[Federal Register: January 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 8)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1930-1951]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ja04-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 030130026-3323-02; I.D. 121202B]
RIN 0648-AM30
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Halibut
Fisheries in U.S. Convention Waters Off Alaska; Management Measures to
Reduce Seabird Incidental Take in the Hook-and-Line Halibut and
Groundfish Fisheries
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to revise regulations requiring
seabird avoidance measures in the hook-and-line groundfish fisheries of
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) and Gulf of
Alaska (GOA) and in the Pacific halibut fishery in U.S. Convention
waters off Alaska. This action is intended to improve the current
requirements and further mitigate interactions with the short-tailed
albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), an endangered species protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and with other seabird species in
hook-and-line fisheries in and off Alaska, and thus further the goals
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
[[Page 1931]]
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA), and the ESA.
DATES: Effective February 12, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact
Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for
this action maybe be obtained from the Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box
21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Durall, or by calling (907)
586-7228. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirement contained in this
rule may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska Region, and by email to David--
Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202)395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim S. Rivera, (907) 586-7424, or
Kim.Rivera@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the GOA and
the BSAI in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are managed by NMFS under
the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and
the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMPs). The FMPs were prepared by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and are
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that
also pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
The Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., authorizes the Council to
develop, and NMFS to implement, halibut fishery regulations that are in
addition to, and not in conflict with, regulations adopted by the
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC).
This action is intended to reduce the incidental take of seabirds
in hook-and-line fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act emphasizes the
importance of reducing bycatch to maintain sustainable fisheries.
Although seabirds are not included within the Magnuson-Stevens Act's
``bycatch'' definition, efforts to reduce the incidental take of
seabirds in fisheries are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's
objective to conserve and manage the marine environment. In addition,
the NMFS' guidelines for implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act's
national standards for fishery conservation and management note that
other applicable laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
ESA, and the MBTA, require that Councils consider the impact of
conservation and management measures on living marine resources other
than fish; i.e. marine mammals and birds. Additionally, reducing the
take of migratory birds is addressed in NMFS' National Bycatch Strategy
(available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ bycatch--images/
FINALstrategy.pdf). The 1998 NMFS' report ``Managing the Nation's
Bycatch'' and the NMFS' National Bycatch Strategy use a working
definition of ``bycatch'' that is more expansive than the definition in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and includes the incidental take of seabirds
as ``bycatch.'' That more expansive definition is used in this
preamble.
Background
Awareness of seabird incidental take and incidental mortality in
commercial fishing operations off Alaska has been heightened in recent
years. Further information on this issue was provided in the preambles
to the proposed and final rules implementing seabird avoidance measures
in the GOA and BSAI hook-and-line groundfish fisheries (62 FR 10016,
March 5, 1997, and 62 FR 23176, April 29, 1997) and in the Pacific
halibut fishery off Alaska (62 FR 65635, December 15, 1997, and 63 FR
11161, March 6, 1998) and the EA/RIR/FRFAs prepared for those actions.
Additional background information is available in the final report
prepared and submitted to the Council and NMFS by the Washington Sea
Grant Program (WSGP), Solutions to Seabird Bycatch in Alaska's Demersal
Longline Fisheries (available at http://www.wsg.washington.edu/ pubs/
seabirds/ seabirdpaper.html). NMFS published the proposed rule for this
action in the Federal Register on February 7, 2003 (68 FR 6386), which
described the proposed regulatory amendment and invited comments from
the public. NMFS received 11 letters containing 50 different comments
on the proposed rule, which are summarized and responded to in the
section Response to Public Comments of this document.
Incidental Seabird Mortality off Alaska
The NMFS North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program office has
documented incidental take of seabird species in the GOA and BSAI
groundfish fisheries since 1989. Since 2000, the seabird bycatch
estimates have been incorporated into the seabird section of the
Ecosystem Considerations chapter of the Council's annual Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation reports for the GOA and BSAI
groundfish fisheries (SAFE). Estimates of the annual seabird incidental
take for the Alaska groundfish fisheries, based on 1993 to 1999
observer data, were provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the
proposed rule. Approximately 15,700 seabirds were killed (taken)
annually in the combined BSAI and GOA groundfish hook-and-line
fisheries (14,500 in the BSAI and 1,200 in the GOA) at the average
rates of 0.10 and 0.03 birds per 1,000 hooks in the BSAI and in the
GOA, respectively. Approximately 60 percent of the 15,700 seabirds
taken are northern fulmars (Fulmaris glacialis), the most abundant
seabird species off Alaska. Based on 2000 to 2002 observer data, the
average annual estimate of seabirds taken in the combined BSAI and GOA
groundfish hook-and-line fisheries was 11,180 (10,672 in the BSAI and
507 in the GOA) at the average rates of 0.05 and 0.014 birds per 1,000
hooks in the BSAI and in the GOA, respectively. Since 2000 in the BSAI,
the average annual estimate of the total number of seabirds caught has
declined from about 18,000 birds to less than 4,000 in 2002
(corresponding bycatch rates declining from 0.09 birds/1,000 hooks to
0.018). Since 2000 in the GOA, the average annual estimate of the total
number of seabirds caught has declined from about 750 birds to less
than 300 in 2002 (corresponding bycatch rates declining from 0.02
birds/1,000 hooks to 0.007). With one exception, northern fulmars
continue to comprise the vast majority of birds taken. The exception is
that in 2002 in the BSAI, gull species comprised over 60 percent of the
estimated seabird bycatch. Northern fulmars accounted for the 2nd
largest species category that year, 18 percent of the total seabird
bycatch.
The annual seabird bycatch estimates based on observer data from
1993 through 2002 exhibit extreme inter-annual variation, as did the
take numbers and bird attack rates on baits in the WSGP study. The
bycatch rate in 2002 may have decreased because fishermen are becoming
more diligent and skilled using seabird avoidance measures, outreach
efforts are successful, or the 1999-2000 WSGP research program's
collaborative industry approach may have acted to change fishermen's
behavior and improve the effective deployment of seabird avoidance
measures. Many other factors, both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic,
may affect seabird hooking and entanglement in longline gear. These
factors may include geographic location of fishing activity; time of
day; season; type of fishing operation and gear used; bait type;
condition of the bait; length of time
[[Page 1932]]
baited hooks remain at or near the surface of the water; water and
weather conditions; availability of food (including bait and offal);
bird size; bird behavior (feeding and foraging strategies); bird
abundance and distribution; physical condition of the bird, and the
quality and correct deployment of seabird avoidance gear.
Council's Final Action
For a more detailed description of the Council's final action,
based in part on WSGP research results and recommendations, see the
preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 6386, February 7, 2003).
Summary of the Revised Final Seabird Avoidance Measures
For more detailed descriptions of the seabird avoidance
requirements, see the preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 6386,
February 7, 2003). Seabird avoidance measures apply to the operators of
vessels using hook-and-line gear for (1) Pacific halibut in the
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and Community Development Quota (CDQ)
management programs (0 to 200 nautical miles (nm)), (2) IFQ sablefish
in EEZ waters (3 to 200 nm) and waters of the State of Alaska (0 to 3
nm), except waters of Prince William Sound and areas in which sablefish
fishing is managed under a State of Alaska limited entry program
(Clarence Strait, Chatham Strait), and (3) groundfish (except IFQ
sablefish) with hook-and-line gear in the U.S. EEZ waters off Alaska (3
to 200 nm).
Operators of all applicable vessels using hook-and-line gear are
required to comply with the following bird line requirements (see Table
20):
For Applicable Vessels, Using Hook-and-Line Gear Including Snap
Gear, Operating in Inside Waters (NMFS Area 649, NMFS Area 659, and
State Waters of Cook Inlet): (1) a minimum of 1 buoy bag line of a
specified performance standard is required of vessels greater than 26
ft (7.9 m) length overall (LOA) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8
m) LOA that are without masts, poles, or rigging, (2) a minimum of one
buoy bag line of a specified performance standard is required of
vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 32 ft
(9.8 m) LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging, (3) a minimum of one
streamer line of a specified performance standard is required of
vessels greater than 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft
(16.8 m) LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging, and (4) a minimum of
one streamer line of a specified performance standard is required of
vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
For Applicable Vessels, Using Other than Snap Gear, and Operating
in the EEZ (not including NMFS Area 659): (1) a minimum of one buoy bag
line of a specified performance standard and one other specified device
is required of vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or
equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA that are without masts, poles, or rigging,
(2) a minimum of one streamer line of a specified performance standard
and one other specified device is required of vessels greater than 26
ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and with
masts, poles, or rigging, and (3) except for vessels using snap gear, a
minimum of paired streamer lines of a specified performance standard is
required of vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
For Operators of Vessels, Using Hook-and-line Gear Other than Snap
Gear, Fishing for IFQ Halibut, CDQ Halibut, or IFQ Halibut in Waters
Shoreward of the EEZ (except for IPHC Area 4E, see below): the same
requirements included in the preceding paragraph apply.
For Applicable Vessels Using Snap Gear and Operating in the EEZ
(not including NMFS Area 659): (1) a minimum of one buoy bag line of a
specified performance standard and one other specified device is
required of vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or
equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and that are without masts, poles, or
rigging, (2) a minimum of one streamer line of a specified performance
standard and one other specified device is required of vessels greater
than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and
with masts, poles, or rigging, and (3) a minimum of one streamer line
of a specified performance standard is required of vessels greater than
or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging.
Other seabird avoidance devices and methods include weights added
to groundline, a buoy bag line or streamer line of specified
performance standards, and strategic offal discharge to distract birds
away from the setting of baited hooks, that is, discharge fish, fish
parts (i.e. offal) or spent bait to distract seabirds away from the
main groundline while setting gear.
Gear Performance and Material Standards
To enhance the effectiveness and improve the enforcement of seabird
avoidance measures, this rule specifies the gear performance and
material standards for larger vessels (vessels greater than or equal to
55 ft (16.8 m) LOA). Voluntary guidelines for gear performance and
material standards for smaller vessels (vessels greater than or equal
to 26 ft (7.9m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA) were provided in the
preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 6386, February 7, 2003). The only
standard applied to seabird avoidance gear for smaller vessels in this
rule is discussed in Weather Safety Factor.
Standards for Larger (Greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA) Vessels
Paired Streamer Standard Larger vessels must deploy a minimum of
two streamer lines while setting hook-and-line gear. Preferably, both
streamer lines are deployed prior to the first hook being set. At least
one streamer line must be deployed before the first hook is set and
both streamers must be fully deployed within 90 seconds. Further,
streamer lines must be deployed in such a way that streamers are in the
air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern for vessels under
100 ft (30.5 m) and 196.9 ft (60 m) aft of the stern for vessels 100 ft
(30.5 m) or over. For vessels deploying gear from the stern, the
streamer lines must be deployed from the stern, one on each side of the
main groundline. For vessels deploying gear from the side, the streamer
lines must be deployed from the stern, one over the main groundline and
the other on one side of the main groundline.
Materials Standard The following minimum streamer line
specifications must be met: (1) length of 300 feet (91.4 m), (2)
spacing of streamers every 16.4 ft (5 m), and (3) streamer material
that is brightly colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or 3/8 inch
polyester line or material of an equivalent density. An individual
streamer must hang attached to the mainline to 0.25 m above the
waterline in the absence of wind.
Snap Gear Streamer Standard For vessels using snap gear, a single
streamer line [147.6 ft (45 m) length] must be deployed in such a way
that streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and
within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline
enters the water.
Single Streamer Standard A single streamer line must be deployed in
such a way that streamers are in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40
m) aft of the stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point
where the main groundline enters the water.
Materials Standard The single streamer line materials standard is
the same as the materials standard for paired streamer lines.
Offal Requirements The offal discharge regulation is amended to
require that prior to offal discharge,
[[Page 1933]]
embedded hooks are removed from offal.
Weather Safety Factor In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or
Beaufort 9 conditions), the deployment of streamer lines (either single
or paired) or buoy bag lines is discretionary. For vessel operators
required to use paired streamer lines, in winds exceeding 30 knots, but
less then or equal to 45 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions), a
single streamer must instead be deployed from the windward side of the
vessel.
Exemption for Vessels 32 ft (9.8m) LOA or Less in State Waters of IPHC
Area 4E
Operators of vessels less than 32 ft (9.8m) LOA using hook-and-line
gear and fishing in state waters of IPHC Area 4E are exempt from using
seabird avoidance measures.
Seabird Reporting Requirements
Regulations at Sec. 679.5(a)(7)(ix)(C)(3) currently require
operators of catcher vessels or catcher/processor vessels using
longline gear to report the bird avoidance gear deployed using gear
codes at Table 19 to part 679. Because this rule revises the required
seabird avoidance measures, the seabird avoidance codes at Table 19 to
part 679 are revised to reflect these changes.
Seabird Avoidance Plan
A Seabird Avoidance Plan that is written and onboard the vessel
must contain the following information: (1) Vessel name, (2) master's
name, (3) type of bird avoidance measures utilized, (4) positions and
responsibilities of crew for deploying, adjusting, and monitoring
performance of deployed gear, (5) instructions and/or diagrams
outlining the sequence of actions required to deploy and retrieve the
gear to meet specified performance standards, and (5) procedures for
strategic discharge of offal, if any. The Seabird Avoidance Plan is
prepared and signed by the vessel operator. The vessel operator's
signature indicates the operator has read the plan, reviewed it with
the vessel crew, made it available to the crew, and instructed vessel
crew to read it. The Seabird Avoidance Plan must be made available for
inspection upon request by an authorized officer (USCG boarding
officer, NMFS Enforcement Officer or other designated official) or an
observer.
Seabird Data Collection by Observers
Operators of observed vessels are required to collect seabirds from
the observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear or as
requested by an observer during non-sampled portions of hauls.
Applicability of Seabird Avoidance Regulations While Fishing for CDQ
Halibut
Paragraphs Sec. 679.32(f)(2)(v) and Sec. 679.42(b)(2) require the
use of seabird avoidance measures on all vessels of a specified length
that are fishing in U.S. Convention waters off Alaska for Pacific
halibut, whether the vessels are engaged in IFQ fisheries or CDQ
fisheries.
Definitions at Sec. 679.2
Definitions are added at Sec. 679.2 for two previously undefined
terms: ``snap gear'' (as a type of ``authorized fishing gear'') and
``seabird.
