Number range CHAPTER

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,

REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW,

AND

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

FOR A FINAL RULE

TO

REDUCE DISCARDS OF, AND

MODIFY THE TARGET CATCH REQUIREMENTS FOR

PELAGIC LONGLINE VESSELS RETAINING INCIDENTAL CATCH OF

ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA

United States Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Sustainable Fisheries

Highly Migratory Species Management Division

*May 2003*

**Reduce Discards of, and Modify the Target Catch Requirements for
Pelagic Longline Vessels Retaining Incidental Catch of, Atlantic Bluefin
Tuna**

**Final Action:** Reduce discards of, and modify the target catch
requirements for pelagic longline vessels retaining incidental catch of,
Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT).

**Type of statement:** Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact
Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

**Lead Agency:** National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): Office of
Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF)

**For further information:** Highly Migratory Species Management
Division (F/SF1)

NMFS-Northeast Regional Office

One Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

Phone: (978) 281-9260; Fax: (978) 281-9340

**Abstract:** In April 1999, NMFS adopted a Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP), that was developed to
meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). One of the issues discussed
during development of the HMS FMP was dead discards of BFT by pelagic
longline vessels, which may not target BFT but sometimes catch them
while fishing for swordfish or other tunas. Pelagic longline vessels are
authorized to keep some BFT depending on the amount of target catch they
have on board. To reduce BFT dead discards, the HMS FMP included a final
action to close an area off the Mid-Atlantic coast to pelagic longline
fishing during the month of June. Also considered in the development of
the HMS FMP were adjustments to the regulations on how much target catch
longline vessels must retain per trip in order to land the BFT they
catch, although the HMS FMP did not amend these regulations. This action
amends the HMS FMP implementing regulations to reduce dead discards by
modifying the target catch requirements and is taken under the framework
provisions of the HMS FMP. Specifically, this action modifies the target
catch requirements such that pelagic longline vessels must land 2,000
lbs. of other fish in order to land one BFT on a trip, 6,000 lbs. of
other fish in order to land two BFT on a trip, and 30,000 lbs. of other
fish to land three BFT. This change in the target catch requirements
would be applied to all fishing areas. This action also maintains
separate quotas for the seasonal fisheries but would adjust the Longline
category North/South division line to 31^o^00\' N. latitude and adjust
the Longline category subquotas to allocate 60 percent to the southern
area and 40 percent to the northern area. Several other alternative
modifications to the target catch requirements were considered but are
not preferred. Finally, this action provides NMFS the inseason authority
to modify the BFT retention limits for pelagic longline vessels by
number from a range of zero (closure) to three BFT per trip and/or by
weight within 25 percent of the target catch requirement. These actions
are consistent with the objectives of the HMS FMP and the requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action 1

> 1.1 Regulatory History 2
>
> 1.2 The Fishery Management Plan and the Framework Process 6
>
> 1.3 Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act 6
>
> 1.4 Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat 7

2.0 Alternatives 7

> 2.1 Approach One: Adjusting Target Catch Requirements for BFT
> Retention by Pelagic Longline Vessels 7
>
> 2.2 Approach Two: Moving the North/South Division and Reallocating
> Quota between Areas 9
>
> 2.3 Approach Three: Inseason Adjustment Authority for Target Catch
> Requirements\
> 10
>
> 2.4 Alternatives Preliminarily Considered but Rejected 11

3.0 Description of the Fishery and Affected Environment 12

> 3.1 The U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery 12
>
> 3.2 BFT Catches, Landings, and Discards in the U.S. Pelagic Longline
> Fishery 13
>
> 3.3 Compliance with Target Catch Requirements 15
>
> 3.4 Evaluation of Closed Area in June to Decrease BFT Bycatch in the
> Pelagic Longline Fishery 16

4.0 Consequences of Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternatives 16

> 4.1. Approach One: Adjusting Target Catch Requirements for BFT
> Retention by Pelagic Longline Vessels 17
>
> 4.2 Approach Two: Moving the North/South Boundary Line and
> Reallocating Quota between Areas 30
>
> 4.3 Approach Three: Inseason Adjustment Authority for Target Catch
> Requirements\
> 32
>
> 4.4 Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives Considered 35

5.0 Regulatory Impact Review 36

> 5.1 Analyses of Alternatives 37
>
> 5.1.1 Impacts on Fishermen 37
>
> 5.1.2 Impacts on Seafood Dealers 38
>
> 5.2 Conclusion 39

6.0 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 39

7.0 Mitigating Measures 41

8.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 41

9.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 41

10.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 42

11.0 Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses to Draft EA/RIR and
IRFA 46

12.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted 49

12.0 List of Preparers/Contact Information 49

13.0 References 50

14.0 Tables 51

15.0 Figures 67

Appendices 71

**1.0 Purpose and Need for Action**

The purpose of this action is to reduce the level of BFT that is
discarded dead by vessels in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery while
allowing the retention of incidentally caught BFT and preventing a
directed fishery on BFT. One of the goals of the HMS FMP, consistent
with National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is to minimize
bycatch and bycatch mortality in the highly migratory species (HMS)
fisheries. The EA, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) analyze several alternatives to achieve this
goal, including the adjustment of target catch requirements for landing
the incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline vessels.

The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, which commonly targets swordfish,
sharks, and yellowfin and bigeye tunas, also occasionally catches BFT
incidentally to these other fisheries. Because the U.S. longline fleet
has not historically targeted BFT, the portion of the U.S. national BFT
quota allocated to the longline category has always been intended to
account for incidental catch only. Accordingly, under current BFT
regulations, vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas Longline category
are permitted to retain and land BFT caught with pelagic longline gear
only if a specific minimum level of other fish species are landed from
the same trip. While the regulations pertaining to landing incidental
BFT catch have been adjusted on several occasions, the pelagic longline
industry continues to comment and data suggest that the target catch
requirements result in unnecessary dead discards, while the quota
allocated to account for these incidental catches remains unused. The
history of U.S. regulatory activity and public comment regarding this
issue dates back to the early 1980s. A full description of this history
is provided in the HMS FMP in Chapter 3, section 3.5.3 "Management
Measures to Address Bycatch Problems," and is also described below in
Section 1.1 and recent HMS SAFE Reports (NMFS 2002 and 2003).

The HMS FMP includes a suite of management objectives for all of the HMS
Fisheries. The following objectives are particularly pertinent to this
rulemaking on the BFT target catch requirements for longline vessels:

1.  Consistent with other objectives of this FMP, to manage Atlantic HMS
    fisheries for continuing optimum yield so as to provide the greatest
    overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food
    production, providing recreational opportunities, preserving
    traditional fisheries, and taking into account the protection of
    marine ecosystems. Optimum yield is the maximum sustainable yield
    from the fishery, reduced by any relevant social, economic, or
    ecological factors;

2.  To minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch of living marine
    resources and the mortality of such bycatch that cannot be avoided
    in the Atlantic HMS fisheries;

3.  To minimize, to the extent practicable, economic displacement and
    other adverse impacts on fishing communities during the transition
    from overfished fisheries to healthy ones;

4.  To better coordinate domestic conservation and management of the
    fisheries for Atlantic HMS, considering the multispecies nature of
    many HMS fisheries, overlapping regional and individual
    participation, international management concerns, historical fishing
    patterns and participation, and other relevant factors.

A change to the target catch requirements for BFT in the pelagic
longline fishery is consistent with the above objectives established by
the HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards and National
Standard Guidelines, and the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendation to rebuild BFT in
the western Atlantic Ocean. In this EA/RIR/FRFA, NMFS considers the
biological, social, and economic impacts of a range of management
measures to reduce dead discards of BFT in the pelagic longline fishery
(based on reviews of landings, logbook, and observer data) with the
objectives of allowing the retention of truly incidentally caught BFT
while preventing a directed fishery and reducing discards. A preferred
alternative is identified for which NMFS is publishing regulations, in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other
applicable laws. This alternative is preferred due to its consistency
with the objectives of the HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the
1998 ICCAT recommendation for western BFT stock rebuilding.

**1.1 Regulatory History**

In 1977, NMFS implemented an incidental catch limit of BFT for all gear
types (other than Traps that could land one BFT every 30 days) that
caught BFT but were not part of a directed bluefin fishery (42 FR 30373,
June 14, 1977). This regulation required that fishermen could only
retain BFT if they participated in a non-directed fishery and if the
weight of the BFT on board was less than one percent of the weight of
all the fish on board.

During the 1980 winter/spring longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, a
number of U.S. longline vessels fishing for swordfish began to land
increasing quantities of giant BFT. NMFS was concerned that without
immediate action there could be substantial investment in fishing gear
and processing facilities by the U.S. industry in developing a directed
longline fishery for BFT in the Gulf of Mexico, a known spawning area
for BFT. There was also concern that, under the regulations at the time,
longline catches could severely and negatively affect the other
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Mid-Atlantic areas. As a result of
these concerns, NMFS published a final rule dated January 26, 1981 (46
FR 8012), which prohibited the use of longlines in a directed BFT
fishery, implemented an incidental catch limit of BFT, and established
two management areas north and south of 36E N. latitude where different
catch limits would apply. South of 36E N. latitude, longline fishermen
were restricted to two BFT per vessel per trip, whereas north of 36E N.
latitude, they were restricted to two percent by weight of all other
fish on board at the end of the fishing trip (weigh-out facilities in
the southern area were deemed inadequate to allow practical application
of the two percent rule).

In 1982, ICCAT recommended a ban on directed fishing for BFT in the Gulf
of Mexico to protect the spawning stock. This action primarily affected
Japanese longline fishermen in the area, as U.S. longline gear had
already been prohibited from targeting BFT in the Gulf of Mexico.
However, concern remained over the adequacy of the incidental catch
limits, particularly regarding the efficacy of the restriction at
reducing bycatch mortality of BFT. NMFS' examination of available
longline fishery data at that time (i.e. during the late 1970\'s and
early 1980\'s) regarding discarded BFT in the Gulf of Mexico revealed
that more than 80 percent of those BFT released were dead.

In 1983, in an attempt to accommodate the expansion of the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico longline fishery, NMFS increased and then subdivided the
incidental BFT quota for longline fishermen (48 FR 27745, June 17,
1983).

On January 6, 1992 (57 FR 365), NMFS determined that the incidental
catch limit in the southern area was not effective at reducing BFT
bycatch mortality and changed the restriction for this area. Until that
time, the bycatch restriction of up to two BFT per trip, without any
requirement that the BFT be landed in conjunction with other species,
and the short distance from shore to the fishing grounds, made it
feasible for vessels to direct their fishing on BFT, despite the
retention limit. As this activity ran counter to the intent to prohibit
directed fishing of BFT by longline gear, the final regulations required
longline vessels operating in the southern area (south of 36E N.
latitude) to land, offload and sell at least 2,500 lbs. of other species
as a condition for landing a maximum of one BFT.

After this action was implemented, NMFS received several comments
indicating that the new bycatch restriction in the southern area caused
an increase in BFT discards and waste. Consequently, NMFS conducted
scoping meetings on this issue and examined several options that
included: 1) requiring special gear; 2) requiring a minimum number of
days between a vessel's landings; and 3) reviewing the minimum target
catch requirements. Recommendations also included prohibiting BFT
catches in the Gulf of Mexico or, conversely, working through ICCAT to
rescind the prohibition and allow limited directed fishing.

On January 19, 1994 (59 FR 2814), NMFS proposed to amend the minimum
landing requirements to adjust for seasonal variation in the target
fisheries. At that time, NMFS maintained that it was possible to conduct
directed fishing on species other than BFT with only a limited amount of
BFT catch, and that requiring threshold amounts of BFT to be landed
ensures that bluefin are harvested only as bycatch incidentally to
fishing for other species. However, NMFS also stated in this *Federal
Register* notice that "if evidence indicates this is not true, NMFS may
consider more stringent measures, such as area or season closures or
gear restrictions, in future rulemaking." On April 14, 1994 (59 FR
17723), NMFS published a final rule that changed the directed fishery
minimum weight requirement on landing one BFT, for the southern area
only, from at least 2,500 lbs. to 1,500 lbs. during the months from
January to April, and to 3,500 lbs. from May through December. In that
final rule, the existing catch restrictions were not adjusted for the
northern area.

At the same time that NMFS modified the target catch requirements for
the southern area, NMFS also modified the geographic separation between
the northern and southern management areas by adjusting the dividing
boundary south to 34E N. latitude (59 FR 17723, April 14, 1994). This
was primarily because the previous location at 36E N. latitude was
located in a particularly dynamic oceanographic area where vessels
fishing on one side of the line may find themselves transported by
currents to the other side. This division line adjustment prompted
comments regarding division of quota and specification of landings
requirements affecting the northern and southern subcategories of the
incidental longline category.

In addition, NMFS received numerous written comments that the landings
requirements applicable in the northern area cannot be met by vessels in
the shark longline fisheries operating off of North Carolina in the
winter months, due to the retention limits in effect under the shark
fishery management plan. Participants in this winter shark fishery have
noted that the BFT and shark regulations, taken together, force
discarding of BFT, e.g., the 4,000 lb. dressed weight large coastal
shark retention limit allows retention of an 80 lb. BFT, which is below
the minimum commercial size. These fishermen requested an allowance to
land and market fish that would otherwise be discarded dead, thus
increasing boat revenues without contributing to additional BFT
mortality. Also, despite these ongoing efforts to reduce discards by
changing target catch requirements and adjusting dividing lines, U.S.
BFT dead discards increased in 1995 to a total of approximately 142 mt.

In response to these comments, and the relatively high number of
discards reported to ICCAT, NMFS undertook a review of the BFT
incidental catch regulations, including division of the quotas, the
position of the dividing line between the northern and southern
subcategories, and landing criteria applicable to each management area.
Observer data from longline trips taken from 1991 to 1994 indicated that
two or fewer BFT were hooked on 91 percent of all observed trips. NMFS
also analyzed landings information to determine trends in landings by
time and area. NMFS published the results of its review in an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), published on September 17, 1996
(61 FR 48876).

In the ANPR, NMFS requested public comments on possible changes to the
regulations to reduce incidental mortality of BFT while allowing for
commercial use of unavoidable bycatch. Various proposals were presented
and several public comments were received during the comment period on
the ANPR. Many of the proposals called for various changes to the target
catch limits and/or moving the dividing line between management areas
while other comments raised concern over providing an incentive for a
directed fishery and advocated use of time/area closures to address the
problem of discards.

In response to the 1996 ICCAT recommendation that called for the United
States to adopt measures designed to reduce discards of BFT during 1997
and 1998, and since publication of the ANPR and receipt of comments,
NMFS examined different options for reducing dead discards. NMFS
considered a variety of options, including changing the current target
weight requirement, limiting the number of days per trip, and
implementing time/area closures. Logbook and dealer weighout slips from
1991 through 1995 were collected, and initial results indicated
significant differences between the number of BFT caught and discarded
per trip by season and region.

Analyses of BFT discard data continued through 1998, the preliminary
results of which were presented to the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels
(APs) in March and July 1998. The 1998 ICCAT Recommendation on western
BFT requires that all Contracting Parties, including the United States,
minimize dead discards of BFT to the extent practicable. The
Recommendation also established a 79 mt allowance for dead discards for
the western Atlantic, of which the United States was allocated 68 mt. If
a country has dead discards in excess of their allowance, they must be
counted against that country's landing quota for the following year. If
there are fewer dead discards, then half of the underharvest may be
added to the following year's quota while the other half is conserved.
Dead discards of BFT are reported to ICCAT by NMFS, along with landings
data, and are summarized in the U.S. National Report which is
transmitted to ICCAT annually.

The final rule that implemented the HMS FMP in 1999 addressed the dead
discard issue by establishing a time/area closure for the use of pelagic
longline gear in the Northwestern Atlantic from 39E to 40E N. latitude
and 68E to 74E W. longitude during the month of June (See Figure 1).
This closed area was chosen to meet the goal of minimizing BFT dead
discards while having the least economic impact on the directed pelagic
longline fisheries. The HMS FMP also considered, but did not implement,
further modifications to target catch requirements because of the
difficulty in determining catch levels and landings allowances that
would likely reduce dead discards. The lack of correlation between the
level of target catch and BFT discards indicated that BFT catches were
truly incidental, and while an area closure was selected in the HMS FMP
as the most expedient means of reducing dead discards, NMFS also
concluded that future analyses of catch rates may provide guidance for a
change in the target catch requirements. This EA/RIR/FRFA includes these
analyses and the methodology is described in Section 4.0. Since NMFS
first implemented BFT incidental catch regulations, the agency has
received public comment and inquiries regarding the target catch
requirements to retain incidental catch of BFT and the effectiveness of
the regulations in avoiding dead discards.

Since adoption of the HMS FMP and its measures to reduce dead discards
of BFT, the target catch requirements for retention of BFT by pelagic
longline vessels have continued to be discussed. Industry has continued
to comment that the target catch requirements are overly restrictive and
result in unnecessary dead discards of BFT. NMFS analyzed additional
data on the landing patterns of longline vessels, and published another
ANPR in the *Federal Register* on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69492). The
members of the HMS and Billfish APs discussed the target catch
requirements at their meetings in April 2001 and 2002, and were
generally in favor of NMFS adjusting the target catch requirements so
that pelagic longline vessels could land more of the BFT they caught
incidentally to fishing for other species, so long as the changes to the
target catch requirements did not result in an incentive to target BFT
and/or cause additional dead discards. See Appendices 1 and 2 for
summaries of the APs' discussions of the target catch requirements.

On December 24, 2002 NMFS published a proposed rule (67 FR 78404) to
address ongoing issues with dead discards and retention of BFT by
pelagic longline vessels and analyzed various alternatives for the
rulemaking in an accompanying draft EA/RIR and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The analyses considered three approaches to
address the purpose and need of the action including; (1) adjusting
target catch requirements for bluefin retention by pelagic longline
vessels, (2) moving the north/south division line between management
areas and reallocating quota between areas, and (3) providing inseason
adjustment authority for target catch requirements. NMFS selected
preferred alternatives that best addressed the original need for the
action and were consistent with the purposes of the HMS FMP and the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For any of the alternatives,
and consistent with ICCAT's recommendation regarding dead discards (see
above), if NMFS determines that the United States' annual dead discard
allowance has been exceeded, NMFS would subtract the amount in excess of
the allowance from the total amount of BFT that can be landed in the
next year. If NMFS determines that the annual dead discard allowance has
not been reached, NMFS may add one half of the remainder to the total
amount of BFT that can be landed. Public comment on the rulemaking was
generally favorable and encouraged the Agency to proceed expeditiously
to final action. Several comments also suggested some minor adjustments
to the proposed regulations to more effectively meet the purposes of the
rulemaking. A summary of all comments received and agency responses are
provided in the preamble to the final rule.

The HMS AP met in February 2003 and provided comment and advice to the
Agency on a number of management issues including the subject of BFT
discards and retention limits by pelagic longline vessels, the recently
published proposed rule and associated public comments. HMS AP members
reiterated many of the same comments raised during the public comment
period on the proposed rule and also encouraged the Agency to proceed to
final rulemaking. See Appendix 3 for a brief summary of the APs'
comments on the Agency's approaches and preferred alternatives to
address discards of BFT by the pelagic longline fishery.

**1.2 The Fishery Management Plan and the Framework Process**

Since April 1999, NMFS has been managing the Atlantic tunas fisheries
under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic
Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). The HMS FMP established a framework
procedure for adjustment of the regulations necessary to achieve the
management objectives in the HMS FMP. The framework process requires a
public comment period and at least one public hearing, consistent with
the Administrative Procedure Act. For further information on the FMP and
framework processes, see Chapter 3 of the HMS FMP.

