[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48407-48423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18252]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 040407106-4219-03, I.D. 040104A]
RIN 0648-AS04
List of Fisheries for 2004
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
[[Page 48408]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is publishing its
final List of Fisheries (LOF) for 2004, as required by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The final LOF for 2004 reflects new
information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine
mammals. NMFS must categorize each commercial fishery on the LOF into
one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of serious
injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs incidental to each
fishery. The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether
participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the
MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan
requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 9, 2004. However,
compliance with the requirement to register with NMFS and to obtain an
authorization certificate is not required until January 1, 2005, for
fisheries added or elevated to Category I in this final rule. For
fisheries affected by the delay, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Compliance Date for Registration Under the MMPA
Compliance with the requirement to register with NMFS and to obtain
an authorization certificate is not required until January 1, 2005, for
the Hawaii Swordfish, Tuna, Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, Oceanic Sharks
Longline/Set Line Fishery (Hawaii longline fishery), which is elevated
to Category I for the 2004 LOF. The abovementioned fishery is
considered to be a Category I fishery on September 9, 2004, and is
required to comply with all requirements of Category I fisheries (i.e.,
complying with applicable take reduction plan requirements and carrying
observers, if requested), other than the registration requirement on
that date.
ADDRESSES: Registration information, materials, and marine mammal
reporting forms may be obtained from several regional offices.
Registration information, materials, and marine mammal reporting forms
may be obtained from the following regional offices:
NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298,
Attn: Marcia Hobbs;
NMFS, Southeast Region, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St.
Petersburg, FL 33702, Attn: Teletha Griffin;
NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Species Management Division, 501 W.
Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Don Peterson;
NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115,
Attn: Permits Office; or
NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th
Street, Juneau, AK 99802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or general
questions on the LOF, please contact the following NMFS staff:
Kristy Long, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-1401;
David Gouveia, Northeast Region, 978-281-9328;
Juan Levesque, Southeast Region, 727-570-5312;
Cathy Campbell, Southwest Region, 562-980-4060;
Brent Norberg, Northwest Region, 206-526-6733;
Tamra Faris, Pacific Islands Region, 808-973-2937;
Bridget Mansfield, Alaska Region, 907-586-7642.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing
impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-
8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
What Is the List of Fisheries?
Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial
fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occurring in each
fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)). The categorization of a fishery in the
LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to
comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration,
observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must
reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Stock
Assessment Reports and other relevant sources and publish in the
Federal Register any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and
opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)(C)).
How Does NMFS Determine in Which Category a Fishery Is Placed?
The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be
found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50
CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here.
Fishery Classification Criteria
The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-
specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all
fisheries on each marine mammal stock, and then addresses the impact of
individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on
consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of
incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to
commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological
removal (PBR) level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C.
1362 (20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum
sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the
implementing regulations for section 118 at 50 CFR 229.2.
Tier 1: If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a
marine mammal stock, across all fisheries, is less than or equal to 10
percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with
the stock would be placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries
are subject to the next tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine their
classification.
Tier 2, Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock
in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR
level.
Tier 2, Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock
in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent
of the PBR level.
Tier 2, Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury of a
stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR
level.
While Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious
injury for a particular stock, Tier 2 considers fishery-specific
mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. Additional details
regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the
preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR
45086, August 30, 1995).
Since fisheries are categorized on a per-stock basis, a fishery may
qualify as one Category for one marine mammal stock and another
Category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically
categorized on the LOF at its highest level of classification (e.g., a
fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for
Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under
Category II).
Other Criteria That May Be Considered
In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a
commercial fishery,
[[Page 48409]]
NMFS will determine whether the incidental serious injury or mortality
qualifies for Category II by evaluating other factors such as fishing
techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target
species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or
fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of
marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries (50 CFR 229.2).
How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery Is in Category I, II, or III?
This final rule includes two tables that list all U.S. commercial
fisheries by LOF Category. Table 1 lists all of the fisheries in the
Pacific Ocean (including Alaska). Table 2 lists all of the fisheries in
the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean.
Am I Required To Register Under the MMPA?
Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery
are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50
CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal
authorization from NMFS in order to lawfully incidentally take a marine
mammal in a commercial fishery. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a
Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a
marine mammal authorization.
How Do I Register?
Fishers must register with the Marine Mammal Authorization Program
(MMAP) by contacting the relevant NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES)
unless they participate in a fishery that has an integrated
registration program (described below). Upon receipt of a completed
registration, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners physical evidence
of a current and valid registration that must be displayed or in the
possession of the master of each vessel while fishing in accordance
with section 118 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(3)(A)).
What Is the Process for Registering in an Integrated Fishery?
For some fisheries, NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration
process with existing State and Federal fishery license, registration,
or permit systems and related programs. Participants in these fisheries
are automatically registered under the MMPA and are not required to
submit registration or renewal materials or pay the $25 registration
fee. Following is a list of integrated fisheries and a summary of the
integration process for each Region. Fishers who operate in an
integrated fishery and have not received registration materials should
contact their NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).
Which Fisheries Have Integrated Registration Programs?
The following fisheries have integrated registration programs under
the MMPA:
1. All Alaska Category II fisheries;
2. All Washington and Oregon Category II fisheries;
3. Northeast Regional fisheries for which a State or Federal permit
is required.
Individuals fishing in fisheries for which no state or Federal
permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting the Northeast
Regional Office (see ADDRESSES); and
4. All North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida
Category I and II fisheries for which a State permit is required.
How Do I Renew My Registration Under the MMPA?
Regional Offices, except for the Northeast Region, annually send
renewal packets to previously registered participants in Category I or
II fisheries. However, it is the responsibility of the fisher to ensure
that registration or renewal forms are completed and submitted to NMFS
at least 30 days in advance of fishing. Individuals who have not
received a renewal packet by January 1 or are registering for the first
time should request a registration form from the appropriate Regional
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Am I Required To Submit Reports When I Injure or Kill a Marine Mammal
During the Course of Commercial Fishing Operations?
In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6,
any vessel owner or operator, or fisher (in the case of non-vessel
fisheries), participating in a Category I, II, or III fishery must
report to NMFS all incidental injuries and mortalities of marine
mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations. ``Injury'' is
defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition,
any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released
with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the
body is considered injured, regardless of the presence of any wound or
other evidence of injury, and must be reported. Instructions on how to
submit reports can be found in 50 CFR 229.6.
Am I Required To Take an Observer Aboard My Vessel?
Fishers participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to
accommodate an observer aboard vessel(s) upon request. Observer
requirements can be found in 50 CFR 229.7.
Am I Required To Comply With Any Take Reduction Plan Regulations?
Fishers participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to
comply with any applicable take reduction plans.
Sources of Information Reviewed for the Proposed 2004 LOF
NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental serious injury and
mortality information presented in the Stock Assessment Reports (SARs)
for all observed fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery
classification were warranted. NMFS SARs are based on the best
scientific information available, including information on the level of
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs incidental
to commercial fisheries and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks.
NMFS also reviewed other sources of new, relevant information,
including marine mammal stranding data, observer program data, fisher
self-reports, and other information that is not included in the SARs.
Additionally, NMFS took into account information presented at a
workshop from June 2-3, 2004, to review data used in the proposed
categorization of the Hawaii longline fishery.
The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional
scientific review groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific
(including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the
Caribbean. The SRGs were created by the MMPA to review the science that
goes into the SARs, and to advise NMFS on population status and trends,
stock structure, uncertainties in the science, research needs, and
other issues.
The LOF for 2004 was based, among other things, on information
provided in the final SARs for 1996 (63 FR 60, January 2, 1998), the
final SARs for 2001 (67 FR 10671, March 8, 2002), the final SARs for
2002 (68 FR 17920, April 14, 2003), and the draft SARs for 2003 (68 FR
51561, August 27, 2003).
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 10 comment letters on the proposed 2004 LOF (69 FR
19365, April 13, 2004) from environmental, commercial fishing, and
Federal and State interests. Issues outside the scope of the LOF are
not responded to in this final rule. Any comments received after
[[Page 48410]]
the public comment period closed on June 14, 2004, are not responded to
in this final rule.