Redesignation of Paragraphs at Sec. 679.24(e)
Seabird avoidance requirements currently in Sec. 679.24 (e)(2)(i),
(ii), and (iii) are redesignated as paragraphs (e)(2)(iv),
(e)(2)(v)(A), and (e)(2)(vi), respectively.
Changes to the Seabird Avoidance Measures from the Proposed Rule
The notice of proposed rulemaking specified seabird avoidance
requirements for operators of vessels fishing with hook-and-line gear
in NMFS Reporting Areas 649, 659, or state waters of Cook Inlet and
while fishing in the EEZ [see 68 FR 6394, columns 1 and 2 and Table 20
at 6398 (February 7, 2003)]. A comment received during the public
comment period (see Comment 1) noted that it was not clear if the
proposed regulations applied to vessels fishing in State waters. The
commenter recalled that the Council's action specified that these
vessels fishing in State waters for species other than halibut would be
subject to regulations adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries
(Board). The commenter is correct and the final rule is clarified to
indicate that the requirements for operators of vessels fishing in the
EEZ also apply to vessel operators fishing for IFQ halibut, CDQ
halibut, and IFQ sablefish in waters shoreward of the EEZ. NMFS
regulates IFQ and CDQ fishermen participating in each of these three
fisheries in State waters (0-3 nm), including implementation of seabird
avoidance requirements. These clarifications are made with a new
paragraph at Sec. 679.24(e)(4)(iv), minor revisions at Sec.
679.24(e)(4)(ii) and (iii), revision of the title legend of Table 20,
and the corresponding text changes to Table 20. Companion
clarifications are also made for the requirements in IPHC Area 4E.
The notice of proposed rulemaking specified seabird avoidance
requirements for operators of vessels fishing with hook-and-line gear,
other than snap gear, in NMFS Reporting Areas 649 and 659, or state
waters of Cook Inlet and for operators of vessels that use snap gear
[see 68 FR 6394, columns 1 and 2 and Table 20 at 6398 (February 7,
2003)]. A comment received during the public comment period (see
Comment 2) noted that it was not clear whether the proposed regulation
for vessels with snap gear and the corresponding language in Table 20
apply to vessels when fishing only in the EEZ or when fishing in any
area, including inside state waters (NMFS Areas 649 and 659). The
commenter noted that the Council's final action was that the
requirements for inside waters apply to all hook-and-line gear types
(i.e. including snap gear) and that the specific requirements for
vessels using snap gear apply only when fishing in the EEZ. The
commenter is correct. The Council's final action on seabird avoidance
measures was that the requirements for inside waters would apply also
to vessels using snap gear. The specific snap gear requirements were
not intended to apply to vessels fishing in the inside waters. Changes
from the proposed regulation at Sec. 679.24(e)(4)(i) and (iii) and in
Table 20 are made in the final rule. Companion clarifications are also
made for the requirements in IPHC Area 4E.
The notice of proposed rulemaking revised the bird avoidance codes
in Table 19 to correspond to the proposed changes in seabird avoidance
measures. See 68 FR 6396 and 6397, February 7, 2003. A comment
addressed under Comment 13 noted that the regulations should more
clearly specify that more than one device, and therefore more than one
code, can be used at the same time. The commenter is correct that more
than one device can be used at a time; therefore NMFS makes this
clarification in the recordkeeping and reporting requirements at Sec.
679.5(c)(1)(xvii).
The notice of proposed rulemaking specified that operators of
vessels required to carry one or more observers must provide assistance
that would include collecting all seabirds that are incidentally taken
on the observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear or
as requested by an observer during non-sampled portions of hauls. See
68 FR 6395, February 7, 2003. When the notice of proposed rulemaking
was drafted in 2002, the regulatory responsibilities for vessels
carrying observers were codified at Sec. 679.50(f)(1). A final rule
was published on December 6, 2002, 67 FR 75295, that extended the
effective date of the existing regulations for the interim North
Pacific Groundfish
[[Page 1934]]
Observer Program (Observer Program) and also amended regulations
governing the Observer Program. The amended regulations included a
redesignation of paragraph Sec. 679.50 (f) to paragraph Sec.
679.50(g). This final rule reflects the correct designation for the
paragraph in Sec. 679.50 on vessel responsibilities. The new paragraph
(1)(viii)(F) of this section, which will require operators of vessels
to provide assistance to observers in the form of collecting all
seabirds that are incidentally taken on the observer-sampled portions
of hauls using hook-and-line gear or as requested by an observer during
non-sampled portions of hauls, will now be codified in paragraph (g) of
this section.
The notice of proposed rulemaking specified that seabird avoidance
measures would be required on all vessels of a specified length that
are fishing in U.S. Convention waters off Alaska for Pacific halibut,
whether the vessels are engaged in IFQ fisheries or CDQ fisheries. The
proposed regulation for the halibut CDQ fisheries was designated at
Sec. 679.32 (f)(2)(vi). See 68 FR 6395, February 7, 2003. When the
notice of proposed rulemaking was drafted in 2002, the regulatory
responsibilities for halibut CDQ vessel operations were codified at
Sec. 679.32(f). A final rule was published on July 29, 2003, 68 FR
44473, that revised extensively certain requirements for the IFQ and
CDQ programs for the Pacific halibut fishery and also amended
regulations governing these programs. The amended regulations included
redesignations of some of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph Sec. 679.32
(f)(2) to Sec. 679.4(e). This seabird final rule reflects the correct
designation for the paragraph in Sec. 679.32(f) on halibut CDQ. A new
paragraph (5) will be added to this section, and will require the CDQ
group, and vessel owner or operator to comply with all of the seabird
avoidance requirements at Sec. 679.42(b)(2).
Response to Public Comments
NMFS received 11 letters containing 50 different comments on the
proposed seabird avoidance measures. The summarized comments and
responses to them follow:
Comment 1: In general, the proposed rule reflects the intent of the
Council's final action. However, clarification is needed to the
proposed regulation specifying use of seabird avoidance measures in
State waters. The proposed regulatory language at Part 679.24(e)(4)(i)
and text in Table 20 implies that vessels fishing in State waters for
species other than halibut are subject to the federal regulations, in
essence pre-empting State regulations. The Council's action specified
that these vessels would be subject to regulations adopted by the
Alaska Board of Fisheries (Board). For example, if an operator were
fishing hook-and-line gear for Pacific cod in NMFS Area 649 (Prince
William Sound), an exact reading of the proposed rule would lead him/
her to believe that compliance with the federal regulations is required
even if federal regulations conflicted with regulations adopted by the
Board.
Response: The final rule will clarify the applicability of these
seabird avoidance regulations to vessels fishing in State of Alaska
waters. In particular, the title legend of Table 20 has been revised to
indicate that the reader must refer to Sec. 679.24(e)(1) for
applicable fisheries. Section 679.24(e)(1) indicates that the operator
of a vessel that is longer than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-
and-line gear must comply with the seabird avoidance requirements as
specified in paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(4) of this section while
fishing for IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut, IFQ sablefish, and groundfish
in the EEZ off Alaska. Further a new paragraph Sec. 679.24(e)(4)(iv)
is added that clearly indicates what seabird avoidance measures must be
used while fishing for IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in
waters shoreward of the EEZ. NMFS promulgates fishery regulations,
including seabird avoidance requirements, for these three fisheries in
State waters (0-3 nm). The State of Alaska will promulgate seabird
avoidance regulations applicable to its groundfish fisheries in State
waters. At its March 2002 meeting, the Board approved a proposal that
will change state groundfish regulations to parallel these new Federal
regulations governing seabird avoidance measure requirements for
operators in hook-and-line fisheries.
Comment 2: It is unclear if the proposed regulation at Sec.
679.24(e)(4)(iii) for vessels with snap gear, and the corresponding
language in Table 20, apply to vessels only when fishing in the EEZ, or
when fishing in any area, including the inside state waters (NMFS Areas
649 and 659). The commenter's recollection of the final Council action
was that the requirements for inside waters apply to all hook-and-line
gear types (i.e. including snap gear), and the specific requirements
for vessels using snap gear applies only when fishing in the EEZ.
Clarification of how these two components interact would be helpful.
Response: The Council's final action intended that seabird
avoidance measures would apply to vessels using snap gear in inside
state waters as well. Consequently, the regulations at Sec.
679.24(e)(4) were revised from the proposed rule to clarify this point.
The text in Table 20 has also been changed as a result.
Comment 3: The commenter believes that insufficient data have been
collected to justify the extensive regulatory revisions based on
individual vessel classes and fishing areas. Without adequate research
to justify these revisions, the rules should impose a conservative
management plan consistent for all vessels in all the fishing areas.
Response: The factors potentially affecting seabird hooking and
entanglement on hook-and-line gear are numerous and complex. The
solutions to reduce seabird/vessel interactions will reflect this
complexity as well. Factors may include geographic location of fishing
activity; time of day; season; type of fishing operation and gear used;
bait type; condition of the bait; length of time baited hooks remain at
or near the surface of the water; water and weather conditions;
availability of food (including bait and offal); bird size; bird
behavior (feeding and foraging strategies); bird abundance and
distribution; and physical condition of the bird. When establishing
effective requirements that reduce the potential for seabird
interactions with gear and the associated mortality of seabirds,
considering or accounting for any of these factors, to the extent
possible and practicable is desirable. Based on information from the
WSGP study, the Council's Science and Statistical Committee (SSC),
several U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service (USFWS) marine bird surveys, and
anecdotal information from the commercial longline fleet off Alaska,
the seabird avoidance measures required of vessel operators reflect the
area fished, vessel length, vessel type, and gear type. This base of
knowledge is sufficient to modify the existing regulations. NMFS agrees
that additional research may help elucidate the bird/vessel
interaction, particularly for smaller vessels because most of the work
thus far has been conducted on larger vessels. In general, research to
date have focused work on locations of higher bird bycatch rates (BSAI)
and on vessel types that appear to catch more birds (larger processing
vessels). In response to the SSC's recommendation for additional
studies on smaller vessels, WSGP researchers began work in the summer
of 2002 with vessel owners to evaluate the need for mitigation devices
as well as performance standards that could be achieved on these
vessels that operate quite differently from larger vessels.
[[Page 1935]]
Studies were conducted on vessels from 26 ft (7.9 m) to 55 ft (16.8 m)
LOA, with and without superstructure (i.e. poles, masts, rigging).
Results may lead to further revisions to seabird avoidance measures if
warranted. NMFS believes the final rule implements a conservative
management plan that accounts for the fleet diversity and differences
between vessels types and geographic areas in likelihood of hooking and
entangling seabirds.
Comment 4: Three commenters suggested that paired streamer lines
should be used on more vessels than is proposed. One commenter believed
they should be required on all vessels capable of conducting fishing
operations with paired streamer lines deployed. This would mean that
any vessel over 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA with masts or other rigging must
deploy paired streamer lines. Another commenter suggested that all
longline vessels over 35 ft (10.7 m) LOA should be required to use
paired streamer lines while setting gear. If owners of vessels 35 (10.7
m) to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA can document to a NMFS official that
deployment of 2 streamer lines from their vessel is not practical, then
other means, such as a single streamer line, other towed deterrent, and
weighting the groundline to achieve a sink rate of 0.3 m per second,
would be acceptable alternatives.
Response: Based on best available information, NMFS has determined
that the new requirements will place paired streamer lines on those
vessels that can safely and practicably use them in an effective manner
to reduce bycatch of seabirds. Paired streamer lines will be required
on vessels over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA. In 2000 these vessels accounted for
98 percent, 67 percent, and 59 percent of the harvest by hook-and-line
vessels in the BSAI groundfish, GOA groundfish, and halibut fisheries,
respectively. Of the 1,006 vessels that harvested groundfish in either
the BSAI or GOA in year 2000, 687 were smaller catcher vessels (26 (7.9
m) to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA), 275 were vessels over 55 ft LOA and will be
required to use paired streamer lines, and 44 vessels that also process
their catch were all over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and will be required to
use paired streamer lines. In the IFQ halibut fishery, 308 vessels were
over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and will be required to use paired streamer
lines. Smaller catcher vessels numbered 1,145 and these vessels will be
required to use single streamer lines or similar devices. The higher
bird bycatch rates in the BSAI compared to the GOA (0.05 birds/1,000
hooks vs 0.014 birds/1,000 hooks; 2000-2002 average annual rate) may
reflect higher bycatch rates of larger processing vessels as compared
to smaller vessels that do not process catch. One factor that
contributes to birds getting hooked on hook-and-line gear is whether
the vessel processes fish and discharges offal, an attractant to birds.
Smaller vessels (i.e. the majority of vessels in the GOA and in the
halibut fishery) often retain whole fish on ice for delivery to
shoreside plants. In the absence of fish offal discharged around these
vessels, fewer birds are attracted and thus fewer are vulnerable to
getting hooked. Additionally, deploying paired streamer lines on
smaller vessels with narrower beam widths is not practicable. Paired
lines can become easily tangled and may pose safety hazards to the
vessel and crew during the deployment of gear. These smaller vessels
will be required to use single streamer lines in most instances. The
WSGP study found that single streamer lines effectively reduced seabird
bycatch by 71 to 96 percent compared to a control of no deterrent.
Single streamer lines will be an adequate deterrent for use on these
smaller vessels.
A system does not currently exist within NMFS to provide for
individual vessel accountability whereby vessels could demonstrate if
the deployment of paired streamer lines was practicable. Thus, such a
system, as suggested by the commenter, is not feasible at this time.
More importantly, NMFS does not believe such a system is necessary
given that the final regulations are designed to effectively reduce
seabird bycatch in the fleet component most responsible for seabird
bycatch.
Comment 5: Vessels not required to use paired streamer lines should
be required to use at least two bird deterrent methods and should
operate at speeds slow enough to permit longlines to sink at a rapid
rate and not extend far behind the vessel at or near the surface of the
water.
Response: The use of multiple deterrent devices is one effective
way to reduce gear interactions with seabirds. In those geographic
areas where seabirds are more likely to be encountered (i.e. in the
EEZ), NMFS will require vessels not required to use paired streamer
lines to use a minimum of two methods or devices (single streamer line,
buoy bag line, adding weights to groundline, or strategic offal
discharge). NMFS agrees that deploying gear at slower speeds is an
effective way to allow baited hooks to sink more quickly, thus becoming
inaccessible to seabirds. Because the vessel speed used by a vessel
operator will depend upon many other factors, including water and wind
conditions, NMFS will not include this method as a required option.