**1.3 Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act**

The preferred alternatives in this EA/RIR/FRFA would not be expected to
increase endangered species or marine mammal interaction rates. On June
14, 2001, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) after concluding
formal consultation for the HMS fisheries under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The BiOp concluded that the pelagic
longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species. NMFS has implemented the reasonable
and prudent alternatives from the BiOp, and the preferred alternatives
from this EA/RIR/FRFA are consistent with, and would not adversely
affect, NMFS' actions to implement the reasonable and prudent
alternatives required by the BiOp. The preferred alternatives of this
EA/RIR/FRFA would not likely increase takes of listed species, nor
foreclose the use of other alternatives for managing the Atlantic
pelagic longline fleet and reducing adverse impacts on protected
resources.

**1.4 Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat**

The Magnuson-Stevens Act established a program to promote the protection
of essential fish habitat (EFH) in the review of projects conducted by
Federal agencies, or under Federal permits, licenses, or other
authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat.
After the Secretary has identified EFH, Federal agencies are obligated
to consult with the Secretary with respect to any action authorized,
funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or
undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any EFH.

The area in which this action is planned has been identified as EFH for
species managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, and the Highly Migratory Species
Management Division of NMFS. It is not anticipated that this action
would have any adverse impacts to EFH and therefore no consultation is
required.

**2.0 Alternatives**

This section describes the alternatives considered in this EA/RIR/FRFA.
Section 2.1 describes the alternatives considered regarding changing the
target catch requirements for BFT retention by pelagic longline vessels.
Section 2.2 presents the three alternatives NMFS considered regarding
moving the North/South division line and modifying the BFT quota
distribution between the northern and southern areas within the Longline
category. Section 2.3 presents the three alternatives NMFS considered
regarding providing the Agency authority to adjust the BFT trip limits
for longline vessels during the season. The alternatives are evaluated
in Section 4.

**2.1 Approach One: Adjusting Target Catch Requirements for BFT
Retention by Pelagic Longline Vessels**

The following alternatives represent the range of options considered by
NMFS regarding changing the target catch requirements for BFT retention
by pelagic longline vessels. The alternatives range from no action
(status quo) to adjusting the target catch requirements in all areas,
and varying the target catch requirements seasonally.

**2.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo**

This alternative would maintain the status quo, in which the HMS
regulations require that the weight of BFT landed by longline vessels
north of 34^o^ N. latitude be no more than two percent of the total
weight of the other catch landed for a trip (i.e., for a target catch of
30,000 lbs. it would be possible to retain three BFT assuming a dressed
weight of 200 lbs. for a commercial sized BFT). South of 34^o^ N.
latitude, pelagic longline vessels are allowed one BFT per trip,
provided that they land 1,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip
from January through April, and 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the same
trip from May through December.

**2.1.2 Alternative 2: Adjust Target Catch Requirements in Northern Area
from Two Percent to 3,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels landing north of 34^o^ N. latitude to land one
BFT per trip, provided they also land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip. This alternative would not modify the target catch
requirements south of 34^o^ N. latitude.

**2.1.3 Alternative 3: Adjust Target Catch Requirements in Northern Area
to 3,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT, and 6,000 lbs. of Other
Catch to Retain Two BFT**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels landing north of 34^o^ N. latitude to land one
BFT per trip, provided they also land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip, or two BFT per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of
other catch from the same trip. This alternative would not modify the
target catch requirements south of 34^o^ N. latitude.

**2.1.4 Alternative 4: Adjust Coastwide Target Catch Requirements to
3,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT, and 6,000 lbs. of Other
Catch to Retain Two BFT, with Southern Area allowed One BFT with only
1,500 lbs. from January through April**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels in all areas to land one BFT per trip, provided
they also land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two BFT
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip. However, from January through April, this alternative would
allow pelagic longline vessels landing south of 34^o^ N. latitude to
land their one BFT per trip with only 1,500 lbs. of other fish from the
same trip.

**2.1.5 Alternative 5: Adjust Coastwide Target Catch Requirements to
2,000 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT; 6,000 lbs. of Other Catch
to Retain Two Bluefin Tuna; and 30,000 lbs of Other Catch to Retain
Three BFT (Preferred Alternative)**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels in all areas and times to land one BFT per
trip, provided they also land 2,000 lbs. of other catch from the same
trip, or two BFT per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other
catch from the same trip, or three BFT per trip, provided they also land
30,000 lbs. of other catch from the same trip. This alternative has been
slightly modified from that presented in the draft EA. The preferred g15

alternative now contains a third tier of target catch requirements to
allow the retention of three BFT at levels already allowed and provided
for under the status quo.

**2.1.6 Alternative 6: Adjust Coastwide Target Catch Requirements to
1,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT, and 6,000 lbs. of Other
Catch to Retain Two BFT**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels in all areas and times to land one BFT per
trip, provided they also land 1,500 lbs. of other catch from the same
trip, or two BFT per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other
catch from the same trip.

**2.2 Approach Two: Moving the North/South Division and Reallocating
Quota between Areas**

The following alternatives represent three options considered by NMFS
regarding moving the North/South division line and reallocating Longline
category BFT quota. The purpose of moving the division line and
reallocating quota would be to find a division line that better reflects
the seasonal and other differences in the northern and southern
fisheries. In addition, the division line should not be near an area
where fish are usually landed, i.e., it should be clear that fish caught
in a particular area will be landed in that area. Adjusting the quota
between the two zones would be done to adjust for the increase/decrease
in area for each zone. The three alternatives considered are discussed
below.

**2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Adjustment in Longline Category North/South
Division Line or Subquotas (No Action/Status Quo)**

This alternative would maintain the status quo, with the North/South
division line at 34^o^ N. Latitude, and would maintain the quota
allocation between the two areas at 78.9 percent for the southern area
and 21.1 percent for the northern area.

**2.2.2 Alternative 2: Move North/South Division Line to 31E00\' N.
latitude, and Change Subquota Allocation to 60/40 Percent for the
Southern/Northern Areas (Preferred Alternative)**

This alternative would move the Longline category North/South division
line to 31E00\' N. latitude near Jekyll Island, Georgia, and adjust the
Longline category subquotas to allocate 60 percent to the southern area
and 40 percent to the northern area. This alternative has been slightly
modified from that presented in the draft EA. The draft EA proposed
allocation of subquotas with 70 percent to the south and 30 percent to
the north. The change was suggested and implemented based on a review of
the analyses (see Section 4.2.2) and public comment.

**2.2.3 Alternative 3: Eliminate North/South Division Line and Establish
One Longline Category Quota for All Areas**

This alternative would eliminate the Longline category North/South
division line and establish one quota for the Longline category for all
areas.

**2.3 Approach Three: Inseason Adjustment Authority for Target Catch
Requirements**

The following alternatives represent three options considered by NMFS
regarding inseason authority to modify BFT retention limits by pelagic
longline vessels. The purpose of providing NMFS inseason authority to
adjust the target catch requirements for BFT retention by longline
vessels would be to increase the likelihood of meeting the management
objectives for the BFT fishery on an inseason basis. The three
alternatives considered are discussed below.

**2.3.1 Alternative 1: No Inseason Adjustment Authority (No
Action/Status Quo)**

This alternative would maintain the status quo, in that NMFS does not
have the authority to adjust the amount of BFT that could be retained by
longline vessels on a trip within a season. The limits and target catch
requirements would be fixed, and NMFS could only close the fishery when
the quota (or area subquota) was reached. Any subsequent adjustments
would require notice and comment rulemaking.

**2.3.2 Alternative 2: Provide NMFS with Inseason Adjustment Authority
to Adjust the BFT Retention Limits by Number of Fish Only**

This alternative would provide NMFS with authority to adjust the BFT
retention limits for pelagic longline vessels from a range of zero
(closure) to three fish per trip. NMFS would be able to adjust the
limits through an inseason action, with 30 days public notice. This
authority would be similar to the inseason authority NMFS has to adjust
the General category BFT daily retention limit from zero (closure) to
three BFT per vessel. This alternative would not provide NMFS the
inseason authority to adjust the target catch requirements for BFT
retention (e.g. 3,500 lbs. to 3,000 lbs.).

**2.3.3 Alternative 3: Provide NMFS with Inseason Adjustment Authority
to Adjust the BFT Retention Limits by Number of Fish and Target Catch
Requirement by Weight (Preferred Alternative)**

This alternative would provide NMFS with authority to adjust the BFT
retention limits for pelagic longline vessels by number from a range of
zero (closure) to three fish per trip and/or by weight within 25 percent
of the target catch requirements (e.g., 2,000 lbs. to 2,500 lbs.). NMFS
would be able to adjust the limits through an inseason action, with at
least 21 days public notice. The required notification period for public
notice was modified from 30 days in the proposed rule in response to
public comment on the need for timely adjustments to meet objectives.
This authority would be similar to the inseason authority NMFS has to
adjust the General category BFT daily retention limit from zero to three
BFT per vessel.

**2.4 Alternatives Preliminarily Considered but Rejected**

In developing the above alternatives, NMFS identified several additional
alternatives that were considered preliminarily but then rejected. These
included alternatives that would use a percentage of target catch to
determine the amount of BFT that could be retained, an approach
currently used for vessels landing bluefin north of 34^o^ N. latitude.
The rationale for rejecting alternatives using percentages of target
catch, as well as other methods for addressing discards of BFT by
pelagic longline vessels, is explained below.

*Defining Target Catch Requirements in Percentage Terms*

Current target catch requirements for areas north of the 34^o^ N.
latitude boundary line are based on a percentage: BFT landings cannot
exceed two percent of the weight of the rest of the landed catch. One
way to modify the current regulations would be to increase the
percentage so that more BFT could be landed. However, at the HMS and
Billfish AP meeting in April 2001, several NMFS Enforcement Special
Agents explained that target catch requirements would be more easily
enforced if the amount of BFT allowed to be retained was defined by a
number of fish and not by a percentage. In order to enforce a percentage
of target catch requirement, enforcement agents would need to observe
entire weighouts and be concerned with the exact weight of the BFT and
other landings, which would not be an efficient use of NMFS= limited
enforcement resources. With the retention of BFT defined in terms of a
number of fish, agents would only need to inspect the offloading to
determine the number of BFT landed and the general weight of the other
catch.

*Alternative Methods of Addressing BFT Discards*

In the Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the HMS
FMP, NMFS considered several alternatives for reducing dead discards of
incidentally caught BFT by pelagic longline vessels and selected a final
action that closed the Mid-Atlantic Bight during the month of June. NMFS
examined and rejected several other alternatives, including adopting the
"Canadian model" for dealing with bluefin bycatch and closing all
longline fisheries once any HMS quota was reached. Refer to Section
3.5.3 of the HMS FMP for additional information on these alternatives.
While these previously examined alternatives were not reconsidered at
this time, these alternatives, as well as additional time/area closures
and other approaches for dealing with dead discards of BFT, may be
considered in the future either through framework adjustments or an FMP
amendment.

**3.0 Description of the Fishery and Affected Environment**

**3.1 The U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery**

The U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet operates in all areas of the
Atlantic Ocean from the Grand Banks to the Gulf of Mexico (and sometimes
even further south). Caribbean and South Atlantic vessels are generally
smaller and tend to operate only regionally, while larger vessels may
traverse several regions on a seasonal basis. Pelagic longline
operations encounter many species of fish; some of those captured are
marketable and thus are retained, others are discarded for economic or
regulatory reasons. Species frequently encountered are swordfish, tunas,
and sharks, as well as billfish, dolphin, wahoo, king mackerel, and
other finfish species. Occasionally, pelagic longline gear also
interacts with sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds, known
collectively as "protected" species. All of these species are Federally
managed, and NMFS seeks to control the mortality of regulated or
protected species that results from fishing operations. Detailed
descriptions of the life histories and population status of these
species are given in the HMS FMP and are not repeated here. Management
of declining fish populations requires reductions in fishing mortality
from both directed and incidental fishing sources. The status of the
stocks of Atlantic HMS are summarized in Chapter 2 of the 2003 Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation for HMS (SAFE Report, NMFS 2003), and
are not repeated here.

Pelagic longline gear is composed of several parts. The primary fishing
line, or mainline of the longline system, can vary from five to 40 miles
in length, with approximately 20 to 30 hooks per mile. The depth of the
mainline is determined by ocean currents and the length of the
floatline, which connects the mainline to several buoys and periodic
markers with radar reflectors and radio beacons. Each individual hook is
connected by a leader to the mainline. Lightsticks, which contain
chemicals that emit a glowing light, are often used. When attached to
the hook and suspended at a certain depth, they attract bait fish which
may, in turn, attract pelagic predators. When targeting swordfish, the
lines generally are deployed at sunset and hauled in at sunrise to take
advantage of the nocturnal near-surface feeding habits of the large
pelagic species (Berkeley *et al*., 1981). In general, longlines
targeting tuna are set in the morning, deeper in the water column, and
hauled in the evening. Except for vessels of the distant water fleet
which undertake extended trips, fishing vessels preferentially target
swordfish during periods when the moon is full to take advantage of
increased densities of pelagic species near the surface. Those sets
targeting dolphin fish are set in the daytime near the surface, with
shorter longlines and shorter soak time.

Secondary hook and line gear is permitted onboard pelagic longline
vessels. Longliners use harpoons for safer handling of larger fish, and
for the occasional harvest of free swimming fish that approach the
vessel during haul-back. Using a technique known as "green sticking,"
fishermen may use a long pole to extend several longline leaders and
hooks behind the vessel. Typically, this line is trolled while hauling
the primary gear or while the vessel is moving on the fishing grounds.
"Jigging machines" are a type of bandit gear used for trolling for HMS.
Many pelagic longliners troll regular rod and reel gear while drifting
to determine what species are available in the area they are passing
through.

For a complete description of the U.S. pelagic longline fishery,
including operations, catches, and discards, please see the HMS FMP, the
2003 SAFE Report, and the July 2002 Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for Regulatory Amendment 2 to the HMS FMP to Reduce Sea
Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in HMS (NMFS 2002a).

**3.2 BFT Catches, Landings, and Discards in the U.S. Pelagic Longline
Fishery**

Since the November 2002 meeting of ICCAT, the United States is allocated
1,489.60 mt of western BFT under the ICCAT Rebuilding Program and the
BFT Longline category is allocated 8.1 percent of the total U.S. BFT
landings quota. The Longline category quota is split between northern
and southern areas, with 78.9 percent allocated to the southern area and
21.1 percent allocated to the northern area. Initial BFT quotas and
landings in the Longline category are shown from 1997 through 1999 in
Table 1. Estimates of BFT discarded dead by pelagic longline vessels,
calculated using logbook tallies are provided in Table 2. In 1997 and
1998, discards were higher proportionally (dead discards to BFT landed)
in the northern area compared to the southern area (mostly Gulf of
Mexico), but in 1999 this relationship changed where a higher proportion
of the dead discards being reported through the pelagic logbook occurred
in the southern area. Figures 2 and 3 show graphically the areas and
magnitude of BFT catches and discards by pelagic longline vessels for
1997-1999.

Several reviews of landings, logbook, and observer data have been
conducted in recent years regarding the pelagic longline fishery
interactions with BFT. Observer data for 1991 through 1994 indicate that
two or fewer BFT were hooked on 91 percent of all observed longline
trips. Observer data for 1998 through 2000 indicate that two or fewer
BFT were caught on 88 percent of all observed pelagic longline trips,
and two or fewer BFT were caught on 58 percent of those trips that
caught BFT (See Figure 4).

Trip level longline landings information for 1998 through 2000 are
presented in Tables 3a through 3d, showing average, median and 75^th^
percentile landings for pelagic longline trips. In compiling the data
for these tables, NMFS excluded those pelagic longline trips with less
than 300 lbs. of landed catch. These smaller trips are not likely to
catch a BFT, and many of them occurred on the east coast of Florida,
where pelagic longline fishing is now prohibited (August 1, 2000, 65 FR
47214). Table 3a presents average, median, and 75^th^ percentile
landings data for all pelagic longline trips that landed more than 300
lbs. of fish. Because the target catch requirements are based on the
amount of landed catch of species other than BFT, the weight of the BFT
landed on the pelagic longline trips was excluded in compiling the data
for Table 3a. Table 3b presents similar information to Table 3a, but
excludes all trips in which BFT were landed. This was done to eliminate
any potential bias in the data that may occur due to vessels increasing
the length of their trip (to increase their catch) to meet the BFT
target catch requirements. Tables 3c and 3d show similar information to
Tables 3a and 3b, but include South Carolina and Georgia in the northern
area (as would be the case if the preferred alternative was
implemented).

Table 3a shows that median values for landed catch (not including BFT)
were 3,074 lbs. (1,394 kg) for trips made in the months of January
through April, and 3,526 lbs. (1,599 kg) for trips made in May through
December, in fisheries south of 34E N. latitude; and 3,787 lbs. (1,718
kg) for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 34E N.
latitude. Year-round south of 34E N. latitude, median trip level
landings were 3,336 lbs. (1513 kg). For the same time period, 75 percent
of the trips had a landed catch (other than BFT) of at least 1,245 lbs.
(565 kg) for trips made in the months of January through April, and
1,384 lbs. (628 kg) for trips made in May through December, in fisheries
south of 34E N. latitude; and 1,786 lbs. (810 kg) for trips made
throughout the year in fisheries north of 34E N. latitude. Throughout
the year south of 34E N. latitude, 75 percent of all trips landed at
least 1,343 lbs. (609 kg).

Table 3b shows that median values for landed catch on trips that did not
land BFT were 2,770 lbs. (1,256 kg) for trips made in the months of
January through April, and 3,388 lbs. (1,537 kg) for trips made in May
through December, in fisheries south of 34E N. latitude; and 3,474 lbs.
(1,576 kg) for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 34E
N. latitude. Year-round south of 34E N. latitude, median trip level
landings were 3,128 lbs. (1,419 kg). For the same time period, 75
percent of the longline trips that did not land BFT had a landed catch
of at least 1,060 lbs. (481 kg) for trips made in the months of January
through April, and 1,344 lbs. (610 kg) for trips made in May through
December, in fisheries south of 34E N. latitude; and 1,634 lbs. (741 kg)
for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 34E N.
latitude. Throughout the year south of 34E N. latitude, 75 percent of
all trips landed at least 1,236 lbs. (561 kg).

Including South Carolina and Georgia in the northern area does not
significantly alter the average, median, or 75^th^ percentile trip-level
landings calculated for pelagic longline vessels in either the northern
or southern areas. Table 3c shows that median values for landed catch
(not including BFT) were 3,220 lbs. (1,461 kg) for trips made in the
months of January through April, and 3,570 lbs. (1,519 kg) for trips
made in May through December, in fisheries south of 31E N. latitude; and
3,586 lbs. (1,627 kg) for trips made throughout the year in fisheries
north of 31E N. latitude. Year-round south of 34E N. latitude, median
trip level landings were 3,452 lbs. (1,566 kg). For the same time
period, 75 percent of the trips had a landed catch (other than BFT) of
at least 1,249 lbs. (567 kg) for trips made in the months of January
through April, and 1,337 lbs. (606 kg) for trips made in May through
December, in fisheries south of 31E N. latitude; and 1,718 lbs. (779 kg)
for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 31E N.
latitude.

Throughout the year south of 31E N. latitude, 75 percent of all trips
landed at least 1,301 lbs. (590 kg).

Table 3d shows that median values for landed catch on trips that did not
land BFT were 2,880 lbs. (1,306 kg) for trips made in the months of
January through April, and 3,421 lbs. (1,552 kg) for trips made in May
through December, in fisheries south of 31E N. latitude; and 3,253 lbs.
(1,476 kg) for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 31E
N. latitude. Year-round south of 34E N. latitude, median trip level
landings were 3,217 lbs. (1,459 kg). For the same time period, 75
percent of the longline trips that did not land BFT had a landed catch
of at least 1,040 lbs. (472 kg) for trips made in the months of January
through April, and 1,268 lbs. (575 kg) for trips made in May through
December, in fisheries south of 31E N. latitude; and 1,615 lbs. (733 kg)
for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 31E N.
latitude. Throughout the year south of 31E N. latitude, 75 percent of
all trips landed at least 1,177 lbs. (534 kg).