General Comments
Comment 1: One commenter disapproved of the fishery classification
criteria used for the LOF, but did not offer an alternative suggestion
for the criteria.
Response: The current fishery classification system is based on a
two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total
impacts of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses
the impacts of individual fisheries on each stock (60 FR 31666, June
16, 1995). Tier 1 considers the additive fishery mortality and serious
injury for a particular stock, while Tier 2 considers fishery-specific
mortality for a particular stock. This approach is based on the rate,
in numbers of animals per year, of serious injuries and mortalities due
to commercial fishing relative to a stock's PBR level. Under the Tier 1
analysis, if the total annual mortality and serious injury across all
fisheries that interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10
percent of the PBR level of such a stock, then all fisheries
interacting with this stock would be placed in Category III. Otherwise,
these fisheries are subject to the next tier to determine their
classification. Under the Tier 2 analysis, those fisheries in which
annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is
greater than or equal to 50 percent of the stock's PBR level are placed
in Category I, while those fisheries in which annual mortality and
serious injury is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of
the stock's PBR level are placed in Category II. Individual fisheries
in which annual mortality and serious injury is less than or equal to 1
percent of the PBR level would be placed in Category III. The threshold
between Tier 1 and Tier 2 was set at 10 percent of the PBR level based
on recommendations that arose from a PBR Workshop held in La Jolla,
California in June 1994. The Workshop Report indicated if the total
annual incidental serious injury and mortality level for a particular
stock did not exceed 10 percent of the PBR level, the amount of time
necessary for that population to achieve the optimum sustainable
population level would only increase by 10 percent. Thus, 10 percent of
the PBR level for a particular stock was equated to ``biological
insignificance.'' This approach ensures that fisheries are categorized
based on their impacts on stocks and allows NMFS to focus resources on
those fisheries that have a significant impact on marine mammals.
This approach is based on the fact that the MMPA established both a
short-term and a long-term goal with respect to take reduction plans
for reducing marine mammal mortality and serious injury incidental to
commercial fishing operations. MMPA section 118(f)(2) provides: ``The
immediate goal of a take reduction plan for a strategic stock shall be
to reduce, within 6 months of its implementation, the incidental
mortality or serious injury of marine mammals incidentally taken in the
course of commercial fishing operations to levels less than the
potential biological removal established for that stock under section
117. The long-term goal of the plan shall be to reduce, within 5 years
of its implementation, the incidental mortality or serious injury of
marine mammals incidentally taken in the course of commercial fishing
operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and
serious injury rate, taking into account the economics of the fishery,
the availability of existing technology, and existing State or regional
fishery management plans.'' NMFS established the tier-based fishery
classification system with each goal in mind and to ensure that
fisheries progressively move toward the long-term goal of the MMPA.
Comment 2: One commenter called into question NMFS' execution of
the LOF, particularly that all fisheries should be listed as Category
I.
Response: Section 118 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)) and the
regulations implementing that section (50 CFR part 229) specify how
NMFS executes the annual LOF. NMFS reexamines commercial fisheries each
year to determine whether changes are needed. Proposed and final LOFs
must categorize each commercial fishery based on the definitions of
Category I, II, and III fisheries (50 CFR 229.2), list the marine
mammals that have been incidentally injured or killed by commercial
fishing operations, and estimate the number of vessels or persons
involved in each commercial fishery. See Response to Comment 1.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that all high seas fisheries
conducted by U.S. flagged vessels should be listed on the LOF. In
particular, the commenter suggested adding the U.S. Patagonian
toothfish longline fishery and the U.S. trawl fishery for krill as
Category II fisheries until further information is available. The
commenter noted several other fisheries, including the Cobb Seamount,
Pacific pelagic squid jig, and South Pacific tuna purse seine, that
should be analyzed for interactions with marine mammals and
appropriately classified on the LOF.
Response: NMFS must publish any proposed changes to the LOF in the
Federal Register to allow for notice and opportunity for public
comment. Therefore, NMFS cannot add these new fisheries to the 2004
final LOF because it is beyond the scope of what was included in the
proposed 2004 LOF. NMFS will consider this comment and whether the LOF
applies to high seas fisheries during development of future proposed
LOFs.
Comments on Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean
Comment 4: One commenter stated that gillnet fisheries in Alaska
may require more observer coverage than current fishery classifications
allow.
Response: NMFS works annually through the National Observer Program
to obtain resources necessary to monitor Alaska gillnet fisheries.
Funds are limited; therefore NMFS rotates observer coverage among
gillnet fisheries based on statutory priorities (16 U.S.C. 1387(d)) and
specific time cycles. The Alaska gillnet fisheries on the LOF
(nearshore salmon drift and set gillnet fisheries) are managed by the
State of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game. These fisheries were
originally placed into Category II as unobserved fisheries. The
Category II designation was made for these fisheries, where little or
no information on marine mammal takes for the specific fisheries was
available, because gillnet fisheries worldwide have been demonstrated
as having the capability of causing significant numbers of mortalities
and serious injuries to marine mammals. The only Alaska gillnet
fisheries currently in Category III are those fisheries that have been
observed and subsequent analyses of observer data indicate these
fisheries meet the threshold for a Category III designation. The
remainder of the unobserved Alaska gillnet fisheries continue to remain
in Category II until such time that they can be observed and data are
obtained that indicate a change in fishery classification is warranted.
Several Alaska gillnet fisheries that have been observed remain in
Category II due to analyses of observer data that indicate a Category
II threshold has been met for each of those fisheries.
Comment 5: NMFS received several comments supporting the
delineation of Alaska fisheries. One commenter stated that NMFS should
reclassify fisheries appropriately after analyses on the new fisheries
are completed. Another commenter was concerned that subdividing Alaska
fisheries creates the
[[Page 48411]]
appearance of fewer impacts on marine mammals, when a larger fishery as
previously delineated may have met the threshold for classification as
a Category I or II fishery.
Response: NMFS plans to complete the analyses on all Alaska
fisheries and appropriately propose reclassification of those fisheries
that meet the criteria for Category I and II fisheries in the 2005
proposed LOF. The analysis for fishery classification is designed to
take into effect the cumulative impacts of multiple fisheries on marine
mammal stocks. NMFS continues to work toward supporting increased
observer coverage in all Category I and II fisheries across the
country, including fisheries in Alaska, to improve the accuracy of
marine mammal bycatch estimates.
The Alaska fisheries delineated in the 2004 proposed LOF as
individual fisheries were separated to more accurately reflect the
actual management and operational practices of those fisheries and to
keep better track of marine mammal serious injuries and mortalities
occurring in different sectors of the fishery. This is being
implemented as a two-step process, the delineation of the fisheries in
2004 followed by analyses to reclassify the fisheries as appropriate in
the 2005 proposed LOF. The analyses will be performed according to the
existing protocol used to categorize fisheries. Documented mortalities
and serious injuries used in previous analyses to categorize the
fisheries will be assigned to one of the newly delineated fisheries.
Any additional documented serious injuries or mortalities will likewise
be assigned to the appropriate fishery. These changes will also be made
in the SARs for each of the relevant marine mammal stocks. These
changes will provide a more accurate understanding of the interactions
between marine mammals and various Alaska fisheries. Prior to these
changes, large groups of diverse fisheries were artificially lumped
together based only on gear type over vast geographic areas of the
Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska.
Comment 6: One commenter suggested that NMFS update relevant SARs
with the new Alaska fishery delineations, determine which trawl and pot
fisheries interact with the central and western North Pacific stocks of
humpback whales, and recategorize the fisheries accordingly.
Response: Delineating the Alaska trawl and pot fisheries by area
and target species will allow NMFS to better evaluate interactions
between the central and western North Pacific humpback whale stocks and
specific fisheries. NMFS will analyze relevant data and propose fishery
classifications accordingly. See Response to Comment 5.
Comment 7: One commenter suggested separating out the yellowfin
sole fishery from the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) flatfish
trawl fishery because the fishery has its own total allowable catch
(TAC) and prohibited species catch (PSC). The commenter also noted that
some vessels that target yellowfin sole do not target other flatfish
species. Additionally, the yellowfin sole fishery operates in the
relatively shallow waters along the sand bottom shelf areas of the
central and northern portions of the Bering Sea where interactions with
marine mammals seems unlikely.
