7. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

7.1 Alternatives for Analysis: Pelagic Longline Requirements
7.2 Alternatives for Analysis: Shark Gillnet Requirements
7.3 Alternatives for Analysis: General Requirements (bycatch mortality measures for all gear types)
7.4 Summary of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

7. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

National standard (NS) 9 states that:

Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable:
(1) Minimize bycatch; and
(2) To the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.

Reducing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch in HMS fisheries, particularly the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, was identified in the HMS FMP as a critical management goal that needed to be addressed pursuant to this NS. Specifically, an objective of the HMS FMP is to "minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch of living marine resources and the mortality of such bycatch that cannot be avoided in the fisheries for Atlantic tuna, swordfish, and sharks." The HMS FMP and a final rule published on August 1, 2000 (65 FR 47214), provide detailed discussions of bycatch and incidental catch issues associated with the various HMS commercial and recreational fisheries. Further, these documents also note that additional actions beyond those included in the HMS FMP or final rule would be necessary to address these bycatch, bycatch mortality and incidental catch concerns. Under ESA, the June 14, 2001, BiOp requires NOAA Fisheries to further reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of sea turtles in HMS fisheries. The following sections evaluate a number of alternatives to meet this goal.

7.1 Alternatives for Analysis: Pelagic Longline Requirements

Alternative 1 (Final Action) Close the NED area to fishing with pelagic longline gear on board (BiOp Requirement)

This action closes the NED area (20 to 60^o W, 35 to 55^o N) to all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted for HMS, with pelagic longline gear on board. The need for a closure will be reevaluated in spring 2004 following the completion of a three year experimental fishery that began in 2001.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

Observer and logbook data from pelagic longline vessels in the NED area in the third and fourth quarters (July to December) indicate high levels of sea turtle bycatch over the past several years. For example, based on logbook data from 1997 to 1999, closing the NED area for the entire year will reduce the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles captured in this fishery by 76 percent and 65 percent, respectively, assuming no redistribution of the fishing effort displaced out of the NED. Even assuming that all of the fishing effort that occurred in the NED area shifts into the adjacent area, the northeast coast statistical reporting (NEC) area, which also has a relatively high bycatch rate, the number of takes per year will still be reduced by 67 percent for loggerheads and 58 percent for leatherbacks, based on the logbook data (Table 7.1). Additionally, Hoey and Moore (1999) stated that in many cases, two or more sea turtles have been caught per longline set in the NED area, which indicates that pelagic longline fishing in this area poses a potentially greater risk to listed species of sea turtles than pelagic longline fishing in other areas (where multiple sea turtle takes per set are less frequent). Hoey and Moore (1999) found that the NED area was the only observed area where four or more sea turtles were caught on a single set, and that 19 sets caught three sea turtles per set and 22 sets caught two sea turtles per set contrasted to the mid-Atlantic bight statistical reporting (MAB) and NEC areas where three sets caught three sea turtles per set, and 11 sets caught two sea turtles per set.

Table 7.1 The estimated percent reductions of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles interactions for the NED area closure under the no effort redistribution and effort redistribution models. Source: Logbook reports from 1997 through 1999.

Month	Number of leatherback sea turtles reported caught in NED area	Number of loggerhead sea turtles reported caught in NED area	Percent reduction of leatherback sea turtles		Percent reduction of loggerhead sea turtles		Percent reduction if all the effort in the NED area goes to the NEC area
			No effort redistr.	Effort redistr.	No effort redistr.	Effort redistr.
			No effort redistr.	Effort redistr.	No effort redistr.	Effort redistr.	Leatherback	Loggerhead
Jan.	0	0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Feb.	0	0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Mar.	0	0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Apr.	0	0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
May	1	6	0.27	0.27	0.47	0.47	0.27	0.46
Jun.	18	56	4.84	4.48	4.42	4.09	3.94	1.90
Jul.	81	473	21.77	21.30	37.30	36.19	21.02	33.25
Aug.	60	137	16.13	15.20	10.80	10.22	13.47	8.93
Sep.	43	140	11.56	10.90	11.04	10.70	9.56	10.41
Oct.	37	154	9.95	9.79	12.15	11.97	9.37	11.53
Nov.	1	2	0.27	0.22	0.16	0.14	0.27	0.14
Dec.	0	0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Total	241	968	64.78	62.51	76.34	74.81	57.90	66.62

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

Initially, the closure may result in fewer target and bycatch species, such as swordfish, blue sharks, and sea turtles, being captured by pelagic longlines. The NED area is one of the highest areas of blue shark discards for U.S. fishermen and has the greatest incidence of sea turtles interactions. However, if the U.S. vessels are not fishing in the NED area, vessels of the international fleet may begin fishing in that area, which could result in the same or increased levels of bycatch of other species. As international vessels are not known to practice the same conservation measures that the United States has implemented, greater ecological harm may befall the impacted species and associated ecosystem if foreign vessels move to the NED area.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is considered a Category I fishery under the MMPA. In 2000, there were 14 observed takes of marine mammals by pelagic longlines. This number has been extrapolated out to an estimated 403 mammals fleet-wide (32 common dolphin, 93 Risso's dolphin, 231 pilot whale, 19 whale, 29 pygmy sperm whale) (Yeung, 2001). The NED area accounted for only 23 of these takes. By closing the NED area, NOAA Fisheries may redistribute fishing effort into areas of higher marine mammal concentrations.

Gannetts, gulls, greater shearwaters, and storm petrels are occasionally hooked by Atlantic pelagic longlines (Table 5.4). These species and all other seabirds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Seabird populations are often slow to recover from excess mortality as a consequence of their low reproductive potential (one egg per year and late sexual maturation). The majority of longline interactions with seabirds occur as the gear is being set. The birds eat the bait and become hooked on the line; the line sinks and the birds are subsequently drowned. Since 1992, a total of 92 seabird interactions have been observed, with 67 seabirds observed killed, in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Most of these interactions occurred in the NEC and MAB areas (Table 5.4). There were no interactions in the NED areas. Based on this limited information and the level and location of effort redistribution, closing the NED area could slightly increase the incidental capture of seabirds in the pelagic longline fisheries if the NED vessels relocated their fishing effort to the NEC or MAB areas.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP and the Billfish Amendment state that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The HMS FMP describes habitat damage by pelagic longlines as negligible to the pelagic environment. Area closures to pelagic longline gear are not anticipated to have a negative effect on the EFH for Atlantic HMS.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

A closure of the NED area could result in changes in fishing, processing, marketing practices, and costs because effort could be redistributed to other areas and fishermen might sell their catch to previously unknown dealers. As shown in Larkin et al. (2000) and Porter et al. (2001) fishing costs vary depending on the area fished. Thus, depending on the area NED area fishermen move to, fishing costs could stay relatively the same (e.g., if they move to the Caribbean) or they could decrease (e.g., they move to the NEC). However, the net revenues of the trips in all areas, except the Caribbean, are lower than the net revenues in the NED area. Thus, NOAA Fisheries expects that NED area fishermen would move to the Caribbean where net revenues are similar to NED area net revenues.

Because some fishermen currently have strong financial and loyalty links to their dealers, closing the NED area could affect both dealers and fishermen economically and socially. The long-standing relationships between certain vessel operators and dealers at specific locations can provide financial benefits to both parties. Closing the NED area, therefore, could convey reduced certainty to dealers (supply of raw product) and a lack of a credit source (or other services) for vessel operators. This is especially true for dealers of NED area fishermen because NED area fishermen land such a high percent of the total U.S. swordfish catch. Some NED area fishermen might continue to sell to their original buyer; however, transport costs for the catch might increase and the amount of fish landed might decrease.

The secondary processing firms are not likely to be affected as much by any of the closure alternatives if they currently depend on imported swordfish or tunas throughout the year. If they do not currently work with these imported species, it is possible they would be able to replace their domestic fish supply with imports or with fish caught in open areas. Most of these firms handle species caught in other fisheries as well, which also provides them some flexibility.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

As a result of a NED area closure, pelagic longline fishermen might: 1) stop fishing for HMS and sell their limited access permits for shark, swordfish, and tunas and possibly their vessel or 2) fish for HMS in an open area. Because of their size, the NED area vessels could move to any location reasonably safely. Additionally, because of their size, these vessels could take longer trips than the vessels that have traditionally fished in those areas. Furthermore, because there are so few NED area vessels, their movement to other areas would be unlikely to cause any further crowding on traditional fishing grounds in other areas.

In the short-term, NOAA Fisheries hopes that eligible vessels that have traditionally fished the NED area will participate in the three year experiment. The purpose of the experiment is to test different fishing practices to reduce interactions and mortality of sea turtles in the pelagic longline fleet. The results of the experiment could alter fishing practices and behavior of all pelagic longline fishermen in the long-term.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

The closure of the NED area and subsequent experiment in the NED area will increase research, administration, and enforcement costs, due largely to evaluating and monitoring the closure and running the experiment. At the moment, the primary mechanism for monitoring pelagic longline activity is fly overs, at sea boardings, and visits to the dock. However, depending on the result of an ongoing lawsuit, NOAA Fisheries hopes to increase monitoring of the pelagic longline fleet with the implementation of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) program as described in the HMS FMP and a remand document submitted to the court. Implementing a fleet-wide VMS program has substantial initial administration and enforcement costs; however, once the program is established, its capabilities will allow for more effective use of limited assets to enforce closed areas. Additionally, depending on the results of the three year experiment, the NED area may be re-opened. This would reduce enforcement and research costs to their current levels.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

Fewer than 20 vessels fish in the NED area in any given year (Table 7.2). In 1999, out of 224 vessels that reported using pelagic longline gear, 10 fished in the NED. In 2000, out of the 171 vessels that reported using pelagic longline gear, 13 vessels fished in the NED. However, these few vessels land a significant portion of the swordfish by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet. In 1998, the 15 vessels fishing in the NED area landed 19.8 percent of all the swordfish landed by U.S. pelagic longline fishermen. In 1999, the 10 vessels in the NED area landed 18.3 percent of all the swordfish landed by U.S. pelagic longline fishermen. In 2000, the 13 vessels in the NED area landed 24.7 percent of all the swordfish landed by U.S. pelagic longline fishermen (Cramer 2001). Thus, although few fishermen actively participate in the NED area each year, the fishermen that are active in the NED area report landing a substantial amount of the swordfish relative to the entire fleet and closing the area could reduce the amount of domestic swordfish available for consumption if the supply shortfall could not be made up from other fishing areas or through increased imports.