WSGP has produced an educational outreach video that has been widely
distributed to Alaska fishermen. This video demonstrates that slowing
the speed of the vessel during gear deployment can successfully sink
gear more quickly, away from the reach of birds.
Comment 6: Three commenters suggested mandatory training for vessel
crews or operators on the proper use and deployment of streamer lines.
One of the commenters further suggested that the workshops could also
cover seabird identification, use of other seabird deterrents, and to
discuss any innovations in seabird avoidance in the industry. These
workshops would be conducted annually by NMFS and USFWS and could be
similar to the protected species workshops that have been conducted in
Hawaii for the longline fleet since 1996.
Response: Over the past several years, NMFS has conducted or
collaborated with groups conducting seminars, workshops, and industry
meetings to provide outreach and training about the effective use and
deployment of seabird deterrent devices, discuss new innovations in
seabird avoidance, and cover seabird identification. These sessions
have been well attended and beneficial to participants. Additionally,
the WSGP, in collaboration with the USFWS, NMFS, and longline industry
associations, has produced an informational outreach video that has
been widely distributed to longline fishermen. Given the very large
fleet of vessels deploying hook-and-line gear off Alaska (up to 2,000
vessels), NMFS is not able at this time to provide mandatory training
workshops for vessel owners and their crew. Such mandatory workshops
have worked in other areas, such as Hawaii, due to the much smaller
fleet (several hundred vessels). NMFS is satisfied that the outreach
and training program in the Alaska fleet is effective and NMFS will
continue to provide for and be involved in future opportunities for
outreach and training.
Comment 7: The manufacture of streamer lines should be strictly
monitored to assure that only properly designed and constructed
streamer lines are used by the fishing vessels.
Response: The vast majority of the streamer lines currently in use
have been provided by a USFWS ``streamer line give-away program.'' The
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is responsible for
constructing and distributing the streamer lines and it consulted with
WSGP for construction standards. These lines, when properly
[[Page 1936]]
deployed, meet the performance and material standards specified in the
revised regulations. PSMFC has an ample supply of streamer lines in
stock at port distribution sites throughout Alaska and in Seattle. This
stock should be adequate to meet the immediate demand for streamer
lines when the new requirements become effective. NMFS regulations
specify the performance and material standards for the streamer lines.
Streamer lines can be constructed from relatively inexpensive and
readily available materials, thus increasing the practicability of
streamer line construction and use by fishermen. NMFS does not regulate
or control the manufacture of streamer lines, nor is this a necessary
element for the effective use and deployment of streamer lines by
fishermen. NMFS can more efficiently convey this type of information
through its support of outreach materials such as the WSGP video on
deterrent devices.
Comment 8: Three commenters have recommended that NMFS should
require observer coverage on vessels fishing for halibut in order to
monitor gear interactions with seabirds. One commenter suggested that
due to concerns that additional gear mitigation studies may not be
conducted rapidly enough for incorporation into management requirements
and that the studies will not be adequate to address the entire
problem, the regulations should also be expanded to cover the observer-
monitoring programs on the smaller vessels and the halibut fishery. The
other commenter suggested that the coverage in the halibut fishery
should be at least 80 percent of all vessels over 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA
and perhaps 15 percent of vessels from over 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA to 60 ft
(18.3 m) LOA. Currently there is no assessment of seabird bycatch in
this fishery despite the U.S.'s National Plan of Action for Reducing
the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (NPOA) which
requires an assessment of all such fisheries for seabird bycatch to be
completed by February 2003. Additionally, the Biological Opinion issued
by USFWS in 1999 included a conservation recommendation that all
vessels over 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA carry observers for the purposes of
monitoring seabird bycatch.
Response: NMFS is exploring additional options to monitor seabird
mortality in the halibut and small boat fleets. Observer programs are
subject to serious safety, logistical, funding, service delivery, and
resource constraints. For example, observer costs range from $355 to
over $2,000 per day, depending on program structure, size, area of
operation, and other factors. Issues like these are not easy problems
to solve, but NMFS has been making progress in two areas. NMFS has
funded and supported research by the IPHC to evaluate alternative
monitoring systems that rely on video technology rather than observers.
NMFS and the IPHC are coordinating to have that report published and
available in 2004. NMFS will coordinate with the IPHC and the USFWS in
2004 to discuss report recommendations and other options with regard to
the Biological Opinion for the halibut fishery. The Council and NMFS
are interested in expanding monitoring to groundfish vessels less than
60 ft (18.3 m) LOA for a variety of fishery management goals in
addition to that of assessing seabird incidental take. Staff are
coordinating with the Council to address potential options for Observer
Program redesign that might provide coverage to these smaller vessels.
These efforts continue as NMFS evaluates the costs and benefits of
monitoring options and coverage levels, and addresses the constraints
noted above. This work has not advanced far enough to evaluate the
coverage levels recommended by the commenter, although the IPHC report
does evaluate costs of alternate monitoring methods for two coverage
levels. Any expansion of observer coverage requirements will require
subsequent regulatory amendments.
The 1999 USFWS Biological Opinion conservation recommendations are
discretionary agency activities. While observer coverage has not yet
been implemented in these fisheries, NMFS did address this conservation
recommendation as evident from the series of steps described above.
Comment 9: Three commenters recommended that NMFS report annually
on seabird bycatch. The catch per unit effort (CPUE) should be listed
by bird species for each boat with reference to boat size, numbers of
hooks set, avoidance gear used, and by fishing area. Data when
observers are aboard should be segregated to determine any variation in
CPUE when observers are not aboard. One commenter suggested that NMFS
should be required to report by March of every year on seabird bycatch
and estimates derived from the bycatch data. The annual report should
include: observed and estimated number of seabird interactions and
seabird takes by species, the estimated take by fishing set type and
rate of take per 1,000 hooks, an analysis of what deterrents are being
used and their effectiveness in reducing seabird interactions, and
details of observer coverage and the total number of observed hooks.
The Biological Opinion issued by USFWS for the Hawaii pelagic longline
fishery requires such an annual report; this should also be required
for the Alaska fishery.
Response: NMFS notes that estimates of seabird bycatch have been
reported annually for several years, although not at the level of
detail described by the commenter. Annual seabird bycatch is estimated
by year, gear type, and region (BSAI and GOA) and can be found in the
seabird section of the Ecosystem Considerations chapter of the annual
SAFE Report, found at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/reem. The initial draft of
this annual report is usually available to the public in October, with
the final report usually available in December. Although NMFS agrees
providing bycatch estimates to the public in a timely manner is
important, the databases needed for this work are finalized in February
or later each year, precluding an earlier distribution. While the
reports to date have not included the level of detail described by the
commenter, NMFS agrees that improved reporting of seabird bycatch
estimates is an important goal. Several technical and scientific
reports that provide estimates of seabird bycatch for more precise
time/area/fishery cells are being prepared. The authors will consider
addressing the recommendations made above in these reports.
Due to various data confidentiality considerations, NMFS does not
release specific data identified by vessel in a report such as that
described by the commenter. Specific data may be released on a case-by-
case basis. Some vessel-specific data are available for release, as
identified at Sec. 679.50(k), but seabird bycatch data are currently
not included in that category. NMFS is using vessel-specific data to
identify vessels that have incidental take higher than fleet averages,
and hopes to work with individual owners and operators to reduce
seabird bycatch on their vessels. Industry-sponsored programs use
vessel-specific data and this approach appears to be very effective in
reducing seabird incidental take. Through broad-scale analysis, vessel-
specific work, and continued coordination with industry, NMFS will be
able to develop a measure of the effectiveness of the seabird avoidance
measures. However, precise evaluations require experimental design and
testing, as was conducted by the WSGP. The commenter also requested an
analysis of vessel-specific or fleet-wide CPUEs comparing when
observers are onboard with when they are not. That type of analysis is
not possible, because NMFS does not have CPUE data
[[Page 1937]]
for vessels when no observer is on board.
NMFS acknowledges the requirement in the Biological Opinion for the
Hawaiian longline fishery to provide annual reports of seabird
incidental take, but notes such a requirement is not necessary for the
North Pacific groundfish fisheries because these reports have been made
available annually for several years. NMFS recognizes the importance of
this information to stakeholders and plans to continue to provide these
estimates and to produce reports with greater detail.
Comment 10: For the same reasons stated in comment 8, the commenter
urges that the regulations be formally reviewed on a yearly basis and
that the rules be revised as needed to enforce the proper and effective
use of methodology to reduce bycatch until bird bycatch approaches
zero.
Response: As new information becomes available on improvements that
can be made to existing seabird bycatch reduction efforts, NMFS will
consider this information and make appropriate recommendations for
effective management. Seabird bycatch estimates are calculated annually
and reported within the Council's SAFE reports for the Alaska
groundfish fisheries. This provides a regular opportunity for the
evaluation of bycatch estimates in the context of bycatch reduction
efforts.
Comment 11: To address the inadequacy of the current state of
knowledge on this seabird bycatch problem, the commenters urge that
research to quantify the effectiveness of mitigation gear be continued;
the research be expanded to determine the optimum gear deployment for
small- and mid-sized vessels; and that the development of fishing and
avoidance gear that decreases bycatch but does not (or minimally)
interfere with fishing efficiency be continued and funded at an
adequate level to provide meaningful results within the next three
years.
Response: Our knowledge and understanding of seabird incidental
take has improved greatly in recent years. Research to quantify the
effectiveness of mitigation gear should be continued. NMFS is using
three general approaches concurrently to quantify mitigation
effectiveness. First, NMFS will continue monitoring seabird incidental
take in commercial fisheries. As the seabird avoidance measures are
used correctly, we expect the total incidental take to be greatly
reduced. Current data collection procedures will allow for a general
assessment of that over time. Second, NMFS will assist in the transfer
of knowledge about effective seabird gear deployment from vessels with
low or zero bycatch to vessels that experience higher levels of
bycatch. Finally, NMFS will continue support for dedicated research
using the collaborative model that has proved so successful. NMFS is
currently providing partial support to WSGP in its efforts to develop
new weighted groundlines which sink the gear faster while reducing
safety issues for crewmembers. NMFS also supports efforts conducted by
small vessel operators to develop mitigation measures specific to their
fishery. That work is coordinated through the University of Alaska
Marine Advisory Program and funded primarily through the USFWS. See
responses to Comments 19 and 45 for more detailed information about
these various research initiatives.
Comment 12: It is imperative that government agencies and research
institutions work at an accelerated pace to properly quantify the
problems and the success of bird deterrent gear in all vessel classes
and in all the fisheries.
Response: NMFS is coordinating efforts with the USFWS, WSGP, Alaska
Sea Grant Program, the University of Washington, North Pacific
Albatross Working Group, Alaska Seabird Working Group, various fishery
associations, and individual fishermen and researchers to work on
priority issues and to avoid duplication of projects. We also share and
exchange information with our partners in the southern oceans, so that
each can learn from one another's activities. Agency seabird
specialists are working to identify possible funding sources and
develop appropriate projects to quantify problems and develop solutions
where problems are thought to be greatest, and where we can have the
most positive effect.
Comment 13: Three commenters suggested that the bird avoidance
codes that longline fishermen and observers record need to be clarified
and made consistent with each other. Also, the regulations need to be
clarified that more than one device, and therefore more than one code,
can be used at the same time. One commenter suggested that including
both the ``lining tube'' and the ``line shooter'' in the same code
category renders those data unusable for examining the efficacy of
either method.
Response: The bird avoidance codes used by fishermen for recording
information in their logbooks are in Table 19 and are revised in this
final rule to reflect the revised measures. Codes for vessel logbooks
are established by the NMFS Alaska Region Office and codes used by
observers are established by the Observer Program. Table 19 has been
provided to the Observer Program so that of bird code information can
be recorded consistently. NMFS agrees that multiple bird avoidance
devices can be used at one time and that the regulations need to be
clarified that more than one code can be recorded. This final rule
revises the recordkeeping and reporting requirements accordingly.
Mitigation methods are most effectively evaluated using rigorous
scientific protocols in controlled experiments, such as that used in
the WSGP research study. Data collected by observers on the type of
mitigation device used will be of limited use in scientific evaluations
of specific gear alternatives. The numerous other variables in a
commercial fishing setting that can impact the probability of birds
being hooked would confound an analysis using observer data on
mitigation type. Table 19 focuses on seabird avoidance measures that
are required. The lining tube and line shooter are not represented by
separate codes because neither is a required measure.
Comment 14: Three commenters supported the use of the proposed
Seabird Avoidance Plan. It was thought to be a useful tool for boat
captains and/or managers to further develop or clarify their vessel's
bird avoidance plan. It could also serve the purpose of reminding the
crew about what they need to do. Is this plan submitted just once a
year? This proposed collection of information is necessary and even
critical to the goals of the agency to greatly reduce/eliminate seabird
bycatch.
Response: The objective of the Seabird Avoidance Plan is to ensure
that vessel operators are aware of the issue of seabird incidental take
and have developed an effective plan for using the required measures on
their vessels to avoid and reduce any seabird incidental take. The
Seabird Avoidance Plan is kept onboard the vessel and must be made
available for inspection upon request by an authorized officer or
observer, thus it is not submitted or mailed to NMFS. The Seabird
Avoidance Plan is to be current and thus should be revised or updated
whenever any elements change.
Comment 15: A commenter expressed concern that increasing seabird
mortality from longline fisheries is affecting the populations of
albatross and other seabirds. Further, since the adoption of
regulations in Alaska longline fisheries in 1997, about 88,000 seabirds
were estimated to be taken. The commenter believes this is convincing
information that the current regulations are ineffective.