Response: The BSAI flatfish trawl fishery was designated as a
single fishery in the proposed 2004 LOF based on information indicating
an overlap in the prosecution of the flatfish trawl fisheries of the
BSAI. As noted in the public comment, the yellowfin sole fishery has
its own TAC and PSC quotas, as do other flatfish fisheries, and some
separation exists in time and areas of prosecution of these fisheries.
However, while the yellowfin sole fishery can be prosecuted at times
with few interactions with marine mammals, significant overlap of the
fishery occurs particularly with the rock sole, flathead sole, and
Alaska plaice fisheries, with vessels catching these other species
together with yellowfin sole in the same trip and haul. The overlap of
these fisheries prevents listing the yellowfin sole fishery separately
in the LOF.
Comment 8: One commenter stated that the reclassification of the
CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery (>=14 in. mesh)
from Category I to Category II was premature and should be reversed.
The commenter noted that the fishery still interacts with a wide range
of stocks and the annual take of sperm whales is 47.8 percent of the
stock's PBR level, just under the threshold for inclusion in Category
I.
Response: The CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery
(>=14 in. mesh) was moved from Category I to Category II in the 2003
final LOF (68 FR 41725, July 15, 2003). This change in fishery
classification was based on observer data from 1997-2001 that indicated
the take of marine mammals incidental to this fishery was less than 50
percent of the PBR level for those stocks that interact with the
fishery. One observed take of a sperm whale occurred in this fishery in
1998, but no takes have been observed in the most recent 5 years of
data from 1999-2003. Therefore, NMFS does not believe a change in
fishery classification is warranted at this time. In an effort to
reduce marine mammal serious injury and mortality, the owners and
operators of CA/OR drift gillnet vessels operating in this fishery have
been complying with the requirements of the Pacific Offshore Cetacean
Take Reduction Plan, including carrying observers, using acoustic
deterrents (pingers) on the nets, and complying with other gear
modification requirements. Observers will continue to monitor this
fishery, and if sperm whales are observed taken, NMFS will reevaluate
this fishery.
Comment 9: Several commenters requested NMFS to extend the public
comment period on the proposed 2004 LOF to accommodate a workshop on
false killer whale population abundance and fishery interactions in the
central Pacific Ocean (Workshop).
Response: NMFS agreed and the public comment period was extended
from May 13, 2004, to June 14, 2004 (69 FR 26539, May 13, 2004), to
accommodate the Workshop, which was held June 2-3, 2004 in Honolulu,
Hawaii, and public comment resulting from the Workshop. The purpose of
the Workshop was to discuss MMPA fishery classification requirements,
specifically concerning the abundance and fishery interactions for
false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) within the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) around the Hawaiian Islands. The workshop also
covered background information and procedures used to categorize the
Hawaii longline fishery in the LOF. For a summary of the Workshop,
please contact the Pacific Islands Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).
Comment 10: One commenter requested that NMFS reopen the comment
period on the 2004 proposed LOF once the results of the Workshop on the
Hawaii longline fishery and false killer whales were made available for
public review.
Response: NMFS convened the Workshop to review available
information and the process to reclassify the Hawaii longline fishery
based on that information. NMFS staff, scientific experts, fishery
representatives, and other interested members of the public
participated in this Workshop. NMFS considered all information
presented and discussed at the Workshop and public comment resulting
from the Workshop in the decision to reclassify this fishery. See
Response to Comment 9.
Comment 11: NMFS received several comments supporting the proposed
elevation of the Hawaii longline fishery from Category III to Category
I.
[[Page 48412]]
Response: NMFS has reclassified and elevated the fishery from
Category III to Category I in the 2004 LOF.
Comment 12: One commenter recommended elevating the Hawaii longline
fishery from Category III to Category II, instead of Category I, based
on uncertainties surrounding the population abundance and mortality
data. The commenter maintains that the NMFS 2002 survey on cetacean
abundance in Hawaiian waters is flawed for two reasons. First, it was
conducted between August and November when false killer whales are
generally less abundant in Hawaiian waters. Second, the survey covered
the entire EEZ while false killer whales are known to occur around
islands rather than in the open ocean.
Response: At the June 2004 Workshop, relevant information was
presented indicating that there was no evidence of seasonality in
abundance of false killer whales in waters surrounding Hawaii (Baird,
Workshop presentation; Kobayashi, Workshop presentation). In addition,
limited data that are available from year-round surveys may actually
suggest lower encounter rates during the late spring/early summer than
during November-December. The commenter cited a reference (Stacey et
al, 1994) to indicate evidence of seasonality in false killer whale
abundance. However, that study discussed seasonality in false killer
whales in temperate waters around Japan and off the coast of the former
Soviet Union, not in tropical waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands.
The marine ecosystems surrounding Japan and the Hawaiian Islands are
very different and, therefore, NMFS does not believe that the
information in this reference is relevant to false killer whales in
Hawaiian waters.
Based on the data, NMFS concludes false killer whales are not more
common around the Hawaiian Islands than in the open ocean. Relevant
data indicate false killer whale occurrences on the open sea, and
published literature indicates that ``False killer whales are found
most often offshore, although there are occasional records from inshore
waters * * *'' (Stacey and Baird, 1991). Furthermore, nearshore
sightings data from studies conducted around the main Hawaiian Islands
since 1993 (Baird, Workshop presentation; Mobley 2003) have
demonstrated that sightings are not frequent around the main Hawaiian
Islands. Particularly, during the two most recent spring aerial
surveys, conducted in 2000 and 2003, no false killer whales were seen
around the Hawaiian Islands. The NMFS 2002 survey was conducted in the
area where the Hawaii longline fishery operates around the Hawaiian
Islands and was compared to the mortality and serious injury of false
killer whales in the same area for purposes of classifying the fishery.
Comment 13: One commenter disagreed with NMFS' abundance estimates
of the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales for the following reasons.
The commenter noted, first, that NMFS' data indicate that the Hawaiian
stock of false killer whales exhibit seasonal abundance, possibly
peaking coincident to yellowfin tuna peak abundance. Second, the
commenter maintained there is information indicating false killer whale
distribution varies not only by season, but possibly over years, which
may be linked to El Nino effects on prey species. Third, the commenter
criticized NMFS' extrapolation of one sighting during the 2002
shipboard survey to a group of 10 individuals. The commenter noted that
it is well-accepted that false killer whales are a highly social
species found in group sizes averaging from 20 to 50 individuals.
Fourth, the commenter disapproved of NMFS' diving correction factor,
stating that it does not reflect false killer whale behavior.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The abundance estimates
are based on established scientific methods and were reviewed and
accepted by the Pacific Scientific Review Group. The issues raised by
the commenter are not indicative of deficiencies in the abundance
estimates. First, neither the cited NMFS data (Walsh and Kobayashi,
Draft Report, May 21, 2004), nor the data presented by independent
scientists (Baird, Mobley) at the June workshop, provide any evidence
for seasonality in the abundance of false killer whales around Hawaii.
The NMFS draft report states ``False killer whales (Figure A3c) were
the most frequently sighted species, present in every EEZ except
Jarvis, with no apparent seasonality'' [emphasis added]. Second, NMFS
agrees that interannual variability in false killer whale distribution
may occur, and that additional years of data will improve the precision
of the abundance estimate. However, the marine mammal stock assessment
process under the MMPA was specifically designed to allow for levels of
uncertainty in abundance similar to those observed for Hawaiian false
killer whales. Third, the references cited by the commenter do not
indicate substantially greater mean group sizes for false killer whales
in tropical waters, such as those surrounding Hawaii. In the eastern
tropical Pacific, Stacey and Baird (1991) report a mean group size of
18.1 false killer whales, contrasting with a mean group size of 55 in
temperate waters off Japan (Stacey et al., 1994). Extensive NMFS survey
data for tropical Pacific waters yielded an average group size of 11.4
false killer whales (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993). Thus, published
estimates for tropical waters are similar to the group size of 10 false
killer whales observed during the 2002 survey. Finally, the dive
correction factor used in the estimation of abundance (Barlow, 2003)
reflects a combination of false killer whale diving behavior and the
search behavior of the observer team aboard NMFS research vessels
during marine mammal surveys. Observations of false killer whales from
longline vessels are fundamentally different in nature, and the
proportion of animals missed is expected to differ. See also Response
to Comment 12.