These tables show that the trips that did not land BFT were generally
smaller than those that did, which may be attributable to the incentive
to meet the target catch requirements, but they also show that there is
not much of a difference in landings levels between the northern and
southern areas, or a large seasonal difference in the southern area. For
example, median trip level landings south of 31E N. latitude (3,452
lbs.) are very similar to those north of 31E N. latitude (3,586 lbs.).
In addition, median trip level landings south of 31E N. latitude are
only a few hundred pounds lower during January through April (3,220
lbs.) than they are from May through December (3,570 lbs.). This
indicates that different target catch requirements in the northern and
southern areas, and seasonal differences in the target catch
requirements in the southern area, may no longer be warranted given the
current operations of the fleet.

**3.3 Compliance with Target Catch Requirements**

In 2000, NMFS conducted an analysis of trip-level pelagic longline
landings of BFT and other species to assess compliance-related issues
with the current target catch requirements. The analysis showed that for
the years 1995-1999, less than ten percent of the trips that landed BFT
in the northern area landed the required amount of target catch. The
compliance rate in the southern area was greater over the same time
period, with over 93 percent of the trips landing the required level of
target catch. In May 2000, NMFS mailed a letter to all pelagic longline
vessel owners reminding them of the regulations, and subsequently,
compliance with the target catch requirements improved. Preliminary
analysis of 2000 longline landings show that most trips that land BFT in
the northern area are now also landing the required level of target
catch. The amount of pelagic longline landings of BFT decreased in 2000
compared to 1998 and 1999, which is consistent with increased compliance
with the target catch regulations (See Table 1). However, if interaction
rates have remained unchanged, this also indicates that dead discards
have increased.

**3.4 Evaluation of Closed Area in June to Decrease BFT Bycatch in the
Pelagic Longline Fishery**

The effectiveness of the closed area established in 1999 to reduce dead
discards of BFT by pelagic longline vessels was evaluated in the 2001
and 2002 HMS SAFE Reports. A portion of the latest evaluation is
presented here. The number of BFT landed and discarded by month and year
is reported in the pelagic logbook. Tables 4 and 5 provide an
enumeration of logbook submissions of the disposition of BFT catches
(kept, discarded dead, discarded alive). It should be noted that this
information does not consider the pooling method utilized to report dead
discards of BFT and other species to ICCAT. The pooling method was used
to estimate mortality rates for stock assessment by ICCAT's Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), but was not used for Task I
data submission or to evaluate compliance with the ICCAT recommendations
regarding the dead discard allowance. In Table 4, the rows designated as
"closed" represent the area in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Bight closed
to pelagic longline fishing during the month of June. "Open" represents
all other areas in the Atlantic Ocean. The portion of Table 5 designated
as "Closed" represents the area in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Bight that
is closed in June but the number represents those fish caught in that
area for the entire year; "Open" represents all other areas of the
Atlantic Ocean fished by U.S.-flagged pelagic longline vessels.
"Discarded" is both discarded dead and discarded alive. Tables 4 and 5
illustrate that, while annual landings of BFT from the closed area have
been reduced, the number of BFT kept has not been reduced. These data
indicate that the June closure has been effective at reducing bluefin
discards while not significantly reducing BFT landings. This was
expected as most of the interactions in the area did not previously
result in landings anyway, due to the target catch requirements.
Nevertheless, BFT discards continue and data suggest that the current
target catch requirements result in unnecessary dead discards, while the
quota allocated to account for these incidental catches remains unused.

**4.0 Consequences of Alternatives Including the Preferred
Alternatives**

The impacts of each alternative identified in Section 2 are discussed
separately in the following sections in the context of the relevant
Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards and the objectives of the HMS
FMP, such as those regarding bycatch reduction and community impacts.
The economic impacts of each alternative are briefly summarized in the
following sections, and are described more fully in Section 5 (RIR).

For all of the target catch alternatives, this Section of the
EA/RIR/FRFA estimates, on an annual basis, how many BFT could be kept
(landings) and the amount of dead discards that would occur. Annual BFT
landings are estimated using fishermen-reported data (how many trips and
pounds of fish landed per trip) and information from NMFS' observer
program (how frequently BFT are encountered on longline trips). The
average annual number of pelagic longline trips (for an area and/or time
period from logbook data) multiplied by the frequency with which pelagic
longline trips interact with BFT (from observer data), is then
multiplied by the percentage of such trips that land the required target
catch to retain a BFT (from weighout data) to estimate different
reductions in BFT discards under each alternative (i.e. applying
different target catch requirements to the landings database provides a
means of predicting different amounts of bluefin that might be landed
and discarded for each target catch requirement scenario). The
difference in landings between any two alternatives is also the
reduction or increase in discards for the two alternatives.

For scenarios and alternatives that allow discarded BFT to be landed and
counted against the available quota it is likely that total mortality of
BFT will decrease. This is because ATCA requires NMFS to make all the
quota allocated by ICCAT to the United States available to domestic
fishermen. Thus, in the past, unharvested quota in the longline category
has frequently been transferred and made available to other domestic
categories for additional fishing opportunities. If this previously
considered unharvested quota is now used by converting pelagic longline
discards to landings, and the landings are counted against the longline
quota, less quota will be available to transfer to other categories for
additional fishing activity and mortality of BFT. Conversion of discard
mortality to landings would help address the phenomenon referred to as
"double killing" of BFT as longline quota would be used to count for
landing mortality versus discards and would not be available for
transfer and accounting of mortality in other fishing categories. Also,
because discards will likely decrease, the United States would use less
of its dead discard allowance, which will have positive impacts on the
stock as, per the ICCAT recommendation, half the unused portion of the
dead discard allowance cannot be carried over to future years and is, in
that sense, invested in stock rebuilding.

The different scenarios and inputs for each target catch requirement and
corresponding calculations for each alternative are shown in Table 6.
Longline BFT quotas under various alternatives are shown in Table 7. The
BFT estimated to be landed under each alternative are shown in Table 8,
and changes in revenues due to estimated changes in landings are shown
in Table 9.

**4.1. Approach One: Adjusting Target Catch Requirements for BFT
Retention by Pelagic Longline Vessels**

The following alternatives represent the range of options considered by
NMFS regarding changing the target catch requirements for BFT retention
by pelagic longline vessels. The alternatives range from no action
(status quo) to adjusting the target catch requirements in one or all
areas, including alternatives that would maintain similar target catch
limits at all times throughout the year.

Each of the target catch alternatives is considered and analyzed under
two circumstances. The first analysis maintains the current boundary
line (34E N. latitude) and quota subdivision between the northern and
southern areas. The second analysis adjusts the boundary line to 31E N.
latitude, which would result in landings in South Carolina and Georgia
being included in the northern area, and adjusts the quota subdivision
as described in Section 4.2.2 (Approach Two, Preferred Alternative).

**4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo**

The no action alternative would maintain the current HMS regulations
that require that the weight of BFT landed by longline vessels north of
34^o^ N. latitude be no more than two percent of the total weight of the
other catch landed for a trip. South of 34^o^ N. latitude, pelagic
longline vessels are allowed one BFT per trip, provided that they land
1,500 lbs. of other catch on a trip from January through April, and
3,500 lbs. of other catch from May through December. As noted above,
this alternative is being analyzed and considered under the existing
34^o^ N. latitude boundary line, as well as under the alternative 31^o^
N. latitude line that would add South Carolina and Georgia landings to
the northern area. Under either boundary line, the no action alternative
is not preferred because other alternatives could likely reduce dead
discards consistent with the management needs discussed in Section 1.0.

*Ecological Impacts*

The ecological impacts of no action would be continued discarding of BFT
by longline vessels with corresponding negative impacts such as wasting
commercially valuable fish and contributing to increased mortality. For
the no action/status quo alternative, annual BFT landings are evaluated
using both estimates from fishermen-reported and observer data, as well
as actual landings in 2000 obtained through the BFT dealer reporting
program. Assuming that, in the northern area, about 10,000 lbs. of
target catch are required to be able to legally land a BFT on a trip,
about 20 percent of the pelagic longline trips in the northern area
landed enough target catch to land a BFT during 1998-2000. According to
observer data from the same time period, about 20.2 percent of observed
longline trips caught a BFT. Multiplying the average annual number of
pelagic longline trips landing in the northern area during this time
period (655) by the percent of trips that had enough target catch to
land a BFT (20.0 percent), then multiplying this result by the percent
of observed trips that actually encountered a BFT over the same time
period (20.2 percent), results in an estimated 26 trips that would
legally land one BFT under the no action/status quo alternative.
However, some trips may land more than one BFT in the northern area
under the status quo. Multiplying the total number of trips by the
percentage of trips that landed 20,000 lbs. of target catch (5.9 %) and
the percentage of observed trips that caught at least two BFT (13.6 %)
provides an estimate of five trips during which vessels would land two
BFT. The first BFT that these trips landed is already counted in the 26
trips that would land one BFT, thus the total number of BFT landed is 31
(26 + 5). Applying the same analysis to those vessels that would have
enough target catch to land three BFT (30,000 lbs. of other landings)
results in an estimated two trips that would land three BFT. Few vessels
in the current fleet are large enough to land more than 30,000 lbs. per
trip. Thus, the total number of estimated, annual BFT landings is 33.
Using the average round weight of BFT landed by pelagic longline vessels
in the northern area in 2000 of 456 lbs., 33 fish is equivalent to 6.8
mt.

This estimated number of BFT landed in the northern area, under the
status quo, is less than the average that was actually landed during
1998-2000, which was about 90 BFT per year. As described in Section 4,
over the last several years, many vessels landed BFT without meeting the
minimum target catch requirement. After NMFS sent a letter to longline
vessels in May 2000 reminding them of the regulations, compliance
improved and the number of BFT landed in the northern area dropped to 56
(11.6 mt) in 2000.

For the southern area, pelagic longline landings of BFT during 1999-2000
correspond exactly with those estimated using the target catch/observer
data methodology described above (because observed data are the basis of
extrapolated landings estimates and assume 100 percent compliance) (see
Table 8). Pelagic longline landings in the southern area totaled 211 BFT
a year in both 1999 and 2000, and the target catch/observer data
approach also estimates 211 BFT landings in the southern area. Using the
average round weight of BFT landed by pelagic longline vessels in the
southern area in 2000 of 537 lbs., 211 fish are equivalent to 51.4 mt.
Removing South Carolina and Georgia from the southern area, under the
alternative 31^o^ N. latitude boundary line, results in 209 actual fish
(50.9 mt) landed, or an estimated 194 fish (47.3 mt) landed using the
target catch/observer data methodology, in the southern area.

Catches of BFT (both kept and discarded), as reported in pelagic logbook
reports, average 1,118 fish per year from 1998-2000 (see Table 5).
Comparing catches before and after the time/area closure in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight was implemented, catches of BFT dropped from 1,541 in
1998 to 963 in 2000 (the closure was implemented mid year in 1999). Just
as with landings, BFT catches also can be estimated by multiplying the
total number of pelagic longline trips by the percentage of trips
observed that caught BFT. Under this estimation methodology, in the
northern area, with an annual average of 655 trips, and using the
percentage of trips in which one, two, and three BFT were caught (from
observer data, as in the calculations above), an estimated 277 BFT would
be caught each year (See Table 6). In the southern area, with an annual
average of 1,817 longline trips per year, 770 BFT would be caught each
year (calculated using the same methodology). Thus, there would be an
estimated total of 1,047 (277 + 770) BFT caught on average each year
from 1998-2000. Including landings from South Carolina and Georgia in
the northern area, the estimated 1,047 BFT caught would not change, but
the distribution of BFT caught would change to 346 in the northern area
and 701 in the southern area. Because this estimation methodology and
the 1998-2000 data are also applied to landings, the EA/RIR/FRFA uses
1,047 as the estimated number of BFT caught each year as a baseline for
evaluating the alternatives relative to the objectives.

Subtracting the number of landings from the number of catches results in
an estimated 803 BFT discarded coastwide, 244 in the northern area and
559 in the southern area. Under the alternative to re-align northern and
southern areas, the no action alternative would result in 819 BFT
discarded, 312 in the northern area and 507 in the southern area.
Generally speaking, pelagic logbook reports from 1998-2000 indicate that
about 40 percent of the BFT discarded are discarded dead. Using this
percentage estimate, this alternative would result in 321 BFT discarded
dead under the current 34^o^ N. latitude boundary line, and 328 BFT
discarded dead under the alternative north/south division at 31^o^ N.
latitude. Reports from NMFS observers on pelagic longline vessels,
however, indicate that approximately 70 percent of the BFT discarded are
discarded dead (approximately 75 percent in the southern area, and 67
percent in the northern area). Using the percentage dead estimate from
observer data, the no action alternative would result in 526 BFT
discarded dead under the current boundary line, and 573 BFT discarded
dead under the alternative 31^o^ N. latitude boundary line. The
increased estimate of dead discards under the alternative boundary line
alternative can be attributed to an expanded application of the current
(more restrictive) target catch requirements to a larger area and higher
percentage of landings. The preferred alternative on target catch
requirements, in combination with the preferred alternatives on moving
the boundary line and inseason adjustment authority, would ensure that
any increase in dead discards, should that occur, can be addressed on a
real-time basis.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

The no action/status quo alternative would maintain a system under which
much of the BFT caught by pelagic longline vessels must be discarded.
The fish that are discarded dead are accounted for through a data
collection process and counted towards the U.S. dead discard allowance.
However, the fish are not landed and sold, thus there is no economic
benefit derived from the BFT dead discards. As the pelagic longline
industry has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, several
regulatory requirements have affected vessels' profitability. These
included several time/area closures designed to reduce the bycatch of
billfish, BFT, sea turtles, and undersize swordfish. These closures may
make it more difficult for vessels to catch the amount of target catch
currently required to retain a BFT because vessels had fished these
areas presumably due to higher catch rates and/or lower costs.

Pelagic longline vessels operate out of several ports on the coasts of
the west Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that depend on the fishing
industry. These ports include Barnegat Light, NJ, Fairhaven/New Bedford,
MA, and Venice, LA. Information on these communities and their
relationship to the fisheries for Atlantic HMS is provided in Chapter 9
of the HMS FMP as updated with subsequent HMS SAFE Reports (NMFS 2000,
2001 and 2002). Maintaining the current target catch requirements, which
result in the discarding of a significant number of dead BFT by pelagic
longline vessels, continues to hurt the economic viability of a pelagic
longline industry already experiencing economic difficulties due to
regulatory constraints instituted to address other overfishing and
bycatch problems.

*Conclusion*

For the reasons explained in the above discussion of the ecological,
social, and economic consequences of the no action/status quo
alternative, as well as in Sections 1 and 4 of this EA/RIR/FRFA,
maintaining the status quo is not optimal with respect to the objectives
of the HMS FMP, its objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the
National Standard Guidelines.

**4.1.2 Alternative 2: Adjust Target Catch Requirements in Northern Area
from Two Percent to 3,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT**

This alternative would adjust the current target catch requirements
(large medium and giant BFT may not exceed two percent by weight of all
other fish species retained) to allow pelagic longline vessels landing
north of 34^o^ N. latitude to land one BFT per trip, provided they also
land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip. This alternative
would not modify the target catch requirements south of 34^o^ N.
latitude. As with the no action/status quo alternative, this alternative
is considered and analyzed under the existing 34^o^ N. latitude boundary
line and alternative 31^o^ N. latitude line described in Section 4.2.2
(Approach 2, Preferred Alternative).

*Ecological Impacts*

This alternative would allow longline vessels that land their catch in
the northern area to retain a BFT on more trips, as the median landings
of pelagic longline trips in the northern area have been about 3,700
lbs. for the years 1998-2000. According to the 1998-2000 weighout data,
under the existing 34^o^ N. latitude boundary line, 54.1 percent of
pelagic longline trips that landed in the northern area landed 3,500
lbs. or more of catch other than BFT. This compares to about 20 percent
of trips that landed 10,000 lbs. or more, which is what would likely be
the minimum target catch that would allow a vessel to land a BFT under
the current regulations. Thus, this alternative would likely increase
the amount of BFT that could be landed by longline vessels in the
northern area, consequently, decreasing their discards and having a
slightly positive impact on the environment and western BFT stock by
reducing overall mortality, as explained in the beginning of Section 4.

Applying the estimation methodologies discussed in the no action/status
quo alternative, this alternative would result in the discarding of 205
BFT in the northern area, a decrease of 16 percent from the status quo,
and would result in longline landings of about 72 BFT in the northern
area. Coastwide, this alternative would result in the discarding of 764
BFT, a decrease of 4.9 percent from the status quo, and would result in
longline landings of about 283 BFT coastwide. Assuming 40 percent of
discards are dead (percentage estimate from logbook reports), this
alternative would result in 82 and 302 BFT discarded dead in the
northern area and coastwide, respectively. Assuming that 70 percent of
discards coastwise, or 67 percent in the northern area, are dead
(percentage estimate from observer reports), this alternative would
result in 137 and 535 BFT discarded dead in the northern area and
coastwise, respectively. As this alternative would only modify the
target catch requirements in the northern area, it would not change the
amount of BFT landed or discarded by pelagic longline vessels in the
southern area.

The landings estimate for this alternative was calculated by multiplying
the average annual number of pelagic longline trips landing in the
northern area during this time period (655) by the percent of trips that
had enough target catch to land a BFT (54.1 percent), then multiplying
the result by the percent of observed trips that actually encountered a
BFT over the same time period (20.2 percent), thus producing an
estimated 72 trips that would legally land one BFT, or 72 BFT landed in
the northern area. Using the average round weight of BFT landed by
pelagic longline vessels in the northern area in 2000 of 456 lbs., 72
fish is equivalent to 14.9 mt. Discard estimates were calculated, as
described in the no action/status quo alternative, by subtracting the
number of fish that could be landed from the number of fish that are
estimated to be caught.

As noted above, this alternative would likely increase the amount of BFT
that could be landed by longline vessels in the northern area, thus
decreasing their discards. It is possible that this alternative could
increase BFT discards on longer pelagic longline trips where more fish
is landed since it effectively would allow only one BFT per trip.
Current regulations have no maximum retention limit. For example, if a
vessel landed 40,000 lbs. of other fish on a trip, it could also land
800 lbs. of BFT, which could consist of one large fish or two or even
three smaller fish. However, such an impact would likely be small. From
1998-2000, only eight pelagic longline trips -- out of a total of about
8,000 total trips with only about 645 landing a BFT -- reported landing
two or more BFT (seven trips had two BFT, one had three). Nonetheless,
this alternative would not allow longline vessels to land two BFT in any
event. Observer data from 1998-2000 indicate that while 58 percent of
those pelagic longline trips that catch BFT catch two or less, only 33
percent caught only one (see Figure 4). Thus, this alternative would
require over half of those trips that catch BFT to discard BFT, no
matter how much target catch was landed. In addition, this alternative
would not alter the target catch requirements in the southern area,
where dead discards of BFT have increased over the last two years (see
Table 2).

Modifying the target catch requirements for BFT retention could increase
the incentive for longline vessels in the northern area to direct
fishing effort on BFT. This is unlikely to occur under this alternative,
however, as 3,500 lbs. of target catch is a significant amount of
landings and thus a trip with this quantity in its hold to land would
probably be a legitimate longline trip. Also, NMFS has received public
comment that BFT are avoided, or at least not desired to be encountered
in significant numbers, by pelagic longline vessels, because if multiple
BFT are hooked on a set and die they can cause the gear to sink and be
lost. Thus, NMFS would not anticipate any increase in overall fishing
effort under this alternative.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

As mentioned above, trip level landings data for 1998-2000 indicate that
this alternative would allow about 54.1 percent of pelagic longline
trips in the northern area (about 50.9 percent if Georgia and South
Carolina were included in the northern area) to land a BFT (i.e., had
3,500 lbs. of other landings). Meeting the target catch requirements
does not mean that a vessel will catch a BFT that it can land, but this
alternative would allow more of those that incidentally catch BFT to
land the fish.

