U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Issues and Options for 

Research and Data Collection 

in Closed and Gear Restricted 

Areas in Support of Spatial 

Fisheries Management

MAY 2019
i

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose, Need, and Objectives .................................................................................................................................2

Background....................................................................................................................................................................5

Management History of Closed Areas .......................................................................................................................5

Closed Areas Affecting Multiple Gear Types.........................................................................................................5

Pelagic Longline Closed Areas .............................................................................................................................7

Bottom Longline Closed Areas............................................................................................................................13

Gillnet Closed Areas............................................................................................................................................15

Examples of Past Closed Area Research and Data Collection ...............................................................................16

Pelagic Longline-Sea Turtle Bycatch Reduction Research in the Northeast Distant (NED) Restricted Fishing 

Area.....................................................................................................................................................................16

Shark Research Fishery......................................................................................................................................18

Current EFP Program..........................................................................................................................................20

2017 EFP for pelagic longline research in East Florida Coast Closed Area........................................................20

Range of Potential Options ..........................................................................................................................................22

References...................................................................................................................................................................27
1 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Introduction

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) is the 

principal law governing marine fisheries in the U.S. and includes ten National Standards to guide 

fishery conservation and management. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and 

management measures prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery (National Standard 1). It also requires that fishery “conservation and 

management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.” (National 

Standard 2). Other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), require NMFS to limit interactions with certain species affected by federal 

actions, such as permitted fishery operations. NMFS employs a variety of conservation and 

management measures to maintain appropriate levels of catch consistent with applicable sciencebased quotas or other management goals, to limit bycatch to the extent practicable, and to limit 

interactions with protected species as required. These measures include “spatial management 

techniques,” which refers to a suite of fisheries conservation and management measures that are 

based on geographic area, such as closed areas. Closed areas are typically discrete geographic areas 

where certain types of fishing are restricted or prohibited for limited periods or the entire year.

Ideally, closed areas overlap in space and time with the species habitat and/or life stages in need of 

protection. Closed areas can be particularly effective for reducing fishing mortality by certain types 

of fishing to near zero within the designated areas, because species in need of protection are not in 

danger of catch or interaction with those fishing gears, even incidentally. 

Although an effective management tool for achieving certain objectives, closed areas also reduce 

access to valuable target species, and eliminate the ability to gather some fishery-dependent data 

within the areas. Fishery-dependent data are information collected during normal fishing 

operations (e.g., catch composition, bycatch rates, fishing effort), and are a vital and cost-effective 

source of information for fisheries management. Such data have been critical in determining stock 

status, assessing bycatch levels, and in meeting other fishery management needs. In some instances, 

fishery-dependent data may be the only data from a fishery that are cost-effective and feasible 

when considering research and budgetary constraints. If normal fishing operations are curtailed or 

prohibited, as with closed areas, fishery-dependent data collection can be negatively affected and 

create data gaps that can have implications across multiple fisheries, such as a reduced 

understanding of species distribution and stock status. Ideally, when a fishery closure is 

implemented, fishery-independent monitoring can continue to take place in the closed area in order 

to assess the closure’s success and continued appropriateness over time. Unfortunately, fisheryindependent monitoring programs can be expensive, and resources to fund such research may not 

be readily available. In such cases, it may be appropriate to find ways to gather fishery-dependent 

data from active fisheries to make determinations about the effectiveness and appropriateness of a 

closed area, even though otherwise-applicable closed area restrictions may not allow such fishing.

Nevertheless, prudent management requires that the benefits of closed areas be periodically 

reviewed to evaluate if a closed area’s objectives are still being met, considering changes in fishery 
Introduction 2

conditions, such as changes in fishing effort, fleet composition, stock status, and environmental 

changes. The ocean is a highly dynamic environment and long-term shifts in fish and habitat 

distributions can potentially undermine conservation and management effectiveness if closed areas

remain static.

NOAA Fisheries has implemented a number of closed areas that curtail or prohibit fishing for 

certain Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) (i.e., tunas, sharks, swordfish, and billfish) or that 

restrict the use of certain HMS gear types. The management goals of these closed areas vary, as 

detailed in Section 2.0. Some of the goals of the closed areas are still relevant, such as conserving 

protected resources under the ESA or MMPA or to help rebuild overfished stocks as required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, some goals may no longer be as relevant, such as reducing fishing 

pressure on now-rebuilt stocks. In some cases, new management measures may be adequately 

achieving the intended conservation goals, making the closed area no longer necessary.

Furthermore, reductions in fishing effort in one area can displace fishing effort to other areas, with 

possible adverse impacts, depending on the magnitude of the effort and the geographic areas 

involved. For example, Chan et al. (2016) examined the impact of displaced effort in the Hawaiian 

swordfish fishery. This analysis found that regulatory reductions in swordfish fishing effort to 

protect sea turtles displaced effort to other areas that were not as closely regulated. In these cases, 

sea turtle bycatch increased in the less regulated areas and fleets, negating the intended benefits to 

sea turtles. The transfer of negative ecological impacts like this is termed “spillover effects.” Thus, 

HMS closed areas should be periodically evaluated for their continued utility in meeting 

management goals and legal obligations, including those under the ESA, the MMPA, and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Such reviews should include ensuring that closed areas remain 

appropriately placed to achieve ongoing conservation and management objectives, and conversely, 

that they do not unnecessarily prevent fisheries from attaining optimum yield from healthy fish 

stocks.

A systematic approach to analyzing the effectiveness of the existing HMS closed areas relative to 

original goals or new management objectives requires the collection of high-quality data on species 

distributions, catch rates, and habitat suitability in the closed areas. This document outlines options 

for enabling the collection of the data necessary to conduct such evaluations of HMS closed areas.

Purpose, Need, and Objectives

This Issues and Options Paper explores different approaches to conduct research and collect data in 

closed areas in support of HMS management. First, the Background section details the management 

history of areas that restrict or prohibit fishing for HMS species or the use of certain HMS gear 

types. The Background section also details research programs and data collection efforts and 

projects that have been used or are currently used to collect data in such closed areas. Finally, the 

Range of Potential Options section details potential approaches to collect data in closed areas.

Closed area data collection is needed for several reasons. First, in most cases, no fisheries data has 

been collected in the closed areas using affected HMS gears during times when the closure is in 

effect. This lack of data complicates, and may compromise, effective management of HMS. To 
3 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

maintain a sustainable fishery that maximizes access to fishery resources while achieving 

conservation goals, fishery managers need current and relevant catch data, along with protected 

resource interaction information. While closed areas can be effective at achieving management 

goals and objectives, such as curtailing or eliminating fishing mortality and bycatch interactions 

within the area, fishery managers need information to assess the continued effectiveness of the 

closed area in meeting the objectives. For example, geographically stationary closures that once 

protected a certain species may no longer achieve the original management goals if changing ocean 

conditions or changing stock status have altered that species’ distribution or migration patterns.

These closures may need to be moved, reduced, or expanded to meet the original goals. However, 

without recent catch and interaction data, it is difficult to measure management success or 

shortcomings. 