Comment 14: Two commenters noted that false killer whale abundance
around Hawaii may actually be overestimated, not underestimated, as
stated in the proposed 2004 LOF. Several reasons were given: (1) The
relative proportion of false killer whales to all delphinids is similar
between the Hawaiian EEZ and the ETP; (2) false killer whales in
Hawaiian waters do not appear to dive for particularly long periods ;
(3) two independent research projects found false killer whales to be
uncommon around Hawaii; and (4) the abundance estimate may be biased
because it is based on a correction factor developed for a suite of
similar-sized delphinids, which often occur in groups smaller than
false killer whale groups and are, therefore, more difficult to
observe.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is possible that the abundance
estimate for the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales may be
overestimated. NMFS recognizes that the correction factor used for
animals missed on the trackline during a survey could possibly be
overestimated if false killer whales are more active and visible around
Hawaii than false killer whales and similar-sized cetaceans in the ETP,
which is where the correction factor was developed. These potential
sources of minor upward bias in the false killer whale abundance
estimates do not affect the classification of the Hawaii-based longline
fishery, because there would be no change in the classification of the
fishery or the designation of the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales
as a strategic stock if potential sources of upward bias were
identified and removed. The total annual mortality and serious injury
of the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales would still exceed the PBR
level. Therefore, the available
[[Page 48413]]
abundance estimates are considered reliable for purposes of the
classification of the fishery as Category I.
Comment 15: One commenter noted that a revised aerial survey
abundance estimate that includes data from 2000 and 2003 would be lower
than that presented in Mobley (2000).
Response: If aerial survey data from 2000 and 2003 (Mobley) were
revised and combined with the results of the offshore surveys (Barlow
2003), the abundance estimate would be equal to or less than the
estimate presented in Barlow (2003). If an updated abundance estimate
including the 2000 and 2003 aerial survey results were available, the
Hawaiian stock of false killer whales would remain a strategic stock,
and the Hawaii-based longline fishery would remain a category I
fishery. See also the Response to Comment 14.
Comment 16: One commenter recommended that NMFS undertake a new
population survey that accounts for the known seasonality of false
killer whale abundance in the Hawaiian Islands EEZ before publishing
the 2005 LOF.
Response: There is no known seasonality of false killer whales in
the Hawaiian Islands EEZ. Neither NMFS observer data (Walsh and
Kobayashi, Draft Report, May 21, 2004), nor data presented by
independent scientists (Baird, Mobley) at the June 2004 workshop,
provide any evidence for seasonality in the abundance of false killer
whales around Hawaii.
Comment 17: One commenter noted that NMFS has defined the false
killer whale stock in the Hawaiian EEZ as a strategic stock, based on
genetic evidence suggesting false killer whales between the central
North Pacific (Hawaii) are separate, reproductively isolated
populations from false killer whales in the ETP. However, the commenter
notes the degree of separation between these false killer whales is not
known, and the geographic boundaries for the populations cannot yet be
identified. False killer whales have been taken by the Hawaii longline
fishery in an area ranging from north of the Hawaiian EEZ to the
equator. Are all of these false killer whales from the same population
or from separate isolated populations? If from the same population,
then the designation of a strategic stock in the Hawaii EEZ would be
questionable.
Response: The Hawaiian stock of false killer whales is considered a
strategic stock under the MMPA because fishery-related mortality and
serious injury exceeds the PBR level for this stock (see 16 U.S.C.
1362(19)).
Genetic analysis of samples from false killer whales in the North
Pacific Ocean indicates population structure, but geographic boundaries
of the various populations cannot yet be identified. However, the
evidence for reproductive isolation and strong genetic differentiation
of individuals sampled around Hawaii from individuals sampled in the
ETP is solid. Furthermore, NMFS'' current mortality and serious injury
estimates are based only on takes within the U.S. EEZ and compared to
PBR levels derived from abundance estimates for waters within the U.S.
EEZ. In addition, even if the actual boundaries of the Hawaiian stock
of false killer whales extended beyond the EEZ, the strategic status of
the stock would not be changed. NMFS'' guidelines for preparing marine
mammal stock assessment reports contain specific instructions for
calculating PBR of trans-boundary stocks. (The guidelines are available
in electronic form at http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/library/gammsrep/gammsrep.htm.) In cases such as false killer whales in the Hawaiian
EEZ, where the stock could extend into international waters, the PBR
would be based on the abundance of animals within the EEZ. This
guideline was established to prevent underestimating the effects of
mortality and serious injury incidental to U.S. fisheries in
international waters where unknown levels of additional human-caused
mortality and serious injury (e.g., incidental to foreign fisheries in
the same waters) may also be affecting the stock. NMFS does, however,
plan to try to obtain additional genetic samples from a broader
geographic range to help define stock boundaries.
Comment 18: One commenter stated that estimated mortality of false
killer whales in the Hawaii longline fishery may be underestimated for
several reasons, including: (1) some hooked and thus seriously injured
whales may break free of the gear before reaching the boat, (2) some
false killer whales from the Hawaiian stock may be taken outside the
U.S. EEZ; (3) false killer whales observed taken in Palmyra's EEZ may
be part of the Hawaiian stock; and (4) several observed interactions
with unidentified cetaceans are likely to have been false killer
whales. If the number of unidentified cetaceans seriously injured or
killed in the Hawaii longline fishery was pro-rated in proportion to
the known mortality and serious injury of the potential species
involved, the estimated takes of false killer whales within the
Hawaiian EEZ would increase.
Response: Mortality of false killer whales in the Hawaii longline
fishery may be underestimated. NMFS intends to obtain additional data
to clarify the stock structure and genetic differentiation of animals
found in waters surrounding Palmyra Island versus those in the Hawaiian
EEZ and in international waters of the tropical Pacific . See Response
to Comment 17.
Comment 19: One commenter noted that NMFS incorrectly states,
``Since 1998, only one false killer whale has been observed killed in
the Hawaiian EEZ'' (69 FR 19368, May 13, 2004). The commenter stated
that serious injury and mortality estimates should not have been based
on this interaction because it is over five years old.
Response: The proposed 2004 LOF does contain an error; since 1998,
only one false killer whale has been observed seriously injured in the
Hawaiian EEZ. The individual was released with a hook in the mouth and
trailing line. Based on NMFS'' serious injury guidelines, any cetacean
released with trailing gear is considered seriously injured. By
definition, a serious injury is one that will likely result in
mortality (50 CFR 229.2). Furthermore, section 118 of the MMPA treats
mortality and serious injury equally.
NMFS mortality estimates are based on information presented in the
most recent SAR. Based on NMFS'' guidelines for preparing SARs, serious
injury and mortality rates are generally based on the most recent 5-
year averages of data available when the SAR is drafted (e.g., 1997-
2001 for the 2003 SARs).
Comment 19a: One commenter stated re-opening the area closed to
swordfish fishing will likely increase takes of false killer whales by
the Hawaii longline fishery.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 20: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding NMFS
protocols for assessing serious injuries of false killer whales and
requested NMFS to revisit its serious injury guidelines or develop a
more refined assessment method. In particular, one commenter requested
NMFS to convene a workshop to specifically address serious injury
guidelines for false killer whales, since the commenter does not
believe an individual hooked in the mouth is likely to die.
Response: NMFS convened a workshop of experts in marine mammal
biology, marine mammal medicine, and fishing technologies in April
1997. The results of this workshop included guidelines for
differentiating serious and non-serious injuries of marine mammals
incidental to commercial
[[Page 48414]]
fishing operations, which were published as a NOAA Technical Memorandum
(NMFS-OPR-13 1998), and have been used to determine severity of
injuries to false killer whales and other cetaceans in the Hawaii
longline fishery. The publication process included scientific peer
review. These guidelines represent a compilation of the best scientific
information available at the time and have not been updated since 1997.
Additional data, particularly on large whales, have been collected
since the workshop was convened. When these additional data have been
compiled and analyzed, NMFS will update the guidelines as needed.