[[Page 1938]]
Response: Seabird bycatch in demersal groundfish fisheries off
Alaska has declined 78.4 percent between 2000 and 2002. That decline
could be due to numerous factors (see response to comment 3), including
the voluntary implementation of the seabird avoidance measures
described in this regulation by some fishery components beginning in
2001. These final regulations apply to demersal groundfish and halibut
longline fisheries off Alaska. The measures delineated here are
designed to reduce seabird bycatch in these fisheries. Additional
research may provide the means to virtually eliminate seabird
incidental take by these fisheries and greatly reduce or eliminate any
seabird population decline that these fisheries may cause. Determining
how current mortality levels may affect populations is difficult, given
the lack of assessments for many of these species. NMFS is currently
awaiting the results of a population status assessment being undertaken
by USFWS for Laysan and black-footed albatross. The relatively low take
levels of these two species in the Alaska hook-and-line fisheries is
not likely impacting these species at the population level. The
population of the endangered short-tailed albatross is currently
increasing at an annual rate of 7 to 8 percent, despite incidental
takes which may occur.
The cumulative effects of all longline mortality on seabird
populations in the North Pacific are not well understood. The fishery-
specific seabird bycatch estimates for fisheries operating in
international waters and those of several nations' EEZs are not
available. While we may greatly reduce the incidental take of albatross
by implementing these measures in Alaskan demersal groundfish
fisheries, efforts need to continue at the national and international
levels as well. A recent paper published on potential cumulative
effects of North Pacific pelagic longline fisheries on albatross
populations illustrates the need for such cooperation (R.L. Lewison
&L.B. Crowder, 2003, Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a
vulnerable seabird population. Ecological Applications 13:743-753).
NMFS has played a role in these efforts and will continue to do so.
Although seabird mortalities in demersal groundfish fisheries have
not been eliminated, NMFS actions to reduce seabird bycatch off Alaska
have reduced seabird mortality and brought this issue to the attention
of all vessel owners, operators, and crew. The regulatory climate
supported a truly collaborative approach among the fishing industry,
academia and agencies and allowed vessel operators some flexibility to
test a variety of measures on their own. Operators were able to provide
guidance to WSGP to choose those measures for testing that were the
most likely to be effective while also preserving the safety of the
crew and maintaining catch levels of target species. The current
regulatory revisions resulted from that process.
Comment 16: The NMFS seabird bycatch estimates are very
conservative as many birds fall off the lines after drowning and are
not counted. One study estimated that mortality can be underestimated
by 30 percent to 95 percent. A recent report from a Hawaiian longline
project documents at least 30 percent more mortality from albatross
hooked but never retrieved.
Response: NMFS agrees that if hooked or entangled birds fall or
drop off the hooks (referred to as ``drop-offs'') prior to the gear
being retrieved onboard, then the estimates of seabird mortalities from
pelagic or demersal longline gear would be conservative. However, the
examples used to suggest the degree to which this might occur for
demersal longline gear are inappropriate. Drop-offs may occur while the
gear is being deployed, while the gear is fishing, or during gear
retrieval. While the degree to which drop-offs occur at any of these
stages is unknown, drop-offs are most likely to occur when the gear has
reached the surface and is being pulled out of the water. At that point
the seabird carcass becomes heavy (no longer positive or neutrally
buoyant) and is most likely, relative to other drop-off conditions, to
tear off of the hook before being brought onboard. Using studies from
other areas, fisheries, or gear types to develop an estimator for drop-
offs in the North Pacific demersal longline fishery is inappropriate
given differences in gear, monitoring protocol, predatory species, and/
or seabird species. We are aware of one study from the southern oceans,
that reported birds were under-sampled by onboard observers by up to 95
percent due to drop-offs (R. Gales, N. Brothers, and T. Reid, 1998.
Seabird mortality in the Japanese tuna longline fishery around
Australia, 1988-1995. Biological Conservation 86:37-56). However, these
drop-offs occurred at the surface alongside the vessel. Because of the
way observers were tasked in that particular fishery, they only counted
those seabirds that were brought onboard the vessel. North Pacific
groundfish observers spend sampling time directly monitoring the gear
as it is being retrieved, and count all catch and bycatch regardless of
whether it drops off the gear near the surface, is removed from the
gear by the crew outboard of the vessel, or is brought onboard. Thus,
the report of underestimated mortality from the report noted above
cannot be extrapolated to the groundfish longline fishery. As noted
earlier, assuming that the conditions causing drop-offs in a pelagic
longline fishery for tuna off Hawaii are the same as those that may
operate in a demersal longline fishery for groundfish off Alaska is not
appropriate. NMFS is interested in accounting for unmonitored drop-off
on demersal gear and is exploring the feasibility and options for
conducting field research to explore this issue. Meanwhile, annual
seabird bycatch estimates, viewed over several years, are an important
index of bycatch levels and the effectiveness of seabird avoidance
measures.
Comment 17: Under the current regulations, seabird mortality is up
considerably in Alaska. During the 3-year period (1993-1996) before any
regulations, an average of 14,527 seabirds were killed. From 1997-2001,
an average 17,513 seabirds were killed in the Alaska groundfish
fisheries.
Response: Many factors, both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic,
may affect seabird hooking and entanglement in longline gear. These
factors may include geographic location of fishing activity; time of
day; season; type of fishing operation and gear used; bait type;
condition of the bait; length of time baited hooks remain at or near
the surface of the water; water and weather conditions; availability of
food (including bait and offal); bird size; bird behavior (feeding and
foraging strategies); bird abundance and distribution; physical
condition of the bird, and then of course the quality and correct
deployment of seabird avoidance gear. These various factors are complex
and very likely contribute to the extreme interannual variation in
seabird bycatch estimates. Since 2000 in the BSAI, the average annual
estimate of the total number of seabirds caught has declined from about
18,000 to less than 4,000 (78 percent reduction). Since 1998 in the
GOA, the average annual estimate of the total number of seabirds caught
has declined from about 1,500 to less than 300 (80 percent reduction).
Although changes in bycatch from one year to the next are not
necessarily a reflection of the successes or failures of the longline
fleet to reduce bycatch, addressing the quality and performance
standards of seabird avoidance gear is one direct method to affect
change in the bycatch levels and rates.
Comment 18: Despite the conclusiveness of the WSGP study on the
effectiveness of paired streamer
[[Page 1939]]
lines, the Council delayed its final action in October 2001 to
accommodate fishermen that objected to the use of paired lines on their
smaller vessels. The Council then adopted a proposal, approved by NMFS,
that would exempt over 95 percent of all Alaska longline vessels from
required use of paired streamer lines.
Response: The Council infrequently takes both initial and final
action at a single meeting, particularly on an item which generates
public comment and testimony. WSGP presented the results of its study
to the Advisory Panel (AP), SSC, and the Council in October, public
testimony on both the study and the draft EA/RIR/IRFA occurred in
October, and the Council then commented on the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and
took its initial action. Final action by the Council occurred at its
next meeting in December. See the response to Comment 4. Paired
streamer lines will be required on vessels over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and
in 2000 these vessels accounted for 98 percent, 67 percent, and 58
percent of the harvest by hook-and-line vessels in the BSAI groundfish,
GOA groundfish, and halibut fisheries, respectively. The BSAI
groundfish fishery accounts for 85 percent of the combined BSAI and GOA
hook effort (228 million hooks estimated). The remaining vessels that
are over 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and up to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, will be
required to use single streamer lines in most instances. The WSGP study
found that single streamer lines effectively reduced seabird bycatch by
71 to 96 percent compared to a control of no deterrent. Single streamer
lines will be an adequate deterrent for use on these smaller vessels.
Comment 19: NMFS contends that since the WSGP study was conducted
on vessels over 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA that its findings may not be
applicable to smaller vessels. No evidence exists that paired streamer
lines should not be applicable to vessels from 35 ft (10.7 m) to 60 ft
(18.3 m) LOA. The USFWS has been funding and distributing free paired
streamer lines to Alaska longliners and 42 percent of the free lines
have been given to vessel owners with vessels under 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
Response: In the summer of 2002, the WSGP conducted a series of
workshops at Alaska ports (Kodiak, Sitka, Cordova, Petersburg) on
seabird avoidance for commercial longliners. WSGP staff who conducted
the two-year study on larger longliners conducted these workshops and
interviewed vessel skippers to ascertain what seabird avoidance
measures could be deployed effectively and safely from these smaller
vessels. Onboard trials were conducted in Sitka, Cordova, and
Petersburg. Paired streamer lines could not be effectively deployed
from these narrow-beamed vessels. Many did not have the superstructure
or rigging from which to suspend the paired streamer lines. Vessel
skippers reported that the paired lines tangled. Techniques for
deploying single streamer lines are illustrated in the WSGP educational
video that has been distributed to Alaska hook-and-line fishermen.
Evidence from these WSGP port workshops as well as from vessel skippers
indicates that these smaller vessels cannot effectively and safely
deploy paired streamer lines. In addition to these port workshops, the
WSGP, in collaboration with USFWS, has initiated a multi-year study to
collect data on seabird abundance in proximity to fishing vessels,
particularly in inside and nearshore waters. With the assistance of
IPHC, the Alaska Department of Fish &Game (ADF&G), and NMFS, the WSGP
is collecting these data from existing vessel platforms, the annual
stock assessment longline surveys. Bird distribution and abundance
information from these surveys may provide a clearer picture of the
probability of vessels interacting with birds while fishing in these
nearshore and inside waters. Preliminary information from both of these
efforts by WSGP, the port workshops and bird surveys, will be available
in 2004.
In 2000, the USFWS initiated a program to fund and distribute free
streamer lines to Alaska longline fishermen. Each fisherman who applies
receives 2 buckets, each containing a streamer line that meets the
material standards being set forth in these final regulations. When
skippers from smaller vessels were asked about their use of these
paired streamer lines, they all indicated that they only deployed a
single line and kept the second one onboard as a spare in the event of
breakage or tangling.
Comment 20: The commenter believes that there should be a strong
focus on many more vessels using paired streamer lines, including
vessels fishing in the GOA, since they take many of the albatross
killed. The GOA longline fishery accounts for on average (1993-1999) 93
percent of the black-footed albatross killed and 36 percent of the
Laysan albatross killed. In 2000 and 2001, 20 black-footed albatross
were taken and 160 Laysan albatross were taken in the GOA. That equates
to 93 percent of all black-footed albatross killed in 2000-2001 being
killed in the GOA where virtually no vessels would be required to use
paired streamer lines under the proposed regulations.
Response: See responses to Comments 4 and 18. A very strong focus
does exist on the required use of paired streamer lines on those
vessels accounting for the vast majority of the harvest, i.e. the
larger vessels. Considering all available bycatch data, the GOA
longline fishery accounted for 90 percent of the black-footed albatross
takes from 1993 to 2002 and 19 percent of the Laysan albatross takes
during the same time period. This is a function of the distributional
ranges of these respective species. Satellite telemetry data indicate
that black-footed albatross travel in a more easterly direction from
their breeding colonies in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, not
typically foraging northward in the Bering Sea and western Aleutian
Islands. The Laysan albatross travel in a more northerly direction from
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, frequenting the Bering Sea and the
Aleutian Islands. In 2001 and 2002, 105 black-footed albatross and 67
Laysan albatross were estimated taken in the GOA; for the same years, 4
black-footed albatross and 473 Laysan albatross were estimated taken in
the BSAI. The commenter incorrectly suggests that little protection
would be afforded these albatross in the GOA. Vessels accounting for
about two-thirds of the GOA groundfish harvest would be required to use
paired streamer lines (approximately 28 percent of the vessels that
fished in 2000).
Comment 21: The commenter could find no documentation of the
effectiveness of towed buoy bag lines, although most Alaskan longline
vessels will be allowed to use these as their main deterrent device.
The commenter urges NMFS to publish data indicating that a towed buoy
bag is an effective deterrent to prevent seabird bycatch, specifically
of albatross, before permitting their use in lieu of paired streamer
lines. Additionally, the commenter notes that the WSGP study found that
when single streamer lines were used, Laysan albatross attack rates
were five times that when paired streamer lines were deployed. Despite
these findings, the proposed regulations will either exempt all vessels
under 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA or allow them to use either a single streamer
line or a towed buoy bag. If the regulations are designed to avoid the
killing of the endangered short-tailed albatross and other seabirds,
why would the vast majority of longline vessels in Alaska be either
exempt from mitigation measures or allowed to use a single streamer
line or a towed buoy bag line?
Response: See section 4.1.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for documentation of
the effectiveness of towed buoy bag lines.
[[Page 1940]]
Preliminary results from an experiment conducted by L kkeborg
(Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway) on a Norwegian longline
vessel indicate that towed floats (i.e. buoy bag) reduced significantly
the number of seabirds caught on baited hooks compared to when no
seabird avoidance device was used. Appendix 5 to the EA/RIR/IRFA is an
IPHC report on experiments with a bird avoidance device during IPHC
longline surveys. IPHC conducted preliminary experiments in summer 1998
to evaluate the effectiveness of buoy bags in reducing the potential
for seabird incidental take. The number of bait attacks by seabirds
(i.e. attempts by seabirds to take baited hooks) was observed for sets
when a buoy bag was towed compared to sets when no deterrent device was
used (control). These observations were made for both sets using
sablefish gear and sets using halibut gear. Bait attacks with the buoy
bag deployed averaged 3.2 per skate for sablefish gear and 1.9 for
halibut gear. Bait attacks with no deterrent device in use averaged 6.5
and 3.6 per skate for sablefish and halibut gear, respectively. The
number of bait attacks with the buoy bag was about half the number with
no device. Sablefish gear experienced about twice the number of attacks
per skate as did the halibut gear, both with and without the bird bag,
even though the sablefish gear had 4 times as many hooks. Thus, fewer
bait attacks by seabirds occurred when a buoy bag was used compared to
when no deterrent device was used. No comparisons were made with
streamer lines.
The regulations are designed to avoid the killing of the short-
tailed albatross and other seabirds and paired streamer lines are
required on the vessels accounting for the vast majority of fish
harvest. A more appropriate indicator of fishing and thus the
possibility of bird/fishery interactions is amount of harvest rather
than number of vessels. The amount of fish harvested by a single vessel
varies greatly, depending upon numerous factors such as vessel size,
hold capacity, length of fishing trip, and processing capability.
Whereas the WSGP study found that paired streamer lines were more
effective than single streamer lines (88 to 100 percent bycatch
reduction compared to 71 to 96 percent for single lines), there are
scenarios when single streamer lines are appropriate and can
effectively reduce bycatch. The final regulations require paired
streamer lines, the most effective and stringent of the devices
evaluated, in those situations when more birds are more likely to be
encountered fishing in the EEZ by larger vessels (and these are often
the processing vessels that are more likely to attract birds due to the
discharge of offal and processing waste). Single streamer lines (and in
some instances buoy bags) are required of vessels fishing in inside
waters where they are less likely to encounter albatross and other
seabirds.