This alternative would positively affect revenues in the pelagic
longline fishery. As described in the RIR, this alternative would
increase the landings and gross revenues from BFT for pelagic longline
vessels landing in the northern area by 28.4 percent, or by 44.1 percent
if the North/South division line and subquota allocations were adjusted
as described in Section 5.2.2 (Approach Two, Preferred Alternative). For
the Longline category as a whole, this alternative would increase
landings and gross revenues from BFT by 5.4 percent, or by 3.1 percent
under the division line and subquota allocations from the Approach Two
preferred alternative.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is not preferred at this time. As mentioned above, it
does not alter the target catch requirements in the southern area, where
dead discards of BFT have increased over the last two years. In
addition, the majority of trips that do catch a BFT catch more than one,
and this alternative would still result in many BFT caught by pelagic
longline being discarded.

**4.1.3 Alternative 3: Adjust Target Catch Requirements in Northern Area
to 3,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT, and 6,000 lbs. of Other
Catch to Retain Two BFT**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels landing north of 34E N. latitude to land one
BFT per trip, provided they also land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip, or two BFT per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of
other catch from the same trip. This alternative would not modify the
target catch requirements south of 34E N. latitude. As with the no
action/status quo alternative, this alternative is considered and
analyzed under the existing 34^o^ N. latitude boundary line and
alternative 31^o^ N. latitude line described in Section 4.2.2 (Approach
2, Preferred Alternative).

*Ecological Impacts*

Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative would allow longline vessels
that land their catch in the northern area to retain a BFT on more of
their trips, as the median landings of pelagic longline trips in the
northern area has been about 3,700 lbs. for the years 1998-2000. About
34.7 percent of trips in the northern area landed 6,000 lbs. or more
over that same time period (about 30.0 percent if Georgia and South
Carolina were included in the northern area). This compares to about 5
percent of trips that landed 20,000 lbs. or more, which is what would
likely be the minimum target catch that would allow a vessel to land two
BFT under the current regulations. Thus, this alternative would likely
increase the amount of BFT that could be landed by longline vessels in
the northern area, consequently, decreasing their discards and having a
positive impact on the western BFT stock by reducing overall mortality,
as explained in the beginning of Section 4.

Applying the estimation methodologies discussed in the no action/status
quo alternative, this alternative would result in the discarding of 174
BFT in the northern area, a decrease of 28.6 percent from the status
quo, and would result in longline landings of about 103 BFT (21.3 mt) in
the northern area. Coastwide, this alternative would result in the
discarding of 733 BFT, a decrease of 8.7 percent from the status quo,
and would result in longline landings of about 314 BFT coastwide.
Including landings in South Carolina and Georgia in the northern area
results in landings of an estimated 118 BFT in the northern area,
equivalent to 24.4 mt, and coastwide discards of 735 BFT, a decrease in
coastwide discards of 8.5 percent. Using the estimates of 40 percent and
70 percent mortality for discards (from logbook and observer reports
respectively), this alternative would result in a range of 293 and 515
BFT discarded dead coastwide, depending on the mortality estimate used.

Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative would not alter the target
catch requirements in the southern area, where dead discards of BFT have
increased over the last two years (see Table 2), and thus would not
change the amount of BFT landed or discarded by pelagic longline vessels
in the southern area. By modifying the target catch requirements, this
alternative possibly may increase the incentive for longline vessels in
the northern area to direct fishing effort on BFT. However, as with
Alternative 2, this is unlikely to occur under this alternative, because
3,500 lbs. of target catch is a significant amount of landings, and it
is doubtful that a trip with that amount of other landings would be a
trip targeting BFT. Moreover, for the reasons discussed under
Alternative 2, NMFS would not anticipate any increase in overall fishing
effort under this alternative.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

This alternative would have a positive impact on revenues in the pelagic
longline fishery. As described in the RIR, this alternative would
increase the landings and gross revenues from BFT for pelagic longline
vessels landing in the north by 83.6 percent, or by 102 percent if the
north/south division line and subquota allocations were adjusted as
described in Section 5.2.2 (Approach Two, Preferred Alternative). For
the Longline category as a whole, this alternative would increase
landings and gross revenues from BFT by 16 percent, or by 14.6 percent
under the division line and subquota allocations from the Approach Two
preferred alternative.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is not preferred at this time. While it does address
the fact that most longline trips that catch BFT catch more than one, it
does not alter the target catch requirements in the southern area, where
dead discards of BFT have increased over the last two years.

**4.1.4 Alternative 4: Adjust Coastwide Target Catch Requirements to
3,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT, and 6,000 lbs. of Other
Catch to Retain Two BFT, with Southern Area Allowed One BFT with only
1,500 lbs. from January through April**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels in all areas to land one BFT per trip, provided
they also land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two BFT
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip. However, from January through April, this alternative would
allow pelagic longline vessels landing south of 34^o^ N. latitude to
land their one BFT per trip with only 1,500 lbs. of other fish. As with
the no action/status quo alternative, this alternative is considered and

analyzed under the existing 34^o^ N. latitude boundary line and
alternative 31^o^ N. latitude line described in Section 4.2.2 (Issue 2,
Preferred Alternative).

*Ecological Impacts*

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, this alternative would allow longline
vessels that land their catch in the northern area to retain a BFT on
more trips. In the northern area, this alternative is identical to
Alternative 3. In the southern area, this alternative differs from the
no action/status quo alternative only in that it would allow pelagic
longline trips to land two BFT if they have 6,000 lbs. of other
landings. Thus, this alternative would likely decrease BFT discards and
have a positive impact on the western BFT stock by reducing overall
mortality, as explained in the beginning of Section 4.

The ecological impacts of this alternative would be identical to
Alternative 3 for the northern area, but this alternative would also
reduce discards and increase landings in the southern area. Applying the
estimation methodologies discussed in the no action/status quo
alternative, in the southern area, this alternative would result in the
discarding of 494 BFT in the southern area, a decrease of 11.6 percent
from the status quo, and would result in landings of about 276 BFT (67.5
mt). Coastwide, this alternative would result in the discarding of 668
BFT, a decrease of 16.8 percent from the status quo, and would result in
longline landings of about 379 BFT (88.8 mt). Including landings in
South Carolina and Georgia in the northern area results in landings of
an estimated 374 BFT coastwide, equivalent to 86.8 mt, and coastwide
discards of 673 BFT, a decrease in coastwide discards of 16.2 percent.
Using the estimates of 40 percent and 70 percent mortality for discards
(from logbook and observer reports, respectively), this alternative
would result in a range of 267 and 471 BFT discarded dead coastwide,
depending on the mortality estimate used.

This alternative would address the target catch requirements in both the
northern and southern areas, and would address the fact that most
longline trips that catch BFT catch more than one. Similar to the other
alternatives that modify the target catch requirements, this alternative
possibly could increase the incentive for longline vessels to direct
fishing effort on BFT. However, as with the other alternatives,
targeting BFT is unlikely to occur and no increase in overall fishing
effort is anticipated under this alternative. Where this alternative
differs from Alternative 3 is in the southern area, where it would not
modify the minimum catch needed to retain one BFT, but only would allow
vessels to retain two if they have 6,000 lbs. of target catch. The
allowance for two fish in the southern area should not result in
targeting of bluefin, as 6,000 lbs. of required target catch should
ensure that a trip is not directed at BFT.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

This alternative would positively impact revenues in the pelagic
longline fishery. As described in the RIR, this alternative would
increase the landings and gross revenues from BFT for pelagic longline
vessels coastwide by 41.3 percent, or by 38.4 percent if the North/South
division line and subquota allocations were adjusted as described in
Section 4.2.2 (Approach Two, Preferred Alternative).

*Conclusion*

This alternative is not preferred at this time. While this alternative
addresses the fact that most longline trips that catch BFT catch more
than one, and provides an allowance for pelagic longline vessels fishing
in the southern area to land two BFT, this alternative still maintains a
differential target catch requirements between the northern and southern
area. This differential no longer seems to be warranted as the
distribution of effort of the fleet, target catch rates, and BFT
interaction rates have changed relative to the mid 1990s, trip level
longline landings are similar in both the northern and southern areas,
and the seasonal variation in the southern area no longer exists to the
degree it did in the past (see Tables 3a through 3d).

**4.1.5 Alternative 5: Adjust Coastwide Target Catch Requirements to
2,000 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT, 6,000 lbs. of Other Catch
to Retain Two BFT, and 30,000 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain Three BFT
(Preferred Alternative)**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessel in all areas to land one BFT per trip, provided
they also land 2,000 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two BFT
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip, or three BFT per trip, provided they also land 30,000 lbs. of
other catch from the same trip. As with the no action/status quo
alternative, this alternative is considered and analyzed under the
existing 34^o^ N. latitude boundary line and alternative 31^o^ N.
latitude line described in Section 4.2.2 (Approach 2, Preferred
Alternative).

*Ecological Impacts*

This alternative differs from Alternative 4 in that it would lower the
minimum target catch levels to retain one BFT, in all areas and at all
times, to 2,000 lbs. Under the existing 34^o^ N. latitude boundary line,
in the northern area, 79.6 percent of pelagic longline trips landed
1,500 lbs. of target catch each year between 1998-2000. In the southern
area, 71.8 percent of pelagic longline trips landed 1,500 lbs. of target
catch annually during the same time period. In addition, this
alternative provides a third "tier" of target catch allowance to allow
pelagic longline line vessels to land three BFT per trip provided they
also land 30,000 lbs. of other catch from the same trip. This allowance
corresponds to target catch levels already considered and analyzed under
the status quo where vessels in the northern area would need
approximately 30,000 lbs. of target catch to land three BFT under the
two percent by weight of target catch restriction. Although only a few
vessels in the fleet are large enough to land more than 30,000 lbs. per
trip, and only an estimated 2 trips per year would qualify for this
third tier, it would further meet the purpose and need for this action
by additionally slightly reducing discards without providing incentives
to target BFT.

Applying the estimation methodologies discussed in the no action/status
quo alternative, under the existing 34^o^ N. latitude boundary line,
this alternative would result in the discard of 148 BFT in the northern
area, a decrease of 39.3 percent from the status quo, and would result
in longline landings of about 129 BFT (26.7 mt). In the southern area,
this alternative would result in the discarding of 462 BFT, a decrease
of 17.3 percent from the status quo, and would result in longline
landings of about 308 BFT (74.0 mt). Coastwide, this alternative would
result in the discarding of 610 BFT, a decrease of 24.0 percent from the
status quo, and would result in landings of about 437 BFT (100.7 mt).
Including Georgia and South Carolina in the northern area, under the
alternative 31^o^ N. latitude boundary line, would not change estimated
landings and discards coastwide, because this alternative would impose
identical target catch requirements in both areas. Using 40 and 70
percent mortality estimates for discards (from logbook and observer
reports respectively), this alternative would result in a range of 244
and 428 BFT discarded dead coastwide, depending on the mortality
estimate used. This alternative would reduce dead discards of BFT and
have a positive impact in the western BFT stock by reducing overall
mortality, as explained in the beginning of Section 4.

This alternative would allow longline vessels landing their catch in any
area to retain BFT on more trips, and would generally allow them to
retain more BFT on most trips. The amount of BFT landed would approach
the overall current quota levels of the Longline category (about 110
mt), but would not exceed it. This alternative would address the target
catch requirements in both the northern and southern areas, and would
address the fact that most longline trips that catch BFT catch more than
one. It would also provide for the rare situations when those vessels
large enough to hold 30,000 lbs. of target catch would also be allowed
to land three BFT. This would have the slight additional positive impact
of reducing the discard of a third BFT should the target catch exceed
30,000 lbs. and three BFT be incidentally caught. Similar to the other
alternatives that modify the target catch requirements, this alternative
may possibly increase the incentive for longline vessels to direct
fishing effort on BFT. However, for similar reasons as those discussed
in the above alternatives, targeting BFT is unlikely to occur and no
increase in overall fishing effort is anticipated.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

This alternative would positively affect revenues in the pelagic
longline fishery. As described in the RIR, this alternative would
increase the landings and gross revenues from BFT for pelagic longline
vessels coastwide by approximately 61 percent.

In addition, this alternative is among the simplest of those considered
(similar to Alternative 6), in that the target catch requirements would
not vary by region or during the year. Uniformity in the target catch
requirements should make the regulations easier to understand and
enforce, and may improve compliance with the regulations.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is preferred. While it still requires vessels to land a
sufficient amount of target catch to ensure that vessels do not target
BFT, at the same time, it addresses the fact that most longline trips
that catch BFT catch more than one, provides an allowance for pelagic
longline vessels fishing in the southern area to land two to three BFT,
and should reduce the amount of regulatory discards of BFT in all areas.
This alternative also eliminates the differential target catch
requirements between the northern and southern areas, which no longer
seem warranted. Trip level longline landings are similar in both the
northern and southern areas, and the seasonal variation in the south no
longer exists to the degree it did in the past (see Tables 3a through
3d). This alternative furthers the goals and objectives of the HMS FMP
and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National
Standard Guidelines.

**4.1.6 Alternative 6: Adjust Coastwide Target Catch Requirements to
1,500 lbs. of Other Catch to Retain One BFT, and 6,000 lbs. of Other
Catch to Retain Two BFT**

This alternative would adjust the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessel in all areas to land one BFT per trip, provided
they also land 1,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two BFT
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip. As with the no action/status quo alternative, this
alternative is considered and analyzed under the existing 34^o^ N.
Latitude boundary line and alternative 31^o^ N. Latitude boundary line
described in Section 4.2.2 (Approach 2, Preferred Alternative).

*Ecological Impacts*

This alternative is similar to Alternative 5 in that it would establish
a coastwide minimum target catch requirement to retain BFT, but differs
from Alternative 5 in that it would lower the minimum target catch
requirement to retain one BFT to 1,500 lbs. In the northern area, about
79 percent of pelagic longline trips landed 1,500 lbs. of target catch
during 1998-2000. In the southern area, year round, about 72 percent of
pelagic longline trips landed 1,500 lbs. of target catch during the same
time period.

Applying the estimation methodologies discussed in the no action/status
quo alternative, this alternative would result in the discarding of 141
BFT in the northern area, a decrease of 42.4 percent from the status
quo, and would result in longline landings of about 136 BFT (28.1 mt).
In the southern area, this alternative would result in the discarding of
441 BFT, a decrease of 21.1 percent from the status quo, and would
result in longline landings of about 329 BFT (80.1 mt). Coastwide, this
alternative would result in the discarding of 582 BFT, a decrease of
27.5 percent from the status quo, and would result in landings of about
465 BFT (108.2 mt). Including Georgia and South Carolina in the northern
area, under the alternative 31^o^ N. latitude boundary line, would not
change estimated landings and discards coastwide, because this
alternative would impose identical target catch requirements in both
areas. Using 40 and 70 percent mortality estimates for discards (from
logbook and observer reports respectively), this alternative would
result in a range of 233 and 407 BFT discarded dead coastwide, depending
on the mortality estimate used. This alternative would reduce dead
discards of BFT and have a positive impact in the western BFT stock by
reducing overall mortality.

This alternative would allow longline vessels that land their catch in
all areas to retain BFT on more of their trips, and would generally
allow them to retain more BFT on most trips. The amount of BFT landed
would approach the overall current quota levels of the Longline category
(about 110 mt). This alternative would address the target catch
requirements in both the northern and southern areas, and would address
the fact that most longline trips that catch BFT catch more than one.
This alternative would modify the target catch requirements more than
other alternatives considered. As with the other alternatives that
modify the target catch requirements, this alternative possibly could
increase the incentive for longline vessels in the northern area to
direct fishing effort on BFT. While such a result may be unlikely, if it
were to occur, BFT landings by pelagic longline vessels could exceed the
Longline category quota and a subsequent closure could result in
increased discards.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

This alternative would positively impact revenues in the pelagic
longline fishery. As described in the RIR, this alternative would
increase the landings and gross revenues from BFT for pelagic longline
vessels coastwide by approximately 72 percent.

Similar to Alternative 5, this alternative is less complex than other
alternatives considered, in that the target catch requirements would not
vary by region or during the year. Uniformity in the target catch
requirements would make them more easily understood, and could make the
regulations easier to enforce. Lowering the target catch limit to 1,500
lbs. may have the unlikely effect of triggering an incentive to target
BFT which would be contrary to the letter and intent of the regulations
and may increase the burden and activity with regulatory enforcement.
Rapid use of the available quota may also mean premature closure with
corresponding negative social and economic impacts to those vessels that
catch and have to discard a BFT after the quota has been attained and
the category closed.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is not preferred at this time. While it does address
the target catch requirements in all areas, it may modify them to a
level at which the Longline category could land more than its quota. If
the Longline category exceeded its quota, a closure would likely
increase discards of BFT, contrary to the objective of reducing
discards.

**4.2 Approach Two: Moving the North/South Boundary Line and
Reallocating Quota between Areas**

NMFS considered three alternatives regarding the North/South boundary
line and reallocation of the Longline category BFT quota. The purpose of
moving the North/South boundary would be to find a boundary line that
better reflects the seasonal and other differences in the northern and
southern fisheries, consistent with the objectives of reducing discards
and preventing directed fishing while allowing landings of incidental
BFT catches. For example, seasonal differences in BFT migration patterns
between northern feeding migrations and southern spawning migrations
affect fishing interaction rates and the condition of the fish in terms
of fat content and ability to survive the capture experience. Any
boundary line should account for such seasonal differences in the
fisheries and correspond with interaction rates to ensure that catches
are incidental and do not result in excess discards. In addition, any
boundary line should not be near an area where fish are usually landed,
i.e., it should be clear that fish caught in a particular area will be
landed in that area. Reallocating the quota between the two zones would
be necessary to adjust for any increase/decrease in the size of each
zone based on the location of the boundary line. The three alternatives
considered are discussed below.

**4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Adjustment in Longline Category North/South
Boundary Line or Subquotas (No Action/Status Quo)**

This alternative would maintain the status quo, with the North/South
boundary line at 34^o^ N. latitude, and the quota allocation between the
two areas at 78.9 percent for the southern area and 21.1 percent for the
northern area.

*Ecological, Social, and Economic Impacts*

The no action alternative would not have direct ecological impacts
because it is not expected to change current fishing effort or
practices. Maintaining a boundary line would ensure that any seasonal
variations in catch rates or fishing practices in one fishing area would
not consume all the incidental longline quota, thereby causing a closure
and subsequent discards in the other area. However, the current boundary
line and quota allocation do have social and economic impacts. Because
the current boundary line is in an area where there is longline
activity, there has been confusion among fishermen and tuna buyers as to
whether vessels are fishing under the regulations/quota for the northern
area or the southern area. NMFS has received public comment on several
occasions over the last several years that the current position of the
boundary line between the northern and southern areas (34^o^ N.
latitude) causes confusion, especially for those vessels that land just
north of the line where regulations require more target catch, and does
not meet the objective of reducing discards and rebuilding overfished
BFT.

*Conclusion*

The no action/status quo alternative is not preferred at this time
because the current Longline category boundary line is in an area with
longline activity, and has caused confusion regarding the applicability
of the northern or southern regulations/quotas.

**4.2.2 Alternative 2: Move North/South Boundary Line to 31^o^00\' N.
latitude, and Change Subquota Allocation to 60/40 Percent for the
Southern/Northern Areas (Preferred Alternative)**

This alternative would move the Longline category North/South boundary
line to 31^o^ 00\' N. latitude near Jekyll Island, Georgia, and adjust
the Longline category subquotas to allocate 60 percent to the southern
area and 40 percent to the northern area.

NMFS propounded a 70:30 subquota allocation in the proposed rule based
on historical landings relative to the shift in boundary, but received
public comment that closed areas south of the division line had resulted
in recent northward effort shifts. An analysis of the logbook data using
number of hooks set as a proxy for fishing effort (Table 10) shows that
a 60:40 split more accurately reflects the actual distribution of
fishing effort for the most recent year of data available (2001).
Fishing methodology between the northern and southern longline fisheries
varies in the number of sets per year and number of hooks per set.
Therefore, the best way to estimate fishing effort with the logbook data
available is by summarizing the total number of hooks set per year.