Comment 21: One commenter urged NMFS to increase observer coverage
to more accurately estimate serious injury and mortality of marine
mammals incidental to the Hawaii longline fishery.
Response: There is 100-percent observer coverage in the shallow-set
component and 20-percent observer coverage in the deep-set component of
the Hawaii longline fishery beginning in 2004, as mandated by an
Endangered Species Act section 7 biological opinion on sea turtle
interactions with the fishery, and these observers are trained to
collect information on interactions with all protected species. Given
the relatively long history of the deep-set component and our
understanding of fishing practices, catch, and interactions with
protected species, 20 percent is a sufficient level of coverage in the
deep-set component of the fishery.
Comment 22: One commenter stated that, under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS should not rely on the
Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for regulations to implement
section 118 of the MMPA (1995 EA) for the 2004 LOF.
Response: The 1995 EA concluded that implementation of these
regulations would not have a significant impact on the human
environment. This final rule would not make any significant change in
the management of reclassified fisheries, and therefore, this final
rule is not expected to change the analysis or conclusion of the 1995
EA. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the
development of a TRP, NMFS will first prepare the appropriate
environmental analysis as required under NEPA specific to that action.
Comment 23: One commenter stated that NMFS did not comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in preparing the 2004 LOF.
Response: NMFS complied with the RFA. The Chief Counsel for
Regulation of the Commerce Department certified to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. (See 5 U.S.C. 605 and the Classification section of the
proposed rule, 69 FR 19365, April 13, 2004.) As a result, no initial or
final regulatory flexibility analysis was required. For convenience,
the factual basis leading to the certification is repeated below.
Under existing regulations, all fishers participating in
Category I or II fisheries must register under the MMPA, obtain an
Authorization Certificate, and pay a fee of $25. Additionally,
fishers may be subject to a take reduction plan and requested to
carry an observer. The Authorization Certificate authorizes the
taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing
operations. NMFS has estimated that approximately 41,600 fishing
vessels, most of which are small entities, operate in Category I or
II fisheries, and therefore, are required to register. However,
registration has been integrated with existing State or Federal
registration programs for the majority of these fisheries so that
the majority of fishers do not need to register separately under the
MMPA. Currently, approximately 5,800 fishers register directly with
NMFS under the MMPA authorization program.
This rule proposes to elevate the Hawaii Swordfish, Tuna,
Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, Oceanic Sharks Longline/Set Line Fishery
to Category I in the LOF. Therefore participants in this fishery
(140 participants) would be required to register under the MMPA.
Though this proposed rule would affect a number of small
entities, the $25 registration fee, with respect to anticipated
revenues, is not considered a significant economic impact. If a
vessel is requested to carry an observer, fishers will not incur any
economic costs associated with carrying that observer. As a result
of this certification, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
was not prepared. In the event that reclassification of a fishery to
Category I or II results in a take reduction plan, economic analyses
of the effects of that plan will be summarized in subsequent
rulemaking actions.
Comments on Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of
Mexico
Comment 24: Several commenters recommended elevating the Gulf of
Mexico blue crab trap/pot fishery from Category III to Category II due
to interactions with bottlenose dolphins. One commenter also
recommended that NMFS institute an observer program in this fishery to
obtain more reliable information.
Response: As stated in the 2004 proposed LOF (69 FR 19365, 19370,
April 13, 2004), NMFS believes it is necessary to investigate stock
structure of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico and intends to
reevaluate this fishery as relevant information becomes available. The
vast majority of NMFS resources for bottlenose dolphin research is
being expended in the Atlantic Ocean to satisfy the needs of the
Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team (TRT). As the needs of
this existing TRT are met, NMFS plans to shift resources to the Gulf of
Mexico to better define bottlenose dolphin stock structure and
interactions with fisheries in this area. However, NMFS does not have
adequate information at this time to change the classification of this
fishery.
Comment 25: One commenter recommended NMFS reclassify the Gulf of
Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery as a Category I fishery and direct
more observer effort to determining the level of fishery interactions
with bottlenose dolphins.
Response: NMFS believes it is necessary to investigate the stock
structure of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico and monitor
interactions between bottlenose dolphins and the Gulf of Mexico
menhaden purse seine fishery and Gulf of Mexico gillnet fishery. NMFS
intends to reevaluate this fishery as relevant information becomes
available. However, NMFS does not have adequate information at this
time to change the classification of this fishery. See Response to
Comment 24. See also the 2003 LOF, for the response to a similar
comment (68 FR 41725, 41730; July 15, 2003).
Comment 26: One commenter recommended NMFS reclassify the Gulf of
Mexico gillnet fishery as a Category I fishery given that bottlenose
dolphin population structure in the Gulf of Mexico is composed of
numerous stocks with low PBR levels.
Response: See Response to Comment 25.
Comment 27: One commenter strongly urged NMFS to promptly respond
to, and necropsy, strandings in the southeast U.S. to assess patterns
and levels of marine mammal interactions with the Gulf of Mexico blue
crab trap/pot fishery.
Response: The marine mammal stranding network has established
protocols in place for responding to and investigating stranding
events. The Level A data form that responders are required to use has a
specific field to note any evidence of a fishery interaction. In the
event that a fishery interaction is suspected, the network and the
appropriate NMFS Regional Office and/or Science Center have protocols
in place to investigate further and identify the fishery.
Comment 28: One commenter noted the expansion of open ocean
aquaculture operations may warrant
[[Page 48415]]
further consideration related to the LOF. The commenter stated that a
proposal to expand aquaculture operations to old oil platforms in the
Gulf of Mexico may cause interactions with bottlenose dolphins if the
operation uses high intensity acoustic harassment devices. The
commenter noted that the finfish or shellfish aquaculture fisheries
currently listed on the LOF would not include this new operation.
Response: NMFS is aware of the expansion of aquaculture and growing
concerns with aquaculture operations particularly as they relate to
harassment of marine mammals. On January 12-13, 1999, NMFS held a
marine aquaculture workshop to evaluate the potential effects of
aquaculture operations on marine mammals and sea turtles. NMFS is
considering additional workshops to further evaluate these operations
for cases involving serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals.
NMFS believes the fishery classification criteria sufficiently address
fishery-related interactions with aquaculture operations. NMFS is not
aware of any proposals for the use of oil platforms as aquaculture
facilities. The current marine aquaculture fisheries listed on the LOF,
``Finfish aquaculture'' and ``Shellfish aquaculture,'' apply to all
aquaculture operations conducted in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico,
and Caribbean.
Summary of Changes to the LOF for 2004
The following summarizes changes to the LOF in 2004 in fishery
classification, fisheries listed on the LOF, the number of participants
in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are
incidentally killed or seriously injured in a particular fishery. The
LOF for 2004 is identical to the LOF for 2003 with the following
exceptions.
Fishery Classification
The ``Hawaii Swordfish, Tuna, Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, Oceanic
Sharks Longline/Set Line Fishery'' is elevated from Category III to
Category I.
Addition of Fisheries to the LOF
The following fisheries are added to the LOF as Category III
fisheries:
``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Atka Mackerel Trawl Fishery,''
``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Flatfish Trawl Fishery,'' ``AK
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod Trawl Fishery,'' ``AK
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pollock Trawl Fishery'', ``AK Gulf of
Alaska Flatfish Trawl Fishery,'' ``AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific Cod Trawl
Fishery,'' ``AK Gulf of Alaska Pollock Trawl Fishery,'' ``AK Gulf of
Alaska Rockfish Trawl Fishery,'' ``AK Aleutian Islands Sablefish Pot
Fishery,'' ``AK Bering Sea Sablefish Pot Fishery,'' ``AK Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod Pot Fishery,'' ``AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific
Cod Pot Fishery,'' ``AK Southeast Alaska Shrimp Pot Fishery,'' ``AK
Southeast Alaska Crab Pot Fishery,'' ``AK Gulf of Alaska Crab Pot
Fishery,'' ``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Pot Fishery,''
``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Greenland Turbot Longline
Fishery,'' ``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod Longline
Fishery,'' ``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Rockfish Longline,''
``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Sablefish Longline Fishery,'' ``AK
Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Longline Fishery,'' ``AK Gulf of Alaska
Pacific Cod Longline Fishery,'' ``AK Gulf of Alaska Flatfish Longline
Fishery,'' and ``AK Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Longline.''