Table 7.2 The number of swordfish and tunas caught (kept and discarded) in 1998 and 1999. Source: Cramer and Adams, 2001

Area	Year	Swordfish	Yellowfin tuna	Bigeye tuna	Bluefin tuna	Albacore tuna	Number of vessels
CAR	1998	5,269	319	386	1	205	30
CAR	1999	3,171	91	235	2	120	18
GOM	1998	12,131	37,623	415	173	82	98
GOM	1999	12,684	59,050	507	319	104	89
FEC	1998	14,206	996	2,916	54	742	69
FEC	1999	16,789	1,589	2,767	63	496	53
SAB	1998	19,974	1,656	92	16	93	53
SAB	1999	19,638	5,658	118	14	47	45
MAB	1998	8,275	8,451	6,592	934	3,905	64
MAB	1999	7,745	13,278	11,255	202	5.566	68
NEC	1998	5,921	4,691	5,415	312	1,512	40
NEC	1999	4,199	3,736	4,666	202	1,425	39
NED	1998	15,677	96	1,552	27	103	15
NED	1999	13,877	13	1,063	54	116	10
SAR	1998	159	29	219	24	278	9
SAR	1999	208	162	45	4	49	4
NCA	1998	4,495	150	278	3	332	12
NCA	1999	2,253	76	172	0	151	9
TUN	1998	1,117	722	784	0	97	12
TUN	1999	534	291	279	0	13	9
TUS	1998	4,431	956	656	0	31	11
TUS	1999	4,856	532	1,614	0	42	8
Total	1998	91,655	55,689	19,305	1,544	9,380	210
Total	1999	85,954	84,476	22,721	860	8,129	193

This reduction in swordfish landings could also affect dealers, especially those who are supplied by the vessels fishing in the NED area, who as a result of the closure would receive approximately 20 percent fewer swordfish to process. Bait houses and equipment suppliers would not be affected as much as dealers or fishermen because, in the worst case scenario, only 10 to 20 vessels would go out of business as a result of the closure of the NED area. Presumably, bait houses and equipment suppliers rely on more than 10 to 20 vessels to remain in business, although NOAA Fisheries realizes that these 10 to 20 vessels, on average, probably require more bait and equipment than many other vessel types. Although domestic swordfish landings could decrease, U.S. consumers would not likely be affected because the United States already imports large amounts of swordfish each year from other countries (13,842,970 kg in 1999, 14,314,075 kg in 2000, NOAA Fisheries, 2002) and importers would likely expand their business depending on demand.

In general, gross and net revenues for vessels that fish in the NED area are much higher than the gross and net revenues for vessels that fish in other areas, with the possible exception of the Caribbean. Using the data presented in Table 7.2, the ex-vessel price information available in the 2001 SAFE report (NOAA Fisheries, 2001d), and the total weight of swordfish reported to ICCAT in the U.S. National Report (NOAA Fisheries, 2000b), the total annual ex-vessel gross revenues from swordfish alone for the 10 vessels fishing in the NED area in 1999 were approximately $3.2 M with an average annual ex-vessel gross revenue of $323,532 per vessel. Similarly, the 15 vessels active in 1998 landed approximately $3.6 million in total ex-vessel gross revenues from swordfish alone with an average of $237,753 ex-vessel gross revenues per vessel (Table 7.3). If information more specific to NED area vessels and their NED area landings is used (i.e., weights reported to dealers in ports commonly used by vessels fishing in the NED area and the addition of bigeye tuna revenues) (Table 7.4), the average annual ex-vessel gross revenues per vessel for 1999 is $325,545 and for 1998 is $188,561. The average annual ex-vessel gross revenues per vessel for vessels in areas other than the NED area was $41,053 in 1998 and $46,473 in 1999. The estimated total annual ex-vessel gross revenues from swordfish for all areas except the NED area is $13.9 million for 1999 and $14.2 million in 1998. Using 2000 weigh-out data and 2000 average prices from the north Atlantic region, the 13 active vessels landed a total of $5 million in gross revenues from all species with an average gross revenues per trip of $106,903 (see Table 8.4). Similarly, the vessels outside the NED area landed a total of $29 million in gross revenues from all species (see Table 8.4). Thus, closing the NED area could reduce the total annual ex-vessel gross revenues by pelagic longline gear by almost 20 percent.

Table 7.3 The estimated annual gross revenues for vessels from swordfish landed from all areas for 1998 and 1999. The average price per lb. changes between areas. Source: Cramer and Adams, 2001; NOAA Fisheries, 2001d; NOAA Fisheries, 2000b.

Area	Year	Swordfish landed	Total annual gross revenues for all vessels ($M)	Number of vessels	Average annual gross revenues per vessel ($K)
CAR	1998	4,260	$1.11	30	$36.9
CAR	1999	2,600	$0.68	18	$38.0
GOM	1998	8,523	$2.22	98	$22.6
GOM	1999	7,960	$2.10	89	$23.5
FEC	1998	9,003	$2.29	69	$33.1
FEC	1999	12,259	$3.15	53	$59.4
SAB	1998	14,185	$3.60	53	$68.0
SAB	1999	14,708	$3.78	45	$84.0
MAB	1998	4,918	$1.32	64	$20.7
MAB	1999	4,709	$1.28	68	$18.9
NEC	1998	4,067	$1.09	40	$27.2
NEC	1999	3,003	$0.81	39	$20.9
NED	1998	13,308	$3.57	15	$237.8
NED	1999	11,932	$3.23	10	$323.5
SAR	1998	137	$0.03	9	$3.8
SAR	1999	171	$0.04	4	$11.0
NCA	1998	4,074	$1.03	12	$86.2
NCA	1999	1,974	$0.51	9	$56.4
TUN	1998	882	$0.22	12	$18.7
TUN	1999	427	$0.11	9	$12.2
TUS	1998	4,032	$1.02	11	$93.1
TUS	1999	4,370	$1.12	8	$140.4
Total	1998	67,633	$17.76	210	$84.6
Total	1999	64,365	$17.10	193	$88.6

Table 7.4 The estimated annual gross revenues for vessels from swordfish and bigeye tuna landed from the NED area for 1997-2000 using data specific to those vessels that fished in the NED area. Source: Data maintained by the NEFSC and SEFSC.

Year	Number of vessels	Average annual gross revenues per vessel ($K)
1997	22	$152.2
1998	15	$188.6
1999	10	$325.5
2000	13	$386.5
Average	15	$263.2

NOAA Fisheries hopes that at least a few vessels who normally fish in the NED area will decide to participate in the experimental fishery NOAA Fisheries is conducting in the NED area. If this happens, NOAA Fisheries expects that those fishermen who participate would be compensated as appropriate and that dealers who rely on those fishermen would receive some of the swordfish normally expected. Additionally, bait houses and equipment suppliers would still be required by any of the participating vessels. Thus, the experimental fishery could mitigate some of the economic impacts to those vessels that participate.

Any benefits to U.S. fishermen as a result of closing the NED area would arise if fishermen decided to fish in areas closer to shore or in the Caribbean. If the fishermen do decide to fish in open areas closer to shore, they would experience fewer costs in terms of fuel and may be able to spend the time usually spent traveling to the NED area fishing in those areas. If the fishermen who fish in the NED area land as many swordfish fishing in these other areas, they may experience higher net revenues. However, given the estimated gross revenues for vessels in these other areas, this may be unlikely.

Instead, closing the NED area will likely have benefits for the nation as a whole in terms of the existence value of turtles. The existence value is the value that society at large places on the recovery of turtle populations. It is also possible that U.S. consumers would be willing to pay more for domestic swordfish if they perceive that the U.S. pelagic longline fleet is fostering sea turtle recovery and working towards a solution to reduce interactions with sea turtles for all international fleets. Although there is limited evidence of effective market segmentation in seafood trade, this could benefit dealers, processors, and fishermen.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

Depending on the course of action taken by individual vessels, this action could have large economic impacts on the fewer than 20 vessels that normally fish in the NED area. Those vessels could volunteer to participate in the experimental fishery in the NED area. The vessels that do participate would be able to continue fishing in the NED area pursuant to the terms of the experimental fishery, and could receive some monetary compensation to offset lost revenues attributable to gear modifications and other variables of the experiment. Thus, participating vessels may not be significantly affected by this action, at least during the experiment (see Chapter 8 for further discussion of the economic impacts of the NED closed area). Affected vessels could also decide to fish in the open areas either near shore (compared to the NED area) or farther away from their current homeports (e.g., the Caribbean). Those vessels that stay near shore would probably have fewer variable costs and could spend time usually spent traveling on fishing. However, none of the ex-vessel gross revenues from these other areas are, on average, as large as those expected from fishing in the NED area (Table 8.4) so any vessel that chooses this course of action may experience some decreased revenue. These impacts of increased costs and decreased revenues may be enough to put some of the vessels out of business. Vessels could also reflag to another country. NOAA Fisheries is unsure what net economic costs or benefits might arise for the individual vessel under this circumstance.

Social Effects

Because the fishermen in the NED area report landing approximately 20 percent of all the swordfish landed by commercial U.S. fishermen, closing the NED area could also have an adverse impact on dealers. However, the experimental fishery could mitigate impacts on these dealers at least in the short-term.

Consumers may notice a decrease in the supply of fresh fish if importers are unable to increase their supplies. Also, as a result of the BiOp and resulting rules, consumers may perceive U.S.-caught fish as more environmentally sound and demand domestic fish. If this occurs, it is possible that fishermen fleet-wide may experience an increase in ex-vessel revenues depending on the demand of consumers.

This closure could have noticeable impacts on the communities that depend on the vessels that fish in the NED area. Any impact would depend on the course of action taken by each individual vessel.

Summary

Closing the NED area will reduce the number of sea turtle takes in the HMS Atlantic pelagic longline fishery by approximately 70 percent (Table 7.1). While closing this area could increase marine mammal and seabird takes slightly and could have large economic and social impacts, until gear modifications are designed and tested to reduce sea turtle takes, this alternative is the only alternative that meets the BiOp requirements to reduce sea turtle takes in the HMS Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. In the short-term, it is likely that the economic and social impacts could be minimized if NED area fishermen participate in the experimental fishery.

Alternative 2 (Not Selected) Prohibit vessel operators using pelagic longline gear from setting gangions next to floatlines (must be two gangion lengths away) (BiOp Requirement)

Implementing this alternative would prohibit fishermen on all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted for HMS, engaged in pelagic longline fishing for HMS from attaching gangions to the mainline within two gangion lengths of the floatline attachment to the mainline.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

Data from the Hawaii pelagic longline fishery indicate that hooks that are beneath or adjacent to floatlines have a much higher sea turtle catch rate than hooks one or more positions away from the floatline (Kleiber, 2000). In observer data from the Hawaii fleet, hooks nearest the floatline caught 45 percent of all loggerheads, but only represented 19 percent of the hooks fished on sets that caught loggerheads. Hooks nearest the floatline caught 49 percent of all leatherbacks, but only represented 17 percent of the hooks fished on sets that caught leatherbacks. Based on this information, the June 14, 2001, BiOp estimated that eliminating hooks in this position could, theoretically, reduce takes of leatherbacks and loggerheads by as much as 49 percent and 45 percent, respectively. The June 14, 2001, BiOp noted that such a large reduction is unlikely as turtles might still be caught on the hooks set farther from the floatline. Because of this, the BiOp estimated that the reductions in sea turtle captures due to this measure would be 22-percent for loggerheads and 24-percent for leatherbacks.