*Ecological, Social, and Economic Impacts*

This alternative does not have direct ecological impacts, because it is
not expected to change current fishing effort or practices. Previous
rulemaking that resulted in actions such as closed areas have already
analyzed any ecological impacts and results of effort shifts. This
action would not alter these prior analyses. As with the no
action/status quo alternative, maintaining a boundary line would ensure
that any seasonal variations in catch rates or fishing practices in one
fishing area would not consume all the incidental longline quota,
thereby causing a closure and subsequent discards in the other area.
This alternative would have positive social and economic impacts. As
mentioned above, NMFS has received public comment on several occasions
that the current position of the boundary line between the northern and
southern areas (34^o^ N. latitude) causes confusion, is unfair
(especially for those vessels that land just north of the line where
regulations require more target catch), and does not meet objectives of
reducing discards and rebuilding overfished BFT. To minimize potential
confusion among fishermen and tuna dealers, a boundary line should be in
an area of little longline activity. This 34^o^00\' N. latitude boundary
line alternative would achieve this goal, as there have been very few
landings of BFT in Georgia. This alternative would slightly adjust the
quota subdivision to reflect the additional landings likely to be
applied to the northern area.

*Conclusion*

This is the preferred alternative. This alternative would maintain a
boundary line between the northern and southern areas to prevent one
area from consuming all the incidental longline quota, but would move
the boundary line to an area with little longline fishing activity
nearby, and would adjust the longline quota subdivision to reflect the
change in areas. This alternative furthers the goals and objectives of
this rulemaking and the HMS FMP, and is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard Guidelines.

**4.2.3 Alternative 3: Eliminate North/South Boundary Line and Establish
One Longline Category Quota for All Areas**

This alternative would eliminate the Longline category North/South
boundary line and subquotas and would establish a single Longline
category quota applicable to all areas.

*Ecological, Social, and Economic Impacts*

This alternative could have negative ecological impacts if seasonal
variations in one fishing area led to high BFT catch rates and all the
incidental longline quota was landed in that area, thereby causing a
closure with subsequent discards in the other area. The social and
economic impacts of this alternative could also be negative if a closure
occurred and fishermen were unable to land any incidentally caught BFT.
While BFT landings constitute a small percentage of the gross revenues
of pelagic longline fishery as a whole, the revenues to those individual
fishing operations that are able to land BFT can be substantial. The
inability to land any BFT should not incur any costs (because BFT are an
incidentally caught species) but the loss of potential revenues would be
wasteful and may increase incentive to circumvent regulations.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is not preferred at this time. This alternative could
result in a Longline category closure with associated increased discards
and loss of potential social and economic benefits of truly incidentally
caught BFT.

**4.3 Approach Three: Inseason Adjustment Authority for Target Catch
Requirements**

This section evaluates the three alternatives that NMFS considered
regarding inseason authority to adjust the BFT retention limits for
longline vessels.

The purpose of providing NMFS inseason adjustment authority for BFT
retention by longline vessels would be to increase the likelihood of
meeting the management objectives for the BFT fishery on an inseason
basis. Pelagic longline fishery interaction rates with BFT vary over
relatively short time frames (within a season) as well as over longer
time frames (across years or decades). Notice and comment rulemaking,
which NMFS has undertaken numerous times (see Section 1), is a lengthy
process and cannot address excess discards on a real-time basis. Without
inseason adjustment authority, if landings rates were high and the
available data indicated that a quota or subquota would be met before
the end of the fishing year, NMFS could not modify the BFT limit for
longline trips within a season and the available quota may be exceeded.
Conversely, if landings rates were low, without inseason adjustment
authority, NMFS could not modify BFT retention limits to allow more
retention of incidental catches. Inseason adjustment authority would
allow NMFS to respond to variations in catch rates in real time, reduce
the risk of exceeding available quota, and meet the objectives of
reducing discards and allowing retention of incidentally caught BFT.

**4.3.1 Alternative 1: No Inseason Adjustment Authority (No
Action/Status Quo)**

This no action/status quo alternative would maintain current regulations
under which NMFS has no inseason authority to adjust the amount of BFT
that could be retained by longline vessels on a trip. Limits and target
catch requirements are fixed in the regulations, and NMFS could only
close the fishery if the BFT Longline quota (or area subquota) was
reached.

*Ecological Impacts*

This alternative would likely have minimal ecological impacts, as the
retention of BFT by longline vessels would be controlled by target catch
requirements and quotas. However, this alternative could have negative
ecological impacts if, for example, NMFS adopted the preferred
alternative under Approach One to modify the target catch requirements
and landings of BFT by longline vessels were greater than expected.
Under current regulations, NMFS could not close the fishery until the
quota or subquota were met, and after a closure, discard mortality would
continue. Thus, not having the inseason authority to modify BFT
retention by longline vessels could result in excessive catches in a
particular area (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico), which could have negative
ecological impacts.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

This alternative would limit NMFS' ability to prevent BFT Longline quota
from being landed in a short period of time, which could result in a
closure of the longline fishery for the remainder of the fishing year. A
closure could have negative impacts on vessels that would usually be
able to retain a certain amount of incidentally caught BFT.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is not preferred at this time. It does not provide NMFS
with the ability to modify BFT retention limits by longline vessels in
order to slow or increase catch rates, which could have negative
ecological, social, and economic impacts.

**4.3.2 Alternative 2: Provide NMFS with Inseason Adjustment Authority
to Adjust the BFT Retention Limits by Number of Fish Only**

This alternative would provide NMFS with inseason authority to adjust
the BFT retention limits for pelagic longline vessels from a range of
zero to three fish per trip. NMFS would be able to adjust the limits
through an inseason action, with 30 days public notice. This authority
would be similar to the inseason authority NMFS has to adjust the
General category BFT daily retention limit from zero to three BFT per
vessel. This alternative would not provide NMFS the inseason authority
to adjust the minimum target catch requirements for BFT retention (e.g.,
3,500 lbs. to 3,000 lbs.).

*Ecological Impacts*

The ecological impacts of this alternative would be minimal, in that
overall mortality of BFT is controlled by quotas. This alternative could
reduce mortality, however, if inseason authority were used to slow
landings so that the longline quota were not closed and all incidentally
caught BFT would have to be discarded.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

This alternative could prevent NMFS from having to completely eliminate
retention of BFT by longline vessels, and thus could prevent negative
impacts. If this inseason authority were not available, NMFS could not
stop longline vessels in a particular area from landing the entire quota
or subquota during a short period of time, which would not be equitable
for those vessels that fish in other areas and would not be allowed to
retain any BFT.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is not preferred. While it provides NMFS with the
authority to adjust retention limits within a season, as it has in other
BFT quota categories (General and Angling), it does not provide NMFS
with the authority to adjust the minimum target catch requirements. NMFS
believes that the ability to adjust both the retention limits (by
number) and the minimum target catch requirements (by weight) would
better enable inseason management than the ability to adjust retention
limits alone.

**4.3.3 Alternative 3: Provide NMFS with Inseason Adjustment Authority
to Adjust the BFT Retention Limits by Number of Fish and the Target
Catch Requirement by Weight (Preferred Alternative)**

This alternative would provide NMFS with inseason authority to adjust
the BFT retention limits for pelagic longline vessels by number from a
range of zero (closure) to three BFT per trip and by weight within 25
percent of the target catch requirements (e.g., 2,000 lbs. to 2,500
lbs). NMFS would be able to adjust the limits through an inseason
action, with at least 21 days public notice. Initially, NMFS proposed a
30 day public notice period. During the public comment period on the
proposed rule, the public noted that the highly migratory nature of BFT
could result in rapid changes of fishing gear interaction rates. In
order for in-season adjustments to work effectively, NMFS must respond
quickly. However, NMFS is concerned about providing adequate notice of
changes to fishing vessels at sea. Therefore, NMFS has modified the
public notice period to provide for at least 21 days of notice, which is
the expected trip length for larger vessels fishing further offshore.
This authority would be similar to the inseason authority NMFS has to
adjust the General category BFT daily retention limit from zero
(closure) to three BFT per vessel.

*Ecological Impacts*

The ecological impacts of this alternative would be minimal, in that
overall mortality of BFT is controlled by quotas. This alternative could
reduce mortality, however, if inseason authority were used to slow
landings so that the longline quota were not closed and all incidentally
caught BFT would have to be discarded.

*Social and Economic Impacts*

This alternative could prevent NMFS from having to completely eliminate
retention of BFT by longline vessels, and thus could prevent negative
impacts. If this inseason authority were not available, NMFS could not
stop longline vessels in a particular area from landing the entire quota
or subquota during a short period of time, which would not be equitable
for those vessels that fish in other areas and would not be allowed to
retain any BFT.

*Conclusion*

This alternative is preferred because it provides NMFS with the
authority to adjust retention limits in season by number, as it has in
other BFT quota categories (General and Angling), as well as by weight.
This alternative could eliminate the negative effects of a premature
closure of the Longline BFT quota or subquota. This alternative furthers
the goals and objectives of this rulemaking and the HMS FMP, and is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard
Guidelines.

**4.4 Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives Considered**

> The 1999 HMS FMP adopted ICCAT's 20-year stock rebuilding program for
> western

BFT, which included, among other things, landings and dead discard
quotas and inseason authority to open and close the fishing season and
transfer quotas between BFT fishing categories. Among other things,
ICCAT has recommended that BFT dead discards be minimized. The Revised
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the HMS FMP concluded
that the cumulative long-term impact of the final actions, which
included the BFT rebuilding program, would be to establish sustainable
fisheries for Atlantic HMS. (See Section 1.1 for a complete history on
past impacts to the pelagic longline fishery regarding BFT and target
fisheries).

Present impacts include the recent publication, in July 2002, of a final
rule and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) to
implement a June 14, 2001, BiOp that addresses reduction of sea turtle
bycatch and bycatch mortality in HMS fisheries. Some of the measures
adopted in the final rule are expected to have positive, but varying
degrees of, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on sea turtle
populations. Certain measures, such as the closure of the Northeast
Distant Area (NED), are expected to have negative direct, indirect, and
cumulative economic and social impacts, which are mitigated in the
short-term for vessels that participate in an experimental fishery in
the NED. Other reasonably foreseeable future actions include preparation
of the annual specifications for the BFT fishery including establishment
of quotas for each of the domestic fishing categories, and a regulatory
amendment to address aspects of the commercial BFT fishery including
start and opening dates of various fishing categories. This action would
be consistent, and assist, with the future specifications and regulatory
amendment, which are currently under consideration.

In the foreseeable future NMFS plans on preparing an FMP amendment
regarding the BFT fishery and management plan as well as gathering
results from the NED experiment. The current action would be consistent
with these future activities and results and would provide useful
information regarding landings and discards of BFT that could be
dovetailed and used in the development of these future activities and
analyses.

Overall, the alternatives considered in this EA/RIR/FRFA, which include
adjustments to target catch requirements, the North/South boundary line
and subquotas, and inseason authority, are not expected to change
current fishing practices or cause impacts not previously addressed in
the HMS FMP's Revised FEIS and the July 2002, FSEIS for sea turtle
bycatch. Thus, NMFS considers that this action is consistent with past
and current actions, and anticipates that it also will be consistent
with future actions with no adverse, cumulative impacts on the
environment from the preferred alternatives. As described in the
discussion of the alternatives (See Section 4), NMFS expects that the
preferred alternatives would have modest positive ecological, social,
and economic impacts.

**5.0 Regulatory Impact Review**

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866, Federal agencies are required to
"assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives,
including the alternative of not regulating. . . Further, in choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another
regulatory approach." In compliance with EO 12866, the Department of
Commerce and the NOAA require the preparation of a RIR for all
regulatory actions that either implement a new FMP or significantly
amend an existing plan, or may be significant in that they reflect
agency policy and are of public interest. The RIR is part of the process
of preparing and reviewing FMPs and regulatory actions and is intended
to provide a comprehensive review of the changes in net economic
benefits to society associated with proposed regulatory actions. The
analysis also provides a review of the problems and policy objectives
prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major
alternatives that could be used to solve the problems. The purpose of
the analysis is to ensure that the regulatory agency systematically and
comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public
welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

Additionally, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act
of 1996 amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and made compliance
with the RFA subject to judicial review. The purpose of the RFA is to
require agencies to assess the impacts of their proposed regulations on
small entities and is intended to encourage Federal agencies to utilize
innovative administrative procedures when dealing with small entities.

This section of this document assesses the economic impacts of the
alternatives considered in the development of this rulemaking. However,
certain elements required in an RIR are also required as part of an EA.
Thus, this section should only be considered part of the RIR. The rest
of the RIR can be found throughout this document. Section 1 of this
document describes the need for action and the objectives of the
regulations. Section 3 of this document provides a description of the
fishery that could be affected by the final rule. The alternatives
considered are described in Section 2, and analyzed in Section 4,
including modifications to the target catch requirements for BFT
retention by pelagic longline vessels, adjustment of the boundary line
and subquota allocations between northern and southern areas, and
providing NMFS with inseason authority to modify retention limits of BFT
by longline vessels.

This section focuses on the impacts of the final rule on the pelagic
longline fishery. The primary target species of that segment of the
pelagic longline fishery is swordfish. Other segments of the pelagic
longline fishery constitute a mixed fishery with swordfish, bigeye tuna,
yellowfin tuna, and albacore constituting the target species. In
addition to the fishermen, the related industries including dealers,
processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers are also part of this
fishery.

**5.1 Analyses of Alternatives**

The alternatives presented in this EA/RIR/FRFA to modify the target
catch requirements for BFT retention for pelagic longline vessels should
increase vessels' landings and revenues from BFT. BFT is a species
caught incidentally by pelagic longline vessels, and it is assumed that
no additional costs are incurred by longline vessels that catch them, so
any increases in gross revenues would be increases in net revenues. The
alternatives to provide NMFS with inseason authority to modify BFT
retention limits by pelagic longline vessels should not have any direct
impact on revenues, but could help prevent the negative impacts of
potential future closures when area quotas have been reached.

**5.1.1 Impacts on Fishermen**

To assess the impacts of the alternatives on revenues throughout the
fishery, the number of BFT that is estimated to be landed under each
alternative was multiplied by the average weight of the BFT landed in
2000 (by area landed), which was then multiplied by the average price
per pound for longline caught BFT in 2000 (again by area landed) to
produce an estimate of revenues from BFT for each alternative. This was
compared with the status quo to determine the percentage change in
revenues. As described above, two estimates of status quo landings are
used for comparative purposes in the northern area. The first is an
estimation calculated using the method used to estimate landings under
the various alternatives to change the target catch requirements; the
second is actual landings from 2000. The estimated revenues from BFT
landings for the various alternatives are shown in Table 9.

The preferred alternatives would increase the revenues from BFT in the
pelagic longline industry by approximately 61 percent. As BFT catch is
incidental to longline operations, vessels should incur no additional
costs. Overall gross revenues for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery
are estimated to be approximately \$29 million per year (NMFS 2002a).
The changes in revenues due to the preferred alternative would be about
\$450,000.00, or about 1.1 percent of total gross revenues in the
fishery. However, as all revenues from BFT could be considered net
revenues because they are an incidentally caught species, an increase of
\$450,000.00 in net revenues could be significant for the longline
fishery as a whole, particularly given the cumulative impacts of recent
conservation and management actions that affect these fishery
participants (e.g., closed areas, gear modifications). As mentioned
above, the preferred alternative that provides NMFS with inseason
authority to modify BFT retention limits by pelagic longline vessels
should not have any direct impact on revenues, but could help prevent
the negative impacts of closures that occur when area quotas are
reached.

**5.1.2 Impacts on Seafood Dealers**

NMFS has little data regarding the wholesale price of fish or the costs
to fish dealers or processors. However, NMFS does have information on
the weight of fish that dealers buy from fishermen. In 2000, dealers
purchased 56 BFT from vessels in the northern area, and 211 BFT from
vessels in the southern area. The preferred alternative for adjusting
the target catch requirements would almost double the number of bluefin
bought in the northern area and would increase the number of BFT
purchased in the southern area by about 25 percent.

Table 6 indicates the number of BFT landed under each alternative for
adjusting the target catch requirements. In general, seafood dealers
would be expected to benefit from the increase under Target Catch
Alternatives 2-6, however, without wholesale price information
available, it is difficult to understand the magnitude of the positive
economic impact. Under Target Catch Alternatives 4 through 6, dealers
who purchase BFT caught either in the northern or the southern areas
would benefit. Under other alternatives, dealers purchasing southern
area-caught BFT would not be affected. The preferred alternative to
provide NMFS with inseason authority to modify BFT retention limits by
pelagic longline vessels should not have any direct impact on revenues
to seafood dealers, but could help prevent the negative impacts of
closures that occur when the area quotas are reached.

**5.2 Conclusion**

The preferred alternatives described in this EA/RIR/FRFA have been
determined to be not significant for the purposes of EO 12866, as they
would increase revenues in the pelagic longline fishery without any
anticipated adverse economic impacts on fishermen, communities, or the
economy generally, or any anticipated adverse environmental impacts. A
summary of the expected net economic benefits and costs of each
alternative can be found in Table 11.

**6.0 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

NMFS has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to
analyze the impacts on small entities of the alternatives for adjusting
the target catch requirements, as described in Sections 2.1 and 4.1 of
this document. Section 1 of this document describes the reasons why
action is being considered and includes the objectives of, and legal
basis for, the final rule. None of the preferred alternatives or
alternatives considered would alter reporting, record-keeping, or other
compliance requirements currently in place.

The analysis for the FRFA assesses the impacts of the various
alternatives on the vessels that participate in the Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery, all of which are considered small entities. In order
to do this, NMFS has estimated the average impact that the alternatives
to modify the target catch requirements would have on individual
vessels. As mentioned above, the annual gross revenues from the Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery are approximately \$29 million. There are
approximately 171 pelagic longline vessels that are permitted to retain
Atlantic tunas and swordfish, and average annual gross revenues per
vessel are approximately \$172,000 (NMFS 2002a). The analyses for the
FRFA assume that all pelagic longline vessels have similar levels of
catch and gross revenues. While this may not be true, the analyses are
sufficient to show the relative impact of the various alternatives on
vessels. NMFS has, however, separated out pelagic longline vessels into
three groups: vessels home-ported in the northern area that landed more
than one BFT on an individual trip during 1998-2000; vessels home-ported
in the northern area that landed one or less BFT on individual trips
during 1998-2000; and vessels home-ported in the southern area. Northern
area vessels were separated into two groups because Alternative 2,
described in Sections 2.1.2 and 4.1.2, would have a negative impact on
the vessels that landed more than one BFT on a particular trip, as it
would only allow retention of one BFT per trip in the northern area,
whereas the status quo does not limit the number of BFT so long as the
percentage of BFT did not exceed two percent of the weight of the other
landings. During 1998-2000, six vessels landed more than one BFT on
individual trips, and two vessels landed two BFT twice (total of eight
trips). For these analyses, NMFS assumed that these six vessels would
each have a trip in which they would have been able to land two BFT
under the status quo.