Second, the original goals of the closure may no longer be relevant. For example, if a closure was 

implemented to reduce fishing mortality of an overfished stock, the closure may no longer be 

needed if that stock is rebuilt. Without data from the closed areas, fishery managers cannot assess 

whether the closed areas are still needed to provide ancillary benefits to other species or whether 

the areas need to be modified. 

Third, closed areas may be redundant or obsolete in the context of new management measures. If 

the original management goals of the closure are being met through more recent management 

measures, it is possible that the closure warrants reconsideration or modification. Data collection 

can help to determine whether closed area modifications are needed in light of more recent 

management measures. 

Fourth, assessing the impact of closed areas through data collection can help achieve other Agency 

goals. For example, it is NOAA Fisheries’ goal to more fully utilize swordfish quota allocated to the 

United States by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). If 

some existing closed areas affect the U.S. fleet’s ability to harvest swordfish without offering needed 

conservation benefits for other species, due to one of the above reasons, those closed areas may 

warrant reconsideration and modification. The seafood trade imbalance is another Agency priority 

that could be impacted by inefficient closed areas. If closed areas reduce domestic catch without 

providing conservation benefits, and that reduced catch increases demand for foreign imports, the 

areas may need to be modified. While addressing goals such as full utilization of the swordfish 

quota or reducing the seafood trade imbalance, consideration must be given to possible adverse 

impacts, such as increased gear conflicts. Answering these questions depends on high-quality data 

collection in the relevant areas with the relevant gears during the relevant times.

The objectives of this Issues and Options Paper are to 1) summarize the management history and 

goals for existing HMS closed areas, and 2) begin exploring different approaches to collecting data 

in the closed areas in support of HMS management. The seven options outlined in Section 3.0 are 

not an exhaustive list. Other options may be more effective or warrant consideration, and NOAA 

Fisheries welcomes additional ideas. Additionally, some of the options may be appropriate for some 

closed areas, but not others. To the extent any closed areas or other spatial management measures 
Introduction 4

are affected or altered by other currently-ongoing NMFS rulemaking/management actions, NMFS 

will take that into account and appropriately update the areas under consideration in this actio
5 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Background

The background section provides a brief summary and management history of closed areas that 

affect HMS fisheries.

Management History of Closed Areas

Closed Areas Affecting Multiple Gear Types

Figure 1. Marine Sanctuaries, Special Management Zones, and Time/Area Closures that Restrict Use of All 

HMS Gear in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea
Background 6

Madison-Swanson, Steamboat Lumps, and Edges 40 Fathom Contour Closures

Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Closures

• Effective date: November 1, 2006 (for HMS fisheries).

• Federal Register citation: 71 FR 58057 (for HMS fisheries).

• Closure timing: Year-round, with the exception of surface trolling May to October.

• Intent: Complementary Closure in Response to GOM Fishery Management Council measures to 

protect gag grouper spawning aggregations.

• Gear type: All fishing prohibited November 1 through April 30; all fishing gears, excluding 

surface trolling, prohibited May 1 through October 31.

Edges 40 Fathom Contour Closure

• Effective date: January 1, 2009 (for HMS fisheries).

• Federal Register citation: 74 FR 66585 (for HMS fisheries).

• Closure timing: January 1 through April 30. 

• Intent: Protect gag grouper spawning aggregations.

• Gear type: All fishing gears are prohibited during the closure period.

In a series of rulemakings stretching from 2000 to 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council (GMFMC) established a number of closures designed to protect gag grouper spawning 

aggregations in the Gulf of Mexico. The first of these closures, the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat 

Lumps closures, were established in 2000 following a 1997 Gulf of Mexico gag grouper stock 

assessment, which did not consider the stock to be overfished based upon the management goals at 

the time but that overfishing may have been occurring. Additionally, several studies had 

determined fishing on spawning aggregations could disrupt spawning (Shapiro 1987), reduce size 

at spawning (Koenig et al. 1996), and even result in the loss of entire aggregations (Gilmore and 

Jones 1992). These closures initially prohibited all fishing year-round with the exception of surface 

trolling for HMS which was allowed from May 1 to October 31. The Madison-Swanson and 

Steamboat Lumps closures were initially established for four years to allow for studies to 

determine their effectiveness as conservation measures to protect gag grouper spawning 

aggregations. The closures were extended for an additional six years in 2004 before being extended 

indefinitely by Amendment 30B to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish FMP in 2009.

In addition to extending the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures indefinitely, 

Amendment 30B also established the Edges 40 Fathom Contour closure. The Edges 40 Fathom 

Contour closure was established over concerns that the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps 

closures were too small to effectively protect gag grouper spawning aggregations. To address this 

concern, the Edges 40 Fathom Contour closure was established along the 40 fathom contour 

stretching most of the way between the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closures. Shaped 

like a parallelogram, the Edges 40 Fathom Contour closure is about 390 square nautical miles (nm)

by 937 nm long and 10-12 nm wide) that straddles the 40 fathom contour west of the Florida 

Middle Grounds. Its southern border is shared with the northern border of the Steamboat Lumps 

closure, thus making it a seasonal extension of that closure. Unlike the previous closures, the Edges 

40 Fathom Contour closure only runs from January 1 to April 30 of each year, during which time 

fishing with all gear types is prohibited from the closed area, while all fishing gears are allowed the 
7 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

rest of the year. The timing of the Edges 40 Fathom Contour closure was designed to correspond 

with the time of year when most gag grouper spawning aggregations take place in the region.

Although these areas were initially established by the GMFMC, the HMS Management Division 

adopted complementary regulatory measures in the HMS regulations (50 CFR 635) in order to 

streamline enforcement and further protect gag grouper spawning aggregations. Including these 

closures in the HMS regulations made it clear that the prohibitions included fishermen targeting 

HMS with bottom longline gear.

Pelagic Longline Closed Areas

Figure 2. Time/Area Closures and Gear Restricted Areas in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf Of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea that Limit Use of Pelagic Longline Gear

East Florida Coast, Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyons Closures

East Florida Coast

• Effective date: March 1, 2001. 

• Federal Register citation: 65 FR 47213, 66 FR 8903.

• Closure timing: Year-round. 
Background 8

• Intent: Reduce bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch of undersized swordfish, billfish, 

and other overfished and protected species within the U.S. pelagic longline fishery. 

• Gear type: Pelagic longline.

Charleston Bump

• Effective date: March 1, 2001. 

• Federal Register citation: 65 FR 47213, 66 FR 8903.

• Closure timing: February 1 through April 30 each year.

• Intent: Reduce bycatch, bycatch fishing mortality, and incidental catch of undersized swordfish, 

billfish, and other overfished and protected species within the U.S. pelagic longline fishery.

• Gear type: Pelagic longline.

DeSoto Canyon

• Effective date: November 1, 2000.

• Federal Register citation: 65 FR 47213.

• Closure timing: Year-round.

• Intent: Reduce bycatch, bycatch fishing mortality, and incidental catch of undersized swordfish, 

billfish, and other overfished and protected species within the U.S. pelagic longline fishery.

• Gear type: Pelagic longline.