In the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, as demonstrated during the 2001 NED experimental fishery, shifting gangions away from floatlines does not significantly reduce interactions with sea turtles. In the case of leatherback sea turtles, shifting gangions from floatlines may increase incidental captures. Loggerhead captures in the treatment sets did not change significantly from the number of captures in the control sets. Because of its lack of effectiveness and the possibility of increasing sea turtle takes, NOAA Fisheries is not selecting this alternative.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

Preliminary data from the 2001 experimental fishery concerning target catch indicate that moving gangions away from floatlines does not decrease the catch of target species. Some swordfish fishermen add the gangion adjacent to the floatline because they believe that the action imparted to the hook by wave motion makes the bait presentation more attractive to swordfish (Thompson, 2001). However, a preliminary analysis of data on swordfish caught in the Hawaii-based fishery indicates that the distribution of all hooks that caught swordfish was not much different from the distribution of all hooks available to the swordfish (Thompson, 2001). Thus, NOAA Fisheries would not expect this alternative to reduce the catch rate of swordfish although a reduction in the number of hooks could reduce the amount of swordfish caught. However, this alternative may not affect the number of hooks fished per set if the length of the mainline is increased or the hook spacing is decreased to maintain a similar number of hooks.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative is not expected to have any positive or negative impact on the catch of marine mammal and seabird species. While marine mammals can be hooked on pelagic longline gear, there are no reports indicating that more marine mammals are caught on hooks near floatlines as opposed to other hooks along the length of the mainline. Thus, because the number of hooks is likely to remain the same, NOAA Fisheries would not expect this alternative to change the number of marine mammals hooked on pelagic longline gear. Similarly, because seabirds are caught on pelagic longline during the hauling and setting of the gear, changing the placement of the hooks along the longline is unlikely to have an impact on the number of seabirds caught.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The HMS FMP describes habitat damage by pelagic longlines as negligible to the pelagic environment. Gear modifications are not anticipated to have a negative effect on the EFH for Atlantic HMS.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would have minimal economic impacts on fishermen or communities. Fishermen may decide to buy additional monofilament to extend the length of the mainline if they decide to keep the same spacing of hooks between floatlines. However, if fishermen wish to maintain the length of the mainline, they may reduce the spacing of the gangions between the floatlines or reduce the number of gangions. NOAA Fisheries would not expect this alternative to affect the catch rates of target catch. Thus, ex-vessel gross revenues and variable costs would not be expected to change.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

This alternative would cause fishermen to re-rig their longlines which might take some initial training for the crew. Fishermen may decide to buy additional monofilament to extend the length of the mainline if they decide to keep the same spacing of hooks between floatlines. However, NOAA Fisheries expects that many fishermen would decide to set hooks closer together or reduce the number of gangions, thus minimizing the need for any additional gear.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative would be difficult to enforce (i.e., must be enforced at sea while the gear is deployed) and therefore might have decreased management effectiveness if fishing vessel operators do not perceive benefits from compliance. From an administrative standpoint, gear modifications are less costly to implement than other bycatch reduction measures such as time/area closures.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would be unlikely to, but could decrease catch rates of target species if fewer hooks are set on a mainline. It is difficult to predict how fishermen might respond to this measure. Fishermen could choose to set a longer mainline or reduce spacing between gangions in order to maintain the same number of hooks set.

From a social or cultural standpoint, longline fishermen might benefit by indicating support for fishing practices that may reduce sea turtle interactions.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative would not be expected to change the distribution of benefits and costs for the pelagic longline fishery unless there is a change in the composition of the target catch (tunas, swordfish) or other marketable non-target fish (e.g., dolphin, pelagic sharks).

Social Effects

This alternative would not be expected to have social effects on fishing communities.

Summary

The results of the 2001 NED experimental fishery demonstrated that requiring gangions to be set two gangion lengths from floatlines would not reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in pelagic longline gear and may increase the interactions with leatherback sea turtles. Based on this information, NOAA Fisheries is not selecting this measure at this time.

Alternative 3 (Final Action) Require vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to have the length of any gangion be 10 percent longer than the length of any floatline if the total length of any gangion plus the total length of any floatline is less than 100 meters (BiOp Requirement)

Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted for HMS, with pelagic longline gear on board are required to deploy gangions that are 10 percent longer than the floatlines, if the total length of any gangion plus the length of any floatline is 100 meters or less. This alternative allows incidentally captured sea turtles to reach the surface to breathe, reducing mortality.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

The intent of this requirement is to ensure that hooked or entangled turtles have a sufficient amount of line to be able to reach the surface and avoid drowning. No quantitative estimate of the effectiveness of this measure can be made at this time. While allowing turtles access to the surface would certainly be beneficial, it is recognized that due to the dynamic nature of the ocean environment, fishing gear does not remain stationary following deployment. The mainline would float and sink based on prevailing local ocean currents. This behavior of the gear makes it difficult to assess the impacts of this measure.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

NOAA Fisheries does not expect this action to significantly change target or incidental catch rates. However, this measure could have a slight impact on the catch composition of the set if the hooks are set deeper. NOAA Fisheries intends to analyze changes in target catch related to hook depth and floatline length.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This measure is not expected to have any effects on marine mammals or birds. Although, similar to turtles, it is possible that marine mammals who can reach the surface to breathe could have a higher rate of survival. At this time, however, NOAA Fisheries does not know of any studies of hook depth or floatline length that evaluated mammal or bird capture or survival rates.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The HMS FMP describes habitat damage by pelagic longlines as negligible to the pelagic environment. Gear modifications are not anticipated to have a negative effect on the EFH for Atlantic HMS.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

There may be slightly higher costs associated with modifying the length of the gangions or floatlines in the short-term. There are no other expected changes in costs.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

This alternative will cause fishermen to modify their gear. This might take some initial time for the crew. However, once the gangions are longer or floatlines shorter, there will be no expected changes in fishing behavior or practices. This measure is not be expected to have long-term impacts on processing, disposal, or marketing costs.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative will be difficult to enforce (e.g., enforcement is unlikely to measure all gangions and floatlines on a vessel to make sure they have the correct proportions) and therefore might have decreased management effectiveness if fishing vessel operators do not perceive benefits from compliance. From an administrative standpoint, gear modifications are less costly to implement than other bycatch reduction methods such as time/area closures.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative will have minimal economic or social impacts. From a social or cultural standpoint, longline fishermen might benefit by indicating support for fishing practices that may reduce sea turtle interactions.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative is not expected to change the distribution of benefits and costs for the pelagic longline fishery.

Social Effects

This alternative is not expected to have social effects on fishing communities.

Summary

This alternative could reasonably be expected to decrease the mortality of sea turtles caught on pelagic longline gear with few, if any, impacts on fishermen, target catch, or other species. Additionally, this alternative may similarly increase marine mammal survivability.

Alternative 4 (Final Action) Require vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to possess and use only corrodible, non-stainless steel hooks (BiOp Requirement)

Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board are required to possess and use only corrodible hooks. It is expected that this measure will reduce the post-release mortality of incidentally captured sea turtles.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This alternative may increase the survival of released sea turtles by requiring pelagic longline gear to be rigged with hooks that corrode relatively quickly and thereby reduce the amount of time any ingested or deeply hooked hooks will remain embedded in the turtle after its release. Depending on how quickly corrodible hooks dissolve, this alternative may reduce the serious injury and/or mortality of gear not readily removed from hooked sea turtles. Currently, NOAA Fisheries is investigating several hook type alternatives to determine the most efficient corroding mechanism. There is some concern about the physiological effects of an imbedded hook or a corroding hook on the overall health of a captured species. NOAA Fisheries plans on holding a meeting to examine and discuss the potential effects of this occurrence.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

NOAA Fisheries believes that many fishermen already use non-stainless steel hooks so NOAA Fisheries does not expect any changes in the interaction rate of any of the species that interact with pelagic longlines because of the use of corrodible hooks. However, depending on the strength of the corrodible hooks if other types of corrodible hooks are developed, this alternative could have an impact on retention rates of all species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative is not expected to have any impact on the catch rate of marine mammals or seabirds. However, the corrodibility of the hooks could improve the post-release survivability of these species.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The HMS FMP describes habitat damage by pelagic longlines as negligible to the pelagic environment. Corrodible hooks are not anticipated to have a negative effect on the EFH for Atlantic HMS.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

NOAA Fisheries believes that many fishermen already use non-stainless steel hooks and expects that this alternative would result in little change in costs or benefits in the short-term. However, depending on how "corrodible" is defined in the future, this alternative could result in increased costs and decreased revenues for pelagic longline vessel owners, captains, and crew. Those vessels that are currently rigged with stainless steel hooks would have increased direct costs of replacement hooks and crew time to re-rig the gear. As corrodible hooks will dissolve more quickly than stainless hooks, those vessels will also have continued replacement hook and re-rigging costs.

However, in the future, if corrodible is defined as a specific hook type, hook coating, or alloy content, then economic and social impacts could be substantial. Economic cost increases could range from high initial hook replacement and re-rigging costs for all pelagic longline vessels upon implementation of the requirement to long-term increased hook replacement costs if the corrodible hooks are more expensive to manufacture and would need to be replaced more frequently due to their higher corrodibility. Revenues could decrease if the corrodible hooks are not commercially available so that fishermen could not fish until new hooks were manufactured or if target catches decrease because corrodible hooks cannot retain swordfish or tuna as well as currently used hook types. Revenues of hook suppliers could also be impacted if they are unable to sell any non-corrodible hooks in their inventory.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

The impact of this alternative on the practices and behavior of fishermen will depend upon the type and durability of the corrodible hook. Under this final rule, fishermen already using non-stainless steel hooks will not notice any difference. However, fishermen using stainless steel hooks will have to replace all their hooks at once and in the future, may have to replace them more often. If, in the future, corrodible hooks are defined differently, the hooks will probably have to be replaced more frequently than the current varieties during the course of a fishing trip and may need to be sharpened often throughout a trip.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

Management effectiveness could decrease because this measure is difficult to enforce. However, management effectiveness would be increased if a low-cost gear modification could reduce bycatch and other more economically significant measures are not necessary. In addition, by requiring one type of hook on all vessels utilizing this gear type, this measure could be enforced at the dock and at sea.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

In the short-term, this measure will force some, but not all, fishermen to buy all new hooks to comply with the requirement. NOAA Fisheries does not expect the use of non-stainless steel hooks to have large economic or social impacts in the short- or long-term.

If the definition of corrodible hooks changes and these new hooks can be manufactured to be as resilient as current hooks, and retention rates of hooked finfish do not change significantly, this measure would have minimal economic impacts on fishermen over time. However, there is a possibility that other definitions of corrodible hooks could increase costs in the long-term if fishermen need to replace hooks after each set.

This measure might enhance the social image of pelagic longline fishing activities as longline fishermen would be perceived as "doing their part" to increase survival of discarded species.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative will not be expected to significantly change the distribution of benefits and costs for the pelagic longline fishery.

Social Effects

This alternative is not expected to have social effects on fishing communities. This measure, if effective at increasing the survival of released fish and some species of turtles, could have positive social benefits as other more costly measures could be avoided to protect overfished species.

Summary

Non-stainless steel corrodible hooks are expected to have few, if any economic or social impact, but may increase survivability of hooked sea turtles or other species. If the definition changes in the future, this alternative could have larger economic impacts depending on the definition or type of hook required.

Alternative 5 (Final Action) The vessel operator of all vessels with pelagic longline gear on board must report lethal sea turtle takes within 48 hours of returning to port (BiOp Requirement)

The vessel operator of all Federally permitted vessels, or vessels required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board will be required to report any turtles that are dead when captured or that die during capture to the SEFSC Observer Program (at 800-858-0624) within 48 hours of returning to port, in addition to filling out logbook forms.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This alternative will not have a direct effect on the Atlantic sea turtle populations. However, by requiring that vessel captains report any dead sea turtles within 48 hours of returning to port, NOAA Fisheries will have more timely estimates of the number of sea turtles harmed during pelagic longline operations. This could result in improved management decisions involving fishery interactions with protected species.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This alternative is not be expected to have an impact on the catch or bycatch of other species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative is not expected to adversely affect marine mammals or seabirds.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

This alternative will not have any impact upon essential fish habitat.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative should not have impacts on fishing, processing, disposal, or marketing costs.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

This alternative should not impact the general behavior and fishing practices of fishermen with one exception: the vessel captain will have to call NOAA Fisheries to report any lethal sea turtles takes. As this event is fairly rare, NOAA Fisheries does not expect this alternative to cause a significant alteration in the usual behavior of the vessel operator.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative will improve the effectiveness of management by allowing a more real-time assessment of sea turtle mortalities due to pelagic longline interactions. As a sea turtle mortality is relatively rare, administrative costs should be small. This alternative has been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative is not expected to cause a change in the economic, social, or cultural value of fishing activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative is not expected to change the distribution of benefits and costs for the pelagic longline fishery.