Table 12 shows the change in gross revenues that could be expected on
annual basis for a vessel in the pelagic longline fishery as a result of
the various alternatives to modify the target catch requirements. The
impacts on vessels were estimated by calculating the difference in the
number of BFT that could be retained by the particular group of vessels,
multiplying that number of fish by the average weight and price per
pound for that area during 2000. In the northern area, the average
weight of BFT landed by longline vessels in 2000 was 456 lbs., and the
average per pound was \$5.56, for an estimate of \$2,535 per fish. In
the southern area, the average weight of BFT landed by longline vessels
in 2000 was 537 lbs., and the average price per pound was \$5.31, for an
estimate of \$2,851 per fish. For Alternative 4.1.2, vessels in the
northern area would land 72 BFT, 16 more than were landed in 2000. Using
the average weight and price information for the northern area, the
revenues from the additional 16 fish were divided among the 102 vessels
in the northern area, for an average increase in gross revenues of \$398
under the existing north/south boundary line, and an increase of \$634
under the changed boundary described in Alternative 4.2.2. For the six
vessels that could have landed two BFT on a trip however, these vessels
would lose the revenues from the second BFT, \$2,535. Thus, under the
current boundary line, the change in gross revenues for each of these
six vessels would be -\$2,137 (\$398 - \$2,535), approximately a -1.2%
change. Vessels in the southern area would not experience any change in
revenues under this alternative, as the target catch requirements would
not change. As noted in Table 12, the impacts on revenues for the other
alternatives were estimated in a similar manner. Other than Alternative
4.1.2, none of the target catch alternatives would have a negative
impact on any vessel in the pelagic longline fishery under the existing
or preferred alternative boundary line (Alternative 4.2.2). Alternatives
4.1.2 and 4.1.3 would have a positive impact on all but a few vessels.
Alternatives 4.1.4, 4.1.5 (preferred alternative), and 4.1.6 (Target
Catch Alternatives 4, 5 , and 6) would have a positive impact on
revenues for vessels in all areas. Thus, only one non-preferred
alternative considered would have negative economic impacts; all
preferred alternatives would minimize current negative impacts such that
consideration of significant alternatives to minimize impacts to small
entities is unnecessary.

The alternatives regarding providing NMFS with inseason authority to
modify BFT retention limits by pelagic longline vessels should not have
any direct impact on small entities. The preferred alternative, however,
which would provide NMFS with this inseason authority, could help
prevent negative impacts on small entities due to closures.

Public comment on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and
draft EA was generally favorable and encouraged the agency to
expeditiously proceed to final action and implementation. Overall the
comments suggested two changes to the preferred alternatives to further
meet the objectives of the rulemaking. One change involved adding a
third tier of target catch requirements to allow the landing of a third
BFT to further reduce discards on the rare occasions that three BFT are
caught. Another suggested change was for the agency to modify the
subquota allocations between the northern and southern areas although a
range of opinion was received as what specific percentages should apply.
In both cases the agency has modified the preferred alternative to
further meet the objectives of the rulemaking and to further minimize
any negative or social impacts. For a summary of specific comments and
agency responses see Section 11.

**7.0 Mitigating Measures**

The preferred alternatives would assist NMFS in achieving the objectives
of (1) reducing BFT discards in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery
(2) without providing an incentive to target BFT and (3) allowing for
landings of incidentally caught BFT within available quota, as well as
provide NMFS authority to make inseason adjustments to meet those
objectives. The preferred alternatives would reduce overall mortality of
overfished BFT, reduce discards consistent with ICCAT recommendations
and Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and increase benefits to the
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. With inseason adjustment authority,
NMFS will be able to monitor and make adjustments to the fishery closer
to "real time." Since NMFS will continue to monitor the fishery, any
unpredicted increase in landings or discards of BFT, should they occur,
could be addressed within a fishing season. NMFS will also continue to
monitor and implement the terms and conditions of the BiOp dated June
14, 2001, and based on the results of impacts to the longline fleet, as
well as target and non-target species, consider modification of future
actions accordingly.

**8.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts**

There are no measurable unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the
preferred alternative.

**9.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources**

There are no measurable irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resources associated with the final action.

**10.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT**

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) submitted the
regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) for Secretarial review under procedures
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This
final rule is accompanied by an integrated document that includes an
Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review, and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Copies of the rule and the supporting
document are available from Brad McHale at the Highly Migratory Species
Management Division, NMFS-Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 281-9260, or from our website at
[[www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hmspg.html.]{.underline}](http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/)

The final rule would adjust target catch requirements to minimize dead
discards of BFT by pelagic longline vessels and would allow for landing
of additional BFT by such vessels. The EA considers information
contained in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with
the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999) and the 2003 HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (SAFE) Report (NMFS,
2003).

NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 identifies nine criteria, in addition to
the Council on Environmental Quality\'s regulations at 40 C.F.R. §
1508.27, for determining the significance of the impacts of an action:

(1) *Can the action be reasonably expected to jeopardize the
    sustainability of any target species that may be affected by the
    action?*

This action is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of
swordfish, bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna, which are the primary target
species of pelagic longline operations affected by this action because
effort is not expected to change as a result of this action. This action
is expected to reduce dead discards of BFT caught incidentally to
swordfish and other tuna longlining operations by approximately 25%,
which is a management objective of the HMS FMP and part of a management
recommendation for BFT adopted by the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). For example, as stated in
Section 4, under Approach 1, Preferred Alternative 5, adjusting the
target catch tolerances would allow more BFT to be landed (437) than
under the status quo (228) as well as less discarded.

(2) *Can the action be reasonably expected to jeopardize the
    sustainability of any non-target species?*

The action is not expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any
non-target finfish species. This action is expected to have positive
impacts to the BFT stock due to a reduction of dead discards and overall
mortality from incidentally caught BFT during longline operations.
Overall mortality is likely to decrease as discards that would
previously not have counted against the longline quota will now be
deducted as landings. Less longline quota would then be available and
considered "unused" for transfer to other BFT fishery categories where
it would have been applied to account for additional fishing mortality.
For example see Section 4, for how the preferred alternatives recognize
the existing fishing patterns and accommodate without change current
fishing practices. It is possible that this action could result in
increased targeting of BFT. However, this is unlikely given the
costs/benefits associated with pelagic longline fishing directed at BFT
and the maintenance of target catch requirements. There would not be
adverse impacts to other non-target species or the fishery overall
because longlining effort is not expected to change as a result of this
action.

*(3) Can the action be reasonably expected to allow substantial damage
to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or essential fish habitat (EFH) as
defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in FMPs?*

Because this action is not expected to change fishing practices or
effort, this action is not expected to change the impact on EFH or to
allow substantial damage to ocean and coastal habitats and/or EFH.
Because the action would not change longline activity, there would be no
change in impacts on essential fish habitat relative to the status quo.
Further, the effects of this action would not apply to any sites,
highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places or cause loss or destruction of
significant scientific, cultural or historical resources. Should such
structures or resources be located in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
longline vessels would already avoid those areas to avoid potential gear
loss.

(4) *Can the action be reasonably expected to have a substantial adverse
    impact on public health and safety?*

The action is not expected to have substantial adverse impacts on public
health and safety. Fishing activity or behavior would not change and
fishing effort would not expand as a result of this action.

(5) *Can the action be reasonably expected to have an adverse impact on
    endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical
    habitat of these species?*

The action is not expected to alter current impacts on threatened or
endangered species. The action would not modify fishing behavior or gear
type, nor would it expand fishing effort. Longlines are known to present
potential dangers to listed sea turtles and marine mammals, and the
activity of the fishery operates under the terms of a Biological Opinion
(BiOp) dated June 14, 2001. The agency is implementing the BiOp pursuant
to a final rule published on July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45393), which among
other matters restricts and monitors operations of longline vessels to
reduce interactions with sea turtles.

(6) *Can the action be reasonably expected to result in cumulative
    adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on the target
    species or non-target species?*

The action is not expected to result in cumulative adverse effects that
could have a substantial effect on target species or non-target species.
The action modifies existing target catch requirements for the highly
regulated Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, which should have positive
cumulative ecological, social, and economic impacts. This action would
be consistent with ongoing implementation of rebuilding plans for target
species such as swordfish as well as non-target species such as BFT and
the final rule to implement the BiOp for sea turtles. The action is not
expected to change current fishing practices or effort or cause impacts
not previously addressed in the above rebuilding plans and rulemakings.

(7) *Can the action be reasonably expected to have a substantial impact
    on biodiversity and ecosystem function within the affected area
    (e.g., benthic productivity, predator-prey relationships, etc.)?*

The action is not expected to have a substantial impact on biodiversity
and ecosystem function within the affected area, because the action is
not expected to change fishing activity or practices, landings of target
species, and interactions with non-target and endangered or threatened
species. The action would not affect unique geographic areas, other than
those areas which have been delineated since target catch levels were
established. In addition this action is not expected to introduce or
spread non-indigenous species.

(8) *Are significant social or economic impacts interrelated with
    significant natural or physical environmental effects?*

The final actions are not expected to have any significant, positive or
negative, social or economic impacts. The preferred actions are expected
to have modest positive social and economic impacts in the northern and
southern areas, as currently identified in the regulations, by reducing
dead discards and allowing fishermen to land more BFT caught
incidentally to swordfish and other tuna longlining operations. See
Sections 5 and 6 for an analysis of the predicted economic impacts to
the pelagic longline fishery and small business entities.

(9) *To what degree are the effects on the quality of the human
    environment expected to be highly controversial?*

The final actions are not expected to be highly controversial on the
human environment. Current target catch requirements for BFT caught
incidentally to pelagic longline operations result in increased bycatch
in this fishery and loss of gross revenues. Pelagic longline fishermen
are not permitted to target BFT and no increase in targeting of BFT is
predicted from this action. In this document, NMFS has developed
alternatives to modify target catch requirements so that fewer BFT would
be discarded and more BFT could be landed, without providing an
incentive for targeted BFT trips. The alternatives considered in the EA
would thus increase economic benefits to fishermen and minimize bycatch
in the longline fishery. The alternatives considered would have some
positive impact on the BFT stock by reducing dead discards and reducing
total mortality, although total landings are not expected to change
because the fishery is managed under a total allowable catch system.
None of the considered alternatives would likely affect fishing behavior
or expand effort in the longline fishery since BFT are caught
incidentally to targeted operations for swordfish and other tunas.
Moreover, fishery participants have been requesting such an action for
several years and are expected to support this action. This action has
been discussed extensively by the NMFS Highly Migratory Species Advisory
Panel (HMS AP), which is composed of representatives from the
recreational and commercial fishing industries, the environmental
community, academia, and regional and state fishery management
authorities. At the recent HMS AP meeting in February 2003, and during
the comment period on the proposed rule, public comment was generally
favorable and urged the agency to proceed with the final action. The
agency did not receive any adverse comments regarding impacts to the
environment or protected species and comments were not controversial
from an environmental perspective. (See Section 11.0 for a summary of
comments and agency responses on this proposed action).

*Summary*

For the reasons stated above, implementation of this regulatory
amendment, which would modify target catch requirements for landing
western BFT in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery and provide NMFS
with inseason authority to modify BFT retention limits by pelagic
longline vessels, would not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, and preparation of an EIS on the action is not
required by Section 102(2)(c) of National Environmental Policy Act or
its implementing regulations.

Approved: [Rebecca Lent]{.underline} [May 15, 2003]{.underline}

for Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

**11.0 Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses to Draft EA/RIR
and IRFA**

[Comment:]{.underline} Numerous comments supported establishing a target
catch requirement in terms of a specific weight versus a percentage to
allow for the retention of incidentally caught BFT. Comments stated that
the pelagic longline fishery has changed since the two percent target
was implemented and having one set of target catch limits coastwide will
ease the burden on fishermen to comply with regulations. A specific
weight tolerance will also assist enforcement agents pursuing
infractions.

[Response:]{.underline} NMFS agrees. The final action establishes target
catch requirements as specific weights, rather than as percentages, with
the intent of reducing BFT discards in all areas, and at the same time
minimizing confusion and providing positive economic impacts to longline
vessels in both southern and northern management areas. NMFS Enforcement
has also expressed a preference for a specific target weight regardless
of geographic location as it would provide one regulation that is
clearer and easier to enforce.

[Comment:]{.underline} NMFS should allow for a third and/or fourth tier
of target catch to allow vessels to land three and/or four BFT for those
vessels conducting longer trips. For example, NMFS should establish a
target catch requirement for all areas, at all times of 20,000 lbs.
(44,092 kg) to retain three BFT, and of 30,000 lbs. (66,138 kg) to
retain four BFT. Other comments suggested NMFS allow full retention of
all catch to eliminate all discards and bring the agency into full
compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

[Response:]{.underline} NMFS has modified the final action to include a
third tier of target catch allowance in the final action, explicitly
allowing the retention of 3 BFT with 30,000 lbs. of target catch. This
additional tier of target catch is consistent with the previous
percentage-based target catch requirements that allowed a few vessels to
land three BFT in conjunction with 30,000 lbs. of target catch. The
proposed rule for this action would not have allowed these few vessels
to retain three BFT regardless of the target catch onboard. Although
only a handful of vessels are large enough to complete trips with target
catches greater than 30,000 lbs., allowing these vessels to retain three
BFT would further meet the intent to reduce discards of BFT and still
avoid incentives to target BFT.

[Comment:]{.underline} The preferred alternatives may not be providing a
reasonable opportunity for pelagic longline vessels to harvest the quota
allocated to that category. The inseason adjustment authority should not
be limited to a range of zero to three BFT per trip and/or by 25 percent
of the target catch requirements.

[Response:]{.underline} Under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, NMFS is
required to provide U.S. fishermen a reasonable opportunity to take the
BFT quota allocated to the United States by the ICCAT. Pelagic longline
vessels are not allowed to target BFT and thus there is no directed
fishery on BFT. However, due to the incidental catch of BFT in pelagic
longline operations targeting other species, NMFS has provided a quota
and target catch requirements to provide pelagic longline vessels a
reasonable opportunity to land their incidentally caught BFT in order to
reduce discards and provide positive economic impacts to the pelagic
longline fishery.

[Comment:]{.underline} Numerous comments stated support for the
relocation of the boundary line separating the northern and southern
management areas to 31^o^00\' N. latitude, near Jekyll Island, Georgia.
This is an area with little longline activity and should reduce
confusion regarding the area in which incidental BFT were harvested.
Other comments stated that the Gulf of Mexico should be off limits to
all retention of BFT by pelagic longline vessels and a boundary line
should be established in the Straits of Florida.

[Response:]{.underline} NMFS' final action maintains the proposed
location of the boundary line at 31^o^00\' N. latitude, near Jekyll
Island, Georgia. The intent of the line is to account for seasonal
differences in the fisheries within each area and to prevent one area
from consuming all available quota. The location of the line was chosen
in an area with little longline fishing activity to facilitate
enforcement and reporting. Eliminating the incidental retention of BFT
by pelagic longline vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico would not
meet the intent of this rulemaking, as it could increase discards, and
have negative impacts to pelagic longline fishermen.

[Comment:]{.underline} Comments stated support for a reallocation of the
Longline category quota based on the new location of the North/South
boundary line. Comments suggested the preferred alternative of 30
percent for the northern area and 70 percent for the southern area
should be reconsidered. The proposed allocation may not reflect the
current fishing pattens of the pelagic longline fishery and may lead to
increased effort and mortality on spawning BFT in the Gulf of Mexico,
which has been designated by ICCAT as a spawning area in the Western
Atlantic Ocean. Some comments suggested NMFS should re-calculate the
North/South subquota allocation based on the number of hooks versus the
number of sets. Some comments suggested a quota split of 50/50, while
others suggested a split of 40 percent for the northern area and 60
percent for the southern area.

[Response:]{.underline} Based on the analysis conducted in the
Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, NMFS has determined that an adjustment to the
Incidental Longline category subquota allocation between areas is
warranted. Due to the movement of the boundary line and the adjustments
in the target catch allowances in both the northern and southern areas,
and the apparent redistribution of longline effort in response to
bycatch reduction measures, NMFS adjusts the Longline category subquota
to allocate 60 percent to the southern area and 40 percent to the
northern area. This adjustment is made to reflect the estimated
additional landings likely to be applied in the northern area based on
the above analysis. The amount of BFT landed is expected to approach the
subquota levels of the Longline category fishery, but not exceed them.

[Comment:]{.underline} Some comments stated that NMFS should increase
the number of observers in the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline yellowfin
tuna fishery.

[Response:]{.underline} ICCAT requires five percent of the pelagic
longline trips to be selected for observer coverage. Vessels are
selected based on a random five percent sampling of sets. Actual
deployment of observers on vessels in the past had been constrained by a
number of factors including logistic requirements and safety concerns
and thus it has not been possible to place observers on all selected
trips. NMFS is working towards improving observer coverage by increasing
the sampling of trips to eight percent and facilitating increased
communication between vessel operators and observer program
coordinators, particularly in regards to safety requirements for the
placement of observers (see 50 CFR 600.746), and the need to have all
safety equipment on board as required by the U.S. Coast Guard.

[Comment:]{.underline} Numerous comments stated support for the inseason
adjustment authority, but stated that 30-day delayed effectiveness prior
to the regulation changes is too long. NMFS should employ a two week
notice to be timely responding to resource concerns.

[Response:]{.underline} In the proposed rule, NMFS has proposed
adjusting the limits through an inseason action, with 30 days public
notice. However, NMFS agrees that the highly migratory nature of BFT
could result in rapid changes of fishing gear interaction rates. In
order for in-season adjustments to work effectively, NMFS must respond
quickly. In addition, NMFS is concerned about providing adequate notice
of changes to fishing vessels at sea. Therefore, NMFS has reconsidered
the balance between prompt action and notification, and reduced the
public notice period to 21 days, which is the expected trip length for
larger vessels fishing further offshore.

[Comment:]{.underline} NMFS should define "target catch" so as to
prohibit the landing of unmarketable species just to reach a minimum
threshold to retain a BFT and encourage the release of all live BFT
caught by pelagic longline vessels.

[Response:]{.underline} The current regulations addressing target catch
limits at 635.23 (f)(1) state that species other than BFT must be
legally caught, retained, and offloaded from the same trip and recorded
on the dealer weighout slip as sold. The current regulatory language
meets the intent of preventing the landing of unmarketable species just
to reach a minimum threshold. In regards to live BFT caught by pelagic
longline vessels, NMFS is currently working on a national bycatch
strategy. To view the goals, objectives, and strategies please visit
[www.nmfs.noaa.gov]{.underline}.

[Comment:]{.underline} NMFS should consider various physical
oceanographic parameters and re-examine the Mid-Atlantic closure area
because it is not used as a spawning area. Forcing vessels to move
further offshore may produce a safety issue. Other comments stated that,
NMFS should analyze data gathered during the Northeast Distant
experimental fishery to adjust management measures for the pelagic
longline fishery in the future.

[Response:]{.underline} NMFS' intent in creating the Mid-Atlantic
closure area was to ensure compliance with ICCAT recommendations to
reduce the bycatch and dead discards of BFT by pelagic longline vessels,
not to protect a potential BFT spawning area. The available data, based
on logbooks submitted by fishermen, indicate a substantial decline in
BFT bycatch throughout the year, indicating the closed area may be
effective at reducing discards. Although NMFS realizes that it may be
necessary to adjust the time and/or area of the closure based on new
data including changed physical oceanographic patterns, fishing activity
etc., available information does not warrant such changes at this time.
NMFS will continue to analyze logbook and observer data from the
Northeast Distant experimental fishery in order to consider possible
adjustments to target catch requirements for landing BFT by longline
vessels, or to make other adjustments as necessary in order to minimize
dead discards.

**12.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted**

Discussions relevant to the formulation of the preferred alternative and
the analyses for this EA/RIR/FRFA involved input from several NMFS
components and constituent groups, including: NMFS Southeast Fisheries
Science Center, NMFS Northeast Regional Office, NMFS Enforcement, and
the members of the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels (includes
representatives from the commercial and recreational fishing industries,
environmental and academic organizations, state representatives, and
fishery management councils). NMFS has also received numerous comments
from individual fishermen and interested parties.

**12.0 List of Preparers/Contact Information**

This EA/RIR/FRFA was prepared by Pat Scida, Brad McHale, Margo
Schulze-Haugen, and Christopher Rogers from the HMS Management Division,
Office of Sustainable Fisheries. Please contact the HMS Management
Division, Northeast Regional Office, for a complete copy of current
regulations for the Atlantic tunas fisheries.