On August 1, 2000, NOAA Fisheries published a final rule (65 FR 47213) implementing three 

pelagic longline closed areas. One area is the Charleston Bump, which is closed to pelagic longline 

gear from February 1 to April 30 each year. This area was first effective on March 1, 2001 (66 FR 

8903, February 5, 2001). Another area is the East Florida Coast, which is closed to pelagic longline 

gear year-round. This area was also first effective on March 1, 2001 (66 FR 8903, February 5, 2001). 

The last area, the DeSoto Canyons, is closed to pelagic longline gear year-round, and was first 

effective on November 1, 2000. 

Northeastern United States June Closure

Northeastern U.S. June Closure

• Effective date: July 1, 1999.

• Federal Register citation: 64 FR 29090.

• Closure timing: June 1 through 30 each year.

• Intent: Reduce bluefin tuna discards within the pelagic longline fishery.

• Gear type: Pelagic longline. 

The Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline closed area was implemented in 1999 to reduce 

bluefin tuna discards in the pelagic longline fishery (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999). NOAA Fisheries 

determined that the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock was overfished in 1997. In addition, the 

1998 ICCAT Recommendation on western Atlantic bluefin tuna required that all Contracting 

Parties, including the United States, minimize dead discards of bluefin tuna to the extent 

practicable, and set a country-specific dead discard allowance. Given the status of bluefin tuna and 

recommendations from ICCAT at that time, NOAA Fisheries investigated a range of different options 

for time/area closures in locations with high bluefin tuna bycatch in the 1999 HMS FMP for Atlantic 
9 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

tunas, sharks, and swordfish. NOAA Fisheries finalized the Northeastern United States closed area 

based on a redistribution analysis (disbursement analysis in the Final EIS) that showed that a 

closure during the month of June could reduce bluefin tuna discards by 55 percent in this area, 

without any substantial changes to target catch or other bycatch levels. This area, located off the 

coast of New Jersey, is now closed to fishing with pelagic longline gear from June 1 through June 30 

each year.

Recently, NOAA Fisheries published a scoping paper and notice of intent (83 FR 8969, March 2, 

2018) to determine if management changes should occur in the Northeastern United States Pelagic 

Longline closed area. One of the objectives of this scoping document was to begin considering and 

analyzing whether pelagic longline fleet-wide measures intended to reduce bluefin tuna bycatch 

remain necessary given the reductions in landings and dead discards since implementation of the 

Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) program. Management options presented in the scoping document 

for the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline closed area included a no action option, 

performance access, modification of the time and/or spatial coverage, provisional application, and 

elimination of the area. During the comment period, six public meetings and a conference call were 

conducted from Louisiana to Massachusetts. Currently, NOAA Fisheries is considering the public 

comments received and in turn using them to help develop alternatives for a proposed rule 

involving the management of the pelagic longline fishery.

Northeast Distant (NED) Closed Area

NED Closed Area

• Effective Date: July 13, 2001, modified July 6, 2004.

• Federal Register citation: 66 FR 36711 (initial emergency rule); 69 FR 40734 (modified 

closure).

• Closure timing: Year-round except certain bait/gear configurations.

• Intent: Reduce sea turtle interactions and mortality within the pelagic longline fishery and 

comply with measures needed to avoid jeopardizing loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles, 

consistent with ESA consultation BiOp.

• Gear type: Pelagic longline. 

On June 30, 2000, a BiOp was issued that evaluated the current status of the loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles and concluded that the actions of the pelagic longline fishery jeopardized 

the continued existence of these species. Because of this, NOAA Fisheries reinitiated consultation on 

the HMS fisheries on September 7, 2000. 

On June 14, 2001, an updated BiOp was issued that included information from loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtle stock assessments and a NOAA Fisheries technical memorandum titled 

“Assessment of the Impact of the Pelagic Longline Fishery on the Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea 

Turtles of the Western North Atlantic in February 2001” (NOAA Fisheries, 2001). The June 2001 

BiOp specified a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that would avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of these turtles. In addition to some gear modification 

requirements, the RPA included a requirement to close the entire NED area effective July 15, 2001.

On July 9, 2002, NOAA Fisheries published a final rule (67 FR 45393) implementing most of the 
Background 10

measures required under the June 14, 2001 BiOp, including the closure of the NED statistical 

reporting area.

Based on the conclusion of a three-year experiment in the NED discussed in Section 2.2.1, and based 

on preliminary data that indicated that the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery may have exceeded the 

ITS in the June 14, 2001 BiOp, NOAA Fisheries modified the requirements of the NED closure on 

July 6, 2004 (69 FR 40734). That action, among other things, authorized pelagic longline fishing in 

the NED provided that 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset less than 10 degrees are deployed 

and only whole Atlantic mackerel and squid baits were possessed and/or utilized.

Cape Hatteras Special Research Area

Cape Hatteras Special Research Area

• Effective date: June 18, 2009.

• Federal Register citation: 74 FR 23349.

• Closure timing: Trip notification and observer requirements year-round.

• Intent: Reduce serious injuries and mortalities of pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins to 

insignificant levels approaching a zero rate within the pelagic longline fishery.

• Gear type: Pelagic longline.

In accordance with the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries convened the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team 

(PLTRT) in June 2005. Members of the PLTRT included fishermen and representatives of the 

Atlantic pelagic longline fishing industry, environmental groups, marine mammal biologists, 

fisheries biologists, and representatives of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Council, 

the Marine Mammal Commission, and NOAA Fisheries. The Agency carefully considered the 

consensus recommendations of the PLTRT in drafting the proposed rule to implement the Pelagic 

Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP), which published on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35623). The final 

rule implementing the PLTRP (May 19, 2009; 74 FR 23349) included the consensus 

recommendations of the PLTRT.

The final rule implemented a number of measures to achieve the long-term goal of reducing serious 

injuries and mortalities of pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery 

to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years of 

implementation. Among these measures was the creation of the Cape Hatteras Special Research 

Area (CHSRA) with specific observer and research participation requirements for fishermen 

operating in that area at any time during the year.

The CHSRA encompasses a 5,927 sq km (2,288 sq mile) region that had exhibited both high fishing 

effort and high pilot whale bycatch rates. NOAA Fisheries delineated the area to encompass the vast 

majority of the observed marine mammal interactions and to exclude the area where inshore 

longline vessels target yellowfin tuna and coastal sharks, since the inshore area had low observed 

marine mammal interaction rates. Pelagic longline vessels in the CHSRA are required to carry 

observers when requested. Vessels deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA 

must call the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) at least 48 hours, but no more than 96 

hours, prior to embarking on the trip. If, upon calling in, the vessel operator is informed by the 
11 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

SEFSC that no observer will be assigned and that no special research requirements will apply for 

that trip, then the vessel need not wait until its stated date and time of departure and may depart 

on its fishing trip immediately. In addition to the requirement for carrying observers, pelagic 

longline vessels fishing in the CHSRA must also participate in research. The observers will inform 

vessel operators of the specific additional investigations that may be conducted during the trip. An 

observer may direct vessel operators to modify their fishing behavior, gear, or both. Instead of or in 

addition to carrying an observer, vessels may be required to carry and deploy gear provided by 

NOAA Fisheries or an observer or modify their fishing practices. If vessels are assigned any special 

research requirements, they must participate in the research for the duration of the assignment. 