Removal of Fisheries From the LOF
The following fisheries are removed from the 2004 LOF: The ``AK
Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska Finfish Pot Fishery,'' ``AK Crustacean
Pot Fishery,'' ``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish
Longline/Set Line Fishery (federally regulated waters, including
miscellaneous finfish and sablefish),'' ``AK Gulf of Alaska Groundfish
Longline/Set Line Fishery (federally regulated waters, including
miscellaneous finfish and sablefish),'' ``AK Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Groundfish Trawl Fishery,'' and ``AK Gulf of Alaska Groundfish
Trawl Fishery.''
Number of Vessels/Persons
The estimated number of participants in the ``OR Swordfish Floating
Longline Fishery'' is updated to 1.
The estimated number of participants in the ``WA Puget Sound Region
Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery'' is updated to 210 based on 2003 permit
data.
List of Fisheries
The following two tables list U.S. commercial fisheries according
to their assigned categories under section 118 of the MMPA. The
estimated number of vessels/participants is expressed in terms of the
number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this
information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or
persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent
information is available on the number of participants in a fishery,
the number from the most recent LOF is used.
The tables also list the marine mammal species or stocks
incidentally killed or injured in each fishery based on observer data,
logbook data, stranding reports, and fisher reports. This list includes
all species or stocks known to experience serious injury or mortality
in a given fishery, but also includes species or stocks for which there
are anecdotal or historical, but not necessarily current, records of
interaction. Additionally, species identified by logbook entries may
not be verified. Not all species or stocks identified are the reason
for a fishery's placement in a given category. There are a few
fisheries that are in Category II that have no recently documented
interactions with marine mammals. Justifications for placement of these
fisheries are by analogy to other gear types that are known to cause
mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, as discussed in the
final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995), and according to
factors listed in the definition of ``Category II fishery'' in 50 CFR
229.2.
Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including
Alaska); Table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf
of Mexico, and Caribbean.
[[Page 48416]]
Table 1.--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Fishery description of Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured
vessels/persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet Fisheries:
CA angel shark/halibut and 58 Harbor porpoise, Central CA.
other species set gillnet Common dolphin, short-beaked, CA/OR/WA.
(>3.5 in. mesh). Common dolphin, long-beaked CA.
California sea lion, U.S.
Harbor seal, CA.
Northern elephant seal, CA breeding.
Sea otter, CA.
Longline/Set Line Fisheries:
HI swordfish, tuna, 140 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific.
billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, False killer whales, HI.
oceanic sharks longline/set Risso's dolphin, HI.
line. Bottlenose dolphin, HI.
Spinner dolphin, HI.
Short-finned pilot whale, HI.
Sperm whale, HI.
-------------------------------
Category II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet Fisheries:
AK Bristol Bay salmon drift 1,903 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
gillnet. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific.
Harbor seal, Bering Sea.
................ Beluga whale, Bristol Bay.
Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.
Spotted seal, AK.
Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific.
AK Bristol Bay salmon set 1,014 Harbor seal, Bering Sea.
gillnet. Beluga whale, Bristol Bay.
Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.
................ Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific.
Spotted seal, AK.
AK Cook Inlet salmon drift 576 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
gillnet. Harbor seal, GOA.
Harbor porpoise, GOA.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
................ Beluga whale, Cook Inlet.
AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 188 Harbor seal, GOA.
Harbor porpoise, GOA.
Sea otter, AK.
AK Metlakatla/Annette Island 60 None documented.
salmon drift gillnet.
AK Peninsula/Aleutian 164 Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific.
Islands salmon drift Harbor seal, GOA.
gillnet. Harbor porpoise, GOA.
................ Dall's porpoise, AK.
AK Peninsula/Aleutian 116 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
Islands salmon set gillnet. Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea.
AK Prince William Sound 541 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
salmon drift gillnet. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific.
Harbor seal, GOA.
................ Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific.
Harbor porpoise, GOA.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
Sea Otter, AK.
AK Southeast salmon drift 481 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.
gillnet. Harbor seal, Southeast AK.
Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific.
................ Harbor porpoise, Southeast AK.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
Humpback whale, Central North Pacific.
AK Yakutat salmon set 170 Harbor seal, Southeast AK.
gillnet. Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.
CA/OR thresher shark/ 113 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.
swordfish drift gillnet Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA.
(>=14 in. mesh). Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA.
Fin whale, CA/OR/WA.
Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.
Northern Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA
[[Page 48417]]
................ Southern Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore.
Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
Long-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
................ Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA.
Baird's beaked whale, CA/OR/WA.
Mesoplodont beaked whale, CA/OR/WA.
Cuvier's beaked whale, CA/OR/WA.
Pygmy sperm whale, CA/OR/WA.
California sea lion, U.S.
................ Northern elephant seal, CA breeding.
Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA-Mexico.
Minke whale, CA/OR/WA.
Striped dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
Killer whale, CA/OR/WA Pacific coast.
Northern fur seal, San Miguel Island.
CA yellowtail, barracuda, 24 None documented.
white seabass, and tuna
drift gillnet fishery(mesh
size > 3.5 inches and < 14
inches).
WA Puget Sound Region salmon 210 Harbor porpoise, inland WA.
drift gilnet (includes all Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA.
inland waters south of US- Harbor seal, WA inland.
Canada border and eastward
of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line-
Treaty Indian fishing is
excluded).
Purse Seine Fisheries:
AK Southeast salmon purse 416 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific.
seine.
CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna 150 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore.
purse seine. California sea lion, U.S.
Harbor seal, CA.
CA squid purse seine........ 65 Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA.
Trawl Fisheries:
AK miscellaneous finfish 2 None documented.
pair trawl.
Longline/Set Line Fisheries:
CA pelagic longline......... 30 California sea lion.
OR swordfish floating 1 None documented.
longline.
OR blue shark floating 1 None documented.
longline..
-------------------------------
Category III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet Fisheries:
AK Cook Inlet salmon set 745 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
gillnet. Harbor seal, GOA.
Harbor porpoise, GOA.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
................ Beluga whale, Cook Inlet.
AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton 1,922 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea.
Sound, Kotzebue salmon
gillnet.
AK miscellaneous finfish set 3 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
gillnet.
AK Prince William Sound 30 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. Harbor seal, GOA.
salmon set gillnet.
AK roe herring and food/bait 2,034 None documented.
herring gillnet.
CA set and drift gillnet 341 None documented.
fisheries that use a
stretched mesh size of 3.5
in or less.
Hawaii gillnet.............. 115 Bottlenose dolphin, HI.
Spinner dolphin, HI.
WA Grays Harbor salmon drift 24 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
gillnet (excluding treaty
Tribal fishing).
WA, OR herring, smelt, shad, 913 None documented.
sturgeon, bottom fish,
mullet, perch, rockfish
gillnet.
WA, OR lower Columbia River 110 California sea lion, U.S.
(includes tributaries) Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
drift gillnet.
WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet 82 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
Northern elephant seal, CA breeding.
Purse Seine, Beach Seine,
Round Haul and Throw Net
Fisheries:
AK Metlakatla salmon purse 10 None documented.
seine.
AK miscellaneous finfish 1 None documented.
beach seine.
AK miscellaneous finfish 3 None documented.
purse seine.
AK octopus/squid purse seine 2 None documented.
AK roe herring and food/bait 8 None documented.
herring beach seine.
AK roe herring and food/bait 624 None documented.
herring purse seine.
AK salmon beach seine....... 34 None documented.
AK salmon purse seine 953 Harbor seal, GOA.
(except Southeast Alaska,
which is in Category II).
[[Page 48418]]
CA herring purse seine...... 100 California sea lion, U.S.
Harbor seal, CA.
CA sardine purse............ 120 None documented.
HI opelu/akule net.......... 16 None documented.
HI purse seine.............. 18 None documented.
HI throw net, cast net...... 47 None documented.
WA (all species) beach seine 235 None documented.
or drag seine.
WA, OR herring, smelt, squid 130 None documented.
purse seine or lampara.
WA salmon purse seine....... 440 None documented.
WA salmon reef net.......... 53 None documented.
Dip Net Fisheries:
CA squid dip net............ 115 None documented.