Social Effects

This alternative is not expected to have social effects on fishing communities.

Summary

This alternative could allow NOAA Fisheries to have more precise sea turtle interaction estimates, which could lead to better management decisions, at little cost to fishermen.

Alternative 6 (Final Action) Require all vessels with bottom or pelagic longline gear on board to have sea turtle handling and release guidelines posted in the wheelhouse (BiOp Requirement)

This alternative requires all Federally permitted vessels, or vessels required to be permitted, for HMS that have bottom or pelagic longline gear on board to have posted in the wheelhouse sea turtle handling and release guidelines. This alternative should reduce the post-release mortality of incidentally captured sea turtles.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This alternative provides handling and release guidelines applicable to longline fisheries for incidentally captured sea turtles. The bycatch of sea turtles will not be decreased, however the post-release mortality of these individuals will be decreased because fishermen would have the information available to properly disentangle or dehook any captured sea turtles.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This alternative will not affect the catch of another species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative will not affect interactions with marine mammals or seabirds.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

This alternative has no impact on essential fish habitat.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative should not significantly alter the costs of fishing, processing, disposal, and marketing. The only impact could result in longer gear retrieval times when fishermen stop to release captured sea turtles in the appropriate method.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

Fishermen will have to alter their usual fishing behavior only if they incidentally capture a sea turtle. The time needed to release sea turtles will vary based on the associated circumstances, but it is not expected to take long.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

From an administrative standpoint, because NOAA Fisheries has already distributed this material several times during the past two years, currently provides photocopies during permit transfers, and has copies available on the web, this alternative is not expected to increase the cost of management. However, it is difficult to assess the management effectiveness of this measure due to the difficulties in enforcing the proper handling and release of sea turtles.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative will not impact the value of fishing activities. However, from a cultural or social perspective, the increased protection of sea turtles could enhance the general perception of fishing activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative will not affect the distribution of benefits and costs.

Social Effects

This alternative is not expected to have any social effects.

Summary

This alternative could help increase post-release survivability of sea turtles at no cost to fishermen. No other impacts are expected.

Alternative 7 (Not Selected) No action

This alternative would maintain the existing regulations regarding pelagic and bottom longline gear and sea turtle interactions. The provisions implemented by the July 13, 2001, emergency rule would remain in effect until July 8, 2002 (as extended on December 13, 2001), at which time they would expire.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea turtles

The no action alternative would have detrimental effects on sea turtles because of the serious injuries inflicted by pelagic longline gear in the mid Atlantic Bight and Grand Banks areas. The number of turtles that pelagic longline fishermen are allowed to interact with is limited by the Incidental Take Statement under the authority of ESA in an attempt to protect vulnerable stocks from this source of mortality. In 1999, when Atlantic pelagic longline fishermen exceeded their incidental sea turtle take for loggerhead turtles, NOAA Fisheries re-initiated consultation under Section 7 of ESA. In 2000, based on the need for additional data and analyses, NOAA Fisheries once again re-initiated consultation. Taking no action is not legally acceptable once the incidental take limit for any listed species has been exceeded or a fishery is declared to jeopardize the continued existence of a protected species. In this case, ESA requires NOAA Fisheries to modify or restrict the fishery in order to reduce turtle bycatch.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This measure would not alter the current level of bycatch of other species, and therefore is not expected to affect the populations of other species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This management alternative would not change the impact of the commercial HMS pelagic longline fishery on marine mammals or seabirds.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The HMS FMP describes habitat damage by pelagic longlines as negligible to the pelagic environment.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

The no action alternative would not change the current costs of commercial fishing, nor of any of the associated support industries. Marketing costs might increase in the future under no action if the current public perception of the pelagic longline fishery supports a boycott of swordfish. The pelagic longline fishermen and dealers might need to increase marketing efforts in order to keep sales of swordfish constant.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

No changes in fishing practices or behavior of pelagic longline fishermen would be expected under the no action alternative.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

No additional management actions would be required, therefore there would not be any concomitant changes in research, administrative or management effectiveness.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would not be expected to change the economic, social or cultural value of fishing activities because no changes in current regulations would be enacted under this alternative. To the extent that public perception of the longline fleet could reduce the demand for longline-caught highly migratory species, and to the extent that an increase in positive media coverage could offset that decrease in demand, this alternative might have negative economic effects on the value of the longline fishery.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative would not be likely to change the distribution of costs or benefits.

Social Effects

This alternative would have the least amount of social and economic impact on the pelagic longline fishermen and their respective communities of any alternatives considered in this document in the short-term, because this alternative would not change current management of the U.S. pelagic longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. However, if the no action alternative had long-term negative impacts on sea turtles, it might have long-term impacts on fishing communities if public approval for pelagic longline fishermen decreases.

Summary

This alternative is not selected because the June 14, 2001, BiOp, requires NOAA Fisheries to implement management measures that would reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality.

Alternative 8 (Not Selected) Require vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to have a dehooking device on board; require vessel operators on such vessels to use the dehooking device

Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board would be required to have a dehooking device on board. Vessel operators aboard such vessels would be required to use it to remove longline hooks from incidentally captured sea turtles.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This alternative should result in increased post-release survival of sea turtles and other species released from pelagic longline gear. Reducing the post-release mortality of sea turtles would help the population levels increase in the Atlantic Ocean Basin. However, it is necessary to delay the implementation of this alternative until a tested and approved dehooking device is available. Removing hooks in an inappropriate manner could cause more harm to a sea turtle than leaving the hook in place.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

If used on all bycatch, a dehooking device should reduce the post-release mortality of other non-target finfish that are caught by pelagic longline fishermen. For example, undersized swordfish or unwanted sharks could be released alive following hook removal. This release would allow for a greater survival rate of these fish. This in turn could contribute to the recovery effort for the overfished stocks.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative would allow hooks to be removed from marine mammals that are captured in pelagic longline gear which should reduce the post-release mortality. However, mammals are more frequently entangled, rather than hooked, in longline gear, so it is difficult to evaluate the benefit this alternative would provide to marine mammals. It is not likely that this alternative would improve the survival of seabirds as they are captured and drowned at the time the line is set or hauled.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

Carrying a dehooking device is unlikely to have any impact on essential fish habitat.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

Hook removal devices are commercially available from several vendors and are used to minimize injury to the fish during removal of the hook. The HMS AP discussed the use of hook removal devices at its March 1998 meeting. Members of the AP representing all sectors of HMS fisheries were supportive of the voluntary use of these devices. Fishery participants have largely supported the use of hook removal devices in some applications in HMS fisheries and NOAA Fisheries encourages HMS fishermen to use this tool voluntarily. Enforcement of this alternative would be difficult. Although dockside inspections would identify the presence or absence of the tool, they would not address whether or not the devices were actually used. Dehooking devices cost about $45 to 90 per tool and NOAA Fisheries understands that use of the devices is already widespread in HMS fisheries.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

This alternative would change the behavior of fishermen because it would require an increase in the handling time in order to release bycatch and incidental catch without hooks. When releasing sea turtles, this alternative should not increase the handling time significantly as fishermen are already required to remove as much line as possible from hooked or entangled individuals. This alternative should allow the fishermen to remove the hook in addition to the entangled gear which would further improve the post-release survival of the captured sea turtles.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative would be difficult to enforce in its entirety. While all HMS pelagic longline vessels may possess a dehooking device on board, it would be difficult to determine if the vessel operators are using the equipment properly to release non-target or undersize species with the minimum amount of gear attached as possible.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would not be expected to cause a change in the economic, social, or cultural value of fishing activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

Requiring that all pelagic longline vessels permitted to fish for HMS carry on board and use a dehooking device should not cause a change in the distribution of benefits and/or costs.

Social Effects

This alternative would not be expected to have social effects on fishing communities. This measure, if effective at increasing the survival of released fish and sea turtles, could have positive social benefits as other more costly measures could be avoided to protect overfished, threatened, or endangered species.

Summary

The adoption of this measure would be contingent upon an evaluation of the effectiveness of current devices being utilized in the NED area experimental fishery. Pending the completion of the evaluation, NOAA Fisheries may propose further action. If implemented, this alternative could increase post-release survivability of sea turtles and other species if fishermen use the device properly. NOAA Fisheries encourages all fishermen to use a dehooking device voluntarily to remove hooks from bycatch species.

Alternative 9 (Not Selected) Require vessel operators on vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to rig the mainline so hooks are fished deeper in the water column (tuna style fishing)

This alternative would require vessel operators aboard all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board to configure the gear to maintain the hooks deeper in the water column. This configuration might minimize attracting sea turtles to baited hooks.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

The intent of this requirement would be to avoid capturing sea turtles. As is demonstrated in the figure below, most of the sea turtle-longline interactions occur on sets deployed in shallower water. It is expected that if the captain sets the gear at a greater depth, most of the sea turtle interactions could be avoided while maintaining an acceptable catch rate. It is difficult to assess what level of reduction in sea turtle takes and mortality this alternative would effect. NOAA Fisheries is currently evaluating and testing several sea turtle bycatch reduction hypotheses in the course of an experimental fishery. It is hoped that this experiment would provide further insight into sea turtle behavior and allow the development of more efficient mitigation measures.

figure 7.2. The number of turtle interactions with respect to hook depth

Figure 7.2. The number of turtle interactions with respect to hook depth. Source based on observer data taken from Hoey and Moore 1999

There might be ecological effects from this alternative due to decreased rates of interactions with sea turtles and resulting increased population sizes. Increased turtle stock size might have effects on prey species, however, any growth in stock size in the next few years is unlikely to have far-reaching ecological effects.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

Setting hooks deeper could change the catch composition of the longline set. It is likely that requiring all gear to be set deeper could result in larger catches of tuna and smaller catches of swordfish. NOAA Fisheries does not know what impact this requirement would have on other species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

NOAA Fisheries does not know of any studies of hook depth that evaluated mammal or bird capture rates and therefore does not know what impact this alternative may have on marine mammals or seabirds.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

Because many fishermen fish pelagic longline using both methods, this alternative would have few impacts on fishing costs. However, for vessels that only fish in shallow waters, there might be a decrease in gross revenues if catch rates of swordfish drop because swordfish are generally worth more than tuna.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

Once the crew members are used to rigging the gear deeper for every set, there would be no expected changes in fishing behavior or practices.

This measure would not be expected to have long-term impacts on processing, disposal, or marketing costs. To the extent that an increase in positive media coverage could offset that decrease in demand, this alternative might improve public perception of the fishing practices of the longline fleet. If so, this gear modification might be able to contribute to the increased demand and thus improved prices for U.S.-caught HMS.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative would be difficult to enforce because not only would it have to be enforced at sea while the gear is deployed, it would also be difficult for enforcement to detect whether or not the gear is actually being fished "deep enough." Therefore, there might be decreased management effectiveness if fishing vessel operators do not perceive benefits from compliance. From an administrative standpoint, gear modifications are less costly to implement than time/area closures.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative could decrease catch rates of target species (fish per set) or change the catch composition since the hooks would be set deeper in the water column. It is difficult to predict how fishermen might respond to this measure. From a social or cultural standpoint, longline fishermen might benefit by indicating support for fishing practices that may reduce sea turtle interactions.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative would not be expected to change the distribution of benefits and costs for most of the pelagic longline fishery unless there is a significant change in the composition of the target catch (tunas, swordfish) or other marketable non-target fish (e.g., dolphin, pelagic sharks). For fishermen who only fish in shallow waters, this alternative could decrease revenues because swordfish are generally worth more than tuna.

Social Effects

The social impacts from this alternative would vary based on the impacts on target catch created by fishing deeper in the water column.