A vessel may transit through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard without meeting the 

observer and research requirements if that gear is stowed. Allowing fishing vessels to transit 

through the CHSRA with stowed gear contributes to safety at sea in the event of foul weather by 

taking the most direct route to port and may reduce fuel costs for fishing vessels as they will not 

have to transit around the CHSRA to and from port.

Pelagic Longline Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs)

Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs

• Effective date: January 1, 2015.

• Federal Register citation: 79 FR 71509.

• Closure timing: April 1 through May 31 each year.

• Intent: Reduce bluefin tuna discards within the pelagic longline fishery.

• Gear type: Pelagic longline. 

Cape Hatteras GRA

• Effective date: January 1, 2015.

• Federal Register citation: 79 FR 71509.

• Closure timing: December 1 through April 30 each year.

• Intent: Reduce bluefin tuna discards.

• Gear type: Pelagic longline. 

Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP implemented several GRAs to reduce 

pelagic longline gear interactions with bluefin tuna. One area is off the coast of Cape Hatteras and is 

closed from December 1 through April 30 annually. The Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs consist of two 

areas in the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico. Both Gulf of Mexico GRAs are closed to pelagic 

longline gear from April 1 through May 31 annually. Each of these areas were identified in 

Amendment 7 as locations of high bluefin tuna concentrations and interactions with pelagic 

longline gear.

The majority of interactions with bluefin tuna occurring in the Cape Hatteras GRA were limited to a 

few pelagic longline fishery participants. Due to this dynamic, NOAA Fisheries implemented 

performance measures to grant “qualified” fishery participants access to the area. Access is granted 

if pelagic longline vessels have a low ratio of bluefin tuna interactions to designated species (e.g., 

swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, pelagic sharks, dolphin, wahoo) landings, compliance with 
Background 12

the pelagic observer program, and timely submission of logbooks. Most recently, 101 out of 108 

vessels were granted access to the Cape Hatteras GRA.

The Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs are closed to all vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear, instead of 

being implemented with performance access, because the distribution of interactions was more 

widespread across both the area of interest and fleet participants. In comparison, performance 

metrics were deemed more appropriate for the Cape Hatteras GRA given that high numbers of 

bluefin interactions in that area resulted from the fishing behavior of a small number of vessels.

Recently, NOAA Fisheries published a scoping paper and notice of intent (83 FR 8969, March 2, 

2018) to determine if management changes should occur in both of the GRAs. One of the objectives 

of this scoping document was to begin considering and analyzing whether pelagic longline fleetwide measures intended to reduce bluefin tuna bycatch remain necessary given the reductions in 

landings and dead discards since implementation of the IBQ program. Management options 

presented in the scoping document for the Cape Hatteras and Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs were very 

similar, and included a no action option, performance access (only for Gulf of Mexico GRAs), 

modification of the time and/or spatial coverage, provisional application, and elimination of the 

areas. During the comment period, six public meetings and a conference call were conducted from 

Louisiana to Massachusetts. Currently, NOAA Fisheries is considering the public comments received 

and in turn using them to help develop alternatives for a proposed rule involving the management 

of the pelagic longline fishery.
13 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Bottom Longline Closed Areas

Figure 3. Marine Protected Areas (MPAS), Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCS), and Time/Area 

Closures that Restrict Use of Bottom Longline (BLL) Gear in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf Of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea

Mid-Atlantic Shark Closed Area

Mid-Atlantic Shark Closed Area

• Effective date: January 1, 2005.

• Federal Register citation: 68 FR 74746.

• Closure timing: January 1 through July 31 each year.

• Intent: Reduce mortality on dusky and juvenile sandbar sharks.

• Gear type: Bottom longline. 

Primarily in response to the 2002 stock assessments for large and small coastal sharks, which 

determined that certain stocks were overfished and/or had overfishing occurring, NOAA Fisheries 

developed Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. Among the 

measures implemented in the final rule to address overfishing and needed mortality reductions 

was a new time/area closure for sandbar and dusky shark nursery and pupping areas 

encompassing essential fish habitat (EFH) and HAPC areas off the coast of North Carolina. This 

time/area closure, known as the Mid-Atlantic Shark Closed Area, encompasses an area of 
Background 14

approximately 4,490 nm2, and is closed to commercial shark-permitted vessels using bottom 

longline from January through July. The closure was designed to reduce the bycatch of neonate and 

juvenile sandbar and dusky sharks which are concentrated in this area during those months. 

In August 2008, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission implemented its Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Sharks, which extended this time/area closure into adjacent 

state waters for January 1 through July 15 of each year. 

Periodic bottom longline sampling has occurred within the Mid-Atlantic Shark Closed Area through 

the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Apex Predators Program shark longline 

survey (https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/Narragansett/sharks/survey.html) and the Shark 

Research Fishery, implemented in 2008 as part of Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic 

HMS FMP (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-2-2006-consolidated-hms-fisherymanagement-plan-atlantic-shark-management-measures).

Council-Implemented Areas

Council Marine Protected Areas, Time/Area Closures, and Habitat Areas of Particular 

Concern

Several small discrete areas with sensitive bottom habitat are closed to gears that interact with 

ocean floor, including bottom longline targeting HMS. These include the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (SAFMC) marine protected areas (MPA), Caribbean Fishery Management 

Council (CFMC) time/area closures, and GMFMC HAPC. All of these areas are identified in Figure 3.

Although these areas were initially established by the Councils, the HMS Management Division also 

implemented complementary regulations for each of these closures through inclusion in the HMS

regulations in order to streamline enforcement and further protect bottom habitat. Including these 

closures in the HMS regulations made it clear that the prohibitions included fishermen targeting 

HMS with bottom longline gear.

These closures are small areas designed to protect corals and other sensitive bottom types. Because 

bottom-tending gears can cause irreparable damage to these areas and because they are small, 

NMFS currently does not anticipate these areas being a high priority for HMS fishery-dependent

research.
15 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Gillnet Closed Areas

Figure 4. Time/Area Closures that Restrict Use of Gillnet Gear in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf Of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea

Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area

Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area

• Effective date: November 15, 1997; November 1, 2014.

• Federal Register citation: 62 FR 39157, July 22, 1997; 64 FR 7529, February 16, 1999; 79 FR 

36586, June 27, 2014.

• Closure timing: Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North: November 15 through April 15. Southeast 

U.S. Restricted Area South: December 1 through March 31. Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area: 

December 1 through March 31.

• Intent: Implemented as part of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) to 

reduce serious injuries and deaths of large whales due to entanglement in commercial fishing 

gear.

• Gear type: Gillnet. 

The first ALWTRP went into effect in 1997 to reduce serious injury and mortality to four large 

whale stocks (North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale, and minke whale) that occur 
Background 16

incidental to several fisheries (62 FR 39157, July 22, 1997; 64 FR 7529, February 16, 1999). The 

ALWTRP final rule included regulations implementing a Southeast U.S. restricted area and a 

Southeast U.S. observer area for shark drift gillnet fisheries. The regulations contained in the 

ALWTRP final rule have been updated several times, most recently in 2014, to revise management 

measures for reducing the incidental mortality and serious injury to North Atlantic right whales, 

humpback whales, and fin whales due to vertical lines in commercial trap/pot and gillnet fisheries 

(79 FR 36586, June 27, 2014). The 2014 final rule implemented the current Southeast U.S. 