Comment 22: The proposed regulations are not consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS's own policies of minimizing bycatch, the
ESA, or the MBTA. In 2001, the Department of Interior's (DOI) Solicitor
issued a final opinion on the applicability of the MBTA. He determined
that the MBTA applies to the EEZ which means that it is illegal for
U.S. citizens to kill seabirds. Over 17,000 seabirds on average are
being killed annually in the Alaskan groundfish fisheries. The MBTA
prohibits the take of any bird without a permit, accidentally or
otherwise. The bycatch of seabirds in the Alaskan longline fishery is
an illegal take and the regulations should propose to eliminate such
illegal activity.
Response: The final regulations are consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, NMFS's bycatch policies, the ESA, and the MBTA. The U.S.
Government has never applied the MBTA outside U.S. territorial waters.
The Department of the Interior has advised that the opinion to which
the commenter refers has never been put into effect and remains under
review within the Department of the Interior, and is therefore not
relevant to this rulemaking.
Comment 23: Two commenters urge that all vessels at or over 100 ft
(30.5 m) LOA should deploy, in addition to the paired streamer lines,
another mitigation measure at all times. This measure would be: (1)
additional line weights or a weighted groundline sufficient to sink the
baited hooks at a rate of 0.3 meters per second, or (2) an underwater
lining tube sufficient to deploy the lines at least 2 meters underwater
at line setting and to assure that the lines sink the baited hooks
below 10 meters when 100 meters aft of the stern.
Response: Given the proven effectiveness of avoidance gear that
these vessels will be required to use (88-100 percent seabird bycatch
reduction), the use of additional measures will remain at the
discretion of the vessel operator. The WSGP study concluded that
although adding weight to groundlines will sink gear faster,
differences in vessel speed or setting logistics could reduce or
eliminate the advantage of using weighted groundlines. Further, for the
weighting to be practical and effective at reducing seabird bycatch,
the weight must be integrated into the line itself rather than added at
each deployment. Prototype integrated weight (IW) groundlines are
currently being evaluated for efficacy and practicability in reducing
seabird bycatch. Once the study is completed and results available,
NMFS can evaluate the need for IW groundlines in the Alaska fisheries.
The WSGP study also evaluated the efficacy of the lining tube at
reducing seabird bycatch. Given some operational limitations to its
performance, as well as its cost (approximately $40,000 per unit), the
mandatory use of a lining tube is not warranted. Operational
limitations include depth below the surface at which the tube delivered
gear changed with sea conditions, vessel loading causes variation in
tube's effectiveness, propeller turbulence may cause the groundline to
resurface, occasionally the groundline jumps out of the slot that runs
along the side of the tube, and the lining tube can only be fitted to
vessels that set gear from their lower decks.
Comment 24: Two commenters urge that NMFS should prohibit the
discharge of offal during the deployment of longline gear or the
presence of offal on the water within 300 ft (91.4 m) of the vessel
during line setting. NMFS should also require that fish hooks be
removed from discarded bait.
Response: NMFS agrees that regulating the discharge of offal from
longline vessels can increase the range of effective options used to
reduce seabird bycatch. The final regulations will require that if
offal is discharged while gear is being set or hauled, it must be done
in a manner that distracts seabirds from baited hooks to the extent
practicable. The discharge site on board a vessel must be either aft of
the hauling station or on the opposite side of the vessel from the
hauling station. Additionally, hooks must be removed from any offal
that is discharged. Lastly, operators of vessels discharging offal
while gear is being set must eliminate directed discharge through
chutes or pipes of residual bait or offal from the stern of the vessel.
This would not include baits falling off the hook or offal discharges
from other locations that parallel the gear and subsequently drift into
the wake zone well aft of the vessel. For vessels not deploying gear
from the stern, the directed discharge of residual bait or offal over
sinking hook-and-line gear while gear is being deployed must be
eliminated.
[[Page 1941]]
Comment 25: Two commenters urge that NMFS should require that
longlines be set in such a way that if weights are added to the
groundline, they do not cause the line to become taut.
Response: NMFS regulations essentially address this point when they
require that the operators of applicable vessels must use hooks that
when baited, sink as soon as they are put in the water. See response to
Comment 23. Once new scientific information becomes available about IW
groundlines, NMFS could consider if changes to the regulations are
necessary regarding the weighting of groundlines.
Comment 26: NMFS should require the collection of seabird bycatch
data (such as the number and species of seabirds hooked per thousand
hooks) and should evaluate the effectiveness of paired streamer lines
and other mitigation measures. Such data could be collected by
observers or vessel operators. NMFS should compile these data annually
and share this information at annual workshops attended by longline
fishermen.
Response: NMFS requires the collection of seabird bycatch data in
the Alaska groundfish fisheries. These data are collected by observers
and analyzed annually to calculate seabird bycatch estimates for the
BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. The estimates are included in the
Council's annual SAFE report in the seabird section of the Ecosystem
Considerations chapter. Seabird bycatch estimates are available back to
1993. This information is publicly available and can be found at the
NMFS Alaska Region's seabird website http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/
protectedresources/ seabirds/ actionplans.htm
In the Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Total Allowable
Catch (TAC) -Setting Process for the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fisheries to the Endangered Short-tailed
Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) and Threatened Steller's Eider
(Polysticta stelleri) (TAC BiOp) issued by the USFWS in September 2003,
NMFS is directed to collect information on the deployment and use of
seabird avoidance measures for the largest possible sample of hook-and-
line gear sets. Data shall be collected by observers, or other non-
self-reporting means, and shall begin no later than January 1, 2004.
These data will be summarized and reported to USFWS by September 30 of
the calendar year following the report year. In response to this
requirement, NMFS's Observer Program has established protocols for
groundfish observers on longline vessels to collect this information
beginning in 2004. Information about seabird bycatch estimates and the
effectiveness of required seabird avoidance measures can be conveyed to
the longline fishermen using these measures as well as other members of
the interested public. However, some caution must be used when
evaluating changes in annual levels of seabird bycatch. Seabird bycatch
estimates display extreme inter-annual variation and seabird bycatch
can be influenced by a complex myriad of factors, not just the use of
seabird avoidance measures (see response to Comment 17). One cannot
assume that increases in bycatch levels are solely attributable to lack
of use of seabird avoidance measures by fishermen, or conversely that
reductions in seabird bycatch levels are entirely due to the successful
use of seabird avoidance gear.
Comment 27: NMFS should require all vessels with observers to
participate in a computerized reporting system of seabird bycatch that
protects their privacy but serves as part of a peer review report card.
This is currently done voluntarily by 38 freezer-longliners in the BSAI
through a private consultant. The WSGP study supported such a peer
review system. NMFS should require all vessels with observers to
participate, including the GOA longliners with observers.
Response: The peer-reviewed report card initiated by industry and
shared among 38 freezer-longliners is a very effective program in which
participants appear to have realized tremendous reductions in seabird
bycatch on their vessels. NMFS plays a key role in supporting this
program through the inseason data reporting system and web-based data
access. Participants choose to share data among themselves and work
through a private consultant who has appropriate data-sharing
agreements and data access permissions. Because the program was
voluntary and all participants provided documentation allowing the
consultant access to their confidential data, it was a relatively easy
program to support. However, concerns of data confidentiality would
make it much more difficult to require such a program for all demersal
longline vessels that carry observers. Development and implementation
of such a program is outside the scope of this rulemaking. NMFS is
pursuing an alternative and complementary approach to develop staff
expertise on seabird avoidance measures, to internally identify vessels
that have higher than average seabird incidental take, and then to
offer these gear experts to vessels to assist with proper deployment of
seabird avoidance measures. Meanwhile, NMFS will continue to support
voluntary programs that adopt the model used by the freezer-longliners.
Comment 28: Before vessels are exempt from using paired streamer
lines in winds measured at 30 knots or greater, another effective
deterrent measure such as an underwater lining tube or weighted line
should be used. The commenter noted that at 3 different NOAA weather
buoy locations, winds exceeded 30 knots on 71, 90, and 23 days
respectively for time periods ranging from about 330, 365, and 330
days, respectively. If it is unsafe to set paired streamer lines in
high winds, how can the crew set miles of lines with baited hooks and
haul them in and take fish from them in the same winds?
Response: The final regulations allow vessels normally required to
use paired streamer lines, to deploy a single streamer line from the
windward side of the vessel in winds exceeding 30 knots. This
relaxation of the requirement for paired streamer lines is to address
safety concerns. The windward side deployment of a single line is
designed to prevent approaching seabirds from accessing the baited
hooks. As discussed previously, single streamer lines have a proven
effectiveness of 71 percent to 96 percent reduction in seabird bycatch;
thus it is not necessary to require measures such as a lining tube or
weighted groundlines as an alternative. Also, one of the operational
limitations of the lining tube noted by WSGP researchers and others is
that in rough sea conditions (e.g. high winds), the exit end of the
lining tube periodically reaches the water's surface, thwarting the
intent of sub-surface gear deployment. Information from NOAA's National
Data Buoy Center indicates that the average wind speed at the 3 buoys
noted by the commenter never exceeded an average wind speed of 30 knots
(460066, south Aleutians; 46035, Bering Sea, north of Adak Island; and
46001, GOA, south of Kodiak). Safety concerns in commercial fisheries
are a priority for NMFS and the U.S. Coast Guard. National Standard 10
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the conservation and
management measures that implement fishery management plans shall, to
the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea. Thus,
allowing the deployment of a single rather than paired streamer lines
in winds exceeding 30 knots is consistent with National Standard 10 and
the overall objective of reducing seabird bycatch.
Comment 29: Two commenters urge that performance standards should
be required for seabird avoidance measures
[[Page 1942]]
used on vessels between 26 ft (7.9m) LOA and 55 ft (16.8m) LOA. The
proposed regulations weaken seabird protections by exempting these
vessels from critical performance standards. Performance standards are
only being suggested for these smaller vessels. The extremely slow pace
that NMFS moves in adopting regulatory changes may thwart efforts for
years to come to assure that seabird mortality is eliminated or greatly
reduced from these vessels unless these vessels are covered by
performance standards.
Response: See NMFS's response to Comment 19. The performance
standards required for seabird gear for vessels over 55 ft (16.8m) LOA
are based on a WSGP scientific study conducted on vessels over 55 ft
(16.8m) LOA. The ``small boat'' longline fleet off Alaska is comprised
of over 1,000 vessels and is extremely diverse. Vessels range from
skiffs, trollers, bowpickers, and schooners and are often used in other
fisheries. A WSGP study was initiated in 2002 to study seabird
avoidance gear requirements on smaller longline vessels. Once new
information becomes available suggesting revised standards for smaller
vessels, then these revised standards could be considered as regulatory
requirements.
Comment 30: NMFS regulations should include a specified line-
weighting regime for longline vessels. Adding weights to the groundline
is known internationally to be the most effective way of getting hooks
to sink and the most effective seabird deterrent when combined with a
streamer line. The WSGP study did not rigorously investigate the
combined use of weighted groundline with streamer lines. At minimum,
the NMFS regulations should include a requirement that when weights are
applied to the groundline, they should be spread out along the line.
This would at least provide a temporary measure until more safe methods
are developed for adding weights to the groundline.
Response: See NMFS's response to comments 23 and 25. Because of
limitations with the application of weights at the time of gear
deployment, researchers are exploring the feasibility and effectiveness
of using groundlines with an integrated weight to achieve rapid sinking
of baited hooks. IW lines are being tested in Alaska, New Zealand, and
Australia. NMFS will consider new information about IW lines and
results from these international studies prior to considering
regulatory requirements for weighted groundlines.
Comment 31: NMFS should not allow exceptions from the use of paired
or single streamer lines due to high knot winds. There is a higher
activity level of seabirds in Alaska during the winter months, when the
winds are normally highest, and during a time when the proposed seabird
mitigation measures will be minimal. Also, in high winds the hooks tend
to stay at the surface longer due to turbulence, increasing the
exposure time of hooks to seabirds. Combined with a high activity of
stressed breeding albatross during the winter months, this regulation
could possibly increase seabird bycatch and especially albatross
bycatch.
Response: NMFS has no data either to support or refute the
presumptions that the activity level of seabirds is higher in Alaska
during winter months, or that high wind conditions tend to keep hooks
at the surface longer. We suspect that seabird activity may actually be
lower in Alaska during winter months as opposed to other seasons, such
as the breeding season, when reproductive activities (egg-laying,
incubation, chick rearing) are underway. NMFS will maintain the gear
and performance requirements relative to wind conditions as provided in
the proposed rule. This exception is necessary to protect the crew.
Deploying gear consistent with these measures from the open deck
typically found on longline vessels that operate in these conditions
would unnecessarily put crewmen at risk. NMFS is concerned about the
issue, however, and additional research into integrated weight
groundlines may best resolve this issue. NMFS will continue to evaluate
and report on these issues.
Comment 32: The NMFS Observer Program should collect sufficient
information to identify causes of seabird bycatch, including weather
conditions. Because these data are not currently collected, the extent
of seabird bycatch in Alaska during adverse weather condition remains
unknown. NMFS should also be monitoring the life expectancy of the
streamer lines and other measures, as this is important in developing
design improvements.
Response: NMFS agrees that collecting information that identifies
causes of seabird bycatch is important. NMFS has recently dedicated
additional staff resources to work on seabird/fishery interaction
issues, and expects to coordinate these investigations within NMFS and
with collaborators. Some activities may be best conducted by observers.
NMFS will work on this issue through a variety of means, including
dockside visits, participation in skipper meetings, reviewing data
already collected, and possibly deploying agency staff and observers
aboard vessels at sea. However, just as it becomes a safety factor for
crew to deploy seabird avoidance measures in high wind conditions, it
also becomes unsafe for observers in some situations to conduct
longline sampling. Observers are directed to stop sampling when heavy
weather makes it unsafe to monitor longline gear retrieval.
NMFS does not plan to directly monitor the life expectancy of the
streamer lines. Due to the required performance standards, the crew
must maintain the gear in working order. It is the responsibility of
the vessel operator to replace seabird avoidance gear that is no longer
functioning properly. We expect that industry will notify NMFS and the
manufacturer if it perceives a problem with longevity of the streamer
lines.