Summary

NOAA Fisheries needs more information on bycatch reduction effectiveness before implementing this type of regulation. For instance, how much would catch composition of target and bycatch species change if the gear is fished deeper and how much would revenues change. NOAA Fisheries is currently evaluating and testing several sea turtle bycatch reduction hypotheses in the course of an experimental fishery. It is hoped that this experiment would provide further insight into sea turtle behavior and allow the development of more efficient mitigation measures.

Alternative 10 (Not Selected) Require vessel operators on vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to use only blue-dyed bait

Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline on board would be required to deploy only blue-dyed bait. The 2001 NED experimental fishery found that this alternative is not effective in reducing pelagic longline interactions with loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This alternative would be expected to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in pelagic longline fisheries. Research in Hawaii has shown that blue-dyed squids reduce the bycatch of seabirds and possibly increase the catch of swordfish. When field-testing blue bait to reduce seabirds takes, no turtles were caught. However, turtles were caught with normal bait during the study (Kleiber and Boggs, 2000). Laboratory tests conducted in Hawaii have shown that green turtles in captivity are reluctant to take blue-dyed squid compared to normal squid, but eventually habituate to dyed bait (NOAA Fisheries, 2001c.). NOAA Fisheries examined the effectiveness of this measure in an experimental fishery conducted in the NED area in 2001. The analyzed results show that blue-dyed bait does not reduce interactions between pelagic longline gear and sea turtles.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

NOAA Fisheries does not expect this alternative to alter the rate of catch of target species. The 2001 experimental fishery collected information concerning the impact of blue-dyed bait on target catch. NOAA Fisheries is currently waiting for this information to be analyzed pursuant to the impact of blue bait on target catch.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This measure was initially tested in the Pacific to examine the effect of blue-dyed bait on the incidental capture of seabirds. Preliminary information suggests that this requirement could reduce seabird takes in the pelagic longline fishery. NOAA Fisheries does not know what the impact of this requirement would be on marine mammals but does not expect this requirement to change the capture rate.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The HMS FMP describes habitat damage by pelagic longlines as negligible to the pelagic environment. The use of blue-dyed bait is not anticipated to have an effect on the EFH for Atlantic HMS.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would require fishermen to purchase blue dye and prepare the bait prior to setting the longline. The dye costs approximately $46 per pound. Based on this, the economic impact should be small unless target species avoid blue-dyed bait. NOAA Fisheries should have more information concerning the effect on target catch when the results from the first year of the NED area experimental fishery are completely analyzed.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

The fishermen would have to adjust their fishing practices in order to comply with this alternative. The blue dye would have to be prepared and the bait would have to be soaked prior to baiting and deploying the hooks. While this procedure is not expected to consume a significant amount of time, it would alter the normal fishing behavior and practice. Also, if the crew is not accustomed to this procedure, it would take some time at the beginning of the fishing trip to teach them the proper technique. Over time, it is likely that bait suppliers could begin to provide pre-dyed bait to fishermen to eliminate the need for the fishermen to dye the bait themselves.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative would not be difficult to enforce and may aid in enforcement of the live bait ban in the Gulf of Mexico. From an administrative standpoint, gear modifications are less costly to implement than time/area closures.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative might decrease catch rates of target species or change the catch composition since different bait would be used than usual. It is difficult to predict how fishermen might respond to this measure. From a social or cultural standpoint, longline fishermen might benefit by indicating support for fishing practices that may reduce sea turtle interactions.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative would not be expected to change the distribution of benefits and costs for the pelagic longline fishery unless there is a significant change in the composition of the target catch (tunas, swordfish) or other marketable non-target fish (e.g., dolphin, pelagic sharks).

Social Effects

This alternative would not be expected to have social effects on fishing communities.

Summary

As the measure was found to be ineffective at reducing the incidental capture of sea turtles in the 2001 NED experimental fishery, NOAA Fisheries is not promulgating the measure in this rule making.

Alternative 11 (Not Selected) Require vessel operators on vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to use only mackerel as bait

This alternative would require vessel operators aboard all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board to use mackerel exclusively as bait. NOAA Fisheries will analyze the ability of this measure to reduce the incidental catch of sea turtles in the 2002 NED area experimental fishery.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

NOAA Fisheries expects this alternative to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in pelagic longline fisheries. NOAA Fisheries is anticipating the examination of the effectiveness of this measure in an experimental fishery being conducted in the NED area in 2002. Until these data are collected, the effect of mackerel bait on both target and incidental catch is uncertain.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

Currently, there is not a significant amount of data concerning the impact of mackerel bait on catch rate. However, NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate this alternative to alter the rate of catch of target species. NOAA Fisheries is planning on testing this measure in the NED area experimental fishery. The results of the experiment should provide more information concerning the impact of this alternative on target catch.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate the use of mackerel bait to increase the incidental capture of seabirds or marine mammals in the pelagic longline fishery.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP state that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The HMS FMP describes habitat damage by pelagic longlines as negligible to the pelagic environment. The use of mackerel bait is not anticipated to have an effect on the EFH for Atlantic HMS.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would require fishermen to alter their bait purchase from squid to mackerel. As NOAA Fisheries expects that most fishermen already buy the bait that balances costs and revenues, this alternative would likely alter the cost of fishing. Currently, a large portion of trip costs goes towards buying bait (Table 8.9 and 8.10). It is likely that for fishermen who do not already use mackerel the cost of bait per trip would increase. However, NOAA Fisheries does not currently know how many fishermen use squid bait versus how many fishermen use mackerel bait. NOAA Fisheries should have more information concerning the effect on target catch as the NED area experimental fishery continues.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

The fishermen who currently use squid bait would have to slightly adjust their fishing practices in order to comply with this alternative. Baiting the hooks with mackerel instead of squid may involve a different procedure which could influence the time it takes to deploy the gear. Also, if the crew is not accustomed to this procedure, it would take time at the beginning of the fishing trip to teach them the proper technique.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative would not be difficult to enforce and may help enforce the live bait ban in the Gulf of Mexico. From an administrative standpoint, gear modifications are less costly to implement than time/area closures.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative might decrease catch rates of target species or change the catch composition since different bait would be used than usual. It is difficult to predict how fishermen might respond to this measure. From a social or cultural standpoint, longline fishermen might benefit by indicating support for fishing practices that may reduce sea turtle interactions.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

NOAA Fisheries does not expect the catch of target species to be significantly impacted by this alternative. If a vessel has to move due to sighting a whale, it may disrupt the amount of catch for that set. However, because whales are rarely spotted or interacted with, this disruption should have little impact on target catch.

Effects on Sea Turtles and Seabirds

This alternative is not expected to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles. The catch of seabirds is a very rare event in this fishery (none observed since 1993), so it is difficult to anticipate what effects on bycatch of those species this alternative will have.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP states that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the southeast shark gillnet fishery. The HMS FMP expects that the habitat damage from gillnets will be minimal due to the deployment of the gear in the water column.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

NOAA Fisheries does not expect this alternative to affect the costs of fishing, processing, disposal, or marketing.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

This alternative will change the practices of the fishermen by requiring both the vessel operator and observer to look for whales. If any listed whale is taken in gillnet gear, then the vessel operator must immediately stop all fishing and report the incident to the NOAA Fisheries SERO. This could alter the fisherman's behavior (e.g., they would have to move one nautical mile) if they spot a whale. However, as this is a rare incident in this fishery (only one whale interaction has been suspected), the impact is anticipated to be minor.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative will not involve a significant increase in cost as an existing reporting system can be used.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

NOAA Fisheries does not expect this alternative to impact the value of fishing activities or non-consumptive uses of fishery resources.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative is not expected to change the distribution of benefits and costs for the shark gillnet fishery.

Social Effects

This alternative is not expected to have social effects on the fishing communities.

Summary

This alternative should reduce the potential for incidental takes of whales in shark gillnet gear by requiring both the vessel operator and the observer, if on board, to spot whales. This alternative should have few, if any, economic or social impacts.

Alternative 14 (Final Action) Shark gillnet fishermen are required to conduct net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and remove any sea turtles or marine mammals (BiOp Requirement)

In this fishery, it is customary for fishermen to inspect the entire length of the net every 0.5 to 2 hours. If a protected species is caught in the net, the fishermen are required to remove it in a manner that would not induce further harm.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This measure will not reduce the bycatch of sea turtles but should reduce the mortality level of those sea turtles that are incidentally caught. The average soak time for the drift gillnets in this fishery is 5.6 to 7.5 hours. By requiring that fishermen check their nets every 0.5 to 2 hours, any entangled sea turtles could be found and released before they drowned. During the 2000 and 2001 fishing years, three loggerhead sea turtles, 14 leatherback sea turtles, and one hawksbill sea turtle were incidentally captured with three mortalities (see Table 7.5 below). It is hoped that this alternative will reduce the number of sea turtle mortalities in this fishery.

Table 7.5 Number of Sea Turtles Observed to be Incidentally Captured in Shark Gillnet Fishery in 2000 and 2001. Source: Carlson, 2001.

Species	Incidental Catch	Status
Species	Incidental Catch	Released Alive	Released Dead	Released Comatose	Condition Unknown
Hawksbill	1	0	0	1	0
Leatherback	14	10	2	0	2
Loggerhead	3	2	1	0	0

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This alternative is not expected to impact the bycatch of other species. The only harmful impact could be a reduction in catch of target species due to fishermen moving the net or their increased presence near the net. However, this is not expected to significantly affect the level of target species caught in this fishery.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

NOAA Fisheries expects that this alternative will reduce the mortality of marine mammals that are incidentally captured in the gillnet fishery. By checking the nets more frequently, many of the individuals that may be captured can be released before they drown (see Table 7.6).

Table 7.6 Number of Marine Mammals Observed to be Incidentally Captured in Shark Gillnet Fishery in 2000 and 2001. Source: Carlson, 2001.

Species	Incidental Catch	Status
Species	Incidental Catch	Released Alive	Released Dead
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin	4	3	1
Bottlenose Dolphin	5	0	5

The catch of seabirds has not been observed in this fishery since 1993, so it is difficult to anticipate what effects on bycatch of those species this alternative would have.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP states that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the southeast shark gillnet fishery. The HMS FMP expects that the habitat damage from gillnets will be minimal due to the deployment of the gear in the water column.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative is not expected to have high associated costs as NOAA Fisheries does not expect it to significantly decrease the amount of target catch although target catch could be decreased if the net has to be moved frequently. Additionally, checking the nets every 0.5 to 2 hours could increase the fuel cost for each the vessel as the vessel would have to travel along the length of the net between two and three times per set. If the vessel fishes in a strikenet method, net checks will not have any impact on fishing costs because most strikenet sets take under one hour.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

This alternative will require the fishermen to vary their behavior to some extent. Based on the average soak time per set, shark gillnet fishermen fishing in a drift gillnet will have to check their nets two to three times during each set. Depending on the depth of the set (can be between 3.04 and 13.7 meters), they could use a flashlight or possibly have to partially haul the section of net to inspect it for incidentally captured protected species. Fishermen fishing with gillnet in a strikenet method do not have to vary their behavior.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative will be difficult to enforce (i.e., must be enforced at sea while the gear is deployed) and therefore might have decreased management effectiveness if fishing vessel operators do not perceive benefits from compliance. However, it is an inexpensive management alternative that could have immediate impacts on protected species.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

NOAA Fisheries does not expect this alternative to impact the value of fishing activities or non-consumptive uses of fishery resources.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative is not expected to change the distribution of benefits and costs for the shark gillnet fishery.

Social Effects

This alternative is not expected to have social effects on the fishing communities.