Restricted Area and Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area for gillnet gear, including shark gillnet, as 

described at 50 CFR § 229.32(f) and (h) and shown in Figure 5. ALWTRP gillnet gear provisions 

were added to the HMS regulations in Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP 

(75 FR 30483, June 1, 2010), currently at 50 CFR § 635.21(g)(1). Gillnet gear restrictions and 

requirements for these two areas are summarized in the ALWTRP Southeast Gillnet Gear Guide 

(https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/docs/Outreach%20Guides%

20Updated%20May%202015/southeast_gillnet_2015.pdf).

Examples of Past Closed Area Research and Data Collection

Pelagic Longline-Sea Turtle Bycatch Reduction Research in the Northeast Distant 

(NED) Restricted Fishing Area

A major concern in the management of the Atlantic HMS fisheries has been the incidental take and 

mortality of threatened and endangered species, including loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.

The June 2001 BiOp concluded that the long-term operation of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline 

fishery at its historical level of interaction with sea turtles, taken together with the status of the 

species, the environmental baseline, and cumulative effects on the species, was likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS, 2001). To address this 

jeopardy finding, on July 9, 2002, NOAA Fisheries published a final rule (67 FR 45393) to 

implement the measures required by the June 2001 BiOp, including closure of the NED statistical 

reporting area to pelagic longline fishing because the area had the highest incidental take rate of 

sea turtles by the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet. The closure comprised an area of 2,631,000 

square nautical miles (nm2), including the Grand Banks and other fishing locations.

The June 2001 BiOp also instructed NOAA Fisheries to conduct research into sea turtle bycatch and 

avoidance techniques and to execute rulemaking to require the adoption of bycatch reduction 

measures before pelagic longline vessels could be allowed to fish within the NED again. NOAA 

Fisheries researchers, in consultation and cooperation with the U.S Atlantic pelagic longline fleet, 

developed a research program to evaluate the efficacy of new technologies and changes in fishing 

practices to reduce sea turtle interactions. Funding for the NED research program was provided by 

NOAA Fisheries. The goal of the experiment was to develop effective pelagic longline gear and/or 

fishing modifications to reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality sufficiently (a 55 percent 

reduction) so that the NED pelagic longline closed area could be reopened. Field research personnel 

included NOAA Fisheries fishery biologists, NOAA Fisheries biological technicians, fishery 

observers, and commercial pelagic longline vessel operators and crew that had historically fished in 

the NED area. The experimental fishery used a limited number of qualifying commercial pelagic 
17 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

longline fishing vessels (12–14 vessels) as research platforms. The research experiment focused 

upon measures that involved modifications to the actual fishing gear, rather than efforts to change 

the timing or location of fishing.

In 2001, the experiment evaluated the effect of gangions placed two gangion lengths from floatlines, 

the effect of blue-dyed bait on target catch and sea turtle interactions, and the effectiveness of 

dipnets, line clippers, and dehooking devices. These results of the 2001 study led to the conclusion 

that the measures tested were not successful in reducing interactions between sea turtles and 

pelagic longline gear.

The 2002 NED experiment commenced in July 2002. Thirteen participating vessels deployed 501 

pelagic longline sets with 100 percent observer coverage. The results indicated that a significant 

reduction in loggerhead catch could be achieved by reducing daylight soak time. Also, 18/0 circle 

hooks and mackerel bait were found to significantly reduce both loggerhead and leatherback sea 

turtle interactions when compared with industry standard J hooks and squid bait. Additionally, 

circle hooks significantly reduced the rate of hook ingestion by loggerhead turtles, thereby reducing 

the post-hooking mortality associated with the interactions. The combination of 18/0 circle hooks 

and mackerel bait was found to be the most effective mitigation measure for both loggerhead and 

leatherback turtles.

The two primary research goals for the 2003 research were: (1) to confirm the effects of 18/0 circle 

hook and mackerel bait on sea turtle bycatch reduction and target species catch to ensure their 

applicability across a range of oceanographic conditions, fishing operational characteristics, and 

target species; and, (2) evaluate two new hook types to understand the relative contributing roles 

of hook size and hook shape on loggerhead and leatherback turtle capture and swordfish catch.

Eleven participating vessels deployed 539 sets with 100 percent observer coverage in 2003.

An annual report with research results and management recommendations was provided by NOAA 

Fisheries in 2004. Sea turtle reduction rates calculated for various experimental treatments (hook 

and bait combinations) were standardized to control for several variables including sea surface 

temperature, daylight soak time, total soak time, vessel effect, and pairing effect in case of matched 

paired hook types per set. The research identified various sea turtle bycatch mitigation techniques, 

primarily involving hook and bait combinations that reduced turtle interactions by a range of 50 to 

90 percent, depending upon the hook treatment and the species. The standardized results are 

summarized below. 
Background 18

Table 1. Results of the 2003 NED Study

Loggerhead Leatherback Swordfish Tuna

18/0 non-offset circle hook with squid 

(compared with 9/0 “J”-hook and squid)

-74% - 75% -30% +25% (not 

statistically 

significant)

18/0 offset circle hook with squid 

(compared with 9/0 “J”-hook and squid) 

(2002 tested-only)

-85% - 50% -29% Non-statistically 

significant increase

9/0 “J”-Hook with mackerel bait 

(compared to 9/0 J-hook with squid) 

(2002 tested only)

-75% - 67% +63% -90 %

18/0 offset circle hook with whole 

mackerel (compared to 9/0 “J” hook 

with squid)

-92% - 67% +16% -84 %

The results of the NED experimental fishery demonstrated that loggerhead and leatherback sea 

turtle interactions could be significantly reduced by employing 18/0 circle hooks with 10° offset 

and the use of mackerel bait in place of squid bait. Importantly, when the two treatments were used 

in combination, the resulting reduction in turtle interactions could be obtained without negatively 

impacting swordfish catch. These realized reductions in sea turtle bycatch were greater than what 

was required in the 2001 BiOp to re-open the NED to U.S. fishermen. 

In 2004, NOAA Fisheries implemented the fishery management measures that had been proven 

effective in the NED experiment at reducing sea turtle interactions and that were specified as 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) in the newly issued pelagic longline BiOp (June 2004).

These measures included: (1) circle hook and bait restrictions for all Atlantic pelagic longline 

vessels fishing for HMS; (2) re-opening the NED to Atlantic pelagic longline fishing for HMS with 

specified circle hook and bait restrictions; 3) required possession and use of certain equipment to 

safely remove fishing hooks and line from incidentally caught sea turtles; and 4) required 

possession of new sea turtle handling and release guidelines. These management measures remain 

in place today and have been effective at complying with the June 2004 pelagic longline BiOp.

Shark Research Fishery

In 2006, sandbar and dusky sharks were determined to be overfished with overfishing occurring.