Comment 33: NMFS should provide an annually updated detailed
analysis of NMFS observer seabird bycatch data, including information
by species, month, statistical area, gear, target fishery, vessel type
and time of set, as well as seabird deterrent in use. NMFS should
coordinate with USFWS to provide the Council and the public with these
annual reports.
Response: NMFS currently collaborates with USFWS to provide annual
reports on seabird incidental take to the Council as part of the annual
SAFE report (see response to comment 9). These reports are available to
the public. Currently, these reports are not at the level of detail
noted by the commenter. NMFS has dedicated additional staff resources
to work on seabird/fishery interaction issues and one goal is to
improve bycatch reporting to the public. Annual summary reports will
continue, and more detailed reports will be available periodically.
Comment 34: Whenever a management measure is introduced, the
observer program should collect pertinent data to monitor the efficacy
of the measure. Night setting was implemented in 1997 as a seabird
avoidance measure option, even though no supporting data existed from
the observer program. It wasn't until 2000 that observers began
collecting data on time of set. The WSGP study revealed that night
setting might actually increase bycatch of some species. Night setting
may very well be detrimental to seabirds but we will not know until
these data are released.
Response: It is probably not feasible for the Observer Program to
collect pertinent data on every management measure implemented, given
the critical importance of other core duties that observers carry out
in support of fisheries management activities. See the
[[Page 1943]]
response to Comment 13 for a discussion on some of the limitations of
using observer data to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures. The initial 1997 regulations were based on the model of
seabird avoidance requirements for vessels fishing in southern ocean
areas regulated by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR measures require night-setting
as a method to avoid hooking birds. Based on the WSGP study which
demonstrated an increased bycatch of fulmars during night sets, the
regulation has been revised and no longer allows night-setting as an
alternative method of reducing seabird incidental take.
Comment 35: NMFS should require that vessel operators cooperate
with the observer in providing freezer/ice hold space for the retention
of seabird carcasses if the observed is required to collect such
carcasses. Negotiation for use of freezer space to hold seabird
carcasses should not fall on the observer but should be a requirement
of vessels carrying observers.
Response: Current regulations found at Sec. 679.50(g)(1)(v)
require vessel operators to provide the observer with access to storage
areas and freezer holds, and at Sec. 679.50(g)(1)(viii) to ``provide *
* * reasonable assistance to enable observers to carry out their duties
* * * .'' The Observer Program is conducting one special project
requiring observers to collect certain seabird carcasses. Vessel
operators have complied with regulatory requirements and have
cooperated with observers in providing sufficient freezer space for the
storage of these special project specimens. If in the future NMFS
requires additional collection of carcasses by observers, then
appropriate steps will be taken to assure that adequate freezer storage
space is made available on the vessel. The Observer Program has
effectively used the pre-cruise briefing as one way of assuring
appropriate vessel arrangements. Pre-cruise briefings allow for the
identification of respective roles and responsibilities prior to
departure. These vessel-specific arrangements between the observer and
vessel skipper can also be made onboard. If an observer encounters non-
compliance with vessel responsibility requirements, the observer can
notify the Observer Program and document the incident. Given the
decreasing numbers of seabirds taken, the retention of carcasses for a
special project is not likely to be a burden on either the observer or
the vessel operator.
Comment 36: Since the impetus for these regulations is the
conservation of the short-tailed albatross, it is important to also
consider the overall world population declines of both the Laysan and
black-footed albatross. Because black-footed albatross have a
relatively small world population, the declines are disturbing,
especially in light of the high bycatch of black-footed albatross in
the GOA where most of the fleet remains unmonitored.
Response: One objective of the regulations is conservation of an
endangered species. Since NMFS and the Council first addressed these
seabird avoidance requirements in 1996, it was acknowledged that
conservation of other non-endangered species was also important. NMFS
agrees that possible population declines of Laysan and black-footed
albatross are important considerations. NMFS supports the albatross
population status assessments currently being undertaken by the USFWS.
Such assessments are consistent with the NPOA and necessary to
determine the effects of longline mortality from the Alaska demersal
groundfish and other longline fisheries throughout the North Pacific
Ocean on these albatross populations. The amount of incidental take in
the GOA seems unlikely to have contributed directly to a population
decline of black-footed albatross. The average incidental take between
1993 and 2002 (176 birds) is only about 0.09 percent of the most recent
population estimate of 200,000 albatross. Further, between 2000 and
2002 black-footed albatross incidental take declined by about 78
percent in the GOA. Many factors could contribute to the decline in
incidental take (see comment 3), including both serious declines in the
population itself and increased use of adequate seabird avoidance
measures by vessel operators. NMFS remains concerned about potential
declines of this species and continues to collaborate with partners to
assess the direct and/or cumulative impacts of fishing mortality. While
many of the vessels in the GOA are unobserved, the bycatch estimation
procedures account for their fishing effort in determining an overall
black-footed albatross incidental take estimate for that region.
Because analysts assume that take rates are similar between observed
and unobserved vessels, these estimates could be biased either upward
or downward. The validity of this assumption is worth exploring.
Comment 37: We are pleased that NMFS is finally taking action to
implement the improved regulations adopted by the Council. The Council
took final action on these measures in December 2001. We were promised
by NMFS staff that the regulations would be in place by August 2002.
Why has it taken so long for the proposed rule to be published?
Response: Addressing seabird bycatch in longline fisheries is a
NMFS priority. It is sometimes difficult to project staff workloads and
allow for responsiveness to unscheduled activities and other priorities
that require staff resources. NMFS proceeded as quickly as possible to
promulgate final regulations.
Comment 38: Two commenters requested that more recent seabird
bycatch data (from years 2000 to 2002) be used in the preamble to the
rule and in the EA that accompanies the rule. The preamble to the
proposed rule and the EA make repeated references to the seabird
bycatch levels from 1993 to 1999 which do not reflect take levels since
the implementation of seabird avoidance regulations. Since 1998, the
first full year the regulations were in effect, the freezer-longliner
fleet (which takes the bulk of the seabirds in the longline fisheries
off Alaska) has reduced its incidental take by 85 percent. The 1993-
1999 data may offer historical perspective, but it should be balanced
by reference to recent performance under the seabird avoidance
regulations. While we may expect interannual fluctuations in incidental
take due to unpredictable biotic and abiotic factors, it is apparent
that the regulations and industry efforts are having a highly positive
effect, which should be reflected in the documentation.
Response: Since 2000, the seabird bycatch estimates have been
incorporated into the seabird section of the Ecosystem Considerations
chapter of the Council's SAFE reports. The seabird sections of the
Ecosystem Considerations chapter are available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/
protectedresources/ seabirds/ actionplans.htm. See
the preamble of this final rule for information on the 2000-2002
seabird bycatch estimates and take rates.
Comment 39: After extensive testimony from longline fishermen on
the dangers inherent in deploying seabird avoidance gear under adverse
conditions, at its December 2001 meeting the Council adopted a
'statement of intent' regarding the implementation and enforcement of
the proposed seabird avoidance regulations and the specific performance
standards. The Council's statement highlighted that NMFS needs to
account for the context and setting of fishing operations on the vessel
when considering the enforcement of performance standards required for
streamer lines. Three commenters have requested that the
[[Page 1944]]
Council's statement of intent be included in the preamble to the final
rule. One commenter additionally requested that the Council's statement
of intent be inserted in observer handbooks and in materials used by
enforcement agents. The commenter noted that the longline industry
support for the revised regulations relied to a significant degree on
this guarantee against unreasonable enforcement.
Response: The Statement of Council Intent on Seabird Avoidance
Regulations and Performance Standards was included in the EA/RIR/IRFA
(December 2002) prepared for the proposed rule and thus is not repeated
here. The Council's statement was also summarized in its December 2001
newsletter. NMFS will provide this Statement of Intent to the Observer
Program and the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement Alaska Region. NMFS
agrees that it is very important to consider the context and setting of
fishing operations in each and every alleged regulatory violation. On a
case-by-case basis, NMFS considers the nature, circumstance, extent and
gravity of any alleged violation when making enforcement decisions and
the preparation of an appropriate enforcement response.
Enforcement of many of the regulations for the Alaska groundfish
and IFQ fisheries are addressed through summary settlement schedules.
These schedules reflect a progressive enforcement response, dependent
on the severity of the violation and considered on a case-by-case
basis. Such schedules provide information to assist persons required to
comply with the regulations. NMFS is preparing a summary settlement
schedule for the seabird avoidance regulations and upon completion the
schedule will be made available at http:// www.fakr.noaa.gov/ regs/
summary.htm.
Comment 40: NMFS has proposed a regulation at 50 CFR
679.50(f)(1)(viii)(F) that would require that all seabirds from the
observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear would be
kept until sampled by the observer or as requested by an observer
during non-sampled portions of hauls. This requirement conflicts with
the provision proposed at 50 CFR Sec. 679.24(e)(1)(vi) which calls for
the safe release of seabirds that are brought on board alive. Current
information suggests that, particularly for the short-tailed albatross,
a live bird should be released as soon as possible. Our vessel
association distributed copies of the booklet ``Longline Fishing,
Dollars and Sense'' that contained textual and graphic descriptions of
methods to release living seabirds without jeopardizing their lives.
Perhaps the noted regulation at Sec. 679.50 should specify that the
requirement for retention pertains to dead seabirds.
Response: Nothing in this regulation is intended to conflict with
the safe release of birds that are brought on board alive. Information
from observers, vessel skippers and crew, and research scientists has
indicated that live birds are rarely, if ever, hooked at the time of
gear retrieval in demersal longline operations but rather are hooked or
entangled at the time the gear is deployed and are subsequently pulled
underwater. Thus, the regulation should not cause concern or endanger
the lives of birds. In addition to the industry initiative to
distribute information on safe-release and safe-handling procedures for
live birds, the procedures are trained to observers and are available
on the NMFS Alaska Region seabird website.
Comment 41: Although Sec. 679.24(e)(3) of the proposed rule
includes the general components and requirements for the Seabird
Avoidance Plan, it would be helpful to have a proposed sample form that
illustrates what would satisfy the requirements of the regulation.
Response: NMFS has prepared the form, Seabird Avoidance Plan, and
it has received approval from OMB. The form will be made available to
Alaska longline fishermen via mail, NMFS Alaska Region's seabird
website http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ protectedresources/ seabirds.html,
industry associations, and NMFS Enforcement offices, plus other
appropriate locations as identified.
Comment 42: One commenter suggested that several corrections be
made to text and figures in the EA that accompanied the proposed rule.
The corrections related to: 1) the average seabird bycatch rate of
vessels setting hook-and-line gear from the side (Figure 12), 2) a
vessel 25 ft (7.6 m) LOA or less fishing offshore in the Fairweather
Grounds (Figure 1), and 3) a short-tailed albatross sighting in
interior Canada (Figures 1-4).
Response: NMFS has determined that the changes are not substantive
and do not alter conclusions from the analysis of environmental
effects. The USFWS maintains the database for short-tailed albatross
sightings and provided the sightings data for Figures 1-4. NMFS has
relayed this comment to the USFWS.
Comment 43: Two commenters suggest that the regulations should
establish the goal of eliminating seabird bycatch and that the take of
short-tailed albatross could be eliminated with the proper deployment
of paired streamer lines, weighted lines, and offal discharge control
during line setting.
Response: Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of `bycatch'
does not include seabirds, the incidental take of seabirds is addressed
as an issue in NMFS's National Bycatch Strategy and the guidelines for
National Standard 9. The National Bycatch Strategy addresses regional
efforts to enhance compliance with the take prohibitions of the ESA and
to reduce takes of migratory birds. National Standard 9 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for NMFS to minimize `bycatch' to the extent
practicable and for fishery management councils to consider the impact
of conservation and management measures on birds. Thus, neither of
these directives call for the elimination of bycatch. Although
elimination of seabird bycatch through the use of effective seabird
avoidance measures is a laudable goal, it is not currently practicable
to specify it as such in regulatory language. The final seabird gear
requirements are designed to reduce seabird bycatch. Fishermen do not
intend to catch birds, but some are likely to be taken. As noted in the
response to comment 17, both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic
factors may affect seabirds becoming hooked or entangled in longline
gear. The new seabird gear requirements, when used correctly, will
greatly reduce seabird takes of both the endangered short-tailed
albatross and other more common species in longline fisheries.
Comment 44: The USFWS, the federal trust resource agency for
migratory birds, appreciates that NMFS' efforts and regulations are
intended to reduce the incidental take of all seabirds and not just
those listed under the ESA.
Response: Since 1996 when NMFS and the Council first regulated
seabird bycatch in longline fisheries, it was important that efforts
address both endangered and non-endangered species. The vast majority
of seabirds incidentally taken in the Alaska groundfish fisheries are
northern fulmars, a very common species with a world population of 2 to
3 million. As an element of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska
ecosystem, it is important that the take of fulmars and other bird
species is reduced.
Comment 45: The Council's SSC and representatives from the longline
industry identified the need for education and outreach to fishermen
and for further research on methods and performance standards,
particularly for small [less than 55 ft (16.8m) LOA] vessels. The
proposed rule notes that this would improve the effectiveness of
[[Page 1945]]
seabird avoidance measures and guide future regulatory changes to the
standards guidelines for small vessels, which currently are voluntary.
Additionally, the regulations for small vessels in certain inside
waters may be revised, pending development of more information on the
interactions between seabirds and fishing gear in those sectors of the
fishery. The USFWS believes this is a prudent approach and highlights
the needs for NMFS and USFWS to continue to promote and assist the
research necessary to address these issues in the coming years.