Summary

This alternative could reduce the mortality of protected species entangled in gillnet gear. There may be some increase in fishing costs, particularly fuel, depending on the length of the gillnet and the amount of time the gear is set.

Alternative 15 (Not Selected) No action

This alternative would maintain the existing regulations regarding shark gillnet gear.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

Because the shark gillnet fishery is small, approximately six vessels, and does not have a relatively high interaction rate with protected species, this alternative would not have a significantly negative an impact on sea turtle or whale populations. However, since the populations are listed as threatened or endangered, it is important to reduce post-interaction mortality whenever and wherever possible.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This measure would not alter the current level of bycatch of other species (those not previously encountered), and therefore is not expected to affect the population of other species or ecosystem.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This management alternative would not change the impact of the shark gillnet fishery on marine mammals or seabirds.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP states that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the southeast shark gillnet fishery. The HMS FMP expects that the habitat damage from gillnets would be minimal due to the deployment of the gear in the water column.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would not alter the fishing, processing, disposal, or marketing costs.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

No changes in fishing practices or behavior of gillnet fishermen would be expected under the no action alternative.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

No additional management actions accompany this alternative, therefore there would not be any concomitant changes in research, administrative or management effectiveness.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would not be expected to change the economic, social or cultural value of fishing activities because no changes in current regulations would be enacted under this alternative.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative would not be likely to change the distribution of costs or benefits.

Social Effects

This alternative would not be expected to have social effects on the fishing communities.

Summary

This alternative would not further reduce bycatch or bycatch mortality of protected species in the shark gillnet fishery. Thus, this alternative does not meet the requirements of the BiOp.

Alternative 16 (Not Selected) Prohibit use of shark gillnet gear for HMS fisheries

This alternative would prohibit the use of shark gillnet used in either a drift gillnet or strikenet method in Atlantic HMS fisheries year-round.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

By prohibiting the use of shark gillnet gear, NOAA Fisheries would reduce the capture and potential capture of sea turtles by vessels in this fishery. During the 2000 and 2001 fishing years, three loggerhead sea turtles, 14 leatherback sea turtles, and one hawksbill sea turtle were observed incidentally captured with three mortalities (Table 7.5). As these species are threatened and endangered, it is necessary to implement measures to limit their incidental capture. Because of the size of this fishery and its impacts on sea turtles, prohibiting the use of gillnets would not be expected to improve significantly the recovery of sea turtle populations.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

Shark gillnet fishermen target both LCS and SCS. Because of the size of this fleet compared to the bottom longline fleet or pelagic longline fleet, eliminating this gear type would be unlikely to increase the rebuilding of LCS substantially. However, these fishermen are among the only fishermen who actually target SCS. Thus, eliminating this gear type could reduce the number of SCS caught. Given the size of this fleet, eliminating this gear type would be unlikely to affect the status of the bycatch species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

Over the past two years, 2000 and 2001, five bottlenose dolphins and four Atlantic spotted dolphins were observed to be incidentally captured in this fishery. Also, the location of fishing activities off the east coast of Florida has the potential to interact with right whales, one of the most endangered species on the planet. By prohibiting this fishery, these interactions and the chance of future interactions would be eliminated.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP states that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the southeast shark gillnet fishery. The HMS FMP expects that the habitat damage from gillnets would be minimal due to the deployment of the gear in the water column.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would force approximately six vessels to stop fishing or to fish for other species. Generally, the vessels in this fishery fish in the mackerel fishery during a large coastal shark fishery closure. It is likely that at least some of the vessels would continue to fish in that fishery.

This alternative is not expected to change processing, disposal or marketing costs because no related businesses are dependent on the six vessels in this fishery. However, as SCS are often used as bait in other fisheries, it is possible that some side effects may occur until another gear begins to fish for SCS or until those fishermen decide to use another type of bait.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

Shark gillnet vessel captains, crew and owners would need to re-rig fishing vessels to find alternative means to target HMS or other fisheries to stay in the fishing business, or leave the fishery and find alternative sources of employment. If fishermen switched to other fisheries, this alternative might have negative impacts on other species or fisheries, particularly if those species are fully fished or overfished or if the fisheries are overcapitalized.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

Administrative and management costs would likely decrease in association with the need to observe fewer vessels.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

The elimination of this fishery would likely have a small impact on other commercial and recreational fisheries. Some gillnet fishermen would shift effort to target other fisheries (or the same species with different gear), although many alternatives might be unavailable due to limited access programs based on prior participation. Localized reductions in discards and/or catch of sharks and other species could also increase recreational opportunities, which would have associated benefits for businesses and communities that support recreational activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative may put some vessels out of business, thus removing any benefits or costs. For vessels that continue to use gillnet gear in other fisheries, this alternative would move all benefits and costs to the other fishery.

Social Effects

For the fishermen involved in the fishery, there would be significant social effects since they would be forced to relocate or switch target species. The dealers who purchase the catch from the fishermen would be impacted by the switch in target species as well. As there are approximately six vessels involved in the fishery, this alternative could have impacts on the individuals and families. It is unlikely that any communities would be impacted because these six vessels are located in Florida, which has more HMS permit holders than any other state.

Summary

While this alternative would eliminate protected species bycatch with this gear type, this alternative would also have large economic or social impacts on the fishermen in the fishery. Because protected species interactions with this gear type are relatively few according to observer data (except for 2001 when an abnormally large number of sea turtles were captured), NOAA Fisheries does not feel the economic hardship encountered by these few vessels by this alternative would balance the benefits to protected species particularly when other options, such as VMS, could reduce bycatch while not having as a large an economic impact.

Alternative 17 (Not Selected) Require fishermen who hold a Federal shark permit and use shark gillnets to use spotter planes for strikenetting

All Federally permitted vessels for using HMS shark gillnet gear to target sharks would be required to utilize the assistance of a spotter plane when setting their net and to fish in a strikenet fashion. This alternative would reduce the risk of interactions with protected species.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

Strikenetting is a efficient manner of fishing because it allows the vessel operator to encircle target species with a minimum of bycatch species. During the past two years, there have been no observed interactions with sea turtles while strikenetting for sharks. This alternative would further minimize the potential for sea turtles interactions by allowing for better detection of target species and better identification of locations of protected species.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This alternative should not impact the level of target catch for strikenetting vessels. It is possible that the use of spotter planes would make the set more efficient by allowing the vessel to target larger schools of sharks. This alternative could reduce the bycatch of non-target fish species by increasing the targeting efficiency of the strikenet. For vessels that currently driftnet, this alternative would increase the catch rates of target species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative should virtually eliminate the incidental capture of marine mammals. The spotter plane should be able to identify protected species from the air and guide the fishing vessel to target species that are not near protected species. In the past two years, no marine mammals have been incidentally taken via strikenet. This alternative would help lessen the chance of a marine mammal incidental take. Because the catch of seabirds is a very rare event in this fishery (none observed since 1993), it is difficult to anticipate what effects on bycatch of those species this alternative would have.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The HMS FMP states that Atlantic HMS occupy pelagic oceanic environments, which is the general operational range of the southeast shark gillnet fishery. The HMS FMP expects that the habitat damage from gillnets would be minimal due to the deployment of the gear in the water column.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would significantly increase the cost of fishing due to the required use of a spotter plane and a second smaller vessel used to maneuver the net. Generally, spotter planes receive a percentage of the gross revenues per trip as payment. To minimize the expense, several boats could share the services of one plane, but that arrangement would have to be agreed upon by the pilot and vessel operators. Additionally, some vessels that strikenet do not use spotter planes but fish behind other vessels where sharks congregate. This alternative could increase their fishing costs by requiring the use of a spotter plane.

Vessels who only use gillnet gear would have an added expense of finding and maintaining a second smaller vessel to maneuver the net around the school of sharks. This would require additional fuel and maintenance.

The disposal and marketing costs should not be affected. Processing costs may be reduced slightly because fishermen would not catch as many non-target species in a set.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

Using a spotter plane would alter the practices and behavior of the shark gillnet fishermen, both those who strikenet and those who do not. Instead of looking for target species independently or by following other vessels such as trawl vessels, they would have to rely on a spotter pilot to guide them to fish. Some captains may not be familiar with working with a pilot.

Additionally, vessels who only use drift gillnet gear could be unfamiliar with using a smaller vessel to quickly encircle the schools of shark. Thus, these fishermen would need to learn how to use these vessels and how to strikenet efficiently.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative would be difficult to enforce (i.e., vessels and planes must be monitored while at sea fishing) and therefore might have decreased management effectiveness.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative may eliminate a number of the vessels in this fishery. This decrease in fishing vessels would likely have only a small impact on other commercial and recreational fisheries. Some gillnet fishermen would shift effort to target other fisheries (or the same species with different gear), although many alternatives might be unavailable due to limited access programs based on prior participation. Localized reductions in discards and/or catch of sharks and other species could also increase recreational opportunities, which would have associated benefits for businesses and communities that support recreational activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

By requiring the use of spotter planes, NOAA Fisheries could alter the cost and benefit distribution in this fishery. Due to the increased cost required to hire and effectively utilize a spotter plane and find and maintain a smaller vessel, this alternative may preclude vessel owners or operators who can not afford the spotter plane and second vessel from participating in this fishery.

Social Effects

This alternative would have some associated social effects. If vessel owners or operators can not afford to use spotter planes, they would have to leave the fishery. That could mean switching to target different species or finding a non-fishing occupation. This could affect the impacted individual and their family. As described above, it is unlikely this alternative would affect any communities.

Summary

This alternative would reduce the bycatch of protected species but would have inordinately large economic costs for the fishermen in the fishery. Some vessels are successfully experimenting with fishing in a strikenet fashion without the use of a spotter plane and without the use of a second smaller vessel. At this time, NOAA Fisheries would like to encourage fishermen to use the strikenet fashion while observers continue to collect data on different methods of strikenet fishing and bycatch levels of these different methods.

7.3 Alternatives for Analysis: General Requirements (bycatch mortality measures for all gear types)

Alternative 18 (Final Action) No action

This alternative will maintain the existing regulations for all HMS gear types except pelagic longline, bottom longline, and shark gillnet as described above.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This alternative is not expected to change the bycatch of sea turtles by other HMS fishing gears.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This measure will not alter the current level of target species or bycatch of other species (those not previously encountered), and therefore is not expected to affect the population of other species or the ecosystem.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This management alternative will not change the incidental take levels of marine mammals or seabirds in other HMS fisheries.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

This alternative will not impact EFH for HMS.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

The no action alternative will not change the current costs of commercial or recreational fishing, nor of any of the associated support industries.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

No changes in fishing practices or behavior of HMS fishermen will be expected under the no action alternative.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

No additional management actions accompany this alternative, therefore there will not be any concomitant changes in research, administrative or management effectiveness.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative will not be expected to change the economic, social or cultural value of fishing activities because no changes in current regulations would be enacted under this alternative.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative will not be likely to change the distribution of costs or benefits.

Social Effects

This alternative will not have any social impacts on HMS fishermen.

Summary

This alternative is selected until additional data are collected and analyzed regarding the impact and effectiveness of the alternatives listed below and some of the alternatives discussed above (e.g. blue-dyed bait). Until such data are collected, NOAA Fisheries encourages all HMS fishermen to release sea turtles in a method that reduces post-release mortality; to use a dehooking device, line cutter, or dipnet when appropriate; to watch for whales; and to move 1 nm away from any observed whale or sea turtle.