To address this determination, among other things, NOAA Fisheries developed Amendment 2 to the 
19 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (July 15, 2008; 73 FR 40657) which prohibited targeting and 

retention of sandbar sharks in the recreational fishery and most of the commercial fisheries. Since a 

prohibition of sandbar sharks would eliminate fishery-dependent data collection on the species, 

Amendment 2 also implemented a shark research fishery to allow limited retention of sandbar 

sharks by commercial fishermen operating under a scientific research plan developed by the SEFSC.

Creation of the shark research fishery allows for the continued collection of fishery-dependent 

sandbar shark data.

Each year, NOAA Fisheries solicits applications for commercial fishermen to participate in the shark 

research fishery. Selected applicants are chosen based on research priorities and priority is given to 

qualified directed shark permit holders who can participate year-round and who affirmatively state 

that they intend to do so, in order to ensure timely and accurate data collection needed to meet a 

given year’s research objectives. Qualified incidental permit holders will be selected only if there 

are not enough qualified directed permit holders. Geographic distribution of participants is also 

considered during the selection process to address spatial needs of the research objectives.

All trips operating under the shark research fishery are required to maintain 100 percent observer 

coverage. The research fishery is also subject to terms and conditions that have slightly changed 

since the program’s inception. In 2018, NOAA Fisheries split 90 percent of the sandbar and large 

coastal shark research fishery quotas equally among selected participants, with each vessel 

allocated individual sandbar and large coastal shark research fishery quotas. The Agency also 

established a dusky bycatch limit, specific to this small research fishery, for each of four regions 

across the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. The dusky bycatch limit specified that when three or more 

dusky sharks were brought to the vessel dead in any of the four regions, the shark research fishery 

permit holders in that region would be limited to a three-hour soak time. If, after the change in soak 

time, three or more additional dusky shark interactions (alive or dead) were observed in the region, 

shark research fishery permit holders would not be able to make a trip in that region for the 

remainder of the year, unless otherwise permitted by NOAA Fisheries. Participants were also 

required to keep any dead sharks, unless the sharks were prohibited species, in which case they 

were required to release or discard them. In addition, participants are restricted by the number of 

longline sets as well as the number of hooks they can deploy and have on board the vessel. Vessels 

participating in the shark research fishery typically fish an average of one trip per month. The 

selected vessels may also land other large coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, and some pelagic 

sharks.

The shark research fishery helps maintain time series data for stock assessments, collect biological 

data, and meet shark research objectives. The research fishery also allows selected fishermen the 

opportunity to earn more revenue from selling additional sharks, including sandbar sharks, outside 

of the commercial shark fishery. The commercial vessels selected to participate in the shark 

research fishery are the only vessels that are authorized to land/harvest sandbar sharks subject to 

the sandbar shark quota available for each year.
Background 20

Current EFP Program

The HMS Management Division issues exempt fishing permits (EFP), scientific research permits 

(SRP), display permit, and letters of acknowledgement (LOA) on an annual basis. At the end of a 

given year the Division announces its intent to issue permits in the next year. This announcement is 

done via a notice in the Federal Register, which describes the permits and catch from the previous 

year and any potential new applications the Division may receive in the upcoming year. This notice 

typically has a 30-day comment period, which provides constituents an opportunity to comment on 

the issuance of EFPs for a given year. Once the comment period is over and the Division reviews 

comments, staff begin the permit issuance process. If the Atlantic HMS Management Division 

receives any applications that were outside the scope of the annual notice of intent, a separate 

notice would be published in the Federal Register to provide additional opportunity to comment on 

the application.

Researchers and aquaria collectors interested in EFPs and related permits must complete an 

application which is available online. Once a complete application is submitted to the Atlantic HMS 

Management Division, it is reviewed and assigned to a staff member. All EFPs and related permits 

go through multiple levels of review within the Atlantic HMS Management Division, the Office of 

General Council, and Office of Law Enforcement. Typically, it can take at least 60 days to issue an 

EFP or any other related permits. Permits are issued for research on all types of Atlantic HMS, that 

research could involve tagging for migration or post-release mortality studies or biological 

sampling for genetic research. In any given year, the Division can issue between 30 and 40 EFPs and 

related permits.

2017 EFP for pelagic longline research in East Florida Coast Closed Area

In 2001 and 2002, several areas along the Atlantic Coast were closed to the commercial pelagic 

longline fishery to reduce the bycatch of juvenile swordfish and other species. One of the areas was 

the East Florida Coast (EFC) Pelagic Longline Closed Area, established in 2001. Since then, new 

regulatory measures have been established for the pelagic longline fishery and the number of active 

vessels in the fishery has been reduced by approximately 50 percent. The swordfish population has 

been declared fully rebuilt, and measures to reduce the bycatch of non-target species such as 

bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and certain shark species have been implemented. Under these changed 

circumstances, the effects and effectiveness of the EFC Pelagic Longline Closed Area has been 

largely unknown because little pelagic longline fishing activity has occurred in the area since 2001.

On Nov. 3, 2016, a researcher from NOVA Southeastern University applied for an EFP to evaluate 

the impacts of fishing with pelagic longline gear in the northern portion of the EFC pelagic longline 

Closed Area. An EFP authorizes the harvest of species and allows fishing activities that would 

otherwise be prohibited. The EFP would allow for the deployment of pelagic longline gear on six 

vessels to catch swordfish and tunas while evaluating the bycatch of non-target juvenile swordfish 

and other species. Swordfish caught as part of the study would be sold to offset the cost of fishery 

observers and other expenses. After a public comment period, NOAA Fisheries issued the permit 

with several modifications on August 11, 2017. During the comment period the EFP received 

significant criticism from the recreational fishery, the State of Florida, and congressional 
21 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

representatives. However, NOAA Fisheries did receive support from some in the commercial 

industry, conservation community, and academia. In response to these concerns, NOAA Fisheries 

reduced the number of authorized sets from 1,080 sets/year to 720 sets/year. Observers were 

required on 40 percent of sets, and 100 percent of sets were subject to electronic monitoring. A 

bycatch threshold was established for dusky sharks and several conditions were implemented to 

improve and verify shark identification. The EFP also included a provision whereby NOAA Fisheries 

could stop the research, if warranted.

No research activity occurred under the EFP. On December 14, 2017, NOAA Fisheries received a 

revised EFP application changing the affiliation of the principal investigator from NOVA 

Southeastern University to Florida Fisheries Solutions, LLC. No other aspect of the research project 

was changed. NOAA Fisheries notified the applicant and the public in February 2018 that, with 

submission of the new EFP application, the original EFP was no longer valid. The revised 

application was subsequently reviewed and denied on August 29, 2018. The revised application 

was denied because the Agency needed a more detailed articulation of project goals for closed area 

research and a comprehensive, transparent approach to research of that scale. Additionally, NOAA 

Fisheries determined that denial of the individual EFP application was appropriate while other 

approaches to research and data collection are evaluated to ensure that the Agency is meeting the 

goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS (FMP).
Range of Potential Options 22

Range of Potential Options

In this chapter, NOAA Fisheries sets out a broad range of options to collect data and perform 

research in closed areas. Some options may require consideration in a later draft NEPA document 

and proposed rule.

Option 1: No action. Continue to authorize any closed area research through the 

current HMS EFP program.