WA, OR smelt, herring dip 119 None documented.
net.
Marine Aquaculture Fisheries:
CA salmon enhancement >1 None documented.
rearing pen.
OR salmon ranch............. 1 None documented.
WA, OR salmon net pens...... 14 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, WA inland waters.
Troll Fisheries:
AK North Pacific halibut, AK 1,530 None documented.
bottom fish, WA, OR, CA (330 AK)
albacore, groundfish,
bottom fish, CA halibut non-
salmonid troll fisheries.
AK salmon troll............. 2,335 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.
American Samoa tuna troll... <50 None documented.
CA/OR/WA salmon troll....... 4,300 None documented.
Commonwealth of the Northern 50 None documented.
Mariana Islands tuna troll.
Guam tuna troll............. 50 None documented.
HI net unclassified......... 106 None documented.
HI trolling, rod and reel... 1,795 None documented.
Longline/Set Line Fisheries:
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 36 Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific resident.
Islands Greenland turbot Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific transient.
longline.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 114 None documented.
Islands cod longline.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 17 None documented.
Islands rockfish longline.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 63 None documented.
Islands sablefish longline.
AK Gulf of Alaska halibut 1,302 None documented.
longline.
AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific 440 None documented.
cod longline.
AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish 421 None documented.
longline.
AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish 412 None documented.
longline.
AK halibut longline/set line 3,079 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
(State and Federal waters).
AK octopus/squid longline... 7 None documented.
AK state-managed waters 731 None documented.
groundfish longline/set
line(including sablefish,
rockfish, and miscellaneous
finfish).
WA, OR, CA groundfish, 367 None documented.
bottomfish longline/set
line.
WA, OR North Pacific halibut 350 None documented.
longline/set line.
Trawl Fisheries:
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 8 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
Islands Atka mackerel trawl.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 26 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
Islands flatfish trawl. Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific resident.
Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific transient.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 87 None documented.
Islands Pacific cod trawl.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 120 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
Islands pollock trawl. Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific resident.
Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific transient.
................ Humpback whale, Central North Pacific.
Humpback whale, Western North Pacific.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 9 None documented.
Islands rockfish trawl.
AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish 52 None documented.
trawl.
AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific 101 None documented.
cod trawl.
AK Gulf of Alaska pollock 83 None documented.
trawl.
AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish 45 None documented.
trawl.
AK food/bait herring trawl.. 3 None documented.
AK miscellaneous finfish 6 None documented.
otter or beam trawl.
AK shrimp otter trawl and 58 None documented.
beam trawl (statewide and
Cook Inlet).
AK state-managed waters of 2 None documented.
Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay,
Prince William Sound,
Southeast AK groundfish
trawl.
WA, OR, CA groundfish trawl. 585 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.
Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific.
Pacific white-sided dolphin, Central North Pacific.
Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA.
[[Page 48419]]
................ California sea lion, U.S.
Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
WA, OR, CA shrimp trawl..... 300 None documented.
Pot, Ring Net, and Trap
Fisheries:
AK Aleutian Islands 8 None documented.
sablefish pot.
AK Bering Sea sablefish pot. 6 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific.
Humpback whale, Western North Pacific.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 76 None documented.
Islands Pacific cod pot.
AK Bering Sea, Aleutian 329 None documented.
Islands crab pot.
AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot.. \(1)\ None documented.
AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific 154 None documented.
cod pot.
AK Southeast Alaska crab pot \(1)\ None documented.
AK Southeast Alaska shrimp \(1)\ None documented.
pot.
AK octopus/squid pot........ 72 None documented.
AK snail pot................ 2 None documented.
CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, 608 Sea otter, CA.
rock crab, fish pot.
OR, CA hagfish pot or trap.. 25 None documented.
WA, OR, CA crab pot......... 1,478 None documented.
WA, OR, CA sablefish pot.... 176 None documented.
WA, OR shrimp pot & trap.... 254 None documented.
HI crab trap................ 22 None documented.
HI fish trap................ 19 None documented.
HI lobster trap............. 15 Hawaiian monk seal.
HI shrimp trap.............. 5 None documented.
Handline and Jig Fisheries:
AK miscellaneous finfish 100 None documented.
handline and mechanical jig.
AK North Pacific halibut 93 None documented.
handline and mechanical jig.
AK octopus/squid handline... 2 None documented.
American Samoa bottomfish... <50 None documented.
Commonwealth of the Northern <50 None documented.
Mariana Islands bottomfish.
Guam bottomfish............. <50 None documented.
HI aku boat, pole and line.. 54 None documented.
HI deep sea bottomfish...... 434 Hawaiian monk seal.
HI inshore handline......... 650 Bottlenose dolphin, HI.
HI tuna..................... 144 Rough-toothed dolphin, HI.
Bottlenose dolphin, HI.
Hawaiian monk seal.
WA groundfish, bottomfish 679 None documented.
jig.
Harpoon Fisheries:
CA swordfish harpoon........ 228 None documented.
Pound Net/Weir Fisheries:
AK herring spawn on kelp 452 None documented.
pound net.
AK Southeast herring roe/ 3 None documented.
food/bait pound net.
WA herring brush weir....... 1 None documented.
Bait Pens:
WA/OR/CA bait pens.......... 13 None documented.
Dredge Fisheries:
Coastwide scallop dredge.... 108 None documented.
(12 AK)
Dive, Hand/Mechanical
Collection Fisheries:
AK abalone.................. 1 None documented.
AK clam..................... 156 None documented.
WA herring spawn on kelp.... 4 None documented.
AK dungeness crab........... 3 None documented.
AK herring spawn on kelp.... 363 None documented.
AK urchin and other fish/ 471 None documented.
shellfish.
CA abalone.................. 111 None documented.
CA sea urchin............... 583 None documented.
HI coral diving............. 2 None documented.
HI fish pond................ 10 None documented.
HI handpick................. 135 None documented.
HI lobster diving........... 6 None documented.
HI squiding, spear.......... 267 None documented.
WA, CA kelp................. 4 None documented.
WA/OR sea urchin, other 637 None documented.
clam, octopus, oyster, sea
cucumber, scallop, ghost
shrimp hand, dive, or
mechanical collection.
WA shellfish aquaculture.... 684 None documented.
Commercial Passenger Fishing
Vessel (Charter Boat)
Fisheries:
AK, WA, OR, CA commercial >7,000 None documented.
passenger fishing vessel. (1,107 AK)
[[Page 48420]]
HI ``other''................ 114 None documented.
Live Finfish/Shellfish
Fisheries:
CA finfish and shellfish 93 None documented.
live trap/hook-and-line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Abbreviations used in Table 1: AK--Alaska; CA--California; GOA--Gulf of Alaska; HI--Hawaii; OR--Oregon;
WA--Washington.
Table 2.--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Fishery description number of Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured
vessels/persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet Fisheries:
Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet >655 Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine.
Minke whale, Canadian east coast.
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore.
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
................ Harbor seal, WNA.
Harp seal, WNA.
Long-finned pilot whale, WNA.
Short-finned pilot whale, WNA.
White-sided dolphin, WNA.
................ Common dolphin, WNA.
Northeast sink gillnet...... 341 North Atlantic right whale, WNA.
Humpback whale, WNA.
Minke whale, Canadian east coast.
Killer whale, WNA.
White-sided dolphin, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore.
................ Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
Harbor seal, WNA.
Gray seal, WNA.
Common dolphin, WNA.
Fin whale, WNA.
Spotted dolphin, WNA.
................ False killer whale, WNA.
Harp seal, WNA.
Longline Fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, <200 Humpback whale, WNA.
Gulf of Mexico large Minke whale, Canadian east coast.
pelagics longline. Risso's dolphin, WNA.
Long-finned pilot whale, WNA.
Short-finned pilot whale, WNA.
Common dolphin, WNA.
Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA.
................ Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA.
Striped dolphin, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore.
Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Outer Continental Shelf.
Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Continental Shelf Edge and Slope.
................ Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX.
Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX.
Risso's dolphin, Northern GMX.
Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
Pygmy sperm whale, WNA.
Trap/Pot Fisheries:
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic 13,000 North Atlantic right whale, WNA.