Alternative 19 (Not Selected) Require all vessel operators on HMS permitted vessels in each HMS fishery to post sea turtle handling guidelines specific to interactions in that particular fishery

This alternative would require every vessel permitted to catch HMS to post in the wheelhouse, or in an appropriate area not yet determined, sea turtle handling and release guidelines specific to their gear type. This requirement would be effective for each gear type individually as appropriate guidelines are developed.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This alternative would provide vessel operators handling and release guidelines applicable to each HMS fishery for incidentally captured sea turtles. While this alternative would not reduce the bycatch of sea turtles, the appropriate use of these guidelines could decrease the post-release mortality of sea turtles.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This alternative would not affect the catch of another species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative would not affect interactions with marine mammals or seabirds.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

This alternative would have no impact on essential fish habitat.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative should not significantly alter the costs of fishing, processing, disposal, and marketing. The only impact could result in longer gear retrieval times if fishermen have to stop longer to release captured sea turtles. Charter/headboat captains could benefit from the interaction if clients perceive the release to be a positive experience.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

Fishermen would have to alter their usual behavior only if they incidentally capture a sea turtle. The release time would vary based on the associated circumstances, but it is not expected to take long.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

From an administrative standpoint, this alternative would increase the cost of management by requiring NOAA Fisheries to develop and prepare copies of the guidelines for the appropriate gears. At the moment, NOAA Fisheries only has guidelines for longline gear so development for all other gear types would have to be done. It would be difficult to assess the management effectiveness of this measure due to the difficulties in enforcing the proper handling and release of sea turtles.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would not impact the value of fishing activities. However, from a cultural or social perspective, the increased protection of sea turtles could enhance the general perception of fishing activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative would not affect the distribution of benefits and costs.

Social Effects

This alternative is not expected to have any social effects.

Summary

While this alternative could potentially reduce bycatch mortality of sea turtles at little cost to the fishermen, NOAA Fisheries cannot implement this alternative until handling and release guidelines are developed for gear types other than longline.

Alternative 20 (Not Selected) Require all vessels with hook and line gear on board, in addition to pelagic longline vessels, to carry on board line clippers and dipnets

All Federally permitted vessels fishing for HMS species with any hook and line gear type on board would be required to have a line clipper and a dipnet on board that meets NOAA Fisheries design and performance standards. Vessel operators would be required to use them to facilitate removal of gear from incidentally captured sea turtles. This measure would help improve the post-release survival of incidentally captured sea turtles.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

Using a dipnet and line clipper would allow monofilament lines and ropes to be cut from incidentally captured sea turtles as close to the hook or point of attachment as possible and also facilitate removal of hooks located in sea turtle mouths, beaks, or bodies by helping to board the turtle on the vessel or holding the turtle steady in the water while the hook is removed. This would reduce the serious injury and/or mortality of sea turtles from remaining hooks or trailing gear that results in impediments to movement, increased risk of entanglement in other gear, and hook wounds that cannot heal due to attached gear. The reduction in serious injury and/or mortality of sea turtles should contribute to increased turtle recovery of the threatened loggerhead and endangered leatherback sea turtles.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This alternative would not have an effect on the catch rate of target or bycatch species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative would not have a direct effect on these species, however the dipnet and line clipper could potentially be used to facilitate release and reduce mortality if a marine mammal or seabird was incidentally captured.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

This alternative would have no impact on essential fish habitat.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would have a one-time increase on the cost of fishing and may discourage the occasional angler from fishing for HMS. All vessels permitted to fish for HMS species that have hook and line gear on board would have to purchase a dipnet and line clipper for use on their vessel to help release incidentally captured sea turtles. The design specifications for this equipment were taken from the Hawaii pelagic longline fishery and the costs approximately $250 for both devices. NOAA Fisheries has required that the dipnet and line clipper meet specific standards which allows the fishermen to fabricate the devices from materials they already have or can easily obtain (as opposed to requiring the use of a specific device they would have to purchase). The processing, disposal, and marketing costs would not be expected to be impacted by this alternative.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

The fishing practices and behaviors of fishermen would be altered by this alternative. Whenever a sea turtle is incidentally captured, they would be required to use a dipnet and line clipper to bring the animal onboard, if possible, and remove as much gear as possible before releasing it. Some fishermen already spend time during gear retrieval to handle and release turtles so this alternative would not significantly alter this behavior.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative should not impact the effectiveness of research, administration, and management. However, it would be difficult to assess the management effectiveness of this measure due to the difficulties in enforcing the use of dipnets and line clippers by vessel at sea. Enforcement can verify the presence of the equipment onboard, but fishermen ultimately have the discretion of using it properly.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would not impact the value of fishing activities. However, from a cultural or social perspective, the increased protection of sea turtles could enhance the general perception of fishing activities.Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative is not expected to change the distribution of benefits or costs to the impacted fishermen due to the low one-time cost of the gear and ease of implementation.

Social Effects

There would be no anticipated social impacts from the implementation of this alternative.

Summary

This alternative could potentially reduce post-release mortality of sea turtles in HMS fisheries. NOAA Fisheries may implement this alternative in the future if it is shown to be effective in the pelagic longline fishery.

Alternative 21 (Not Selected) Require all vessels with hook and line gear on board to carry on board a dehooking device

All Federally permitted vessels with hook and line gear on board engaged in fishing for HMS would be required to have a dehooking device on board. Vessel operators would be required to use it to remove gear from incidentally captured sea turtles.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

This measure could reduce the post-release mortality of any sea turtles incidentally hooked in HMS fisheries. Currently, it is difficult for NOAA Fisheries to typify what level of reduced mortality would be achieved due to lack of data. However, sea turtles have the potential to be hooked in longline and rod and reel fisheries. A dehooking device allows the hook to be removed with greater ease which would improve the probability of survival of the released sea turtle.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

This alternative would not directly impact the level of bycatch or the catch rate of target species in the HMS fisheries. However, it could improve the post-release mortality of non-target species captured in the longline and rod and reel fisheries by facilitating the removal of imbedded hooks. For example, vessels with a dehooking device on board could also use the device to remove the hook from incidentally caught billfish. This should increase the survival rate of released animals.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

This alternative could have a limited effect on marine mammals and seabirds to the extent that they are captured in HMS fisheries utilizing hooks. The post-release mortality of any hooked marine mammals or seabirds would be improved by removal of the hook prior to release. NOAA Fisheries is currently unaware of the exact number of interactions with these species that occur in each fishery.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

There would be no impact on essential fish habitat due to this alternative.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative would be expected to have a minimal impact on fishing cost. Dehooking devices that are currently available cost less than $100. NOAA Fisheries expects that many of the vessels fishing for HMS species already possess one and carry it on board. This may increase processing costs if the crew has to take more time than usual to remove hooks from sea turtles or non target species. However, hook removal is usually not a time consuming process.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

By requiring removal of hooks from protected species or other non-target bycatch, fishermen may have to alter their behavior. However, NOAA Fisheries expects that some fishermen may already be using a dehooking device prior to releasing animals and would not have to alter their fishing practices. As the dehooking procedure can be fairly simple, NOAA Fisheries does not expect it to impose a burden on the impacted fishermen.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative should not impact the effectiveness of research, administration, and management. However, it would be difficult to assess the management effectiveness of this measure due to the difficulties in enforcing the use of a dehooking device by vessel at sea. Enforcement can verify the presence of the equipment onboard, but the impacted fishermen ultimately have the discretion of using it properly.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would not impact the value of fishing activities. However, from a cultural or social perspective, the increased protection of sea turtles could enhance the general perception of fishing activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative is not expected to change the distribution of benefits or costs to the impacted fishermen due to the low cost of the gear and ease of implementation.

Social Effects

There would be no anticipated social impacts from the implementation of this alternative.

Summary

This alternative could potentially reduce post-release mortality of sea turtles and other bycatch species. NOAA Fisheries believes that many vessels fishing for HMS already carry a dehooking device on board. NOAA Fisheries may implement this alternative in the future if it is shown to be effective in the NED experimental fishery.

Alternative 22 (Not Selected) Require all vessels, in addition to pelagic longline vessels, to move 1 nautical mile if a marine mammal or sea turtle is hooked or entangled

This alternative would require all Federally permitted vessels engaged in fishing for HMS to move 1 nautical mile following the entanglement or hooking of a marine mammal or sea turtle.

Population and Ecological Effects Due to Changes in the Bycatch of Sea Turtles

NOAA Fisheries cannot quantify the population and ecological effects due to the implementation of this alternative. Sea turtles are known to aggregate along oceanic frontal zones. By moving one mile following an interaction, the vessel may be positioned off the frontal zone and thus avoid the denser concentrations of sea turtles. This should decrease sequential catches of protected species.

Changes in the Catch of Other Species and the Resulting Population and Ecosystem Effects

NOAA Fisheries is unsure what effect this alternative would have on the bycatch of other species or on the catch rate of target species. Moving one mile could cause a significant decrease in the amount of target catch or a significant increase in target catch, depending on the species and the oceanic conditions. Conversely, it could increase catch rates if the vessel moves to an area with higher densities of target species.

Effects on Marine Mammals and Seabirds

Currently, NOAA Fisheries believes that moving one nautical mile would lessen the probability of hooking or entangling a marine mammal or sea turtle. Because marine mammals travel in pods moving one mile following an interaction may position the vessel out of the animals' direction of travel. This alternative is not expected to have any impact on seabirds.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

There would be no impact on essential fish habitat due to this alternative.

Changes in Fishing, Processing, Disposal, and Marketing Costs

This alternative could have an impact on fishing costs. By requiring vessels to move following an interaction with a marine mammal or a sea turtle, concentrations of target species could be missed causing a less than optimal catch rate. Also, if a vessel has to move repeatedly (e.g., a marine mammal or sea turtle is caught each time the gear is set), more than the usual amount of time and fuel would be consumed which would increase the cost of the fishing trip.

Changes in Fishing Practices and Behavior of Fishermen

The practices and behavior of the fishermen would be impacted because they would have to move after every interaction with a marine mammal or sea turtle. As most HMS vessels have not been required to do this, many fishermen would be forced to alter their usual fishing practices to comply with the regulation.

Changes in Research, Administration, and Management Effectiveness

This alternative should not impact the effectiveness of research, administration, and management. However, it would be difficult to assess the management effectiveness of this measure due to the difficulties in enforcing how far a vessel moves, if at all, following an interaction with a marine mammal or sea turtle.

Changes in the Economic, Social, or Cultural Value of Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive Uses of Fishery Resources

This alternative would not impact the value of fishing activities. However, from a cultural or social perspective, the increased protection of marine mammals and sea turtles could enhance the general perception of fishing activities.

Changes in the Distribution of Benefits and Costs

This alternative is not expected to change the distribution of benefits or costs to the impacted fishermen over time. However, occasionally, due to an encounter with a marine mammal or sea turtle, movement of the vessel may alter the expected benefits or costs of that particular trip.

Social Effects

There would be no anticipated social impacts from the implementation of this alternative.

Summary

This alternative could potentially reduce the interaction rates of sea turtles and marine mammals in HMS fisheries. NOAA Fisheries may implement this alternative in the future if it is shown to be effective in the pelagic longline fishery. Until that time, NOAA Fisheries encourages all HMS fishermen to move 1 nm after an interaction with a protected species.

7.4 Summary of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

The actions analyzed in the FSEIS have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with them. In Table 7.7 below, NOAA Fisheries summarized the expected impacts of each of the alternatives examined. Direct and indirect impacts refer to the effect of each alternative alone (as if no other regulatory measures are in place). Cumulative impacts refer to impacts from the specific alternative in addition to those from other existing regulatory measures, such as quotas, minimum size limits, time and area closures, sea turtle release requirements (dipnets and line clippers), live bait prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico, permitting, reporting, observer, and vessel safety requirements. As noted below, some of the alternatives would cause a positive or negative cumulative impact, but most of them would cause no significant difference or no detectable difference in the overall regulatory impacts. In the case of the no action alternatives, the cumulative impacts do not change because no action would maintain the status quo.