NOAA Fisheries would continue to consider authorizing closed area research as EFP 

applications/requests are submitted as described in Section 2.2.3. Closed area research generally 

has been considered to be outside the scope of the anticipated range of EFP requests included in 

annual notices to the public. Each EFP application for closed area research during normal fishing 

operations likely would need to undergo separate NEPA analysis and public comment, depending 

on the scope of the proposal, its potential effects, and controversiality.

Pros: This option would maintain the current practices the Agency uses for granting access to the 

closed areas. Depending on the scope of the proposal, its potential effects, and controversiality, each 

application/research project likely would require a separate NEPA analysis for environmental 

impacts. Having analyses tailored to the complexities of each research project would give NOAA 

Fisheries the opportunity to develop more accurate ecological and socio-economic impacts. This 

option would also provide the public opportunity for input on each project for which NOAA 

Fisheries receives applications. This option would most likely have a limited number of applicants 

and vessels fishing within the closed areas.

Cons: As described in Section 1.4.3, this option would issue separate permits for each activity and 

may take substantially more than 60 days to issue each permit given associated NEPA analyses and 

public comment periods. Each project would require coordination between researchers and fishery 

participants to develop a research plan. Research projects may not be granted for all of the closed 

areas, which would leave some areas devoid of data. Permits would be issued on an annual basis 

and would need to be renewed each year to continue the research. This option may not be 

accessible by all fishery participants if not selected by a researcher. With this option, NOAA 

Fisheries has some control over the type of research, timing, and management applicability, but the 

projects would not be designed and carried out by the Agency but rather by the permit applicant. 

Option 2: Authorize closed area research through a streamlined HMS EFP process; 

streamline process of issuing HMS EFPs for closed area research.

For this option, NOAA Fisheries would analyze effects of a variety of potential closed area research 

activities across multiple closed areas in a single NEPA document. The NEPA document would be 

available for public comment, and would likely establish a general research plan for researchers to 

follow. Analyzing the effects of potential research activities before the EFP closed area research 
23 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

application process begins could simplify EFP issuance. Templates for permits for these projects

could be drafted and reviewed by the Atlantic HMS Management Division, Office of General Counsel, 

and Office of Law Enforcement. 

Pros: Bundling the NEPA analyses for all potential closed area research could streamline the public 

comment process and permit issuance. Establishing the research protocols in a single action would 

be transparent for the public. Such a process could decrease the lag time of review and issuance of 

permits. This process may increase incentives for researchers to investigate the validity of Atlantic 

HMS closed areas.

Cons: While ecological and socioeconomic impacts would be analyzed in a single NEPA document, 

this option would not provide the public an opportunity to comment on each individual EFP 

application submitted by researchers and could be controversial given the opposition to an EFP 

process NOAA Fisheries began in 2017, described in Section 1.4.4 of this document. However, the 

NEPA analysis would not take into account subsequent changes in each research plan and 

application submitted to the Agency. If needed, addendums to NEPA analysis may be necessary as 

research is carried out over time. Additionally, this option may not provide a vehicle for data 

collection for all of the Atlantic HMS closed areas. Lastly, this option may not be accessible by all 

fishery participants if not selected by a researcher. With this option, NOAA Fisheries has some 

control over the type of research, timing, and management applicability, although projects would 

not be designed and carried out by the Agency but rather by the permit applicant. This option 

would not require a large commitment of Agency resources as permittees would fund their own 

project.

Option 3: Collect data on closed area catch through an observed access program.

Under Option 3, fishing vessels with an observer on board could enter and fish in closed areas. The 

existing observer program selection process would not be altered or expanded, so only those 

vessels chosen to carry an observer, and that have an observer on board, would be allowed access 

to fish in the closed area. Current reporting requirements would apply, such as logbooks, electronic 

monitoring, vessel monitoring reports, and dealer reports, supplemented by observer reports. This 

information and data could be used by fishery managers and scientists when assessing the 

effectiveness of closed areas. This option would also require rulemaking, NEPA analyses, and public 

comment but would not require annual EFPs.

Pros: This option would not require a large commitment of Agency resources since fishermen 

would voluntarily fish in closed areas to catch marketable fish. Data collected under this option 

would be directly relevant to normal fishing activities. This option would also provide access to the 

closed areas to all vessels in the fleet when an observer is onboard.

Cons: This option would allow minimal agency control since fishermen decide if, when, and where 

to fish rather than operating under a formal research plan. This option would also likely take more 

time to gather a sufficient amount of consistent data to analyze. Observer coverage varies by gear 

type, so not all fleets would have the same amount of access to closed areas. The Agency would 

receive varying amounts of observer data for different closed areas depending on the gear type and 

the observer coverage. 
Range of Potential Options 24

Option 4: Institute an HMS closed area research program, similar to the current shark 

research fishery. 

In the shark research fishery, implemented in 2008 as part of Amendment 2, fishermen apply to be 

part of the program and operate under an EFP. If accepted, they are authorized to fish for and retain 

sandbar and other sharks. When a shark research fishery participant plans to fish for sandbar 

sharks, they must carry an observer and fish in a manner and location consistent with the terms 

and conditions of their permit, as derived from research needs. Shark research fishery participants 

must also abide by shark retention limits and dusky shark bycatch caps. In the case of dusky shark 

bycatch caps, fishermen must limit soak times once a certain number of dusky sharks are caught. If 

additional dusky sharks are caught, regional closures are triggered in the shark research fishery.

Under this option, fishermen could apply to a closed area research project to fish in certain closed 

areas. NOAA Fisheries would create an overarching HMS closed area research plan, setting 

requirements for closed area fishing, observer coverage, fishing location, and season. These would 

be commercial fishing trips, but there would be significant data collection and a number of 

constraints governed by NOAA’s specific research plan.

Pros: This option could provide for more formal data collection and more rigorous analysis.

Participation would be voluntary, and most costs for the data collection would be borne by the 

participating vessels. The research plan could be altered each year in response to changing needs of 

the fishery and management. 

Cons: This option would require a substantial commitment of Agency resources as both time and 

personnel. The program would require adequate availability of observer coverage, which would 

have to be coordinated with other observer program priorities.

Option 5: Conduct closed area research through public/private partnerships, partially 

funded by NOAA Fisheries, similar to the 2001–2003 NED research program. 

NOAA Fisheries could consider authorizing closed area research as described in Section 1.4.1. 

Under this option, vessels would be authorized through an EFP with specified terms and conditions 

to fish in certain closed areas under an Agency-developed research plan. Vessel operators would be 

selected to participate in the project by NOAA Fisheries based upon their willingness to participate, 

their agreement to abide by the requirements of the research experimental design, and their 

understanding of the scientific principles. If a vessel did not strictly adhere to the research 

protocols, their participation in the experiment could be terminated. All research would be 

conducted by vessel operators with direct oversight by a NOAA employee, contracted biological 

technician, or a fishery observer. To incentivize fishing in closed areas with unknown catch rates, 

the Agency could consider compensation fishing arrangements or whether it could pay some 

portion of the vessel operating costs. Vessel operators could also cooperatively work with NOAA 

researchers to determine fishing locations and times or other variables. 