Response: See the response to Comment 19. The Alaska longline fleet
is very diverse. Seabird avoidance measures that successfully avoid
birds on one type of vessel may not work the same way (or at all) on a
different type of vessel. The WSGP study and the resulting performance
and material standards for streamer lines focused on the larger vessel
[greater than 55 ft (16.8m) LOA]. Vessels can differ not only in length
but also area fished and proximity to shore, type of gear and bait
used, number and experience of crew, vessel speed at gear deployment,
number of days fished annually, hold capacity, and ability to process
fish onboard (and thus amount of offal discharged). All of these
elements affect the likelihood of encountering birds and the potential
for interacting with them. In the summer of 2002, WSGP initiated
several projects to explore the seabird bycatch issue on small vessels
fishing in inside or nearshore waters. Workshops were conducted in
Sitka, Petersburg, and Cordova port towns in Southeast Alaska. WSGP
scientists shared outreach information with local fishermen and worked
with skippers and crew onboard their vessels to deploy streamer lines
and buoy bag lines. In addition to these port workshops, the WSGP, in
collaboration with USFWS, has initiated a multi-year study to collect
data on seabird abundance in proximity to fishing vessels, particularly
in inside and nearshore waters. Bird distribution and abundance
information from the WSGP study may provide a clearer picture of the
probability of vessels interacting with birds while fishing in these
nearshore and inside waters. Preliminary information from both of these
efforts by WSGP, the port workshops and bird surveys, will be available
in 2004. Results from these projects will contribute to efforts to best
manage this seabird/fishery interaction for this portion of the fleet.
NMFS agrees that research efforts are important to provide the best
available scientific information on which to base fishery management
decisions. NMFS has collaborated with USFWS for the past 3 years on
various research efforts to address management needs. USFWS has
received a total of approximately $1.5 million in Congressional
appropriations to address Alaska seabird bycatch initiatives. Many of
the research projects mentioned have been funded by this initiative.
Other funded projects include: testing of IW longline gear, seeking
innovative solutions to seabird bycatch on small longline vessels,
observer training materials, continued distribution of free streamer
lines, and production of an educational video. USFWS collaborators
include WSGP, NMFS, ADF&G, the Alaska Marine Advisory Program, and
numerous industry associations.
Comment 46: The SSC suggested that less stringent regulations were
needed for inside waters of Southeast Alaska, because short-tailed
albatross do not frequent those waters. The USFWS comments that this is
probably true today, but historical records suggest that this
``coastal'' albatross might have used these waters in the past. This
may become an issue in the future as the population grows. The USFWS
agrees with the SSC recommendation that additional study is needed on
seabird abundance and interactions with fisheries in inside waters.
Response: The term ``coastal'' albatross was used at a time when
the short-tailed albatross population may have numbered in the
millions, prior to the time the population was decimated by feather
hunters around the turn of the century. Pre-exploitation worldwide
population estimates of short-tailed albatross are not known; the total
number of birds harvested may provide some indication, since the
harvest drove the species nearly to extinction. Between approximately
1885 and 1903, an estimated 5 million short-tailed albatross were
harvested from the breeding colony on Torishima. The current worldwide
population estimate is 1,800. It is probable that the total foraging
range of the species has contracted during the post-exploitation period
and the species may not be found in all of its former locations. As the
USFWS notes in its Biological Opinion on the effects of the BSAI and
GOA FMPs on the short-tailed albatross, some of the `coastal' nature of
the species' distribution could have been simply related to its more
extensive marine range. Additionally, the historical middens were
located in the Aleutian Islands, a habitat and area quite distinct from
Southeast Alaska. Historical evidence does not provide information
about the occurrence of short-tailed albatross in Southeast Alaska.
NMFS concurs that additional study is needed on seabird abundance
and interactions with fisheries in inside waters. See the response to
comment 19 for a description of work that was initiated in 2002 to
address this. As the short-tailed albatross population grows and
expands into its former range, we would expect that the potential for
interactions with fishing vessels in those same areas would increase.
NMFS and other agencies are collaborating with USFWS to promote the
reporting of short-tailed albatross from existing platforms of
opportunity such as commercial fishing vessels, agency survey vessels,
and cruise and ferry ships. To date, the USFWS database includes 990
observation records of short-tailed albatross. Between 1975 and 1991,
only 56 sightings of short-tailed albatross were reported, with the
majority reported since 1991. These records do not necessarily
represent 990 unique short-tailed albatross and may reflect vessel
distribution rather than albatross abundance and distribution. The
recent satellite telemetry collaboration project undertaken by the
United States (USFWS) and Japan will greatly enhance our knowledge of
the at-sea distribution of this endangered species.
Comment 47: The Council recommended studies to determine if
performance standards should be modified or eliminated for vessels less
than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA when fishing at night from November to April.
Given that the WSGP study found more gear interactions with Laysan
albatross and northern fulmars during night sets, USFWS emphasizes that
this issue of allowing night setting should be more fully addressed
prior to making future regulatory changes.
Response: Prior to any modifications to these final seabird
avoidance requirements and the issue of night-setting in particular as
a method to avoid seabird take, an investigation would be necessary.
Although some seabird avoidance methods are effective for most
seabirds, some species exhibit characteristics (e.g. daily activity
cycle, diving depth) which may make them more prone to interactions
with fishing vessels and the deployment of gear.
Comment 48: In addition to the proposed requirement that all
seabirds from observer-sampled hauls be kept by the fishing crew until
the observer can process them, the USFWS also recommends that all
seabird carcasses be retained for transport to laboratories for
complete processing. This would allow for the collection of all
possible
[[Page 1946]]
information on birds taken as bycatch in this fishery, as is done in
some international fisheries. The more that is known about the
demographics of the birds taken in fisheries, the better resource
agencies can assess potential population effects and effectiveness of
mitigation methods. The need for retaining and analyzing bird carcasses
has been identified as an important issue by the North Pacific
Albatross Working Group.
Response: Bird carcasses should be retained, returned with the
observer to a field station, and then transported to laboratories for
complete processing. This activity was done during the High Seas
Driftnet Program, 1990-1992, where NMFS and the USFWS coordinated
closely on seabird incidental take in those fisheries and shared duties
to recover seabird carcasses. In that program, NMFS assigned observers
to retain carcasses, provided the proper gear and forms to observers,
and arranged for observers to return the carcasses to port. The USFWS
trained observers on seabird topics and collection procedures,
coordinated closely with NMFS to manage the transport of seabird and
marine mammal specimens from these ports to Seattle, and established a
recipient laboratory to handle and process the seabird specimens.
Beginning in 1993, and several times since, NMFS staff have requested
that the USFWS again collaborate together on a seabird carcass
collection program for groundfish observers that paralleled that of the
High Seas Driftnet Program. Unfortunately, the USFWS has, with one
exception (see below), been unable to retain a laboratory to handle a
comprehensive carcass collection program. With no end-user for
carcasses, it was inappropriate to assign this task to observers and
require fishermen to make freezer space available. The USFWS did select
a vendor to receive some specimens beginning in 2001, and NMFS
responded quickly by tasking specific observers to retain specimens in
a special collection project. In 2002, NMFS staff participating in the
North Pacific Albatross Working Group volunteered to take on a lead
role in developing a carcass collection program. No funding source to
support this project has as yet been identified, but a team that
includes staff from federal (including the USFWS) and state agencies
and other individuals are working on identifying agency funds, or
preparing proposals to other funding sources, in the hopes of starting
such a program.
Comment 49: The USFWS concurs with the Council's suggestion to
develop an ``industry-generated seabird avoidance incident reporting
form.'' This form would allow vessel operators to report on the
effectiveness of methods or operational issues that occur during the
deployment of seabird avoidance gear. This form would allow industry to
directly contribute to a format that would be readily accessible and
available for analysis by our agencies.
Response: The industry might benefit if it created an ``industry-
generated seabird avoidance incident reporting form'' for vessel
operators. Accordingly, NMFS asked those operators to maintain the
forms on the vessel and forward copies to their home offices and/or
fishery associations. Industry input and cooperation have been critical
to developing seabird avoidance measures, and these forms may provide
an excellent means of furthering the collaboration of government and
industry. The effectiveness of streamer lines and other measures will
vary among vessels, and each operator will likely need to adapt the
seabird avoidance measures for their vessel. These forms could help
identify operational difficulties and the actions that were taken to
resolve those difficulties. If that information is shared between
operators on a single vessel, and among operators within a fleet, it
would support a best-practices approach for seabird avoidance measures.
Comment 50: Maintaining healthy seabird populations provides
multiple human and ecological benefits. Due to their status as top
predators in the food web, seabirds are particularly important in
providing key information regarding the general health of the marine
environment. The proposed enhancements to the current seabird measures
will mitigate interactions with the endangered short-tailed albatross
and other seabirds in hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska. The commenter
supports the enhancements and congratulates the government for taking
this important action to effect such regulatory revisions.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Classification
The Council recommended this action to the Secretary for adoption
pursuant to its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws. NMFS prepared an EA/RIR/IRFA for the proposed
revisions to the seabird avoidance measures in the hook-and-line
groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA and in the Pacific halibut
fishery in U.S. Convention waters off Alaska that describes the
management background, the purpose and need for action, the management
alternatives, and the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives.
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator),
has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation
and management of the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA and the
Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska. The Regional Administrator also has
determined that this final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable laws. No relevant Federal
rules exist that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
NMFS also prepared a FRFA describing the impact of this action on
small entities. Copies of this FRFA are available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). A description of the final action, the reason the action is
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at
the beginning of this preamble. The FRFA incorporates the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and its findings. No comments on
the IRFA were received during the public comment period on the proposed
rule. Thus, no new data were incorporated into the analysis during the
comment period that would result in findings that differ from those
previously described. A description of the impacts of this action on
small entities was summarized in the proposed rule (68 FR 6386,
February 7, 2003). The entities that would be directly regulated by the
final regulations are fishing operations using vessels longer than 26
ft (7.9 m) LOA, using hook-and-line gear while fishing for IFQ or CDQ
halibut, IFQ sablefish, or groundfish in the EEZ off of Alaska, except
for operations using vessels less than or equal to 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA
using hook-and-line gear in IPHC area 4E in waters shoreward of the
EEZ. In 2000, an estimated 962 small groundfish hook-and-line catcher
vessels, 18 small groundfish catcher-processors, and 1,043 small
halibut vessels would have been directly regulated by this action.
There is believed to be overlap between the counts of groundfish
vessels and halibut vessels, since some vessels would have been used in
both fisheries. To the extent that any of these vessels are partners
with CDQ groups, the alternatives addressed in this analysis could
indirectly impact the six CDQ groups representing the 65 western Alaska
communities that are eligible for the CDQ Program. The CDQ groups and
the communities they represent all are small entities under the RFA.
Under the final rule, the measures required of all applicable
vessels over
[[Page 1947]]
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA will be expected to be of minimal cost. A bird
streamer line is estimated to cost $50 to $250 and line weights
represent a variable cost depending upon the necessary amount of
weights to sink the baited hooks. Procedural or operational changes may
be required in fishing operations.
The incidental take limit for short-tailed albatross could be
exceeded during longline fishing operations. If the regulatory
revisions under the final rule improve and strengthen the current
seabird avoidance measures, then the likelihood of encountering and
taking a short-tailed albatross would be reduced. Therefore, the
likelihood of a fishery closure and its ensuing economic impacts would
be reduced. If the anticipated take of short-tailed albatross was
exceeded in either the groundfish fishery or the halibut fishery, the
actual economic impacts resulting from a modification of the reasonable
and prudent measures established to minimize take of short-tailed
albatross would depend upon the revised measures, which could range
from measures required in this rule to closures. The economic impact of
fishery closures would depend upon the length of time of the closed
period and the extent of the closure. The 1999 exvessel value of the
Pacific cod fishery for hook-and-line gear was estimated at
approximately $72 million, approximately $71 million for the sablefish
fishery, and totaled approximately $150 million for all groundfish
species caught with hook-and-line gear. The 2000 exvessel value of the
Pacific halibut fishery was estimated at $67 million. Such economic
impacts on small entities could result in a substantial reduction in
annual gross revenues and could, therefore, potentially have a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Data are currently not available upon which to draw net
revenue conclusions about these probable effects.
The Council considered recommending performance standards for
seabird avoidance measures used on vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m)
LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA. Until further
information becomes available, performance standards for these smaller
vessels are suggested only as guidelines.
Three alternatives to the required seabird avoidance measures in
this final rule were also considered. The status quo alternative, while
posing no additional burden on small entities, would not alter the
operations of the hook-and-line fisheries in ways that would
significantly reduce the potential for the incidental take of seabirds.
It is associated with a heightened chance of fishery closure due to
incidental harvest of the endangered short-tailed albatross. Premature
fishery closure could be very burdensome for small entities. Although
fishery closures were not an alternative to this action considered by
the Council, closures could be considered under the Biological Opinion
issued under ESA if the incidental take limit is exceeded. The second
alternative considered, revisions to existing regulations based on the
Council's final action in April 1999, did not specifically address
performance and material standards for bird streamer lines. The correct
design and deployment of bird scaring lines are known to improve the
effectiveness of these seabird avoidance devices. The exemption for
vessels under 35 ft (10.7 m) LOA may increase the likelihood of short-
tailed albatross takes and consequent fishery closure. Closure could
have a substantial adverse impact on small entities. The third
alternative considered, revisions to existing regulations based on
recommendations from a two-year scientific research study conducted by
the WSGP on the effectiveness of seabird avoidance measures used in
hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska, would have substantially reduced
the likelihood of seabird takes, including takes of the endangered
short-tailed albatross, and reduce the potential for fisheries
closures. But, it does not mitigate the direct impacts of the
regulations on small entities.
The preferred alternative, which is implemented by this final rule,
should substantially reduce the likelihood of seabird takes, including
takes of short-tailed albatross and reduce the potential for fisheries
closures. It does substantially mitigate the direct impacts of the
regulations on small entities. The FRFA describes several steps taken
in the preferred alternative to minimize the impacts on small entities.
As described in Table 2 of the FRFA, ``Several modifications reduce the
requirements on some classes of small entities: (1) vessels under 26
feet are exempt, (2) performance and material standards are guidelines
for vessels between 26 and 55 feet, (3) vessels 32 feet or less fishing
halibut in IPHC area 4E are exempt. The improvements made to the
seabird avoidance measures with this final rule are expected to be much
greater than with any of the other alternatives that were considered
and evaluated.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires
agencies to publish one or more Small Entity Compliance Guides for each
rule or group of related rules for which the agency prepares a FRFA.
The Small Entity Compliance Guide is to be written in plain language
and explain the actions a small entity must take to comply with the
rule or group of rules. NMFS has prepared a Small Entity Compliance
Guide for this action and it is available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/
protectedresources/seabirds/guide.htm.