Highly Migratory Species Management Division

NMFS-Northeast Regional Office

One Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

phone: (978) 281-9260 fax: (978) 281-9340

**13.0 References**

NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks.

NMFS. 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the
Regulatory Amendment to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks
Fishery Management Plan: Reduction of Bycatch and Incidental Catch in
the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery. June 14, 2000.

NMFS. 2000a. National Report of the United States: 2000. SCRS/00/142. 41
pp.

NMFS. 2001. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation for Atlantic Highly
Migratory

Species. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2002. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation for Atlantic Highly
Migratory

Species. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2002a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for
Regulatory Amendment 2 to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks
Fishery Management Plan: Final Rule to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch and
Bycatch Mortality in Highly Migratory Species Fisheries. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2003. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation for Atlantic Highly
Migratory

Species. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD.

**14.0 Tables**

**Table 1: Initial BFT Quotas and Landings in Northern and Southern
Domestic Management Areas, in Metric Tons**

  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                **1997**                **1998**                **1999**                **2000**    

  Fishing       **North**   **South**   **North**   **South**   **North**   **South**   **North**   **South**
  Area^1^                                                                                           

  Longline      19.5        27.3        22.9        23.7        16.9        50.9        11.6        51.3
  Landings^2^                                                                                       

  Initial       23          86          24          89          24          89          24          89
  Longline                                                                                          
  Quotas                                                                                            
  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

^1^ North/South dividing line is located at 34E00\' North latitude.

^2^ Landings from HMS/NERO BFT landings database

**Table 2: Longline BFT Dead Discard Estimates by ICCAT Management Area,
in Metric Tons, Estimated using Logbook Tallies.**

  ----------------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------
                    **1997**             **1998**             **1999**   

  ICCAT Area^1^     **NWA**    **GOM**   **NWA**    **GOM**   **NWA**    **GOM**

  LL Discards^2^    30.7       6.4       57         7         10.1       19.9
  ----------------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------

^1^ NWA = Northwest Atlantic, GOM = Gulf of Mexico

**Table 3a. Landings (Other than BFT) in Pounds, by Trip, for Vessels
Using Longline Gear, 1998-2000. Source: SEFSC Weighout Data.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>North (NC and North)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>South (SC and South)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>All Areas</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Avg.</strong></td>
<td>4,329</td>
<td>7,291</td>
<td>6,778</td>
<td>4,385</td>
<td>4,453</td>
<td>4,430</td>
<td>4,376</td>
<td>5,344</td>
<td>5,053</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Median</strong></td>
<td>3,301</td>
<td>4,039</td>
<td>3,787</td>
<td>3,074</td>
<td>3,526</td>
<td>3,336</td>
<td>3,490</td>
<td>3,675</td>
<td>3,501</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>75 pctle.</strong></td>
<td>1,890</td>
<td>1,808</td>
<td>1,786</td>
<td>1,245</td>
<td>1,384</td>
<td>1,343</td>
<td>1,309</td>
<td>1,518</td>
<td>1,449</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 3b. Landings in Pounds, by Trip, for Trips not Landing BFT, for
Vessels Using Longline Gear, 1998-2000. Source: SEFSC Weighout Data.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>North (NC and North)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>South (SC and South)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>All Areas</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Avg.</strong></td>
<td>4,183</td>
<td>6,173</td>
<td>5,801</td>
<td>4,203</td>
<td>4,385</td>
<td>4,327</td>
<td>4,199</td>
<td>4,897</td>
<td>4,696</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Median</strong></td>
<td>3,202</td>
<td>3,586</td>
<td>3,474</td>
<td>2,770</td>
<td>3,388</td>
<td>3,128</td>
<td>2,854</td>
<td>3,451</td>
<td>3,228</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>75 pctle.</strong></td>
<td>1,615</td>
<td>1,644</td>
<td>1,634</td>
<td>1,060</td>
<td>1,344</td>
<td>1,236</td>
<td>1,134</td>
<td>1,416</td>
<td>1,344</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 3c. Landings (Other than BFT) in Pounds, by Trip, for Vessels
Using Longline Gear, 1998-2000. Source: SEFSC Weighout Data.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>North (GA and North)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>South (FL and South)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>All Areas</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Avg.</strong></td>
<td>3,747</td>
<td>6,682</td>
<td>6,080</td>
<td>4,559</td>
<td>4,534</td>
<td>4,543</td>
<td>4,376</td>
<td>5,344</td>
<td>5,053</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Median</strong></td>
<td>2,881</td>
<td>3,835</td>
<td>3,586</td>
<td>3,220</td>
<td>3,570</td>
<td>3,452</td>
<td>3,490</td>
<td>3,675</td>
<td>3,501</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>75 pctle.</strong></td>
<td>1,428</td>
<td>1,805</td>
<td>1,718</td>
<td>1,249</td>
<td>1,337</td>
<td>1,301</td>
<td>1,309</td>
<td>1,518</td>
<td>1,449</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 3d. Landings in Pounds, by Trip, for Trips not Landing BFT, for
Vessels Using Longline Gear, 1998-2000. Source: SEFSC Weighout Data.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>North (GA and North)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>South (FL and South)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>All Areas</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
<td>Jan - Apr</td>
<td><p>May -</p>
<p>Dec</p></td>
<td><p>Year</p>
<p>Round</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Avg.</strong></td>
<td>3,590</td>
<td>5,691</td>
<td>5,232</td>
<td>4,398</td>
<td>4,463</td>
<td>4,441</td>
<td>4,199</td>
<td>4,897</td>
<td>4,696</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Median</strong></td>
<td>2,779</td>
<td>3,472</td>
<td>3,253</td>
<td>2,880</td>
<td>3,421</td>
<td>3,217</td>
<td>2,854</td>
<td>3,451</td>
<td>3,228</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>75 pctle.</strong></td>
<td>1,408</td>
<td>1,662</td>
<td>1,615</td>
<td>1,040</td>
<td>1,268</td>
<td>1,177</td>
<td>1,134</td>
<td>1,416</td>
<td>1,344</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 4.** **Number of BFT Reported in the Pelagic Logbook Program as
Kept, Discarded Dead, or Discarded Alive.**

  ----------- ---------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ----------- ------ ------ ------ ----------- ------ ------ ------
  **Month**   **Area**   **BFT                         **BFT                            **BFT                     
                         kept**                        discarded                        discarded                 
                                                       dead**                           alive**                   

                         1997     1998   1999   2000   1997        1998   1999   2000   1997        1998   1999   2000

  Jan         Closed     0        0      0      0      0           0      0      0      0           0      0      0

              Open       18       9      19     23     5           15     3      2      5           35     8      1

  Feb         Closed     0        0      0      0      0           0      0      0      0           0      0      0

              Open       10       10     24     27     1           11     7      30     12          14     9      18

  Mar         Closed     0        0      0      0      0           0      0      0      0           0      0      0

              Open       23       17     31     37     4           14     13     106    9           51     27     37

  Apr         Closed     0        0      0      0      0           0      0      0      0           0      0      0

              Open       4        14     39     41     2           6      50     90     6           17     39     21

  May         Closed     1        1      1      0      2           1      2      0      4           1      20     0

              Open       21       23     25     39     18          21     42     19     26          33     94     17

  June        Closed     14       10     0      0      144         156    0      0      159         278    0      0

              Open       29       25     29     15     56          182    87     18     42          194    124    23

  July        Closed     3        13     7      0      3           32     2      6      15          53     6      6

              Open       35       30     11     12     32          20     5      33     57          35     12     9

  Aug         Closed     0        0      2      0      0           0      0      0      0           0      0      0

              Open       23       6      9      4      1           2      1      3      5           2      0      0

  Sept        Closed     0        0      0      1      0           0      1      0      0           0      0      0

              Open       12       4      0      8      0           1      0      1      0           4      0      2

  Oct         Closed     0        7      6      7      0           9      0      16     1           30     2      68

              Open       9        25     12     5      0           0      0      7      0           1      0      131

  Nov         Closed     7        10     2      5      7           14     1      0      6           20     0      15

              Open       5        11     9      3      0           11     1      9      7           33     1      9

  Dec         Closed     10       1      2      1      22          3      1      2      39          0      0      9

              Open       10       16     15     1      14          4      5      10     11          6      45     16

  Total                  234      232    243    229    311         502    221    352    404         807    387    382
  ----------- ---------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ----------- ------ ------ ------ ----------- ------ ------ ------

Source: 2002 HMS SAFE Report.

**Table 5.** **Number of BFT Kept and Discarded Inside and Outside of
the June Closed Area, Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Bight, year-round.**

  ----------- ---------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------- -------
              **Closed                             **Open                    
              area**                               area**                    

              1997       1998    1999     2000     1997     1998     1999    2000

  BFT kept    35         42      20       14       199      190      223     215

  BFT         402        597     35       122      313      712      573     612
  discarded                                                                  
  ----------- ---------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------- -------

Source: 2002 HMS SAFE Report.

**Table 6. Calculations of BFT Landings and Discards under Various
Alternatives to Modify Target Catch Requirements. Figures in Parentheses
are for the Preferred Alternative to Move the North/South Division
Line.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Alt.</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Area</strong></p>
<p><strong>and</strong></p>
<p><strong>Time</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Avg. # of trips</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of trips that meet target catch reqts.</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 1 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 2 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 3 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong># of BFT caught</strong></td>
<td><strong># of trips that could land BFT</strong></td>
<td><p><strong># of BFT</strong></p>
<p><strong>that could be landed</strong></p></td>
<td><strong># of BFT discarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>% change in discards from Status Quo</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Stat. Quo</strong></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>20.0 (16.2)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>26 (27)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>5.9 (4.7)</td>
<td></td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>5 (5)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>3.9 (3.1)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td></td>
<td>2 (2)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><p>North</p>
<p>Total</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>277 (346)</td>
<td></td>
<td>33 (34)</td>
<td>244 (312)</td>
<td>N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>South Jan - April</td>
<td>631 (576)</td>
<td>70.6 (71.0)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td></td>
<td>90 (83)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>South May - Dec</td>
<td>1186</td>
<td>50.3 (50.8)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td></td>
<td>121 (111)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>South Total</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>770 (701)</td>
<td></td>
<td>211 (194)</td>
<td>559 (507)</td>
<td>N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Coast- wide Total</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>1047</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>244 (228)</strong></td>
<td><strong>803 (819)</strong></td>
<td><strong>N/A (+ 2.0)</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 6. Calculations of BFT Landings and Discards under Various
Alternatives** **to Modify Target Catch Requirements** (Continued).
**Figures in Parentheses are for the Preferred Alternative to Move the
North/South Division Line.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Alt.</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Area</strong></p>
<p><strong>and</strong></p>
<p><strong>Time</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Avg. # of trips</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of trips that meet target catch reqts.</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 1 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 2 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 3 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong># of BFT caught</strong></td>
<td><strong># of trips that could land BFT</strong></td>
<td><p><strong># of BFT</strong></p>
<p><strong>that could be landed</strong></p></td>
<td><strong># of BFT discarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>% change in discards from Status Quo</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Alt. 2</strong></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>54.1 (50.9)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>277 (346)</td>
<td>72 (84)</td>
<td>72 (84)</td>
<td>205 (262)</td>
<td>- 16.0 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td></td>
<td>Same as</td>
<td>Status</td>
<td>Quo</td>
<td></td>
<td>770 (701)</td>
<td></td>
<td>211 (194)</td>
<td>559 (507)</td>
<td>0.0 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Coast-wide Total</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>1047</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>283 (278)</strong></td>
<td><strong>764 (769)</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>- 4.9 %</strong></p>
<p><strong>(- 4.2 %)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Alt. 3</strong></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>54.1 (50.9)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>72 (84)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>34.7 (30.3)</td>
<td></td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>31 (34)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>North Total</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>277 (346)</td>
<td></td>
<td>103 (118)</td>
<td>174 (228)</td>
<td>- 28.6 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td></td>
<td>Same as</td>
<td>Status</td>
<td>Quo</td>
<td></td>
<td>770 (701)</td>
<td></td>
<td>211 (194)</td>
<td>559 (507)</td>
<td>0.0 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Coast-wide Total</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>1047</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>314 (312)</strong></td>
<td><strong>733 (735)</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>- 8.7 %</strong></p>
<p><strong>(- 8.5 %)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 6. Calculations of BFT Landings and Discards under Various
Alternatives** **to Modify Target Catch Requirements** (Continued).
**Figures in Parentheses are for the Preferred Alternative to Move the
North/South Division Line.**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Alt.</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Area</strong></p>
<p><strong>and</strong></p>
<p><strong>Time</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Avg. # of trips</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of trips that meet target catch reqts.</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 1 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 2 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 3 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong># of BFT caught</strong></td>
<td><strong># of trips that could land BFT</strong></td>
<td><p><strong># of BFT</strong></p>
<p><strong>that could be landed</strong></p></td>
<td><strong># of BFT discarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>% change in discards from Status Quo</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Alt. 4</strong></td>
<td>North</td>
<td></td>
<td>Same as</td>
<td>Alt. 3</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>277 (346)</td>
<td></td>
<td>103 (118)</td>
<td>174 (228)</td>
<td>-28.6 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td></td>
<td>Same as</td>
<td>Status Quo</td>
<td>for one</td>
<td>fish</td>
<td></td>
<td>211 (194)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td>1817 (1653)</td>
<td>26.5 (27.8)</td>
<td></td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>65 (62)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Total South</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>770 (701)</td>
<td></td>
<td>276 (256)</td>
<td>494 (445)</td>
<td>- 11.6 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Total Coast- wide</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>1047</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>379 (374)</strong></td>
<td><strong>668 (673)</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>-16.8 %</strong></p>
<p><strong>(-16.2 %)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Alt. 5</strong> (Pref. Alt.)</td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>72.4 (70.6)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>96 (117)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>34.7 (30.3)</td>
<td></td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>31 (34)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>3.9 (3.1)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td></td>
<td>2 (2)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Total North</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>277 (346)</td>
<td></td>
<td>129 (153)</td>
<td>148 (193)</td>
<td>- 39.3 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td>1817 (1653)</td>
<td>65.7</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>241 (220)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td>1817 (1653)</td>
<td>26.5</td>
<td></td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>65 (62)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td>1817 (1653)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td></td>
<td>2 (2)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Total South</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>770 (701)</td>
<td></td>
<td>308 (284)</td>
<td>462 (417)</td>
<td>- 17.3 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Total Coast- wide</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>1047</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>437 (437)</strong></td>
<td><strong>610 (610)</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>- 24.0 %</strong></p>
<p><strong>(-25.5 %)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 6. Calculations of BFT Landings and Discards under Various
Alternatives** **to Modify Target Catch Requirements** (Continued).
**Figures in Parentheses are for the Preferred Alternative to Move the
North/South Division Line.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Alt.</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Area</strong></p>
<p><strong>and</strong></p>
<p><strong>Time</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Avg. # of trips</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of trips that meet target catch reqts.</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 1 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 2 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong>% of obs. trips that catch 3 BFT</strong></td>
<td><strong># of BFT caught</strong></td>
<td><strong># of trips that could land BFT</strong></td>
<td><p><strong># of BFT</strong></p>
<p><strong>that could be landed</strong></p></td>
<td><strong># of BFT discarded</strong></td>
<td><strong>% change in discards from Status Quo</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Alt. 6</strong></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>79.6 (79.0)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>105 (131)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>North</td>
<td>655 (818)</td>
<td>34.7 (30.3)</td>
<td></td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>31 (34)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>North Total</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>277 (346)</td>
<td></td>
<td>136 (165)</td>
<td>141 (181)</td>
<td>- 42.4 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td>1817 (1653)</td>
<td>71.8 (71.7)</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>264 (239)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>South</td>
<td>1817 (1653)</td>
<td>26.5 (27.8)</td>
<td></td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>65 (62)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>South Total</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>770 (701)</td>
<td></td>
<td>329 (301)</td>
<td>441 (400)</td>
<td>- 21.1 % (N/A)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Coast-wide Total</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>1047</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>465 (466)</strong></td>
<td><strong>582 (581)</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>- 27.5 %</strong></p>
<p><strong>(27.5 %)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 7. Longline BFT Quotas under Various Alternatives, in Metric
Tons**

  ------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------
  **Area**      **Under Status Quo**       **Under Preferred
                                           Alternative**

  **North**     23.7 (21.1 %)              44.9 (40.0 %)

  **South**     88.6 (78.9 %)              67.4 (60.0 %)

  **Total**     112.3 (8.1 % of U.S.       112.3 (8.1 % of U.S. quota)
                quota)                     
  ------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------

**Table 8. Summary of BFT Estimated to be Landed under Various
Alternatives** **to Modify Target Catch Requirements. Figures in
Parentheses are for the Preferred Alternative to Move the North/South
Division Line (Include SC and GA in Northern Area).**

  ----------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ------------
  **Alternative**   **Area**    **BFT      **Metric    **% Change from **Within    **Within
                                Landed**   Tons**      Status Quo      Current     Quotas under
                                                       (Actual 2000    Quotas?**   Pref.
                                                       Landings)**                 Alt.?**

  **No Action/      North       56 (58)    11.6 (12.1) N/A             N/A         N/A
  Status Quo                                                                       
  (Actual Landings                                                                 
  from 2000)**                                                                     

                    South       211 (209)  51.4 (50.9) N/A             N/A         N/A

                    **Total**   **267      **63.0      **N/A**         **N/A**     **N/A**
                                (267)**    (63.0)**                                

  **No Action/      North       33 (34)    6.8 (7.0)   -41.9 % (-42.1  yes (yes)   yes (yes)
  Status Quo                                           %)                          
  (estimated)**                                                                    

                    South       211 (194)  51.4 (47.3) 0.0 % (-7.0 %)  yes (yes)   yes (yes)

                    **Total**   **244      **58.2      **-7.6 % (-14.2 **yes       **yes
                                (228)**    (54.0)**    %)**            (yes)**     (yes)**

  **Alternative 2** North       72 (84)    14.9 (17.4) 28.4 % (43.8 %) yes (yes)   yes (yes)

                    South       211 (194)  51.4 (47.3) 0.0 % (-7.0 %)  yes (yes)   yes (yes)

                    **Total**   **283      **66.3      **5.2 % (2.7    **yes       **yes
                                (278)**    (64.7)**    %)**            (yes)**     (yes)**

  **Alternative 3** North       103 (118)  21.3 (24.4) 83.6 % (101.7   yes (no)    yes (yes)
                                                       %)                          

                    South       211 (194)  51.4 (47.3) 0.0 % (-7.0 %)  yes (yes)   yes (yes)

                    **Total**   **314      **72.7      **15.4 %        **yes       **yes
                                (312)**    (71.7)**    (13.8)**        (yes)**     (yes)**

  **Alternative 4** North       103 (118)  21.3 (24.4) 83.6 % (101.7   yes (no)    yes (yes)
                                                       %)                          

                    South       277 (256)  67.5 (62.4) 31.3 % (22.6 %) yes (yes)   yes (yes)

                    **Total**   **379      **88.8      **41.0 % (37.8  **yes       **yes
                                (374)**    (86.8)**    %)**            (yes)**     (yes)**

  **Alternative 5** North       129 (153)  26.7 (31.6) 126.7 % (163.6  no (no)     yes (yes)
  (Preferred                                           %)                          
  Alternative)                                                                     

                    South       308 (284)  74.0 (69.1) 44.9 % (26.1 %) yes (yes)   yes (yes)

                    **Total**   **437      **100.7     **60.0 % (60    **yes       **yes
                                (437)**    (100.7)**   %)**            (yes)**     (yes)**

  **Alternative 6** North       136 (165)  28.1 (34.8) 142.2 % (187.6  no (no)     yes (no)
                                                       %)                          

                    South       329 (301)  80.1 (73.6) 55.8 % (44.6 %) yes (yes)   no (yes)

