
Predicting fishermen’s behavior in light of changing management measures is difficult.
In addition, while many fishermen may want to avoid bycatch, many of the retained HMS
coexist with non-target HMS, such as bluefin and yellowfin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico.
Therefore, it could be potentially difficult for fishermen to avoid bycatch while fishing for
retained HMS. However, NMFS is considering research on how changes in fishing practices
may help reduce bycatch on non-target species as well as the tracking of discards (dead and
alive) by all gear types. NMFS is also considering developing incentives that would dissuade
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-38

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO

fishermen from keeping incidentally caught species, such as BFT. This is of particular concern
for incidentally caught spawning BFT in the Gulf of Mexico.
In the future, NMFS intends to investigate the choices fishermen have made regarding
previous closures (i.e., did they move, sell their permits, go out of business, retain their permit
but fish for something else, etc?). This type of analysis could help NMFS improve the
redistribution of effort models used in the future. While the current redistribution of models may
appear overly simplified, they account for the fact that effort would be displaced out of closed
areas and acknowledge that there are likely to be areas where bycatch might increase. However,
NMFS will continue investigate ways to better predict fishermen’s fishing behaviors and refine
the current redistribution of fishing effort models.
The reviewer stated that the efficacy of alternative B5 would be enhanced by developing
a comprehensive procedure for evaluating tradeoffs among alternatives. Otherwise the reviewer
felt that the proposed process was rather ambiguous and seems to mimic the standard Council
process. The reviewer noted that all of the factors listed need to be considered and stated that the
goals of transparency and predictability are noble. However, the reviewer felt that the huge
number of potential alternatives needed to be evaluated and ranked quickly. Otherwise, the
debates would paralyze the process. The reviewer said that formal procedures for considering
multiple objectives and constraints, and establishing tradeoffs should be an adjunct to this
alternative.
As explained in the responses to the Skomal and the Bigelow and Boggs review, while
not a formalized decision matrix, NMFS used the analyses in time/area closure section, which
considered all species, to evaluate the effects of the proposed time/area closures, including all
species for a combination of closures. NMFS used the results of the analyses to guide the
Agency in determining which management measures are appropriate at this time. This approach
does not preclude NMFS from considering the establishment of a more formalized decision
matrix in the future if such a matrix could be designed that would provide for the flexibility to
consider all the species involved. This may be more appropriate when NMFS has a longer
temporal dataset on the simultaneous effect of circle hooks and the current time/closures. At this
time, NMFS believes that the criteria contained in the preferred alternative B5 provides the
guidance needed, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and this FMP, to help NMFS make
the appropriate decisions regarding the use of time/area closures in HMS fisheries.
The reviewer felt that the use of CPUE to describe both landings (kept) and discard
measures somewhat confusing. The reviewer stated that this ambiguity was especially confusing
when one was considering the effects of reallocating effort in response to closed areas. The
reviewer stated that one would expect the reallocation to be redirected toward areas of highest
kept CPUEs rather than high discard CPUEs.
As explained in the response to the Bigelow and Boggs review, NMFS did not use
CPUEs for its final selection of time/area closures. Only absolute numbers of bycatch, discards,
and retained catch were used to select areas for potential closures, and absolute numbers were
used for its analyses of both with and without the redistribution of fishing effort. The
redistribution of effort scenarios calculated increases in bycatch, discards, and retained catch by
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-39

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO

multiplying the effort that was being redistributed from a given closures by the CPUE for each
species in the particular open areas under consideration (i.e., either all remaining open areas, the
Atlantic seaboard only, the Gulf of Mexico only, or the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6 in the
Atlantic). NMFS then subtracted this number from the estimated reduction inside the closed
area. Since many of these areas include areas of high CPUEs for both targeted catch as well as
non-target catch, it would be almost impossible to redistribute effort to areas of high CPUEs for
retained catch only. However, NMFS intends to investigate the choices fishermen have made
regarding previous closures (i.e., did they move, sell their permits, go out of business, retain their
permit but fish for something else, etc?). This type of analysis could help NMFS improve the
effort redistribution models to be used in the future.
The reviewer suggested that improvements may be possible by incorporating explicit
movement patterns of the fish and protected resources, and fleet dynamics. The reviewer stated
that such improvements to model structure would have to be weighed against the suitability of
existing data to support such a model, and the available time to implement such a model. The
reviewer noted that if sufficient time is not available, then development of such a model should
be considered as part of future management of HMS. NMFS acknowledges that improvements
can be made to the current redistribution of effort model; however, at this time, NMFS does not
have the necessary data to make such improvements nor did NMFS have sufficient time between
the Draft HMS FMP and the Final HMS FMP to investigate and reanalyze the data with regards
to a substantially different redistribution of effort model. NMFS is working on improving the
effort redistribution models used in the future as more appropriate data become available.
C. Essential Fish Habitat
1. Chapter 10. Essential Fish Habitat
2. Appendix B. Essential Fish Habitat
The peer reviewer noted that “Appendix B appears to be an extraordinarily
comprehensive and thorough compilation of existing data on the life history and distribution of
HMS. The only cautionary comment I would have is that one should be careful when drawing
conclusions about distributions derived from multiple data sets. Apparent habitat associations
can be aliased with the sampling domains of specific programs. Different gears, sampling
strategies and so forth can make it difficult to distinguish differences in sampling intensity from
differences in true habitat usage. Percentile scale measures (e.g., quartiles) could be considered
when multiple databases are depicted.”
NMFS agrees that the sampling program, strategy, and methodology used may have an
influence on the apparent distribution of a particular species, and that one should use caution
when interpreting the results. In part this is why NMFS has included the names of the programs
used to collect the data and the number of observations contributed by each program. This
additional information should help NMFS technical experts to decide how much weight should
be given to a particular dataset. NMFS plans to convene workshops with technical experts who
will thoroughly review the data and help to make a determination about which areas should be
included as EFH. The distribution data in the maps will one of many contributing factors in that
ultimate decision.
CONSOLIDATED HMS FMP
JULY 2006

E-40

APPENDIX E
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW BY PAUL J. RAGO