The Seabird Avoidance Plan will also serve to aid small entities in
that it is written in plain language, contains illustrations of the
required seabird avoidance measures, and describes most of the
requirements that must be taken to comply with this rule.
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB
under control number 0648-0474. Public reporting burden for the Seabird
Avoidance Plan is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including
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 this burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: December 31, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended
as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 679.2 under ``Authorized fishing gear,'' a new paragraph
for the definition
[[Page 1948]]
of ``snap gear'' is added in numerical order, and the definition for
``Seabird'' is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Authorized fishing gear * * *
* * * * *
(17) Snap gear means a type of hook-and-line gear where the hook
and gangion are attached to the groundline using a mechanical fastener
or snap.
* * * * *
Seabird means those bird species that habitually obtain their food
from the sea below the low water mark.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 679.5, paragraph (c)(1)(xvii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(xvii) The bird avoidance gear code(s);
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 679.24, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.24 Gear limitations.
* * * * *
(e) Seabird avoidance program for vessels fishing with hook-and-
line gear.--(1) Applicability. The operator of a vessel that is longer
than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-and-line gear must comply with
the seabird avoidance requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(2)
through (e)(4) of this section while fishing for:
(i) IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut,
(ii) IFQ sablefish, and
(iii) Groundfish in the EEZ off Alaska.
(2) Seabird Avoidance Requirements. The operator of a vessel
described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must:
(i) Gear onboard. Have onboard the vessel the seabird avoidance
gear as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section;
(ii) Gear inspection. Upon request by an authorized officer or
observer, make the seabird avoidance gear available for inspection;
(iii) Gear use. Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in
paragraph (e)(4) of this section that meets performance and material
standards as specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, while hook-
and-line gear is being deployed.
(iv) Sink baited hooks. Use hooks that when baited, sink as soon as
they are put in the water.
(v) Offal discharge. (A) If offal is discharged while gear is being
set or hauled, discharge offal in a manner that distracts seabirds from
baited hooks, to the extent practicable. The discharge site on board a
vessel must be either aft of the hauling station or on the opposite
side of the vessel from the hauling station.
(B) Remove hooks from any offal that is discharged.
(C) Eliminate directed discharge through chutes or pipes of
residual bait or offal from the stern of the vessel while setting gear.
This does not include baits falling off the hook or offal discharges
from other locations that parallel the gear and subsequently drift into
the wake zone well aft of the vessel.
(D) For vessels not deploying gear from the stern, eliminate
directed discharge of residual bait or offal over sinking hook-and-line
gear while gear is being deployed.
(vi) Safe release of seabirds. Make every reasonable effort to
ensure birds brought on board alive are released alive and that,
wherever possible, hooks are removed without jeopardizing the life of
the birds.
(3) Seabird Avoidance Plan. A Seabird Avoidance Plan must:
(i) Be written, current, and onboard the vessel.
(ii) Contain the following information:
(A) Vessel name.
(B) Master's name.
(C) Type of bird avoidance measures utilized.
(D) Positions and responsibilities of crew for deploying,
adjusting, and monitoring performance of deployed gear.
(E) Instructions and/or diagrams outlining the sequence of actions
required to deploy and retrieve the gear to meet specified performance
standards.
(F) Procedures for strategic discharge of offal, if any.
(G) The NMFS ``Seabird Avoidance Plan'' form, completed and signed
by vessel operator. Vessel operator's signature shall indicate the
operator has read the plan, reviewed it with the vessel crew, made it
available to the crew, and has instructed the vessel crew to read it.
(iii) Be made available for inspection upon request by an
authorized officer or observer.
(4) Seabird avoidance gear requirements. (See also Table 20 to this
part.) The operator of a vessel identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section must comply with the following requirements:
(i) While fishing with hook-and-line gear, including snap gear, in
NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), 659 (Eastern GOA
Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), or state waters of Cook
Inlet:
(A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts,
poles, or rigging.
(B) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA with masts,
poles, or rigging.
(C) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(B) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 32
ft (9.8 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts,
poles, or rigging.
(D) A minimum of a single streamer line of a standard as specified
in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section must be used by vessels greater
than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
(ii) While fishing with hook-and-line gear other than snap gear in
Federal waters (EEZ) not including NMFS Area 659, or in state waters
not specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i):
(A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(i) of this section and one other device as specified in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without
masts, poles, or rigging.
(B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(B) of this section and one other device as specified in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with
masts, poles, or rigging.
(C) A minimum of paired streamer lines of a standard as specified
in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) of this section must be used by vessels
greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
(iii) While fishing with snap gear in the EEZ (not including Area
659) or state waters not specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i):
(A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(i) of this section and one other device as specified in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without
masts, poles, or rigging.
(B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(iv)(B) of this section and one other device as specified in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with
masts, poles, or rigging.
[[Page 1949]]
(C) A minimum of a single streamer line of a standard as specified
in paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section and one other device as
specified in paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels
greater 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging.
(iv) While fishing with hook-and-line gear other than snap gear for
IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish, in waters shoreward of the
EEZ, requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and (e)(8) must
be used.
(5) Seabird avoidance gear performance and material standards:
(i) Buoy bag line weather exception. In winds exceeding 45 knots
(storm or Beaufort 9 conditions), the use of a buoy bag line is
discretionary.
(ii) Single streamer standard. (A) A single streamer line must:
(1) Be a minimum of 300 feet (91.4 m) in length;
(2) Have streamers spaced every 16.4 ft (5 m);
(3) Be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that
streamers are in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the
stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main
groundline enters the water.
(4) Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to
9.8 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind.
(5) Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly
colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or 3/8 inch polyester line or
material of an equivalent density.
(B) Weather exception: In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or
Beaufort 9 conditions), the use of a single streamer line is
discretionary.
(iii) Paired streamer standard: (A) At least one streamer line must
be deployed before the first hook is set and two streamer lines must be
fully deployed within 90 seconds.
(B) Weather exceptions: In conditions of wind speeds exceeding 30
knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions), but less than or equal to
45 knots, a single streamer must be deployed from the windward side of
the vessel. In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or Beaufort 9
conditions), the use of streamer lines is discretionary.
(C) Streamer lines must:
(1) Be deployed in such a way that streamers are in the air for a
minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern for vessels under 100 ft
(30.5 m) and 196.9 ft (60 m) aft of the stern for vessels 100 ft (30.5
m) or over;
(2) Be a minimum of 300 feet (91.4 m) in length;
(3) Have streamers spaced every 16.4 ft (5 m);
(4) For vessels deploying hook-and-line gear from the stern, the
streamer lines must be deployed from the stern, one on each side of the
main groundline.
(5) For vessels deploying gear from the side, the streamer lines
must be deployed from the stern, one over the main groundline and the
other on one side of the main groundline.
(6) Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to
9.8 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind.
(7) Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly
colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or 3/8 inch polyester line or
material of an equivalent density.
(iv) Snap gear streamer standard: (A) For vessels using snap gear,
a single streamer line must:
(1) Be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that
streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within
6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters
the water.
(2) Have a minimum length of 147.6 ft (45 m).
(B) Weather exception: In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or
Beaufort 9 conditions), the use of a single streamer line is
discretionary.
(6) Other seabird avoidance devices and methods. As required at
paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) and (e)(4)(iii) of this section,
include the following:
(i) Add weights to groundline.
(ii) Use a buoy bag line or single streamer line, of standards as
appropriate and as specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
(iii) To distract birds away from the setting of baited hooks,
discharge fish, fish parts (i.e. offal) or spent bait.
(7) Other methods. The following measures or methods must be
accompanied by the applicable seabird avoidance gear requirements as
specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section:
(i) Night-setting,
(ii) Line shooter, or
(iii) Lining tube.
(8) Seabird avoidance exemption.
Nothwithstanding any other paragraph in this part, operators of
vessels 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA or less using hook-and-line gear in IPHC Area
4E in waters shoreward of the EEZ are exempt from seabird avoidance
regulations.
0
5. In Sec. 679.32, new paragraph (f)(5) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.32 Groundfish and halibut CDQ catch monitoring.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Seabird avoidance requirements. The CDQ group, and vessel owner
or operator must comply with all of the seabird avoidance requirements
at Sec. 679.42(b)(2).
0
6. In Sec. 679.42, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.42 Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Seabird avoidance gear and methods. The operator of a vessel
using gear authorized at Sec. 679.2 while fishing for IFQ halibut, CDQ
halibut, or hook-and-line gear while fishing for IFQ sablefish must
comply with requirements for seabird avoidance gear and methods set
forth at Sec. 679.24(e).
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 679.50, paragraph (g)(1)(viii)(F) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December
31, 2007.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) * * *
(F) Collecting all seabirds that are incidentally taken on the
observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear or as
requested by an observer during non-sampled portions of hauls.
* * * * *
0
8. In part 679, Table 19 is revised and Table 20 to part 679 is added
to read as follows:
Table 19 to Part 679. Seabird Avoidance Gear Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VESSEL LOGBOOK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEABIRD AVOIDANCE GEAR OR
CODE METHOD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Paired Streamer Lines: Used
during deployment of hook-
and-line gear to prevent
birds from taking hooks. Two
streamer lines used, one on
each side of the main
groundline. Each streamer
line consists of three
components: a length of
line, streamers attached
along a portion of the
length and one or more float
devices at the terminal end.
See performance and material
standards at Sec.
679.24(e)(5)(iii).
[[Page 1950]]
2 Single Streamer Line: Used
during deployment of hook-
and-line gear to prevent
birds from taking hooks. The
streamer line consists of
three components: a length
of line, streamers attached
along a portion of the
length and one or more float
devices at the terminal end.
See performance and material
standards at Sec.
679.24(e)(5)(ii).
3 Single Streamer Line, used
with Snap Gear: Used during
the deployment of snap gear
to prevent birds from taking
hooks. The streamer line
consists of three
components: a length of
line, streamers attached
along a portion of the
length and one or more float
devices at the terminal end.
See performance and material
standards at Sec.
679.24(e)(5)(iv).
4 Buoy Bag Line: Used during
the deployment of hook-and-
line gear to prevent birds
from taking hooks. A buoy
bag line consists of two
components: a length of line
(without streamers attached)
and one or more float
devices at the terminal end.
See performance and material
standards at Sec.
679.24(e)(5)(i).
Other Device used in conjunction with Single Streamer Line or Buoy Bag
Line.
5 Add weights to groundline:
Applying weights to the
groundline for the purpose
of sinking the hook-and-line
gear more quickly and
preventing seabirds from
accessing the baited hooks.
6 Additional Buoy Bag Line or
Single Streamer Line: Using
a second buoy bag line or
streamer line for the
purpose of enhancing the
effectiveness of these
deterrent devices at
preventing seabirds from
accessing baited hooks.
7 Strategic Offal Discharge:
Discharging fish, fish parts
(i.e. offal) or spent bait
for the purpose of
distracting seabirds away
from the main groundline
while setting gear.
Additional Device Used
8 Night Fishing: Setting hook-
and-line gear during dark
hours.
Line Shooter: A hydraulic
device designed to deploy
hook-and-line gear at a
speed slightly faster than
the vessel's speed during
setting.
Lining Tube: A device used to
deploy hook-and-line gear
through an underwater-
setting device.
Other (Describe)
9 No Deterrent Used Due to
Weather. [See weather
exceptions at Sec.
679.24(e)(5)(i)(B),
(e)(5)(ii)(B),
(e)(5)(iii)(B),
(e)(5)(iv)(B).]
0 No Deterrent Used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 20 to Part 679. Seabird Avoidance Gear Requirements for Vessels,
based on Area, Gear, and Vessel Type. (See Sec. 679.24(e) for complete
seabird avoidance program requirements; see 679.24(e)(1) for applicable
fisheries)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-
and-line gear, including snap gear, in
inside waters [``NMFS Reporting Area Then you must use this seabird
649 (Prince William Sound), 659 avoidance gear in conjunction
(Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast with requirements at Sec.
Inside District) or in state waters of 679.24(e)...
Cook Inlet''], and your vessel is...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ft to 32 ft LOA minimum of one buoy bag line
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and does minimum of one buoy bag line
not have masts, poles, or rigging
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and has minimum of a single streamer
masts, poles, or rigging line
55 ft LOA minimum of a single streamer
line of a standard specified
at Sec. 679.24(e)(5)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-
and-line gear, other than snap gear, in Then you must use this seabird
the EEZ, not including any inside avoidance gear in conjunction
waters listed above, and your vessel with requirements at Sec.
is... 679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and does minimum of one buoy bag line
not have masts, poles, or rigging and one other device1
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and has minimum of a single streamer
masts, poles, or rigging line and one other device1
55 ft LOA minimum of paired streamer
lines of a standard specified
at Sec. 679.24(e)(5)(iii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-
and-line gear, in the EEZ, not Then you must use this seabird
including any inside waters listed avoidance gear in conjunction
above, and it is snap gear, and your with requirements at Sec.
vessel is... 679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and does minimum of one buoy bag line
not have masts, poles, or rigging and one other device1
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and has minimum of a single streamer
masts, poles, or rigging line and one other device1
55 ft LOA minimum of a single streamer
line of a standard specified
at Sec. 679.24(e)(5)(iv) and
one other device\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook- Then you must use this seabird
and-line gear other than snap gear, in avoidance gear in conjunction
state waters of IPHC Area 4E, and your with requirements at Sec.
vessel is... 679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and does minimum of one buoy bag line
not have masts, poles, or rigging and one other device1
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and has minimum of a single streamer
masts, poles, or rigging line and one other device\1\
[[Page 1951]]
55 ft LOA minimum of paired streamer
lines of a standard specified
at Sec. 679.24(e)(5)(iii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook- Then you must use this seabird
and-line gear, in state waters of IPHC avoidance gear in conjunction
Area 4E, and it is snap gear, and your with requirements at Sec.
vessel is... 679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and does minimum of one buoy bag line
not have masts, poles, or rigging and one other device1
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and has minimum of a single streamer
masts, poles, or rigging line and one other device1
55 ft LOA minimum of a single streamer
line of a standard specified
at Sec. 679.24(e)(5)(iv) and
one other device\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\other device = weights added to groundline, another buoy bag line or
single streamer line, or strategic offal discharge [see Sec.
679.24(e)(6) for more details]
[FR Doc. 04-378 Filed 1-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S