American lobster trap/pot. Humpback whale, WNA.
Fin whale, WNA.
Minke whale, Canadian east coast.
Harbor seal, WNA.
[[Page 48421]]
Trawl Fisheries:
Atlantic squid, mackerel, 620 Common dolphin, WNA.
butterfish trawl. Risso's dolphin, WNA.
Long-finned pilot whale, WNA.
Short-finned pilot whale, WNA.
White-sided dolphin, WNA.
-------------------------------
Category II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet Fisheries:
Gulf of Mexico gillnet...... 724 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, and Estuarine.
North Carolina inshore 94 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
gillnet.
Northeast anchored float 133 Humpback whale, WNA.
gillnet. White-sided dolphin, WNA.
Harbor seal, WNA.
Northeast drift gillnet..... \(1)\ None documented.
Southeast Atlantic gillnet.. 779 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic 6 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
shark gillnet. North Atlantic right whale, WNA.
Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA.
Trawl Fisheries:
Atlantic herring midwater 17 Harbor seal, WNA.
trawl (including pair
trawl).
Trap/Pot Fisheries:
Atlantic blue crab trap/pot. >16,000 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
West Indian manatee, FL.
Atlantic mixed species trap/ \(1)\ Fin whale, WNA.
pot. Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine.
Minke whale, Canadian east coast.
Harbor porpoise, GM/BF.
Purse Seine Fisheries:
Gulf of Mexico menhaden 50 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal.
purse seine. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal.
Haul/Beach Seine Fisheries:
Mid-Atlantic haul/beach 25 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
seine. Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
North Carolina long haul 33 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
seine.
Stop Net Fisheries:
North Carolina roe mullet 13 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
stop net.
Pound Net Fisheries:
Virginia pound net.......... 187 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
-------------------------------
Category III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet Fisheries:
Caribbean gillnet........... >991 Dwarf sperm whale, WNA.
West Indian manatee, Antillean.
Chesapeake Bay inshore 45 Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
gillnet.
Delaware Bay inshore gillnet 60 Humpback whale, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
Long Island Sound inshore 20 Humpback whale, WNA.
gillnet. Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
Rhode Island, southern 32 Humpback whale, WNA.
Massachusetts (to Monomoy Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
Island), and New York Bight Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
(Raritan and Lower New York
Bays) inshore gillnet.
Trawl Fisheries:
Calico scallops trawl....... 12 None documented.
Crab trawl.................. 400 None documented.
Georgia, South Carolina, 25 None documented.
Maryland whelk trawl.
Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic 215 None documented.
sea scallop trawl.
Gulf of Maine northern 320 None documented.
shrimp trawl.
Gulf of Mexico butterfish 2 Atlantic spotted dolphin, Eastern GMX.
trawl. Pantropical spotted dolphin, Eastern GMX.
Gulf of Mexico mixed species 20 None documented.
trawl.
[[Page 48422]]
Mid-Atlantic mixed species >1,000 None documented.
trawl.
North Atlantic bottom trawl. 1,052 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA.
Short-finned pilot whale, WNA.
Common dolphin, WNA.
White-sided dolphin, WNA.
................ Striped dolphin, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, >18,000 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA.
Gulf of Mexico coastal
shrimp trawl.
U.S. Atlantic monkfish trawl \(1)\ Common dolphin, WNA.
Marine Aquaculture Fisheries:
Finfish aquaculture......... 48 Harbor seal, WNA.
Shellfish aquaculture....... \(1)\ None documented.
Purse Seine Fisheries:
Gulf of Maine Atlantic 30 Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
herring purse seine. Harbor seal, WNA.
Gray seal, WNA.
Gulf of Maine menhaden purse 50 None documented.
seine.
Florida west coast sardine 10 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal.
purse seine.
Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse 22 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal.
seine. Humpback whale, WNA.
U.S. Atlantic tuna purse 5 None documented.
seine.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic hand seine >250 None documented.
Longline/Hook-and-Line
Fisheries:
Gulf of Maine tub trawl 46 Harbor seal, WNA.
groundfish bottom longline/ Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic.
hook-and-line. Humpback whale, WNA.
Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid- 26,223 Humpback whale, WNA.
Atlantic tuna, shark
swordfish hook-and-line/
harpoon.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, >5,000 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean snapper-grouper
and other reef fish bottom
longline/hook-and-line.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, <125 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico shark bottom
longline/hook-and-line.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 1,446 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean pelagic hook-and-
line/harpoon.
Trap/Pot Fisheries
Caribbean mixed species trap/ >501 None documented.
pot.
Caribbean spiny lobster trap/ >197 None documented.
pot.
Florida spiny lobster trap/ 2,145 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal.
pot.
Gulf of Mexico blue crab 4,113 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal.
trap/pot. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, & Estuarine.
West Indian manatee, FL.
Gulf of Mexico mixed species \(1)\ None documented.
trap/pot.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 10 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico golden crab
trap/pot.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 4,453 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico stone crab
trap/pot.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/ >700 None documented.
pot.
Stop Seine/Weir/Pound Net
Fisheries:
Gulf of Maine herring and 50 North Atlantic right whale, WNA.
Atlantic mackerel stop Humpback whale, WNA.
seine/weir. Minke whale, Canadian east coast.
Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.
................ Harbor seal, WNA.
Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic crab stop 2,600 None documented.
seine/weir.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic mixed 751 None documented.
species stop seine/weir/
pound net (except the North
Carolina roe mullet stop
net).
Dredge Fisheries:
Gulf of Maine mussel........ >50 None documented.
Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid- 233 None documented.
Atlantic sea scallop dredge.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of 7,000 None documented.
Mexico oyster.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic offshore 100 None documented.
surf clam and quahog dredge.
Haul/Beach Seine Fisheries:
Caribbean haul/beach seine.. 15 West Indian manatee, Antillean.
Gulf of Mexico haul/beach \(1)\ None documented.
seine.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 25 None documented.
haul/beach seine.
Dive, Hand/Mechanical
Collection Fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 20,000 None documented.
Mexico, Caribbean shellfish
dive, hand/mechanical
collection.
[[Page 48423]]
Gulf of Maine urchin dive, >50 None documented.
hand/mechanical collection.
Gulf of Mexico, Southeast \(1)\ None documented.
Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and
Caribbean cast net.
Commercial Passenger Fishing
Vessel (Charter Boat)
Fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 4,000 None documented.
Mexico, Caribbean
commercial passenger
fishing vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Abbreviations Used in Table 2: FL--Florida; GA--Georgia; GME/BF--Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; GMX--Gulf
of Mexico; NC--North Carolina; SC--South Carolina; TX--Texas; WNA--Western North Atlantic.
\1\Unknown.
Classification
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for
the certification appears elsewhere in the preamble to this rule and is
not repeated here. As a result, no regulatory flexibility analysis was
prepared. One comment was received regarding compliance with the RFA
(Comment 23) and is responded to above. That comment did not cause a
change in the certification previously made.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information
for the registration of fishers under the MMPA has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0648-
0293 (0.25 hours per report for new registrants and 0.15 hours per
report for renewals). The requirement for reporting marine mammal
injuries or moralities has been approved by OMB under OMB control
number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Send comments regarding these reporting
burden estimates or any other aspect of the collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS and OMB (see
ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for regulations to implement section
118 of the MMPA (1995 EA). The 1995 EA concluded that implementation of
those regulations would not have a significant impact on the human
environment. This final rule would not make any significant change in
the management of reclassified fisheries, and therefore, this final
rule is not expected to change the analysis or conclusion of the 1995
EA. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the
development of a Take Reduction Plan (TRP), NMFS will first prepare an
environmental document as required under NEPA specific to that action.
This final rule will not affect species listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their associated
critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed
in various biological opinions, and this final rule will not affect the
conclusions of those opinions. The classification of fisheries on the
LOF is not considered to be a management action that would adversely
affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management
action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would
conduct consultation under section 7 of the ESA for that action.
This final rule will have no adverse impacts on marine mammals and
may have a positive impact on marine mammals by improving knowledge of
marine mammals and the fisheries interacting with marine mammals
through information collected from observer programs or take reduction
teams.
This final rule will not affect the land or water uses or natural
resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
Dated: August 5, 2004.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-18252 Filed 8-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P