                    **Total**   **465      **108.2     **71.7 % (72.1  **yes       **yes
                                (466)**    (108.4)**   %)**            (yes)**     (yes)**
  ----------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ------------

**Table 9. Summary of Revenues from BFT Retention under Various
Alternatives** **to Modify Target Catch Requirements. Figures in
Parentheses are for the Preferred Alternative to Move the North/South
Division Line (Include SC and GA in Northern Area).**

  ------------------- ----------- ----------------- ------------------------
  **Alternative**     **Area**    **Revenues from   **% Change from Status
                                  BFT**             Quo (Actual 2000
                                                    Landings)**

  **No Action/Status  North       \$142,188         N/A
  Quo (Actual                     (148,041)         
  Landings from                                     
  2000)**                                           

                      South       \$601,710         N/A
                                  (595,857)         

                      **Total**   **\$743,898       **N/A**
                                  (743,898)**       

  **No Action/Status  North       \$83,352 (85,803) \- 41.4 % (- 42.0 %)
  Quo (estimated)**                                 

                      South       \$601,710         0.0 % (- 7.1 %)
                                  (553,714)         

                      **Total**   **\$685,062       **- 7.9 % (- 14.0 %)**
                                  (639,517)**       

  **Alternative 2**   North       \$182,638         28.4 % (44.1 %)
                                  (213,282)         

                      South       \$601,710         0.0 % (- 7.1 %)
                                  (553,714)         

                      **Total**   **\$784,348       **5.4 % (3.1 %)**
                                  (766,996)**       

  **Alternative 3**   North       \$261,086         83.6 % (102.0 %)
                                  (299,085)         

                      South       \$601,710         0.0 % (- 7.1 %)
                                  (553,714)         

                      **Total**   **\$862,797       **16.0 % (14.6 %)**
                                  (852,799)**       

  **Alternative 4**   North       \$261,086         83.6 % (102.0 %)
                                  (299,085)         

                      South       \$790,184         31.3 % (22.6 %)
                                  (730,481)         

                      **Total**   **\$1,051,270     **41.3 % (38.4 %)**
                                  (1,029,566)**     

  **Alternative 5**   North       \$322,374         126.7 % (164.1 %)
  (Preferred                      (391,017)         
  Alternative)                                      

                      South       \$872,129         44.9 % (35.4 %)
                                  (806,573)         

                      **Total**   **\$1,194,503     **60.6 % (61.0 %)**
                                  (1,197,589)**     

  **Alternative 6**   North       \$344,438         142.2 % (188.1 %)
                                  (426,564)         

                      South       \$937,685         55.8 % (44.6 %)
                                  (861,593)         

                      **Total**   **\$1,282,123     **72.4 % (73.2 %)**
                                  (1,288,157)**     
  ------------------- ----------- ----------------- ------------------------

**Table 10. Analysis of Logbook Data Summarizing Number of Hooks Set per
Year for Northern and Southern Longline Areas (Divided at 31E N
Latitude), 1999-2001.**

+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| **Year**   | **Area**   | **Number of**           | **% of TOTAL    |
|            |            |                         | Hooks**         |
|            |            | **Hooks Set**           |                 |
|            |            |                         | **Set**         |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| **1999**   | **North**  | 2,946,228               | 37.29           |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
|            | **South**  | 4,955,561               | 62.71           |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
|            | **TOTAL**  | **7,901,789**           | **100.00**      |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| **2000**   | **North**  | 2,959,016               | 37.10           |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
|            | **South**  | 5,016,513               | 62.90           |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
|            | **TOTAL**  | **7,975,529**           | **100.00**      |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| **2001**   | **North**  | 3,016,324               | 39.88           |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
|            | **South**  | 4,547,627               | 60.12           |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
|            | **TOTAL**  | **7,563,951**           | **100.00**      |
+------------+------------+-------------------------+-----------------+

**Table 11. Summary of Net Economic Benefits and Costs for Each
Alternative (other than the Status Quo) Considered to Modify Target
Catch Requirements.**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Alternative**     **Estimated Net Economic   **Estimated Net Economic
                      Benefits**                 Costs**
  ------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------
  **No Action/Status  None                       None
  Quo**                                          

  **Alternative 2**   Revenues from BFT could    None. As BFT catch is
                      increase by about 3 - 5    incidental to longline
                      percent in the pelagic     operations, no
                      longline fishery           additional costs should
                                                 be incurred by vessels
                                                 if they are allowed to
                                                 retain additional BFT.

  **Alternative 3**   Revenues from BFT could    Same as Alternative 2
                      increase by about 14 - 16  
                      percent in the pelagic     
                      longline fishery           

  **Alternative 4**   Revenues from BFT could    Same as Alternative 2
                      increase by about 38 - 41  
                      percent in the pelagic     
                      longline fishery           

  **Alternative 5**   Revenues from BFT could    Same as Alternative 2
  (Preferred          increase by about 61       
  Alternative)        percent in the pelagic     
                      longline fishery           

  **Alternative 6**   Revenues from BFT could    Same as Alternative 2
                      increase by about 73       
                      percent in the pelagic     
                      longline fishery           
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Table 12. Impacts on Revenues for Individual Vessels resulting from
the Various Alternatives to Modify Target Catch Requirements (Include
South Carolina and Georgia in Northern Area).**

+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
| **Alter  | **       | **     | **Avg.  | **Change   | **% Change   |
| native** | Vessel** | Number | Gross   | in Avg.    | in Avg.      |
|          |          | of     | Revenue | Gross      | Gross        |
|          | **Type** | Ves    | per     | Revenues   | Revenues per |
|          |          | sels** | v       | per        | vessel**     |
|          |          |        | essel** | vessel**   |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
| **No     | North    | 6      | 172,000 | N/A        | N/A          |
| Action/  |          |        |         |            |              |
| Status   | 2        |        |         |            |              |
| Quo**    | BFT/trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | North    | 96     | 172,000 | N/A        | N/A          |
|          |          | (98)   |         |            |              |
|          | [\<]{.un |        |         |            |              |
|          | derline} |        |         |            |              |
|          | 1        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/Trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | South    | 131    | 172,000 | N/A        | N/A          |
|          |          | (129)  |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
| **Alt    | North    | 6      | 172,000 | \- 2,137   | \- 1.2 %     |
| ernative |          |        |         | (-1,901)   |              |
| 2**      | 2        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | North    | 96     | 172,000 | \+ 398     | \+ 0.2 %     |
|          |          | (98)   |         | (634)      |              |
|          | [\<]{.un |        |         |            |              |
|          | derline} |        |         |            |              |
|          | 1        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/Trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | South    | 131    | 172,000 | no change  | no change    |
|          |          | (129)  |         | (- 261)    |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
| **Alt    | North    | 6      | 172,000 | \+ 1,168   | \+ 0.7 %     |
| ernative |          |        |         | (1463)     |              |
| 3**      | 2        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | North    | 96     | 172,000 | \+ 1,168   | \+ 0.7 %     |
|          |          | (98)   |         | (1,463)    |              |
|          | [\<]{.un |        |         |            |              |
|          | derline} |        |         |            |              |
|          | 1        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/Trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | South    | 131    | 172,000 | no change  | no change    |
|          |          | (129)  |         | (- 261)    |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
| **Alt    | North    | 6      | 172,000 | \+ 1,168   | \+ 0.7 %     |
| ernative |          |        |         | (1,463)    |              |
| 4**      | 2        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | North    | 96     | 172,000 | \+ 1,168   | \+ 0.7 %     |
|          |          | (98)   |         | (1,463)    |              |
|          | [\<]{.un |        |         |            |              |
|          | derline} |        |         |            |              |
|          | 1        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/Trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | South    | 131    | 172,000 | \+ 1,415   | \+ 0.8 %     |
|          |          | (129)  |         | (1,040)    |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
| **Alt    | North    | 6      | 172,000 | \+ 1,765   | \+ 1.2 %     |
| ernative |          |        |         | (2,267)    |              |
| 5**      | 2        |        |         |            |              |
| (P       | BFT/trip |        |         |            |              |
| referred |          |        |         |            |              |
| Alte     |          |        |         |            |              |
| rnative) |          |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | North    | 96     | 172,000 | \+ 1,765   | \+ 1.2 %     |
|          |          | (98)   |         | (2,267)    |              |
|          | [\<]{.un |        |         |            |              |
|          | derline} |        |         |            |              |
|          | 1        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/Trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | South    | 131    | 172,000 | \+ 2,068   | \+ 1.5 %     |
|          |          | (129)  |         | (1,614)    |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
| **Alt    | North    | 6      | 172,000 | \+ 1,988   | \+ 1.2 %     |
| ernative |          |        |         | (2,608)    |              |
| 6**      | 2        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | North    | 96     | 172,000 | \+ 1,988   | \+ 1.2 %     |
|          |          | (98)   |         | (2,608)    |              |
|          | [\<]{.un |        |         |            |              |
|          | derline} |        |         |            |              |
|          | 1        |        |         |            |              |
|          | BFT/Trip |        |         |            |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+
|          | South    | 131    | 172,000 | \+ 2,568   | \+ 1.5 %     |
|          |          | (129)  |         | (2,034)    |              |
+----------+----------+--------+---------+------------+--------------+

**15.0 Figures**

**Figure 1. Time/area Closure Adopted in HMS FMP to Reduce Discards of
BFT in the Pelagic Longline Fishery.**

(508 Compliance Language: This figure shows a map of the eastern
seaboard of the United States extending from New England to Florida. The
time/area closure to reduce discards is illustrated by a rectangle
extending off of the Mid-Atlantic States into the Mid-Atlantic bight.)

![](media/image1.emf){width="3.9430555555555555in"
height="2.404861111111111in"}

**Figure 2. Location of BFT Discarded/Kept by Pelagic Longline Vessels,
1997-1998. Source: SEFSC Pelagic Logbook Reports.**

![](media/image2.emf){width="6.163888888888889in"
height="4.019444444444445in"}

Note: Because of the manner in which this image was produced, the
circles and diamonds showing BFT discarded and kept appear along the
lower edge of the area in which they were caught/discarded. For example,
the circles and diamonds along the lower edge of the mid-Atlantic closed
area occurred in the closed area, but are shown along the bottom edge of
the area in which they were taken.

(508 Compliance Language: This figure shows a map of the eastern
seaboard of North America and the Carribean. Triangles and Circles
illustrating BFT discarded and landed, respectively, are distributed
throughout the map and particularly clustered off the mid-Atlantic coast
of the United States and within the Gulf of Mexico.)

**Figure 3. Location of BFT Discarded/Kept by Pelagic Longline Vessels,
1999. Source: SEFSC Pelagic Logbook Reports.**

![](media/image3.emf){width="6.413194444444445in"
height="4.095138888888889in"}

Note: Because of the manner in which this image was produced, the
circles and diamonds showing BFT discarded and kept appear along the
lower edge of the area in which they were caught/discarded. For example,
the circles and diamonds along the lower edge of the mid-Atlantic closed
area occurred in the closed area, but are shown along the bottom edge of
the area in which they were taken.

(508 Compliance Language: This figure shows a map of the eastern
seaboard of North America and the Carribean. Triangles and Circles
illustrating BFT discarded and landed, respectively, are distributed
throughout the map. Density of clusters off of the mid-Atlantic coast of
the United States and within the Gulf of Mexico are less than observed
in Figure 2.)

(508 Compliance Language: This Pie chart is divided into six segments.
32% of the chart represents 1 BFT caught on observed trips, 25% for 2
BFT, 10% for 3 BFT, 5 % for 4 BFT, 18% 5 to 9 BFT, and 10% greater than
10 BFT.)

**Appendices**

**Appendix 1: HMS and Billfish Advisory (AP) Panel Discussion of the
Longline Incidental BFT Catch Limits - Joint Meeting of the HMS and
Billfish APs, April 2-4, 2001**

Much of the AP discussion focused on two different options brought to
the AP by Bluewater Fisherman's Association (BWFA). Specifically the
options suggested by BWFA were: (1) adjust the northern sub category
from 2% of landed target catch to 10-12% of landed target catch OR 1
fish in order to reflect recent trends or (2) provide for the NMFS'
Administrator to adjust the inseason- either subcategory or landing -
requirements. Option one would allow a fishing vessel that brings in
4,000 lbs. of target fish to land a 400 lb. BFT. During the discussion
it was noted that the current 2% limit does not equate to 1 fish; this
forces many vessels to discard a dead BFT. AP members considered adding
a cap, such as 2 or 3 BFT per trip, to this option to ensure that the
10-12% doesn't allow for a directed BFT in the pelagic longline fishery
especially regarding the larger Grand Banks vessels. Other AP members
considered changing the option to one where 3,000 or 3,500 lbs. of
target catch has to be landed in order to land 1 BFT. Several AP members
noted that setting this 3,000-3,500 lb. limit would allow large coastal
shark fishermen, who have a 4,000 lb. trip limit of large coastal
sharks, to land BFT. Other AP members supported a 1 fish per trip limit,
regardless of the amount of target catch landed.

Other AP comments included:

1.  Do not move the north/south line. But if you have to - move it
    south. If you move it north, it will be problematic because that is
    where the effort is.

2.  Because the Gulf of Mexico is a spawning area, the situation in the
    Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic differs and should be treated
    differently. In the north, the regulations are part of an allocation
    scheme; in the south the regulations are due to ICCAT
    recommendations.

3.  Most longline sets do not catch more than 2 BFT. Disaster sets that
    catch more are extremely rare.

4.  The BFT spawning stock is in trouble and the encounter rate, and
    thus mortality rate, with pelagic longline has not decreased in the
    Gulf of Mexico.

5.  If NMFS switches to 1 fish per vessel, it is likely that smaller
    vessels would start highgrading on BFT.

6.  This fishery is under a limited access program and ICCAT
    recommendations and rebuilding plan so it is unlikely that a
    directed fishery will develop.

7.  Any bycatch allowance based on weight is difficult to enforce. NMFS
    should use unit counts instead.

8.  Economics does not support the idea that fishermen would develop a
    directed fishery in order to target 1 fish.

9.  Why would pelagic longline fishermen be more likely than anyone else
    to highgrade?

10. NMFS needs to define where spawning sites may be outside of the Gulf
    of Mexico.

11. The only way to enforce catch limits is on the dock, not at sea.

12. Define incidental catch as 12% of the directed target catch, up to a
    maximum of 3 BFT, with a minimum of 3500 lbs. of directed catch on
    board per fish.

13. Define as above, but with a minimum of 3000 lbs. directed per fish.

14. NMFS Enforcement staff stated that the threshold limit is not a
    problem as long as number of fish (BFT), which is more enforceable
    than percent by weight, is the measure.

15. The main point is to ensure that there is a significant directed,
    non-BFT catch associated with any landed BFT to ensure trips aren't
    directed at BFT.

16. NMFS must evaluate the impacts of any proposal to go to numbers of
    BFT vs. 2% of catch.

17. Will this allowance result in high-grading of BFT that are kept for
    landing? Not in the pelagic longline fishery since vessels would not
    likely take the time and effort to sort through the hold to remove
    smaller BFT if they catch a larger one.

18. Several individuals commented that few boats ever take more than 2
    BFT anyway, only likely to happen on Grand Banks trips; 90% of
    vessels would take less than 2 BFT.

19. There was discussion that in the best of worlds technology would be
    available to allow use of water temperature to define closed areas.
    Possibly this will happen at some point.

**Appendix 2: HMS and Billfish Advisory (AP) Panel Discussion of the
Longline Incidental BFT Catch Limits - Joint Meeting of the HMS and
Billfish APs, April 1-3, 2002**

At the AP Meeting in April 2002 NMFS HMS presented the results and
findings from several analyses triggered by ideas presented from the
previous AP meeting as well as ongoing investigations into how best to
modify the current rule on longline target catch requirements for
retention of BFT. Generally comments were supportive of the analyses and
encouraged NMFS HMS to proceed with rulemaking. Some of the comments and
questions raised by AP members included:

20. When you say that the status quo is off by 40 percent, does that
    mean we are 40 percent behind before we start?

21. It makes more sense to move the line to 31 degrees because it would
    be a better opportunity for law enforcement in a clear area where
    people are not crossing the line between fishing and landing

22. The regulations went from two BFT to one in order to get Japanese
    BFT fishery out of the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever NMFS does, you have
    to be careful to avoid any perception of a directed fishery.

23. The area in the Gulf of Mexico is a spawning ground. Currently there
    is a fishery on the spawning ground. This area is critical for stock
    recovery. NMFS needs to close that area for the three months during
    the BFT spawning season.

24. The spawning area is never in the same place in the Gulf of Mexico.
    That is why the Japanese longline vessels used to "leapfrog" to keep
    up with the school.

25. The analysis NMFS has just presented appears sound and worth a try.
    However, NMFS must look into closing the Gulf of Mexico spawning
    ground.

26. The Japanese longline fishery from 1962-82 should have some good
    data. These data might show the exact location of spawning bluefin.

27. Enforcement of such a closure could be an issue because it is so far
    offshore.

28. Does the analysis just presented consider closing the mid-Atlantic
    Bight? This might be a good option as well.

29. The current proposal should not change the level of mortality, just
    the way the mortality is used.

30. Currently any overage in BFT dead discards comes out of other
    directed quota allowances. NMFS should use the approach just
    presented to prevent any overage.

31. These are all big fish 600 pounds. Is NMFS going to test break away
    gear?

**Appendix 3: HMS and Billfish Advisory (AP) Panel Discussion of the
Pelagic Longline Incidental BFT Catch Limits - Joint Meeting of the HMS
and Billfish APs, February 10-12, 2003**

The AP discussion was primarily focused on the elements of the proposed
rule on this subject published on December 24, 2002, (67 FR 78404). The
accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA to the proposed rule examined three approaches
to address the issue of BFT catch limits associated with pelagic
longline operations. Several alternatives to each approach were analyzed
in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and the preferred alternative selected for
implementation in the proposed rule. Specifically the preferred
alternative for each approach was:

*Approach 1:* Target Catch Requirement. [Preferred
alternative]{.underline}: Require 2,000 lbs of other fish landings to
retain 1 BFT and 6,000 lbs of other fish landings to retain 2 BFT in
[ALL]{.underline} areas,

*Approach 2*: North/South Line Adjustment and Area Quota Adjustment.
[Preferred Alternative]{.underline}: Move the line to 31^o^00' N.
Latitude (near Jekyll Island, GA) and adjust N/S quota percentages
accordingly (30% North and 70% South).

*Approach 3*: Inseason Adjustment Authority. [Preferred
alternative]{.underline}: Provide NMFS with the authority to adjust the
BFT retention limits for pelagic longline vessels between zero and three
BFT per trip and/or adjust the target percentage by 25%.

AP comments were generally supportive of the three approaches and the
specific preferred alternatives for each. Specific AP comments included:

32. NOAA Fisheries should allow a third tier for catching more BFT based
    on large trip landings of target catch

33. Adjusting target percentage by 25% in the inseason adjustment
    authority may be too restrictive. Perhaps be raised to 50%. No
    reason to cap at 3 BFT.

34. Support preferred alternative for poundage as the target catch as
    opposed to 2%.

35. Proposal may not go far enough and will still not allow a reasonable
    opportunity to harvest entire longline quota.

36. Consider 40/60 split rather than current 30/70.

37. 30/70 split not equitable and was not based upon the best available
    effort information.

38. Northern boat owners may move south (GOM) to get their fair share of
    the allocation.

39. NOAA Fisheries would get better information on effort if the
    allocation was split 50/50

40. Support moving the allocation demarcation line to that outlined in
    preferred alternative (i.e., 31 degrees 00 minutes latitude) in the
    proposed rule.

41. GOM should be off limits

42. Support inseason quota adjustments

43. The 30-day notification requirement, prior to changes in
    regulations, is too long.

44. NOAA Fisheries should employ a two-week notice to be timely
    responding to resource concerns (i.e., harvest/quota projections)..

45. NOAA Fisheries should investigate/analyze recent landings from 2001
    and 2002.