Pros: This option could allow for a formalized research plan developed and controlled by NOAA 

Fisheries that could provide for robust and reproducible research results. All experimental fishing 

activity would be observed by NOAA employees, contracted biological technicians, or fishery 

observers. Vessel operators would be given access to fish in closed areas in exchange for their 
25 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

participation in the project. However, participation in the project could be terminated if a vessel did 

not strictly adhere to research protocols. Vessel operators could be allowed to sell any marketable 

catch and/or could be compensated by the Agency for serving as research platforms. 

Cons: This option would likely be very expensive for NOAA Fisheries. These expenses could include 

personnel costs to deploy NOAA employees and/or observers, costs to compensate participating 

vessels, and costs to conduct the research. Vessel operators would have less control over fishing 

activities which could reduce their catch. This approach would also have to carefully consider legal 

implications and project structuring and scope if non-governmental/private partners were 

selected.

Option 6: Conduct closed area research through a research program led by NOAA 

Fisheries, using NOAA or contract vessels. 

Under this option, NOAA Fisheries would design, fund, and execute a series of formal research 

projects to study closed areas and their effectiveness. Separate research cruises would need to be 

initiated, or existing ones modified, to assess closures for pelagic and bottom longline gear and 

gillnet gear. NOAA Fisheries scientists would be tasked with designing survey cruises using each 

gear type to randomly sample HMS within and without the respective gear closures to assess the 

effectiveness of the closures for minimizing bycatch and maximizing targeted catch of HMS. These 

cruises would require either the use of NOAA research vessels or contracting with commercial 

vessels to do the required data collection. The latter option is likely to be preferred due to costs and 

a desire to use vessels similar to those used in the respective fisheries. In the later scenario, NOAA 

Fisheries scientists would accompany the vessel to coordinate fishing, process fish, and collect data 

while the contracted fishermen would set and haulback the fishing gear while assisting in 

processing fish. The collected information and data would be used by fishery manager and 

scientists to assess the effectiveness of closed areas. This option would not require rulemaking, but 

would require NEPA analysis and the issuance of annual EFPs. With this option, NOAA Fisheries 

would have the greatest amount of control over the type of research conducted, its timing, and 

management applicability within the limits of available funding and resources. This option would 

require significant commitment of Agency resources in funding, vessel resources, and scientific 

personnel.

Pros: This option would likely provide the most temporally and geographically broad research plan 

resulting in scientifically-rigorous data and results. NOAA Fisheries would have the greatest level of 

control of research operations to ensure they answer the needed research questions while 

minimizing bycatch of protected species.

Cons: The results of NOAA Fisheries led research cruises may or may not be applicable to normal 

fishing activities, depending on study design. This option is also the most expensive with vessel, 

equipment, and personnel costs likely to be very high over the course of the various gear-based 

studies. This approach would also have to carefully consider legal implications and project 

structuring and scope if non-governmental/private partners were selected.
Range of Potential Options 26

Option 7: Performance-based closed area access.

Performance-based access under this option would allow access to closed areas for fishermen that 

meet Agency-established criteria, for purposes of collecting data in those areas. This option would 

be similar to access to the Cape Hatteras GRA. In Amendment 7, NOAA Fisheries implemented 

performance metrics for pelagic longline vessels to gain access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, as 

described at 50 CFR § 635.14. The Cape Hatteras GRA performance metrics are for bluefin tuna 

interactions, observer compliance, and logbook compliance, and are evaluated each year based on 

data from the previous three years. Research performance metrics would likely not be the same as 

those for the Cape Hatteras GRA, but could include observer and reporting requirement compliance 

(e.g., submission of logbooks or electronic monitoring hard drives), as well as metrics for 

interactions with species for which a given area was implemented (e.g., bluefin tuna interactions in 

the Northeastern U.S. June closure; interactions with undersized swordfish and billfish in the 

Charleston Bump). Additional conditions of performance-based access could include specific 

reporting requirements to further data collection.

Pros: Vessels that have access to closed areas would be able to provide NOAA Fisheries with data on 

interactions with species of interest, and the larger number of vessels allowed access, the more data 

would be available to analyze. Compared to other options like observed closed area access or EFPs, 

this option could provide a greater quantity of data, while still allowing NOAA Fisheries to establish 

criteria and requirements for access. This option would also have lower administrative costs than 

options like observed access or access by NOAA research vessels. Performance metrics for research 

purposes would not necessarily be the same as for the Cape Hatteras GRA, but for comparison, in 

recent years, 101 out of 108 pelagic longline vessels with fishing activity in the period analyzed 

were granted access to the Cape Hatteras GRA and thus are continuing to contribute fisheries data 

in that area. Levels of interactions with species of interest could be kept low in these areas by 

allowing access to vessels that have demonstrated the ability to avoid those species. In addition, 

since implementing performance metrics for the Cape Hatteras GRA, compliance with the Pelagic 

Observer Program and with timely logbook submission has increased, and implementing 

performance metrics for additional areas or gear types could further increase relevant reporting 

compliance. The performance-based access could provide an incentive for fishermen to further 

avoid bycatch or interactions in those areas, promote innovation in gear and fishing techniques, and 

allow fishermen to maintain their knowledge of fishing and marine conditions in those areas.

Allowing performance-based access would also allow participation by a greater number of vessels 

than would the other options. Allowing performance-based access to closed areas would also 

relieve economic impacts to shoreside industries that are somewhat reliant on servicing fishing 

vessels operating in those regions.

Cons: Granting access to these areas may not maintain the same level of reductions of interactions 

with given species as estimated when the areas were put in place, and this option would allow 

access by a greater number of vessels than other options. Performance-based access would not be 

organized under a formal research plan, which could hinder data analyses if fishing patterns are not 

equivalent to data collection design under a research plan. Usage of these areas by vessels that have 

been granted access may be inconsistent from year to year and maybe be affected by market forces 

and target catch availability in those areas, which could make data analysis difficult.
27 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

References

Chan, H. L. and M. Pan, 2016. Spillover Effects of Environmental Regulation for Sea Turtle 

Protection in the Hawaii Longline Swordfish Fishery. Marine Resource Economics 31, no. 3: 259-

279.

Gilmore, R. G. and R. J. Jones. 1992. Color variation and associated behavior in the epinepheline 

groupers, Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode and Bean) and M. phenax (Jordan and Swain). Bull. Mar. 

Sci. 51 (1): 83-103. 

Koenig, C. C., F. C. Coleman, L. A. Collins, Y. Sadovy, and P. L. Colin. 1996. Reproduction in gag, 

Mycteroperca microlepis, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the consequences of fishing spawning 

aggregations. In F. Arreguin-Sanchez, J. L. Monro, M. C. Balgos and D. Pauly (eds.) Biology, Fisheries 

and culture of tropical groupers and snappers. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 48, 449 p. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and an 

assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea 

turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution PRD-00/01-0

Shapiro, M. J. 1987. Reproduction in groupers. Pp. 295 – 327 in: J. J. Polovina and S. Ralstin (ed.). 

Tropical Snappers and Groupers: Biology and Fisheries Management. Westview Press, Boulder, Co.