Table 7.7 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts of Alternatives Considered.

Ecological Impacts		Population and ecological effects due to changes in the bycatch of sea turtles	Changes in the catch of other species and the resulting population and ecosystem effects	Effects on marine mammals and seabirds	Effects on essential fish habitat
Pelagic Longline Fishery Requirements
Alt 1: Close NED area to pelagic longline fishing (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Reduction in estimated captures of loggerheads by 67 to 76% and leatherbacks by 58 to 65 %	Initial reduction in target species and bycatch although international fishing efforts may increase in NED and negate reductions from US vessels	Could slightly increase interactions with marine mammals and seabirds depending where fishing effort relocates	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Positive change in sea turtle populations	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 2: Prohibit setting gangions next to floatlines (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	No impact on loggerheads, may increase interactions with leatherbacks	No change in catch of target species	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Possible negative change in leatherback populations	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 3: Require length of any gangion to be at least 10 percent longer than any floatline if the total length of any gangion plus any floatline is less than 100 meters (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Should reduce sea turtle mortality by allowing them to reach the surface to breathe	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Slight positive change in sea turtle populations	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 4: Require possession of corrodible non-stainless steel hooks (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	May increase post-release survival of sea turtles	No significant difference from no action	Could improve post-release survival of marine mammals	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Slight positive change in sea turtle populations	Slight positive change in populations of bycatch species	Slight positive change in marine mammal populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 5: Require reporting of lethal sea turtle takes within 48 hours (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No detectable change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 6: Require posting of sea turtle handling and release guidelines in wheelhouse (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Should reduce post-release mortality of sea turtles	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Slight positive change in sea turtle populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 7: No action (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Jeopardizes continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles	No change	No change	No change
Alt 7: No action (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 8: Require dehooking devices (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	May increase post-release survival of sea turtles	Could increase post-release survival of other bycatch species	Could increase post-release survival of marine mammals	No significant difference from no action
Alt 8: Require dehooking devices (Not Selected)	Cumulative	Slight positive change in sea turtle populations	Slight positive change in bycatch populations	Slight positive change in marine mammal populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 9: Require fishing deeper in water column (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Should reduce capture of sea turtles	Could reduce catch of swordfish	Unknown	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Positive change in sea turtle population	Could have positive change in swordfish population	Unknown	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 10: Require blue-dyed bait (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Found to be ineffective in reducing sea turtle captures	No significant difference from no action	Could reduce seabird captures	No significant difference from no action
Alt 10: Require blue-dyed bait (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	Positive change in seabird populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 11: Require mackerel as bait (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Expected to reduce capture of sea turtles	Unknown	Not expected to increase catch of seabirds or marine mammals	No significant difference from no action
Alt 11: Require mackerel as bait (Not Selected)	Cumulative	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 12: Require stealth gear (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	No significant difference from no action
Alt 12: Require stealth gear (Not Selected)	Cumulative	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Shark Gillnet Fishery Requirements
Alt 13: Require operator and observer to look for whales; require operator to contact NOAA Fisheries if a whale is taken (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	Could reduce incidental captures of whales	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No detectable change in cumulative effects	No detectable change in cumulative effects	Slight positive change in whale populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 14: Require net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours and removal of protected species (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Should reduce mortality of captured sea turtles	No significant difference from no action	Should reduce mortality of marine mammals	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Positive change in sea turtle populations	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	Positive change in marine mammal populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 15: No action (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 15: No action (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 16: Prohibit shark gillnet gear (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Would eliminate sea turtle interactions	Reduce fishing pressure on some shark species	Would eliminate marine mammal and seabird interactions	No significant difference from no action
Alt 16: Prohibit shark gillnet gear (Not Selected)	Cumulative	Slight positive change in sea turtle populations	Slight positive change in some shark species	Slight positive impact on marine mammals	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 17: Require use of spotter planes for strikenetting (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Could reduce sea turtle interactions	No significant difference from no action	Could reduce chance of marine mammal interaction	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative effects
General Requirements
Alt 18: No action (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 18: No action (Final Action)	Cumulative	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 19: Require all HMS vessels to post sea turtle handling and release guidelines (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Would reduce post-release mortality of sea turtles	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Positive change in sea turtle populations	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 20: Require vessels with hook and line gear on board to carry line clippers and dipnets (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Could reduce post-release mortality of sea turtles	May reduce post-release mortality of bycatch species	May reduce post-release mortality of marine mammals	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Positive change in sea turtle populations	Slight positive change in bycatch and released species	Slight positive change in marine mammal populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 21: Require vessels with hook and line gear on board to have dehooking device (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Could reduce post-release mortality of sea turtles	Could reduce port-release mortality of bycatch and released species	Could reduce post-release mortality of marine mammals	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Positive change in sea turtle populations	Positive change in bycatch and released species	Slight positive change in marine mammal populations	No detectable change in cumulative effects
Alt 22: Require all vessels, in addition to pelagic longline, to move 1 nautical mile if a marine mammal or sea turtle is hooked or entangled (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Could reduce sea turtle interactions depending on where the vessel moves	Unknown	Could reduce sea turtle interactions depending on where the vessel moves	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	No detectable change in cumulative effects

Economic and Social Impacts		Changes in fishing, processing, disposal, and marketing costs	Changes in fishing practices and behavior of fishermen	Changes in research, administration, and management effectiveness	Changes in the economic, social, or cultural value of fishing activities and non- consumptive uses of fishery resources	Changes in the distribution of benefits and costs	Social effects
Pelagic Longline Fishery Requirements
Alt 1: Close NED area to pelagic longline fishing (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Could increase costs to operators and dealers depending on relocation on vessels	Distant water vessels will either leave fishery or relocate to an open fishing area	Increase research, administration, and enforcement costs	Likely fewer swordfish landed domestically thus affecting fishermen, dealers, and consumers. Existence value of sea turtles could increase	Significantly reduce economic benefit of fishing activities of distant water vessels	Could impact communities that depend on distant water vessels
	Cumulative	Negative impact on costs	Negative impact on fishermen	Negative impact on costs	Negative impact on value of fishing activities	Negative impact on fishermen	Negative impact on fishermen
Alt 2: Prohibit setting gangions next to floatlines (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Minimal impacts on fishermen	Minimal impacts on fishermen	Measure would be difficult to enforce	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects
Alt 3: Require length of any gangion to be at least 10 percent longer than any floatline if the total length of any gangion plus any floatline is less than 100 meters (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Minimal impacts on fishermen	Minimal impacts on fishermen	Measure would be difficult to enforce	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects
Alt 4: Require possession of corrodible non-stainless steel hooks (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Minor increase in costs. Those with stainless steel hooks would have a large initial cost increase	No difference from no action except hooks may be replaced more frequently	Would be difficult to enforce	Immediate cost to fishermen who need to replace hooks. Could impact suppliers	Costs could increase in short term. No change in the long term	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Negative impact on costs to fishermen	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects	No significant change in cumulative effects
Alt 5: Require reporting of lethal sea turtle takes within 48 hours (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	No significant difference from no action	Fishermen required to call NOAA Fisheries during offloading	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
Alt 6: Require posting of sea turtle handling and release guidelines in wheelhouse (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	No significant difference from no action	Could result in longer gear retrieval time	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
Alt 7: No action (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 7: No action (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 8: Require dehooking devices (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Minor increase in fishing costs, dehooking devices cost about $100	Could increase handling time of bycatch species	Would be difficult to enforce	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
Alt 8: Require dehooking devices (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
Alt 9: Require fishing deeper in water column (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Would decrease revenue for vessels that normally target swordfish	Fishermen would have to rig gear to fish deeper	Would be difficult to enforce	Would decrease catch of swordfish	Change would depend on how target catch composition varies	Vary based on target catch
	Cumulative	Negative impact on cost	Unknown	No significant difference from no action	Negative impact on value of fishing activities	Unknown	Unknown
Alt 10: Require blue-dyed bait (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Dye cost $46 per pound which would cause minor increase in fishing cost	Fishermen would have to dye bait blue which would increase set time	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
Alt 10: Require blue-dyed bait (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
Alt 11: Require mackerel as bait (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Could increase cost of bait which would increase cost of fishing	Would change fishing practice and behavior as fishermen used new bait	No significant difference from no action	Might decrease catch of target species or change catch composition	Unknown	No significant difference from no action
Alt 11: Require mackerel as bait (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
Alt 12: Require stealth gear (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	May require fishermen to purchase new gear	May not alter fishing behavior, but it depends on the gear involved	May be difficult to enforce	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Alt 12: Require stealth gear (Not Selected)	Cumulative	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Shark Gillnet Fishery Requirements
Alt 13: Require operator and observer to look for whales; require operator to contact NOAA Fisheries if a whale is taken (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	No significant difference from no action	Would require fishermen to look for whales and cease fishing if a whale is taken	Would require NOAA Fisheries to establish a phone number and reporting service	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts
Alt 14: Require net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours and removal of protected species (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	Could increase costs slightly for fishermen not already conducting net checks	Would alter behavior of those not already conducting net checks by requiring net checks several times during gear soak	Would be difficult to enforce	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts
Alt 15: No action (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 15: No action (Not Selected)	Cumulative	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 16: Prohibit shark gillnet gear (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Vessels would target different species or go out of business	Vessels would need to rerig to target new species or exit fishery	Costs would decrease	Minor changes based on small size of fishery	Some vessels may go out of business, others may enter a different fishery	Would be significant social effects as vessels are forced to relocate or switch target species
Alt 16: Prohibit shark gillnet gear (Not Selected)	Cumulative	Negative change in costs	Negative change in fishermen behavior	Positive impact on costs	Negative impact on value of fishing activities	Minor negative impact on benefits and costs	Negative impact on social effects
Alt 17: Require use of spotter planes for strikenetting (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Significantly increase fishing cost due to use of spotter plane and possibly second vessel	Would significantly alter behavior and practice of participants in the fishery	Would be difficult to enforce	May eliminate some vessels due to higher cost associated with fishing	Could alter distribution by precluding vessels that cannot afford the spotter plane and second vessel	Would have negative social effects if vessels are forced to leave fishery
	Cumulative	Negative change in costs	Negative change in fishermen behavior	Negative impact on costs	Negative impact on value of fishing activities	Negative impact on benefits and costs	Negative impact on social effects
General Requirements
Alt 18: No action (Final Action)	Direct/Indirect	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 18: No action (Final Action)	Cumulative	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change	No change
Alt 19: Require all HMS vessels to post sea turtle handling and release guidelines (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	No significant difference from no action	Behavior would be altered only if fishermen had to release a turtle	Appropriate guidelines for each gear would have to be developed	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts	No detectable change in cumulative impacts
Alt 20: Require vessels with hook and line gear on board to carry line clippers and dipnets (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Would impose a small one-time cost on fishermen	Behavior would be altered only if fishermen had to release a turtle	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts
Alt 21: Require vessels with hook and line gear on board to have dehooking device (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Would impose a small one-time cost on fishermen	Behavior would be altered only if fishermen had to release a turtle	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts	No significant change in cumulative impacts
Alt 22: Require all vessels, in addition to pelagic longline, to move 1 nautical mile if a marine mammal or sea turtle is hooked or entangled (Not Selected)	Direct/Indirect	Could impact costs depending on impact on target catch	Impact behavior as fishermen have to move following an interaction	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action	No significant difference from no action
	Cumulative	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown