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

DRAFT REGULATORY AMENDMENT TO 

MODIFY PELAGIC LONGLINE 

BLUEFIN TUNA AREA-BASED AND

WEAK HOOK MANAGEMENT MEASURES

May 2019

NOAA 

FISHERIES 

Tab M, No. 4(d)
DRAFT REGULATORY AMENDMENTTO MODIFY PELAGIC LONGLINE BLUEFIN TUNA AREA-BASED 

AND 

WEAK HOOK MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

Including:

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement,

A Draft Regulatory Impact Review,

An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

A Draft Social Impact Analysis 

May 2019 

Highly Migratory Species Management Division

Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
Draft Regulatory Amendment to Modify Pelagic Longline Bluefin Tuna Area-Based and Weak Hook 

Management Measures 

Abstract: Through the rulemaking process, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) is considering whether current area-based and gear management

measures are still necessary to reduce and/or maintain low numbers of 

bluefin tuna discards and interactions in the pelagic longline fishery for 

Atlantic highly migratory species, given other, more recent conservation and

management measures implemented in the fishery. This evaluation is 

necessary given the IBQ Program’s shift in management focus towards 

individual vessel accountability for bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic

longline fishery; the continued underharvest of quotas in the associated

target fisheries, particularly the swordfish quota; comments from the public 

and the HMS Advisory Panel members indicating that certain regulations

may be redundant in effect; and requests from the public and HMS Advisory

Panel members to reduce regulatory burden and remove duplicative 

regulations. NMFS takes these actions to (1) continue to appropriately

conserve and manage Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS), including 

bluefin tuna; 2) simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS management; (2) 

optimize the ability of the pelagic longline fishery to harvest target species 

quotas (e.g., swordfish); and (4) continue to minimize, to the extent 

practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna by pelagic longline 

gear. 

Proposed Actions: Undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need for the 

Northeastern United States Closed Area and the Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Area; remove the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area; adjust the 

Gulf of Mexico weak hook effective period from year-round to seasonal

(January - June). 

Statement Type: Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Initial Regulatory Impact Review;

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Initial Social Impact Statement 

Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service 

For Further Information: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1)

1315 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 427-8503 

263 13th Ave South 

Saint Petersburg, FL 33701

(727) 824-5399 
Executive Summary 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering whether current regulations are still

necessary to achieve conservation and management objectives for the pelagic longline fishery, or if 

measures can be streamlined to eliminate regulations that are redundant in effect. 

Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic

Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must, consistent with ten

National Standards, manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield on a continuing basis while preventing

overfishing. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may

be necessary and appropriate to carry out recommendations of the International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens

Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. The

measures proposed in this amendment and associated rulemaking are taken under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. Currently, Atlantic sharks, tunas, swordfish, and billfish are managed

under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP)

and its amendments. 

The implementation of Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (79 FR 71510; December 2,

2014)(Amendment 7) in 2015 shifted the focus of managing bluefin tuna bycatch in the HMS pelagic

longline fishery from fleet-wide management measures to individual vessel accountability for such

bycatch through the implementation of a bluefin tuna catch share program (i.e., the Individual Bluefin

Quota, or IBQ Program). The preliminary results of a Draft Three-Year Review of the IBQ Program

indicate that a management strategy of individual vessel accountability has successfully reduced bluefin

tuna dead discards, improved timely catch reporting across the fleet, and addressed previous problems

with bluefin tuna pelagic longline category quota overages. Furthermore, the Draft Review also implies

that there is a healthy, functioning IBQ allocation leasing market to support the IBQ Program. However,

effort as defined by number of vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear, trips, sets, and hooks within the 

pelagic longline fishery has continued to decrease. In addition, quotas established for target species (e.g.,

swordfish) are still not being met despite a targeted program of fishery revitalization that has been

underway since 2007. 

Since implementation of Amendment 7 management measures, NMFS has received comments from

pelagic longline fishery participants and other interested parties to examine whether older fleet-wide

measures such as gear requirements, area restrictions, or time/area closures are still necessary to

reduce bluefin tuna bycatch and still meet the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its

amendments. In other words, there are concerns that certain regulations may be redundant in effect.

Commenters (including the public and HMS Advisory Panel members) specifically requested that NMFS

evaluate and potentially reduce regulatory burden or remove regulations that may be redundant with

the IBQ program. On March 2, 2018 (83 FR 8969), NMFS published a scoping document that evaluated

management options for three spatially managed areas and gear-based regulations, all of which were 

implemented with the objective of reducing bluefin tuna dead discards or interactions. NMFS received

approximately 275 unique comments during the public comment period (March 2, 2018 through May 1,

2018). Comments were received that were both in support of and opposed to changes in the regulations.

Additionally, comments included three letter writing campaign batch submissions that totaled 13,444

form letters, most of which were opposed to any management changes in the Gulf of Mexico out of

concern for protecting the Northwest Atlantic stock of spawning bluefin. All comment submissions were

considered in the development of this proposed rule. 

i 
In this document, NMFS considers a reasonable range of alternative management measures to evaluate 

potential adjustments to conservation and management measures that could both meet domestic and

international management objectives for bluefin tuna and the pelagic longline fishery, and reduce 

unnecessary regulatory burden by streamlining, simplifying, or modifying potentially redundant

regulations. For each spatially managed area, NMFS evaluates management alternatives that could

retain current management measures; modify the boundaries of spatially managed areas by time or

space; implement performance metrics to grant vessels controlled access to spatially managed areas if

they have low rates of bluefin interactions and high compliance with observer and reporting (i.e.

logbooks) requirements; establish an evaluation program in order to collect information to inform

future management decisions for the area; or eliminate the spatially managed area. NMFS also evaluates

three alternatives concerning weak hook regulations with the following alternatives: retain the current

year round weak hook requirement in the Gulf of Mexico; implement seasonal, voluntary use of weak

hooks; and elimination of the weak hook requirement. 

Consistent with the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 C.F.R. 1501-1508

(CEQ Regulations), this document identifies the preferred alternatives that would meet conservation

and management objectives while also reducing regulatory burden and providing additional

opportunity to harvest target species. A full description and analysis of the different alternatives can be 

found in Chapters 2 and 4 of this document. The list of preferred alternatives can be found below (Table 

0.1); the list of the full range of alternatives considered can be found in Chapter 2. The cumulative 

ecological impacts of the preferred alternatives are expected to be minor and beneficial, while the 

socioeconomic impacts are expected to be minor and adverse. 

NMFS will take public comment into consideration before finalizing any alternatives, and the proposed

measures may be altered or different alternatives may be adopted at the final rule stage. The CEQ

regulations direct Federal agencies to the full extent possible to integrate the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with other planning and environmental review procedures

required by law or by agency practice so that all procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.

To that end, this document integrates the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) required by

NEPA with the fisheries planning and management requirements associated with proposed amendment

to an FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis required under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §§601-603; and the Regulatory Impact Review prepared in

accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” 

Table 0.1 Preferred Alternatives in the DEISfor Pelagic LonglineBluefin Tuna Area-Based andWeak 

Hook Management Measures 

Preferred Alternatives in DEIS 

Northeastern United States 

Closed Area 

Alternative A4 

Undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need for the Northeastern 

United States Pelagic Longline Closure 

Cape Hatteras Gear 

Restricted Area 

Alternative B2 

Elimination of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas 

Alternative C3 

Undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need for the Spring Gulf 

of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

Weak hooks Alternative D2 

Seasonal requirement for Weak Hooks 

ii 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................................i 

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................iii 

List of Figures...........................................................................................................................................................................vi 

List of Tables..........................................................................................................................................................................viii 

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

1.1 Brief Management History and Public Feedback..................................................................................2 

1.1.1 Pelagic Longline Fishery Management Overview.................................................................2 

1.1.2 Pelagic Longline Spatial and Gear Management for Bluefin Tuna ................................3 

1.1.2.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area ...............................................................3 

1.1.2.2 Cape Hatteras and Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas................4 

1.1.2.3 Weak Hooks........................................................................................................................5 

1.1.3 Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program..................................................................................5 

1.1.4 Public Feedback on Bluefin Tuna Management ....................................................................7 

1.2 Social and Economic Concerns .....................................................................................................................9 

1.3 Scope and Organization of this Document............................................................................................10 

1.4 Purpose, Need, and Objectives...................................................................................................................12 

1.5 References...........................................................................................................................................................13 

2 Summary of the Alternatives........................................................................................................................14

2.1 Area-Based Alternatives...............................................................................................................................15 

2.1.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area ...............................................................................15 

2.1.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area........................................................................................19 

2.1.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas.......................................................................20 

2.2 Gulf of MexicoWeak Hook Alternatives................................................................................................23 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Further Analyzed.........................................................................24

2.3.1 Modify the size of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area ..........................................24 

3 Description of Affected Environment.......................................................................................................27

3.1 Summary of Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management .....................................................27

3.1.1 Atlantic HMS Stock Status............................................................................................................28 

3.2 Description and Management of the Pelagic Longline Fishery ...................................................32 

3.2.1 Bluefin Tuna Management History..........................................................................................34

3.2.1.1 Domestic Management ...............................................................................................34 

3.2.1.2 International Management of Bluefin Tuna......................................................35 

3.2.2 Bluefin Tuna Spatial and Gear Management: Closed Areas, Gear Restricted Areas,

Weak Hooks........................................................................................................................................36 

3.2.2.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area ............................................................37 

3.2.2.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area .....................................................................38 

3.2.2.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas ....................................................40 

3.2.2.4 Weak Hooks in the Gulf of Mexico.........................................................................41 

3.3 Pelagic Longline Target and Bycatch Species Biology and Habitat ...........................................43 

3.3.1 Bluefin Tuna Distribution and Migration ..............................................................................44 

3.4 Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................................................................................................45 

3.4.1 Bluefin Tuna EFH.............................................................................................................................47 

3.5 Pelagic Longline Fisheries Data.................................................................................................................50 

3.5.1 Effort Data...........................................................................................................................................50 

3.5.2 Recent Fishery Trends and the Individual Bluefin Quota Program ..........................52 

iii 
3.5.2.1 Fishery-Wide Catch Data...........................................................................................52 

3.5.2.2 Pelagic Longline Closures and Gear Restricted Areas...................................58 

3.5.2.3 Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program............................................................66 

3.6 Economic and Social Environment..........................................................................................................70 

3.7 Bycatch and Protected Species Management and Data ..................................................................72

3.7.1 Bycatch Interactions and the Magnuson Stevens Act......................................................73 

3.7.2 Bycatch Data......................................................................................................................................74 

3.7.3 Interactions and the MMPA.........................................................................................................84 

3.7.4 Interactions and the ESA..............................................................................................................86 

3.7.5 Sea Turtles ..........................................................................................................................................88 

3.7.6 Interactions with Seabirds...........................................................................................................90 

3.8 References...........................................................................................................................................................90 

4 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives...................................................95 

4.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area...............................................................................................97 

4.1.1 Alternative A1 No Action..............................................................................................................98 

4.1.2 Alternative A2 Modify the current Northeastern United States Closed Area to 

remove a western portion of the closure. .......................................................................... 100 

4.1.3 Alternative A3: Apply individual performance based access to the Northeastern 

United States Closed Area. ........................................................................................................108 

4.1.4 Alternative A4: Evaluate the Northeastern United States Closed Area (Preferred 

Alternative)...................................................................................................................................... 117 

4.1.5 Alternative A5 Eliminate the Northeastern United States Closed Area................121 

4.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area.....................................................................................................122

4.2.1 Alternative B1: No Action. Maintain current gear restricted area off Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, from December through April as well as the

performance metrics for access to the area ...................................................................... 122 

4.2.2 Alternative B2: Eliminate the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Preferred 

Alternative)...................................................................................................................................... 131 

4.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas....................................................................................140

4.3.1 Alternative C1: No Action.......................................................................................................... 141 

4.3.2 Alternative C2: Allow individual performance-based access to the Spring Gulf of

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas ................................................................................................. 143 

4.3.3 Alternative C3: Undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need for the 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (Preferred Alternative)....................... 151 

4.3.4 Alternative C4: Eliminate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas.......155 

4.4 Gulf of MexicoWeak Hook Alternatives.............................................................................................157 

4.4.1 Alternative D1: No Action. Maintain weak hook requirements in the Gulf of

Mexico................................................................................................................................................ 157 

4.4.2 Alternative D2: Seasonal Requirement for Weak Hooks.............................................160 

4.4.3 Alternative D3: Remove the weak hook requirement .................................................. 163 

4.5 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 166 

4.5.1 Impacts of Preferred Alternatives on Essential Fish Habitat ....................................167 

5 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................................... 169

5.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions .....................................................................169 

5.2 Cumulative Ecological Impacts............................................................................................................... 175 

5.3 Cumulative Social and Economic Impacts......................................................................................... 177 

5.4 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................................................... 178 

5.5 Mitigation and Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................................................... 182 

5.6 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................................... 182

5.6.1 Northeast Closed Area ................................................................................................................ 182 

iv 
5.6.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area.....................................................................................183 

5.6.3 Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area..................................................................................... 183 

5.6.4 Gulf of Mexico Weak Hooks...................................................................................................... 183 

5.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................................................. 184 

5.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.........................................................184 

6 Regulatory Impact Review...........................................................................................................................185

6.1 Description of the Management Objectives ...................................................................................... 185 

6.2 Description of the Fishery......................................................................................................................... 186 

6.3 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................................... 186 

6.4 Description of Each Alternative.............................................................................................................. 186 

6.5 Economic Analysis of the Expected Effects of Each Alternative Relative to the Baseline

....................................................................................................................................................................... 186 

6.6 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................... 191 

7 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis..................................................................................................192

7.1 Description of the Reasons Why Action is Being Considered ................................................... 192 

7.2 Statement of Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule.......................................192 

7.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 

Would Apply ........................................................................................................................................... 193 

7.4 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small 

Entities Which Would be Subject to the Requirements of the Report or Record.....194 

7.5 Identification of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict 

with the Proposed Rule...................................................................................................................... 194 

7.6 Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That Accomplish the

Stated Objectivesof the Applicable Statutes and That Minimize any Significant 

Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities .................................................. 194

7.6.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area ............................................................................ 195 

7.6.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area.....................................................................................197 

7.6.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas....................................................................198 

7.6.4 Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Alternatives ............................................................................. 200 

8 Community Profiles.........................................................................................................................................203

8.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 203 

8.2 Method—Previous Community Profiles and Assessments........................................................204 

8.3 References........................................................................................................................................................ 208 

9 Applicable Laws.................................................................................................................................................209

9.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act............................................. 209

9.1.1 Consistency with the National Standards .......................................................................... 209 

9.2 Paperwork Reduction Act......................................................................................................................... 213 

9.3 Coastal Zone Management Act................................................................................................................213 

9.4 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................................ 213 

9.5 References........................................................................................................................................................ 213 

10 List of Preparers................................................................................................................................................215

10.1 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted ......................................................... 215 

11 Index.........................................................................................................................................................................217 

Appendices...........................................................................................................................................................................219

Appendix A: Summary of Comments from Scoping............................................................................... 219

Appendix B: Southeast Fisheries Science Center Gulf of Mexico Bluefin Tuna Pelagic 

Longline Research—Weak Hooks................................................................................................. 223 

v 
List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 Map Including the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area, Amendment 7 Gear Restricted

Areas, and Affected Area for Weak Hooks.......................................................................................3 

Figure 2.1 Northeastern U.S. Closed Area-Current Boundaries (White Polygon).............................15 

Figure 2.2 Location of the Current Northeastern U.S. Closed Area (Single Black Line) with

Boundaries of a Proposed Modification Superimposed (White Border and Grid).....16 

Figure 2.3 Example Schematics foran EvaluationProgram for the Northeastern U.S. Monitoring

Area................................................................................................................................................................18 

Figure 2.4 Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area-Current Boundaries (White Polygons)...............21 

Figure 2.5 Example Schematics for an Evaluation Program for the Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Monitoring Area .......................................................................................................................................23 

Figure 3.1 Illustration of the Status Determination Criteria and Rebuilding Terms .......................28 

Figure 3.2 Typical U.S. Pelagic Longline Gear....................................................................................................33 

Figure 3.3 Pelagic Longline Gear Deployment Techniques.........................................................................33 

Figure 3.4 Examples of Current Spatially Managed Areas That Prohibit or Restrict Pelagic

Longline Fishing by U.S. Flagged Vessels ......................................................................................37 

Figure 3.5 Essential Fish Habitat for Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae of Bluefin Tuna .........................48 

Figure 3.6 Essential Fish Habitat for Juvenile Bluefin Tuna .......................................................................49 

Figure 3.7 Essential Fish Habitat for Adult Bluefin Tuna .............................................................................49 

Figure 3.8 Bluefin Tuna Habitat Area of Particular Concern—Spawning, Eggs, Larval Life Stage.

..........................................................................................................................................................................50 

Figure 3.9 Average Number of Hooks Fished by the HMS Pelagic Longline Fishery from 2006–

2011, 2012–2014, and 2015–2017..................................................................................................51 

Figure 3.10 Reported Hooks Fished by the HMS Pelagic Longline Fleet (2015–2017) ....................52 

Figure 3.11 CPUE of Bluefin Tuna (2015–2017)................................................................................................53 

Figure 3.12 CPUE of Swordfish (2015–2017)......................................................................................................54 

Figure 3.13 CPUE of Yellowfin Tuna (2015–2017)...........................................................................................55 

Figure 3.14 CPUE of Bigeye Tuna (2015–2017).................................................................................................56 

Figure 3.15 CPUE of Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) (2015–2017)..................................................57 

Figure 3.16 CPUE-Bluefin Interactions...................................................................................................................61 

Figure 3.17 CPUE-All Bluefin Interactions............................................................................................................63 

Figure 3.18 CPUE-Gulf of Mexico Total Bluefin Interactions.........................................................................65 

Figure 3.19 Number of Bluefin Tuna Reported Retained (VMS) vs. Number Landed (Dealer Data)

in 2017 (Jan–Dec, 2017).......................................................................................................................69 

Figure 3.20 Average Pelagic Longline Set Revenue (2015–2017) by One Degree Grids..................71 

Figure 3.21 Sum of Set Revenue (2015–2017) by One Degree Grids........................................................72 

Figure 3.22 Spatial Distribution of Bluefin Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery ..............76 

Figure 3.23 Spatial Distribution of Swordfish Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery........77 

Figure 3.24 Spatial Distribution of Dusky Shark Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery...78 

Figure 3.25 Spatial Distribution of Blue Marlin Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery.....79 

Figure 3.26 Spatial Distribution of White Marlin Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery..80 

Figure 3.27 Spatial Distribution of Roundscale Spearfish Discards within the Pelagic Longline 

Fishery..........................................................................................................................................................81 

Figure 3.28 Spatial Distribution of Sailfish Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery..............82 

Figure 3.29 Spatial Distribution of Shortfin Mako Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery83 

Figure 3.30 Geographic Areas Used in Summaries of Pelagic Logbook Data.........................................85 

vi 
Figure 3.31 Spatial Distribution of Sea Turtle CPUE within the U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery......89 

Figure 4.1 Distribution of Historical (1996–1997) Pelagic Longline Bluefin Interactions 

Occurring Within the Boundaries of the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area.....................101 

Figure 4.2 Reference Area (Blue Box); Area Considered for Opening (Green Box) in Alternative 

A2; Area that Could Remain Closed (Red Box)........................................................................102 

Figure 4.3 Reference Area (Blue Box) for the Northeastern United States Closed Area/Gear

Restricted Area (Green Box)............................................................................................................ 110 

Figure 4.4 Flowchart of the Evaluation Process for the Northeastern United States Pelagic

Longline Monitoring Area ................................................................................................................. 118 

Figure 4.5 Average IBQ Use By the Pelagic Longline Fishery in the Atlantic Region and the 

Corresponding Threshold for the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline 

Monitoring Area .................................................................................................................................... 119 

Figure 4.6 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area ............................................................................................. 123 

Figure 4.7 Distribution of Pelagic Longline Fishing Activity and Bluefin Landings in the

Northeast Distant Area versus the Rest of the Atlantic Fishing Region (Does Not 

Include Gulf of Mexico)....................................................................................................................... 128 

Figure 4.8 Domestic Statistical Management Areas .................................................................................... 129 

Figure 4.9 Number of Bluefin Interactions per Year in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area,

Before and After Implementation of Amendment 7 Management Measures ............132 

Figure 4.10 Number of Hooks Deployed per Year in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, 

Before and After Implementation of Amendment 7 Management Measures ............133 

Figure 4.11 Bluefin CPUE in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, Before and After

Implementation of Amendment 7 Management Measures................................................134 

Figure 4.12 Catch Rates (# fish per 10,000 hooks deployed) of Swordfish Before and After

Implementation of Amendment 7 ................................................................................................. 136 

Figure 4.13 Catch Rates (# fish per 10,000 hooks deployed) of Yellowfin Tuna Before and After 

Implementation of Amendment 7 ................................................................................................. 137 

Figure 4.14 Catch Rates (# fish per 10,000 hooks deployed) of Shorfin Mako Before and After

Implementation of Amendment 7 ................................................................................................. 138 

Figure 4.15 Two Scenarios Depicting the Evaluation Process for the Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Monitoring Area .................................................................................................................................... 153 

Figure 4.16 Threshold for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area Equivalent

to the Annual Allocation Issued to Vessels that Fished During the Months of April

and May from 2015 through 2017 ................................................................................................ 153 

Figure 4.17 Bluefin Interactions with the Pelagic Longline Fishery in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ and 

Adjacent High Seas............................................................................................................................... 161 

Figure 4.18 Bluefin and white marlin CPUE (# fish/10,000 hooks deployed) in the Gulf of Mexico 

(EEZ and high seas), 2015-2017 .................................................................................................... 162 

Figure C.1 Experimental Gear Configuration for 2008–2010 Comparison of Standard Circle 

Hooks and Weak Hooks.....................................................................................................................224 

Figure C.2 Quartile Plot Showing Time of Release Data for Straightened Hooks with

Temperature/Depth Recorders ..................................................................................................... 225 

vii 
List of Tables 

Table 0.1 

....................10 

Preferred Alternatives in the DEIS for Pelagic Longline Bluefin Tuna Area-Based and 

Weak Hook Management Measures ...................................................................................................ii 

Table 1.1 Overall Revenue and Effort in the Pelagic Longline Fishery (2012–2017)

Table 3.1 Atlantic HMS Stock Status Summaries For Pelagic Longline Target (Swordfish and

Yellowfin Tuna) and Bycatch (Bluefin Tuna, Blue Marlin, White Marlin, Sailfish, 

Shortfin Mako, Dusky) Species..........................................................................................................31 

Table 3.2 Fleet-Wide Pelagic Longline Bluefin Avoidance and Compliance Trends ......................39 

Table 3.3 Performance Trends for Vessels that Fished in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area During Its Effective Periods, Dec–April (Averaged per Vessel)................................39 

Table 3.4 Reported Number of Hooks Fished and Landings of Major Target Species and Blue 

Marlin Interactions from the Gulf of Mexico (2007–2016)...................................................42 

Table 3.5 Impact Assessment of HMS Fishing Gear on HMS and Non-HMS EFH.............................46 

Table 3.6 Total Number of Hooks Fished by the Pelagic Longline Fishery ........................................51 

Table 3.7 Reported Numbers of Catch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2012–

2017).............................................................................................................................................................58 

Table 3.8 Bluefin Interactions Across the Pelagic Longline Fleet (2012–2017)..............................58 

Table 3.9 Northeastern U.S. Closed Area Bluefin Landings from 1996–1997...................................59 

Table 3.10 Northeastern U.S. Reference Area*—Bluefin Landings from 2015–2017......................60 

Table 3.11 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area Bluefin Tuna Landings from 2015–2017............62 

Table 3.12 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area Bluefin Tuna Interactions by Disposition and

Time...............................................................................................................................................................62 

Table 3.13 Bluefin Interactions Reported in the HMS Logbook by Month in the Spring Gulf of

Mexico Gear Restricted Area (2006–2012)..................................................................................64 

Table 3.14 Bluefin Interactions Reported in the HMS logbook by Month in the Spring Gulf of

Mexico Gear Restricted Area (2015–2017)..................................................................................64 

Table 3.15 Gulf of Mexico (Region-Wide) Bluefin Landings from 2015–2017....................................65 

Table 3.16 IBQ Allocations (t) to the Pelagic Longline Category by Share Tier (lb) in 2015–2018

67 

Table 3.17 Bluefin Catch and Other Metrics of the IBQ Program (2015–2017).................................68 

Table 3.18 Average Target Species Ex-Vessel Prices, and Overall Ex-Vessel Revenue (2013–

2017).............................................................................................................................................................71 

Table 3.19 Bycatch Reduction Methods in the Atlantic HMS Fisheries ..................................................74 

Table 3.20 Reported Numbers of Catch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2015–

2017).............................................................................................................................................................75 

Table 3.21 List of Marine Mammals under the Protection of the MMPA...............................................84 

Table 3.22 Marine Mammal Interactions in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2015-2017)

86 

Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery by Species in 2010–2017 ................................................89 

Table 4.1 Pelagic Longline Landings and Discards of Bluefin and Target Species in the Open

Reference Area During the Effective Period of the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area 

(June, 2015–2017)..................................................................................................................................99 

Table 4.2 Pelagic Longline Discards of Restricted and Protected Species in the Open Reference 

Area during the Effective Period of the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area (June, 2015–

2017).............................................................................................................................................................99 

Table 3.23 Estimated Sea Turtle Interactions and Sea Turtle Incidental Take Levels in the U.S. 

viii 
Table 4.3 Pelagic Longline Revenue for Bluefin and Target Species in the Open Reference Area 

During the Effective Period of the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area (June, 2015–2017)

....................................................................................................................................................................... 100 

Table 4.4 Annual Predicted Effort Calculations for the Modified Northeast U.S. Pelagic 

Longline Closed Area........................................................................................................................... 102 

Table 4.5 CPUE and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for Bluefin and 

Target Species for the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area (2015–2017).............................104 

Table 4.6 CPUE and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for Restricted and

Protected Species for the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area (2015–2017)......................106 

Table 4.7 Predicted Pelagic Longline Landings and Average Annual Revenue for Bluefin and 

Target Species for the Northeastern U.S. Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area in June

....................................................................................................................................................................... 107 

Table 4.8 Annual Predicted Effort Calculations for the Northeast U.S. Pelagic Longline Gear

Restricted Area (abbreviated “NE U.S. GRA”) with Performance Metrics................... 110 

Table 4.9 CPUE Ranges and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for

Bluefin and Target Species for the Northeastern U.S. Gear Restricted Area (2015–

2017).......................................................................................................................................................... 112 

Table 4.10 CPUE Ranges and Predicted Pelagic Longline Discard Ranges for Restricted and

Protected Species for the Northeastern U.S. Gear Restricted Area (2015–2017)....114 

Table 4.11. Predicted Pelagic Longline Catch Ranges and Average Annual Revenue Ranges for

Bluefin and Target Species for the Northeastern U.S. Gear Restricted Area in June116 

Table 4.12 IBQ Usage in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2015–2018)..................................119 

Table 4.13 Average Annual Numbers of Target Species Kept and Bluefin Dead Discards (2015–

2017) Reported for Sets Made within the Boundaries of the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area and Calculations of Anticipated Ecological Effects of Alternative B1

(Rounded to the Nearest Whole Fish) ......................................................................................... 125 

Table 4.14 Average Annual Numbers of Restricted Species and Sea Turtles (2015-2017)

Reported for Sets Made within the Boundaries of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area, and Calculations of Anticipated Ecological Effects of Alternative B1 (Rounded

to the Nearest Whole Fish)...............................................................................................................126 

Table 4.15 Access Decisions by Effective Period, Based on Permit Status and Data Availability

127 

Table 4.16 Distribution of Set Locations (2015–2017) for Vessels not qualified for access to the 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area due to Bluefin Avoidance (n = 8 vessels) and 

Compliance Issues (n = 6 vessels) ................................................................................................. 129 

Table 4.17 Estimated Set Revenue by Year and Species in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area during Effective Months (Dec–Apr), Rows A-C Rounded to the Nearest Dollar 

....................................................................................................................................................................... 130 

Table 4.18 Average Annual Estimated Set Revenue from Pelagic Longline Target Species and

Bluefin in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, 2015–2017......................................130 

Table 4.19 Pelagic Longline Landings and Discards for Bluefin and Target Species in the Open

Area of the Gulf of Mexico during the Time Period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear

Restricted Areas (April–May, 2015–2017) ............................................................................... 141 

Table 4.20 Pelagic Longline Discards or Interactions for Restricted and Protected Species in the 

Open Area of the Gulf of Mexico during the Time Period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Gear Restricted Areas (April–May, 2015–2017).....................................................................142 

Table 4.21 Pelagic Longline Revenue for Bluefin and Target Species in the Open Area of the Gulf

of Mexico during the Time Period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

(April–May, 2015–2017)................................................................................................................... 142 

ix 
Table 4.22 Annual Predicted Effort Calculations for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted

Areas........................................................................................................................................................... 144 

Bluefin and Target Species for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas and 

Total Gulf of Mexico in April–May................................................................................................. 147 

Table 4.24 CPUEs Ranges Discards for Restricted and Protected Species for the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas and Total Gulf of Mexico in April–May..........................149 

Table 4.25 Predicted Pelagic Longline Catch Ranges and Average Annual Revenue Ranges for

Bluefin and Target Species for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas in 

April–May................................................................................................................................................. 150 

Table 5.1 Recent Major Actions within HMS Fisheries that May Affect Pelagic Longline and 

HMS Fishermen Dealing with Bluefin.......................................................................................... 170 

Table 5.2 Comparison of the Impacts of Analyzed Alternatives. Alternatives are Classified as

Neutral, Minor and Adverse, and Minor and Beneficial. A Range of Minor Adverse to

Minor Beneficial (or Vice Versa) May Include Neutral Impacts under Certain

Conditions ................................................................................................................................................ 179 

Table 6.1 Net Economic Benefits and Costs of Each Alternative.......................................................... 187 

Table 8.1 Social Vulnerability Indices for 10 HMS Communities for 2015–2017 ........................ 207 

Table C.1 Catch Comparisons fromGulf of Mexico Exprimental Fishing Data (2008–2012) that

Indicate Differences between Gear Rigged with Weak Hooks and Gear Rigged with

Conventional Hooks............................................................................................................................. 224 

Table C.2 Pelagic Longline CPUE and Interactions with HMS Before (2008–2010) and After

(2011–2016) Implementation of the Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Requirement.......225 

Table 4.23 CPUE Ranges and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for

x 
Introduction 

Atlantic highly migratory species1 (HMS) are managed under the dual authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) must, consistent with ten National Standards, manage fisheries to

maintain optimum yield on a continuing basis while preventing overfishing. Under ATCA, the 

Secretary of Commerce is required to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate 

to carry out recommendations by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic

Tunas (ICCAT). The conservation and management measures proposed for this regulatory

amendment and associated rulemaking, which address Western Atlantic bluefin tuna, are taken

under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. Management measures must also be 

consistent with other applicable laws including, but not limited to, the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 

and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This document is prepared, in part, to comply with

our responsibilities under NEPA, as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality, 50 C.F.R. Parts 1501-1508, and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A. 

Pelagic longline is not an authorized gear for directed fishing on bluefin tuna, but bluefin tuna are 

caught as bycatch in directed fisheries using pelagic longline gear to catch swordfish, sharks, and 

other tunas. Over time, NMFS has implemented a number of management measures to reduce and

monitor bluefin tuna dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery, including time-area closures and 

gear restrictions. In Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (79 FR 71510; December 2,

2014)(Amendment 7), comprehensive measures were adopted, including implementation of the 

Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) catch share program, establishment of pelagic longline gear

restricted areas, mandatory retention of legal size bluefin tuna dead at haulback, removal of the 

requirement for certain levels of target catch landings as a condition for bluefin retention, 

electronic monitoring, and vessel monitoring system reporting. Since implementation of these 

measures in 2015, there has been a substantial drop in bluefin tuna interactions and dead discards 

occurring in the pelagic longline fishery. Currently, NMFS has been considering whether some fleet 

wide measures implemented for bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery are still needed 

to maintain low levels of bluefin tuna bycatch, given the IBQ Program. These measures include the 

Northeastern United States closed area, Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Gear Restricted Areas, and weak hook requirements in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Based on further analyses and consideration of comments received on the scoping document, NMFS

has developed this DEISand proposed rule. Some of the alternatives included in the scoping 

document are included in this draft regulatory amendment, but other alternatives have been

changed or added based on public comment and further analysis. 

The alternatives in this DEIS would affect commercial Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fisheries and 

are listed in two categories (area-based alternatives and weak hook alternatives) for ease of 

1The Magnuson-Stevens Act, at 16 U.S.C. 1802(14), defines the term “highly migratory species” as 

tuna species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istiophorus 

spp.), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius).” 

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

1 
understanding. NMFS considered a range of alternatives for each category that would meet the 

purpose and need of this amendment. The alternatives are all described in detail in Chapter 2. 

1.1 Brief Management History and Public Feedback 

The following is a brief overview of HMS management, focusing on management relevant to the 

spatial areas and gear restrictions covered under this rule. 

1.1.1 Pelagic Longline Fishery Management Overview

The pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic HMS primarily targets swordfish, yellowfintuna, and bigeye 

tuna in various areas and seasons. Secondary target species include dolphin, skipjack and albacore 

tuna, and, to a lesser degree, sharks. Although this gear can be modified (e.g., depth of set, hook

type, hook size, bait) to target swordfish or tunas, it is generally a multi-species fishery. Pelagic 

longline vessel operators are opportunistic, switching gear style and making subtle changes to

target the best available economic opportunity on each individual trip. Fishery participants must

hold a shark, tuna, and swordfish limited access permit (LAP), i.e., a “triple pack”, to reduce bycatch 

and regulatory discards. The permits were designed such that the tuna and swordfish LAPs were 

only valid if held in conjunction with the other two types of LAPs. As of October 2017, 

approximately 280 tunas longline LAPs had been issued. In addition, approximately 185 directed

swordfish LAPs, 72 incidental swordfish LAPs, 221 directed shark LAPs, and 269 incidental shark

LAPs had been issued (NMFS 2018). Many of the regulations associated with current spatially

managed areas are triggered by either the assignment of a permit to a vessel or by having a 

restricted gear type (e.g., pelagic longline) on board. 

There are numerous regulations and restrictions applicable to the pelagic longline fishery.

Participants must follow several reporting requirements implemented to support the IBQ program

(discussed below); report landings; reduce and/or mitigate bycatch interactions; comply with hook

and bait restrictions, some of which are spatially managed; use VMS to hail into or out of the

fishery; comply with minimum size restrictions for target catch; and comply with species-specific

restrictions that may be related to domestic or international management objectives. There are also

a number of spatial restrictions for the pelagic longline fishery and Atlantic HMS commercial 

fisheries, which are summarized in the Atlantic HMS Commercial Compliance Guide (Figure 1.1).

Some of these time/area closures intended to reduce bycatch and protect critical areas (e.g., Florida

East Coast Closure, DeSoto Canyon Closure, Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National

Monument, coral habitat areas of particular concern). Other spatial management measures 

intended to protect and manage specific species, such as bluefin tuna, are discussed in further detail 

below. 

2 Introduction 
Figure 1.1 Map Including the Northeastern U.S.Closed Area, Amendment 7GearRestrictedAreas, and

Affected Area for Weak Hooks 

1.1.2 Pelagic Longline Spatial and Gear Management for Bluefin Tuna

NMFS has implemented a number of spatial management measures to meet various management

strategies for bluefin tuna over time. Some of these management measures were intended to reduce 

bluefin tuna dead discards (Northeastern United States Closed Area), while others were intended to

reduce bluefin tuna interactions (gear restricted areas and weak hooks). 

1.1.2.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area 

The Northeastern United States closed area was implemented in 1999 to reduce bluefin tuna

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

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

a 1998 ICCAT Recommendation on western Atlantic bluefin tuna (Rec. 98-07) 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, NMFS investigated a range of different

time/area options for locations with high bluefin tuna bycatch through the rulemaking process for

the 1999 HMS FMP for Atlantic tunas, sharks, and swordfish. In the final rule for that FMP, NMFS

implemented the Northeastern United States Closed Area based, in part, 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 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 3 

40°0'0"N 

35°0'0"N 

30°0'0"N 

25'0'0' N 

2o·o·o·N 

90°0'0"W 

Current Spatial Restrictions on Gear 

Use By The Pelagic Longline Fishery 

as of February 2018 

L 

I 

Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Gear Restricted Areas 

(April - May) 

90°0'0-W as·o·o"W 

ao·o·o·w 

ao·o·o·w 75"0'0"W 

70°0'0"W 

Cape Hatteras Gear 

Restricted Area 

(December - April) 

70~0'0-W 

4o•o·o·N 

30'0'0'N 

25'0'0'N 

2o·o·o·N 
catch or other bycatch levels. This area, located off the coast of New Jersey (Figure 1), is now closed

from June 1 through June 30 each year. Considerable effort has been occurring on the outer

seaward edges of the closed area for the past 20 years. 

NMFS considered changes to the Northeastern United States Closed Area during the scoping

process (April 23, 2012; 78 FR 24161) and Predraft for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP. No comments were received specific to the Northeastern United States Closed

Area option during Amendment 7 scoping but there was general support for reducing the size and

time of pelagic longline closed areas where possible. 

Conditional Access to Closed Areas 

During the rulemaking process for Amendment 7, NMFS considered an alternative that would grant 

permitted vessels conditional access to closed areas provided they took an observer on trips into

those areas (including DeSoto Canyon, the East Florida Coast, Charleston Bump, and the 

Northeastern United States Closed Areas). Ultimately, as discussed further in Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

for Amendment 7, NMFS did not prefer the alternative for conditional access to closed areas due to

concerns raised during public comment. For this rulemaking on pelagic longline bluefin tuna areabased and weak hook management measures, NMFS has developed analyses to consider potential

changes or access to individual closed areas, rather than a collective approach for all areas. Since 

the Northeastern United States Closed Area was implemented to reduce bluefin bycatch and dead

discards, it is considered in this rule along with other areas intended to reduce bluefin bycatch and 

dead discards. 

1.1.2.2 Cape Hatteras and Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

Amendment 7 implemented several gear restricted areas to reduce pelagic longline gear

interactions with bluefin tuna offthe coast of Cape Hatteras is closed fromDecember 1 through 

April 30 annually. The Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas consist of two areas in the 

central and eastern Gulf of Mexico. Both Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas are closed to pelagic 

longline gear fromApril 1 through May 31 annually. These areas were identified 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 Gear Restricted Area were limited to a few pelagic

longline participants. Due to this dynamic, NMFS 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, yellowfintuna, bigeye

tuna, pelagic sharks, dolphin, wahoo) landings, compliance with the pelagic observer program, and

timely submission of logbooks. For the 2018-2019 effective period of the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area, 83 out of 97 vessels evaluated were granted access to the area based on high

bluefin avoidance and compliance scores. The Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas are 

closed to all vessels using pelagic longline gear, instead of being implemented with performance 

access, because the distribution of interactions was more widespread across both the geographic

area (Gulf of Mexico) and fleet participants. In comparison, performance metrics were deemed

more appropriate for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area given that high numbers of bluefin 

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

4 Introduction 
1.1.2.3 Weak Hooks 

From 2007-2010, NMFS conducted research on the use of weak hooksby pelagic longline vessels 

operating in the Gulf of Mexico to reduce bycatch of spawning bluefin tuna. Weak hooks are hooks 

that straighten to release large fish, such as bluefin tuna, when they are caught, while retaining

smaller fish, such as swordfish and other tunas. Research results showed that the use of weak 

hooks can significantly reduce the amount of bluefin tuna caught by pelagic longline vessels. Some

reductions in the amount of target catch of yellowfin tuna and swordfish were noted but were not

statistically significant. In 2011, a large year class (2003) of bluefin tuna was approaching maturity

and was expected to enter the Gulf of Mexico to spawn for the first time. Consistent with the advice 

of the ICCAT Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) that ICCAT may wish to protect 

the strong 2003 year class until it reaches maturity and can contribute to spawning, and for other 

stated objectives, NMFS, in a final rule on Bluefin Tuna Bycatch Reduction in the Gulf of Mexico 

Pelagic Longline Fishery, implemented mandatory use of weak hooks on a year-round basis to 

reduce bycatch of bluefin tuna (76 FR 18653; April 5, 2011). 

1.1.3 Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program

The management structure of the pelagic longline fishery was fundamentally changed in 2015 with

the implementation of Amendment 7. Prior to Amendment 7, bluefin tuna bycatch was

disincentivized primarily through target catch requirements for limited allowable bluefin retention. 

When caught as bycatch in a directed fishery, pelagic longline vessels were allowed to keep one 

bluefin tuna if 2,000 lb (907 kg) of target catch was onboard, two bluefin tuna if 6,000 lb (2,727 kg)

of target catch was onboard, and three bluefin tuna if 30,000 lb (13,620 kg) of target catch was

onboard. Target catch requirements were revoked under Amendment 7 in favor of the IBQ Program

to manage bluefin tuna bycatch and dead discards. 

Four components of Amendment 7 affected the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery with respect to

bluefin tuna: 

1. Two pelagic longline gear restricted areas. 

2. An Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program, which established vessel-specific bluefin 

allocations for landings and dead discards and required retention of all legal-size bluefin tuna. 

3. Mandatory electronic monitoring of pelagic longline gear at haulback. 

4. Catch reporting of each pelagic longline set using vessel monitoring systems (VMS). 

The expanded electronic monitoring and VMS reporting requirements were implemented to

support the new IBQ Program and the inseason monitoring of the pelagic longline and purse seine 

fisheries, and are not discussed further in this document. The conservation and management

measures in Amendment 7 became effective January 1, 2015, with two exceptions. Electronic

monitoring requirements in the pelagic longline fishery became effective on June 1, 2015, and trip

level accountability requirements in the IBQ Program became effective on January 1, 2016. 

Additional adjustments became effective January 23, 2018, and require participants to secure 

enough quota to account for bluefin interactions or landings and meet minimum IBQ quota

requirements on a quarterly, rather than trip-level, basis. (NMFS 2018) 

Amendment 7 implemented IBQs for each qualified pelagic longline participant to reduce the 

number of bluefin tuna dead discards by limiting the number of landings and dead discards each

fishery participant could have each year “The IBQProgram distributes IBQ allocation (i.e., an 

amount of bluefin quota, expressed as a weight in pounds or metric tons) that may be used to 

account for landings and dead discards to fishery participants based on the IBQ share percentage 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 5 
associated with an Atlantic Tuna Longline permit. NMFS established three tiers of IBQ shares (low, 

medium, and high) and assigned shares after considering each pelagic longline fishery vessel’s 

fishing activity from 2006-2012, and their success rate in avoiding bluefin tuna during those 

operations, expressed as a ratio of bluefin catch to target catch. The quota share allocation formula 

was intended to acknowledge past bluefin tuna avoidance, ensure a fair initial allocation, and

consider the diversity in vessel fishing patterns and harvest characteristics. Past fishing that 

resulted in fewer bluefin tuna interactions will result in larger IBQ shares of bluefin tuna. Landings

of designated species are an indicator of both the level of fishing effort and activity as well as vessel

success at targeting those species and minimizing bluefin bycatch interactions. This method

incorporates the rate of historical bluefin tuna interactions but also includes the amount of

designated species landings, recognizing that greater levels of fishing activity are likely to be 

correlated with a greater number of bluefin tuna interactions. Each tier corresponds to a specific

share percentage of the annual Longline category quota that the qualified participant receives as

IBQ allocation. A share tier is equivalent to a certain amount (metric tons) of bluefin quota that is

annually disbursed to a permitted vessel, and depends on the total annual Longline category quota

and in-season quota adjustments. Fishery participants that did not receive a share can still obtain

the allocation required to go fishing by leasing through the online IBQ System. If fishing results in 

more landings and dead discards than can be covered by a participant’s IBQ allocation (“quota 

debt”), then that participant must obtain more IBQ allocation to account for the excess bluefin 

mortality. 

Since implementation of Amendment 7 in 2015, NMFS has observed a decrease in the number of

bluefin tuna dead discards by pelagic longline vessels due to individual vessel accountability, and

the annual bluefin tuna Longline category quota, as supplemented by inseason quota transfers and

other adjustments, has not been reached. Furthermore, while a small number of fishery participants

entered quota debt (i.e., landings and/or dead discards exceeded the amount of IBQ allocation held

by the permitted vessel), on each occasion the participant was able to lease enough quota to resolve 

the debt as required. Initially, accounting for quota debt was on an annual basis (for the first year of

the program) and then moved to a trip level basis. Starting on January 27, 2018, accounting for

quota debt changed from a trip-level basis (whereby a participant with a permit in quota debt must 

reconcile the debt and meet the minimum regional IBQ requirement before the start of the next

trip) to a quarterly basis (whereby a participant must reconcile quota debt and meet the minimum

regional IBQ requirement with IBQ allocation prior to departing on the first trip of a subsequent 

quarter) to provide additional flexibility for active vessels (82 FR 61489, December 28, 2017). 

Given the uncertainties with implementing a new program, NMFS committed to a three year review

of the IBQ Program when finalizing Amendment 7. That document, the Three-Year Catch Share 

Program Review is currently in draft form (Draft Three-Year Review), but NMFS expects it to be 

finalized by September 2019. The draft document discusses whether and how the IBQ Program has

met its objectives as identified under Amendment 7, which include: 

1. Limit the amount of bluefin landings and dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery; 

2. Provide strong incentives for the vessel owner and operator to avoid bluefin tuna interactions; 

3. Provide flexibility in the quota system to enable full accounting of bluefin tuna mortality while

minimizing constraints on target species fishing activity; 

4. Balance objectives of limiting landings and dead discards with the objective of optimizing 

fishing opportunities and maintaining profitability; and 

5. Balance the above objectiveswith potential impacts on the directed permit categories that 

target bluefin tuna, and broader objectives of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

6 Introduction 
Preliminary analyses in the Draft Three-Year Review indicate that the IBQ Program has likely met

or exceeded expectations for objectives 1- 3. Preliminary analyses in the review indicate the IBQ

Program was successful in limiting bluefin bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery (based on data 

detailing landings and dead discards before and after implementation), evidence of the 

effectiveness of the regulatory incentives to avoid bluefin, and the inherent flexibility available 

through the IBQ Program to account for bluefin mortality, address quota debt and minimize 

constraints on fishing for target species. The Draft Three-Year Review also noted that balancing the 

objective of limiting bluefin catch with the objective of optimizing fishing opportunities and 

maintaining profitability was achieved in the context of the IBQ Program. However, it is difficult to

separate out the influence of the IBQ Program from other factors, including the effect of swordfish

imports on the market for U.S. product, other regulations such as closed and gear restricted areas,

as well as target species availability/price. Despite data suggesting reduced revenue and fishing

effort shortly after implementation (e.g., from2014 to 2015), average annual operating income per

vessel has increased since implementation, supporting the contention that the economic situation

has stabilized for many of the vessels that fished during the IBQ period. NMFS was able to 

successfully balance achieving the IBQ Program objectives with impacts on the permit categories

that target bluefin and on HMS dealers, as well as the broader objectives of the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Prior to the implementation of Amendment 7, 

pelagic longline vessels had large amounts of regulatory dead discards, and the Longline category

consistently exceeded its quota by very large amounts (primarily due to dead discards). In contrast,

after implementation, the Longline category no longer overharvested its quota. 

The Draft Three-Year Review also evaluates standard catch share program components. These 

include: allocations and accountability rules; eligibility; catch and sustainability; accumulation caps;

data collection, reporting, monitoring, and enforcement; duration; new entrants; and cost recovery.

While the IBQ Program may be considered successful with respect to many of these evaluative 

aspects, NMFS determined in the Draft Three Year Review that some updates to the program might

be appropriate or warrant consideration, including but not limited to: (a) new distribution method 

for IBQ shares or IBQ allocation to ensure that use of quota is optimized, and (b) whether

accumulation caps are needed to reduce excessive control of IBQ shares or allocation (new data are 

available to support additional analyses and consideration). 

1.1.4 Public Feedback on Bluefin Tuna Management 

Since implementation of Amendment 7 in December 2014 and January 2015, NMFS has noted 

increased pelagic longline vessel accountability in fishing practices; however, effort within the 

pelagic longline fishery has decreased and quotas established for target species (e.g., swordfish) are 

not being met. Therefore, NMFS has facilitated numerous discussions concerning the new 

regulatory environment established under Amendment 7. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 7 
At the Spring 2017 HMS Advisory Panel meeting, NMFS presented a summary of numerous

requests from the public to determine whether the current suite of regulations are still needed to 

achieve management objectives for the pelagic longline fishery as identified in Amendment 7, which 

were: 

• Prevent overfishing, achieve on a continuing basis optimum yield, and minimize bluefin bycatch

to the extent practicable by ensuring that domestic bluefin tuna fisheries continue to operate 

within the overall Total Allowable Catch set by ICCAT consistent with current ICCAT

Recommendations. 

• Optimize the ability for all permit categories to harvest their full bluefin quota allocations;

account for mortality associated with discarded bluefin in all categories; maintain flexibility of

the regulations to account of the highly variable nature of the bluefin fishery; and maintain

fairness among permit/quota categories. 

• Reduce dead discards of bluefin and minimize reductions in target catch in both directed and 

incidental bluefin fisheries, to the extent practicable. 

• Improve the timeliness and quality of catch data through enhanced reporting and monitoring to

ensure that landings and dead discards do not exceed the quota and to improve accounting of

all sources of fishing mortality. 

At the Fall 2017 HMS Advisory Panel meeting, NMFS provided presentations on a range of ideas for

potential management, and to further discussion on closed area and gear restricted area 

management and for weak hook management in the Gulf of Mexico to: 1) meet goals consistent with

rebuilding and management plans for conservation of relevant stocks while optimizing the ability of

permit categories to harvest target species; and 2) mitigate factors contributing to the continued

decline in pelagic longline effort and swordfish landings. Area-based management issues were 

identified as a high priority for further consideration at that meeting. NMFS specifically received

comments frompelagic longline participants and other interested parties, including comments at

the Spring and Fall 2017 Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel meetings, to examine whether older fleetwide measures such as gear requirements, area restrictions, or time/area closures may no longer 

be necessary to reduce bluefin tuna bycatch and still meet the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and subsequent amendments. The HMS Advisory Panel expressed support for the 

continued development of management options to be presented at the Spring 2018 Advisory Panel

meeting. 

A scoping document was developed, and five scoping meetings (83 FR 8969; March 2, 2018) were

held to solicit public comments on more refined potential management options. The scoping

document for this regulatory amendment described a number of management options as potential

alternatives for each aspect of this rulemaking. The area-based management options in the scoping

document were very similar across the areas. The weak hook section contained three management

options. Each of the measures were aligned with the objectiveslaid out in the scoping document 

and listed in this section. 

The comment period for the scoping phase of this action was open for 60 days and closed on May 1,

2018 (see Appendix A for a summary of comments). During the comment period, NMFS received

substantial public comment and feedback on the management options in the scoping document.

Pelagic longline fishermen and dealers generally expressed support for removal of regulations that 

they considered to be redundant in effect, since the IBQ program has provided an individual vessel

cap on bluefin mortality (landings and dead discards), established a system to enforce 

accountability for bluefin catch, and implemented incentives to reduce bluefin interactions 

throughout the year, and they felt that those measures have the needed effects of reducing bluefin 

8 Introduction 
tuna bycatch mortality in the longline fishery. Pelagic longline fishermen and dealers believe that 

removing some the existing management measures might allow pelagic longline fishermen to more 

fully harvest the U.S. swordfish quota, and mitigate the decline of other catch (e.g. bigeye, albacore, 

yellowfin, and skipjack tunas), and declines in pelagic longline fishery participation. NMFS also

received comments opposed to changing the management of the Gulf of Mexico GRAs to maximize 

protections for spawning bluefin tuna. Comments opposed to changing the regulations, particularly

the Gulf of Mexico GRAs, included approximately 12,225 form letter campaign submissions. While 

many of these comments opposed changes to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs because of the need to 

protect spawning bluefin, the majority of those commenters supported a seasonal weak hook

requirement in the Gulf of Mexico because: 1) weak hooks would still be mandatory when spawning

bluefin were present; and 2) data shows that white marlin bycatch increases with weak hook use in

the latter half of the year. Northeast commercial handgear fishermen expressed concerns that

modifying any restrictions on pelagic longline fishermen might negatively impact the bluefin tuna

stock, and their own fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna. Some of these commercial handgear

fishermen suggested expanding the areas considered in this regulatory amendment and more

restrictive regulations in order to reduce pelagic longline interactions with bluefin tuna.

Recreational fishing groups urged NMFS to first collect data in areas that are currently closed to

pelagic longline vessels before opening those closed areas. 

1.2 Social and Economic Concerns 

To satisfy mandates of NEPA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act subsections summarized below, this 

document identifies and evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed 

action on the social and economic elements of the human environment. These provisions are 

outlined in greater detail in Chapters 4.0 through 7.0. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act subsection 303(a)(9) requires any FMP to include a fishery impact

statement which shall assess, specify, and analyze the likely effects, if any, including the cumulative 

conservation, economic, and social impacts, of the conservation and management measures on, and 

possible mitigation measures for: 

• Participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment. 

• Participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, 

after consultation with such Council and representatives of those participants. 

• The safety of human life at sea, including whether and to what extent such measure may affect

the safety of participants in the fishery. 

A similar analysis using much of the same economic and social data is included to ensure 

consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 8 (MSA sec. 301(a)(8)), which

requires that conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation

requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished

stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing

economic and social data that meet the requirement of paragraph (2) [i.e., National Standard 2], in

order to (a) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (b) to the extent

practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

Additionally, paragraph 304(g)(1)(C) requires the Secretary to: 

• Evaluate the likely effects, if any, of conservation and management measures on participants in

the affected fisheries; and, 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 9 
• Minimize, to the extent practicable, any disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in relation to foreign

competitors. 

Since 2012, three years prior to the IBQ Program being enacted, overall revenue and effort has 

declined in the pelagic longline fishery (Table 1.1). Furthermore, NMFS has received suggestions

from the public and HMS Advisory Panel members to reduce regulatory burden, and to consider 

whether regulations intended to accomplish similar objectives may be duplicative and overly

burdensome on fishery participants. Thus, NMFS is investigating ways to improve revenues by the 

pelagic longline fleet including reviewing whether area management and weak hook regulations 

are still needed in order to maintain low rates of bluefin interactions and dead discards, consistent 

with the science-based conservation objectives for managing the stock.Removal of these measures 

could reduce redundancies in regulations that are similar in effect and provide increased flexibility 

and opportunity for the pelagic longline fleet to harvest target species like yellowfin tuna and

swordfish, while still appropriately conserving and managing the bluefin stock consistent with

ICCAT recommended quotas, legal obligations, and other management measures. 

Table 1.1 Overall Revenue andEffort in the Pelagic Longline Fishery (2012–2017) 

Year Total Pelagic Longline Revenue Effort (# of Hooks) 

2012 $47,456,242 7,937,918 

2013 $42,572,477 7,549,887 

2014 $34,523,359 6,984,239 

2015 $27,042,956 5,893,799 

2016 $25,322,560 5,278,750 

2017 $27,053,154 5,327,587 

Source: HMS Logbook and relevant dealer data. 

1.3 Scope and Organization of this Document 

This DEIS assesses potential impacts on the biological and human environments associated with

adjustments to area-based and weak hook management measures. Specifically, it analyzes the 

potential direct, indirect, and cumulative ecological, social, and economic impacts associated with

14 alternatives. In considering the proposed management measures outlined in this document,

NMFS is responsible for complying with a number of Federal statutes, including NEPA. Under NEPA,

Federal agencies prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if a proposed major federal

action is determined to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS is an 

analytical document that provides full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and 

informs decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. In developing this

document, NMFS adhered to the procedural requirements of NEPA; the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-

1508), and NOAA’s procedures for implementing NEPA, including NOAA Administrative Order 

(NAO) 216-6A and the accompanying Companion Manual. 

10 Introduction 
Section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act required the Secretary of Commerce to revise and

update agency procedures for compliance with NEPA in the context of fishery management actions 

developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1854(i). In compliance with that 

statutory provision, NOAA and NMFS established a line office supplement to NAO 216-6A, entitled, 

“Revised and Updated NEPA Procedures for Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Actions” (See 

79 FR 36726, Jun. 30, 2014, and 81 FR 8920, Feb. 23, 2016). As stated in NAO 216-6A, section 6, this 

supplement remains in effect. The supplement sets forth the policies and procedures for NEPA 

compliance for such actions. 

The following definitions were generally used to characterize the nature of the various impacts 

evaluated with this DEIS. 

• Short-term or long-term impacts. These characteristics are determined on a case-by-case basis 

and do not refer to any rigid time period. In general, short-term impacts are those that would

occur only with respect to a particular activity or for a finite period. Long-term impacts are

those that are more likely to be persistent and chronic. 

• Direct or indirect impacts. A direct impact is caused by a proposed action and occurs

contemporaneously at or near the location of the action. An indirect impact is caused by a 

proposed action and might occur later in time or be farther removed in distance but still be a 

reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action. 

• Minor, moderate, or major impacts. These relative terms are used to characterize the magnitude 

of an impact. Minor impacts are generally those that might be perceptible but, in their context, 

are not amenable to measurement because of their relatively minor character. Moderate 

impacts are those that are more perceptible and, typically, more amenable to quantification or

measurement. Major impacts are those that, in their context and due to their intensity

(severity), have the potential to meet the thresholds for significance set forth in CEQ regulations

(40 CFR 1508.27) and, thus, warrant heightened attention and examination for potential means

for mitigation to fulfill the requirements of NEPA. 

• Adverse or beneficial impacts. An adverse impact is one having adverse, unfavorable, or 

undesirable outcomes on the man-made or natural environment. A beneficial impact is one 

having positive outcomes on the man-made or natural environment. A single act might result in 

adverse impacts on one resource and beneficial impacts on another resource. 

• Cumulative impacts. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts as the 

“impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” (40 CFR 1508.7)

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time within a geographic area. 

In addition to NEPA, NMFS must comply with other Federal statutes and requirements such as the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This document

comprehensively analyzes the alternatives considered for all these requirements. Chapters 4, 6, and

7 provide the economic analyses; Chapter 6 meets the requirements under Executive Order 12866;

Chapter 7 provides the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis required under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act; Chapters 8 and 9 also provide additional information that is required under various

statutes. While some of the chapters were written in a way to comply with the specific 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 11 
requirements under these various statutes and requirements, it is the document as a whole that 

meets these requirements and not any individual chapter. 

1.4 Purpose, Need, and Objectives 

The purpose of this document is to evaluate whether some current area-based and gear

management measures remain necessary to reduce and/or maintain low numbers of bluefin tuna 

discards and interactions in the pelagic longline fishery. This evaluation is necessary given the 

recent successes with the IBQ Program, including the shift in management focus towards individual

vessel accountability in the pelagic longline fishery; the continued underharvest of quotas in target 

fisheries, particularly the swordfish quota; comments from the public and the HMS Advisory Panel

members indicating that certain regulations may be redundant in effect; and requests from the 

public and HMS Advisory Panel members to reduce regulatory burden and remove duplicative 

regulations. . 

This document specifically evaluates the continued need for of management measures that were 

intended to reduce bluefin tuna dead discards (i.e., weak hooks, the Cape Hatteras and Gulf of

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, the NE Closed Area). Other management measures and time/area 

closures were enacted for reasons not specifically related to reducing bluefin tuna interactions

and/or discards, and may be considered separately in a future rulemaking. 

All alternatives included in this rulemaking are evaluated against specific objectives that meet the 

purpose of the rulemaking. These objectives were developed with the intention that preferred

management actions not compromise the primary conservationgoals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. Specifically, alternatives must not compromise NMFS’ 

ability to continue to prevent or end overfishing of relevant stocks; rebuild overfished stocks;

minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality; manage Atlantic HMS fisheries for optimum yield; be 

aligned with regulations implemented to support ICCAT recommendations; minimize to the extent

practicable adverse social and economic impacts on related fisheries, fishing communities, and

recreational and commercial activities; and minimize to the extent practicable any disadvantage to 

U.S. fishermen in relation to foreign competitors. The objectivesof this rulemaking consistent with 

the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments are to: 

• Continue to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna 

and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear consistent with the conservation and 

management objectives (e.g., prevent or end overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, manage 

Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield) of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS

FMP, its amendments, and all applicable laws. 

• Simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS management, to the extent practicable, by reducing any 

redundancies in regulations established to reduce bluefin tuna interactions that apply to the 

pelagic longline fishery. 

• Optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fishery to harvest target species quotas (e.g.,

swordfish), to the extent practicable, while also considering fairness among permit/quota

categories. 

In achieving these objectives, due to the success of the IBQ Program, NMFS will continue to pursue

management strategies that emphasize individual vessel accountability over pelagic longline fleetwide measures for managing bluefin tuna bycatch. 

12 Introduction 
1.5 References 

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

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 13 
Summary of the Alternatives 

NEPArequires that any Federal agency proposing a major federal actionconsider all reasonable2 

alternatives, in addition to the proposed action. The evaluation of alternatives in an EIS assists 

NMFS in ensuring that any unnecessary impacts are avoided through an assessment of alternative 

ways to achieve the underlying purpose of the project that may result in less environmental harm. 

To warrant detailed evaluation, an alternative must be reasonable and meet the purpose and need

of the action (see Chapter 1.0). Screening criteria are used to determine whether an alternative is

reasonable. The following discussion identifies the screening criteria used in this EIS to evaluate 

whether an alternative is reasonable; evaluates various alternatives against the screening criteria

(including the proposed measures) and identifies those alternatives found to be reasonable;

identifies those alternatives found not to be reasonable; and for the latter, the basis for this finding. 

Screening Criteria—To be considered “reasonable” for purposes of this EIS, an alternative must be 

designed to meet the purpose and need for action described in Chapter 1 and meet the following

criteria: 

• An alternative must meet goals consistent with rebuilding and management plans. 

• An alternative must be consistent with the 10 National Standards set forth in the MagnusonStevens Act; 

• An alternative must be administratively feasible and enforceable. The costs associated with 

implementing an alternative cannot be prohibitively exorbitant or require unattainable 

infrastructure; 

• An alternative cannot violate other laws (e.g., Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), Endangered 

Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act); 

• An alternative must be consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments; 

• An alternative must be consistent with ICCAT recommendations, which the United States is legally 

obligated to implement as necessary and appropriate under ATCA; 

• An alternative must be consistent with the Terms and Conditions and Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternatives of applicable biological opinions (BiOps); 

• An alternative should optimize the ability of permit categories to harvest target species and 

mitigate factors contributing to the continued decline in pelagic longline effort and target species 

landings; 

• An alternative should not result in additional regulations that may be considered redundant in 

effect to existing regulations. 

This DEIS includes analysis of a wide range of alternatives, and prefers a set of alternatives that 

would achieve the objectives of this regulatory amendment (as described in Chapter 1). NMFS 

2 “Section 1502.14 (of NEPA) requires the EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal . .

.Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic 

standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the [proponent].”

(CEQ, “NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions” (available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G-CEQ40Questions.pdf) (emphasis added)) 

14 Summary of the Alternatives 

2 
developed a range of alternatives considering changes to spatially managed areas that were 

specifically implemented to reduce bluefin tuna interactions or dead discards, and changes to weak 

hook requirements in the Gulf of Mexico intended to reduce bluefin tuna interactions. NMFS may

make changes in the final EIS to meet the same purpose and need in response to public comment on

this DEIS and the proposed rule. Such changes may include modifying the preferred measures,

selecting different alternatives, or adding new measures. The environmental, economic, and social 

impacts of these alternatives are discussed in later chapters. 

2.1 Area-Based Alternatives 

2.1.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area 

The Northeastern United States Closed Area is located in the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of 

New Jersey. Regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 635.2 define this area as the Atlantic Ocean area bounded by

straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order stated: 35°00′ N. lat., 60°00′ W.

long.; 55°00′ N. lat., 60°00′ W. long.; 55°00′N. lat., 20°00′ W. long.; 35°00′ N. lat., 20°00′ W. long.;

35°00′ N. lat., 60°00′ W.long.

Alternative A1: No Action.Maintain the Northeastern United States Closed Area 

regulations. 

Under Alternative A1, NMFS would maintain the Northeastern United States Closed Area (Figure

2.1), as it is currently defined. The currently defined area would remain closed to all vessels using 

pelagic longline gear onboard from June 1st through June 30th of a given year. 

Figure 2.1 Northeastern U.S.Closed Area-Current Boundaries (White Polygon) 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 15 
Alternative A2: Modify the Current Northeastern United States Closed Areato Remove 

a Western Portion of the Closure 

This alternative would modify the Northeastern United States closed area, as currently defined at §

635.2, by removing portions of the closure that current analyses indicate: 1) did not historically

have high numbers of bluefin discards reported in the HMS logbook during the timeframe of data 

(1996-1997) originally analyzed for implementation of the closure in 1999, and 2) were adjacent to 

areas that recently (2015-2017) did not have bluefin interactions. The coordinates of this modified 

area would be, clockwise from the northwest corner: 40o 0’ N latitude, 71o 0’ W longitude; 40o 0’ N 

latitude, 68o 0’ W longitude; 39o 0’ N latitude, 68o 0’ W longitude; 39o 0’ N latitude, 70o 0’ W 

longitude. The effective time period of this closure would remain from June 1 through June 30 each 

year. This alternative is designed to continue to prohibit fishing in areas that might have higher

interaction rates, as inferred from interaction rates in adjacent open areas, while also providing

additional fishing opportunity in locations that are not adjacent to areas with known higher

interaction rates. 

Figure 2.2 Location of theCurrent Northeastern U.S.Closed Area (Single Black Line) with Boundaries 

of a Proposed Modification Superimposed (White Border andGrid) 

16 Summary of the Alternatives 

,.. ... ,~ 

Distribution of Bluefin Tuna 

PLL Interactions in the 

Northeastern PLL Closure 

June 1996-1997 

~ Current Northeastern PLL Closure 

~ National Monument (eff. 2017) 

NE Closure - 70° W Long. Modification 
Alternative A3: Convertthe Northeastern United States Closed Areaandto A GRA with 

Individual Performance Based Access. 

This alternative would convert the Northeastern United States Closed Area to a gear restricted area 

(i.e., the “Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area”), and allow performance-based vessel

access to the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area using the access criteria currently

used for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (currently codified at § 635.21(c)(3) and § 635.14). 

Vessels would be evaluated against criteria (i.e., performance metrics) evaluating a vessel’s ability 

to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and comply with HMS

logbook submission requirements using the three most recent years of available data associated 

with a vessel. If no data are available, then NMFS would not be able to make a determination about 

vessel access, and such vessels would be excluded from gear restricted area access until NMFS has 

collected sufficient data for assessment (consistent with current procedures for the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area). Those vessels that meet the criteria for performance metrics would be 

allowed to fish in the closed area. This measure would be evaluated after at least three years of data 

have been collected to determine whether it effectively achieves the management objectives of this 

rulemaking. 

Alternative A4: Undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need for the 

Northeastern United States Closed Area (Preferred Alternative) 

This alternative would convert the “Northeastern United States Closed Area” to a monitoring area, 

called the “Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area” (i.e., the “Monitoring 

Area”) and establish a three-year evaluation period during which fishing would be allowed in the 

Monitoring Area. Fishing activity would be closely monitored by NMFS under a four-step process 

(Figure 2.3) that would prohibit fishing if the fleet had to use IBQ allocation in exceedance of an 

established threshold to account for bluefin landings or dead discards. The Monitoring Area would 

remain open to pelagic longline fishing from June 1 to June 30 each year (previously, the area was 

closed to pelagic longline fishing during this time) (Step 1, Figure 2.3). 

NMFS would establish a threshold of 150,519 pounds of IBQ allocation that may be used to account 

for landings and dead discards of bluefin caught within the boundaries of the Northeastern United

States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area. As discussed in Chapter 3, the overall pelagic longline

category quota is subdivided for use in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions as Atlantic IBQ and

Gulf of Mexico IBQ, respectively. This threshold would be based on the average annual amount of

unused Atlantic IBQ allocation that is available for use by the pelagic longline fleet from June 1 

through December 31. This threshold would ensure that opening the area to fishing would not 

compromise adherence to the quota needed to appropriately conserve and manage bluefin nor the 

ability of fishery participants to obtain enough IBQ allocation to cover bluefin landings and dead

discards for the rest of the year. If the threshold is not met (Step 2, Figure 2.3, Scenario 1) during

the month of June in a given year, then pelagic longline fishing could take place in the Monitoring 

Area in June of the following year. If the threshold is exceeded (Step 2, Figure 2.3, Scenario 2), the 

area would revert back to a closure for the remainder of June within that year, and would remain 

closed during the month of June in the subsequent years pending the final evaluation. When/if the 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 17 
IBQ allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice 

with the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the 

remainder of the evaluation period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise, 

the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic 

longline fishing. 

Following the evaluation period, NMFS would conduct an evaluation of data collected from the 

Monitoring Area (Step 3). As part of this evaluation, NMFS would compile a report, which would

include, but not be limited to, target species landings and effort bluefin catch rates, IBQ debt from

vessels fishing in the area, percentage of IBQ usage, compliance with other pelagic longline 

regulations, and amount of bycatch with restricted or protected species. This report would 

determine if a future rulemaking is necessary to modify the management of the Monitoring Area 

after the three year evaluation period. If the threshold has not been reached during the evaluation

period (Step 1 and Step 2, Figure 2.3), then the Monitoring Area would remain open in following

years while NMFS finalizes the evaluation report and considers next steps in a future action (green

boxes under Scenario 1 in Step 3 and Step 4, Figure 2.3). If the threshold has been reached during 

the evaluation period, then the area would remain closed during future effective periods (red boxes

under Scenario 2 in Step 3 and Step 4, Figure 2.3). 

Figure 2.3 Example Schematics for an Evaluation Program for the Northeastern U.S. Monitoring Area 

Green is indicative of fishing being allowed in the area, while red is indicative of partial (i.e., a mid-month inseason 

closure in June 2021 under Scenario 2) or complete closure of the area to fishing. 

18 Summary of the Alternatives 

..... 

0 cJ z 0 <ll 

(I) ..c 0 <ll 

(I) 0 ._ 

..c .--1 f0 cJ ·;::: (I) 

ro (I) 

C u 

X (I) LU u 

Vl 

<ll N cJ ._ (I) 

(I) ro u 

X ~ LU C 

N cJ 

0 0 ·;::: ..c ro <ll 

C (I) 

(I) ._ 

u ..c Vl fActions Covered in Pll GRA & Weak Hook Rule 

Step 3: .. 

Evaluation 

-. . . 

Step 1: Evaluation Period 

June June 

2021 2022 

- . • . . 

Future Action 

Step 4: 

Follow 

Up 

Action 

Step 4: 

Follow 

Up 

Action 
Alternative A5: Eliminate the Northeastern United States Closed Area 

This alternative would eliminate all current restrictions associated with the Northeastern United 

States Closed Area. 

2.1.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

The Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is located in the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of North

Carolina. Per § 635.2, this area is defined as an area within the Atlantic Ocean bounded by straight 

lines connecting the followingcoordinates in the order stated: 34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. long.; 35°40′

N. lat., 75°10′ W.long.; 35°40′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.; 37°10′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.; 37°10′ N. lat., 

74°20′ W. long.; 35°30′ N. lat., 74°20′ W. long.; 34°50′ N. lat., 75°00′ W.long.; 34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′

W. long. 

Alternative B1: No Action.Maintain current gear restricted area off Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina, fromDecember through April as well as the performance metrics for access 

to the area. 

This alternative would maintain the current gear restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 

from December through April as well as the performance metrics for access to that area at § 635.21 

(c)(2)(v) and § 635.14, respectively. Vessels would be evaluated against criteria (i.e., performance 

metrics) evaluating their ability to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program

requirements, and comply with HMS logbook submission requirements using the three most recent 

years of available data associated witha vessel. If no data are available, then NMFS would not be 

able to make a determination about vessel access., and such vessels would be excluded from gear

restricted area access until NMFS has collected sufficient data for assessment (consistent with

current operational Amendment 7 implementation procedures). Those vessels that meet the 

criteria for performance metrics would be allowed to fish in the closed area. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 19 
Figure 2.4 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area-Current Boundaries 

Alternative B2: Eliminate the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Preferred 

Alternative) 

This alternative would remove the current gear restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, as

currently defined in § 635.2 and all associated regulatory provisions, restrictions, and prohibitions. 

2.1.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

The Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas are located in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Per §635.2, the first areas is defined as an area 

bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order stated: 26°30′ N. lat., 

94°40′ W. long.; 27°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long.; 27°30′ N. lat., 89° W. long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 89° W.

long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long. The second area is bounded by straight lines connecting the

following coordinates in the order stated: 27°40′ N. lat., 88° W. long.; 28° N. lat., 88° W. long.; 28° N.

lat., 86° W. long.; 27°40′ N. lat., 86° W. long.; 27°40′N. lat., 88° W.long.

Alternative C1: No Action. 

This alternative would maintain the current restrictions regarding the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas at § 635.2 and § 635.21(c)(2)(vi). Current restrictions would be maintained which 

prohibit fishing to all vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard from April 1through May 31 each 

year (vessels may transit the area if gear is properly stowed). (Figure 2.5). 

20 Summary of the Alternatives 

-::-.;--_ ""''I ''4J ~.,.,_;; ,,. _; ii' 

~·~V}l -~1 ,., 

t, ~, fi 

~) ;f': \ 

f~ 

,~'~ \, ..._ '--> ~ 

~ ~ 1~1"~, 

...!, }- ' I 

t ~ I ~ .;_,,tc.,..i,:N...,- --..,._,.~"'r" 

>v. , J ~~/ 

y~~ -// • ~~ 

fl 

V 

Cape Hatteras 

Gear Restricted Area 

(Performance Access, 

December - April) 
Figure 2.4 Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area-Current Boundaries (White Polygons) 

Alternative C2: Allow individual performance based access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Gear Restricted Areas. 

This alternative would allow performance-based access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 

Areas as currently outlined applicable to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in regulations at § 

635.21(c)(3) and § 635.14 . Those vessels that meet the criteria would be allowed to fish in the 

closed area. This measure would be evaluated after at least three years of data have been collected 

to determine whether this program effectively achieves the management objectives of this 

rulemaking. 

Alternative C3: Evaluate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (Preferred 

Alternative) 

This alternative is similar in concept to Alternative A4 above. This alternative would convert the 

“Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area” to the “Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area” (i.e., the

“Monitoring Area”), and establish a three-year evaluation period during which fishing would be 

allowed in the Monitoring Area. Fishing activity would be closely monitored by NMFS under a fourstep process (Figure 2.5) that would prohibit fishing if the fleet had to use IBQ allocation in 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 21 
exceedance of an established threshold to account for bluefin landings or dead discards. The 

Monitoring Area would remain open to pelagic longline fishing during the months of April and May 

31 of each year (previously the area had been closed to pelagic longline fishing during these 

months) (Step 1 of Figure 2.5). 

NMFS would apply a threshold of 63,150 pounds of IBQ allocation that may be used to account for

landings and dead discards of bluefin tuna caught within the boundaries of the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Monitoring Area. As discussed in Chapter 3, the overall pelagic longline category quota is

subdivided for use in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions as Atlantic IBQ and Gulf of Mexico IBQ 

allocation, respectively. This threshold would be equivalent to the amount of Gulf of Mexico IBQ 

annual allocation distributed to vessels that fished in the region while the closures were effective 

between 2015 and 2017. This threshold would limit the amount of IBQ that could be used to 

account for bluefin landings and dead discards in the monitoring area to the amount of IBQ

allocation that could be used by the portion of the fleet that was recently (2015 through 2017)

active during these months in the Gulf of Mexico. Since fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico is already 

controlled in the IBQ Program through regional IBQ quota category designations, the impacts from

this alternative would primarily come from the Gulf of Mexico fleet. The intent of this threshold

design is to discourage a level of fishing would not compromise adherence to the quota needed to

appropriately conserve and manage bluefin. If the threshold is not met during the months of April

or May in a given year during the Evaluation Period (Step 2, Figure 2.5, as indicated by green boxes

under Scenario 1), then pelagic longline fishing could take place in the Monitoring Area in the 

months of April and May in the following year. If the threshold is exceeded (Step 2, Figure 2.5, as

indicated by box shaded from green to red in Year 2 under Scenario 2), the area would revert back 

to a closure for the remainder of April and/or May within that year, and would remain closed in 

April and May of subsequent years contained within the three year evaluation period. When/if the 

IBQ allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice 

with the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the 

remainder of the evaluation period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise, 

the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic 

longline fishing. 

Following the evaluation period, NMFS would conduct an evaluation of data collected from the

Monitoring Area (Step 3). NMFS would compile a report, which would include, but not be limited to, 

target species landings and effort bluefin catch rates, IBQ debt from vessels fishing in the area,

percentage of IBQ usage, compliance with other pelagic longline regulations, and amount of bycatch

with restricted or protected species. This report would determine if a future rulemaking is

necessary to modify the management of the Monitoring Area after the three year evaluation period.

Status of the areas (i.e., whether they are open or closed to fishing) in Steps 3 and 4 are contingent

upon whether the threshold was reached during the evaluation period. If the threshold has not

been reached during the evaluation period, then the area would remain open in following years 

while NMFS finalizes an evaluation report and considers next steps in a future action (Step 3 and

Step 4, Figure 2.5, green boxes as indicated under Scenario 1). If the threshold has been reached 

22 Summary of the Alternatives 
during the evaluation period, then the area would remain closed in following years (Step 3 and Step 

4, Figure 2.5, red boxes as indicated under Scenario 2). 

Figure 2.5 Example Schematics for an Evaluation Program for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring 

Area 

Green is indicative of fishing being allowed in the area, while red is indicative of partial (i.e., a mid-month inseason 

closure in June 2021 under Scenario 2) or complete closure of the area to fishing. 

Alternative C4: Eliminate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

This alternative would remove the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas as currently defined 

at § 635.2 and all associated regulatory provisions, restrictions, and prohibitions. 

2.2 Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Alternatives 

Weak hook alternatives are focused on gear requirements for pelagic longline fisheries that are 

conducted in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, as defined at 600.105(c). 

Alternative D1: No Action 

Under Alternative D1, NMFS would maintain the current regulations at 50 CFR§

635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) requiring vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as defined at 50 CFR 

105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are required to have 

been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic

Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, to use weak hooks year-round when 

operating in the Gulf of Mexico. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 23 

Actions Covered in PLL GRA & Weak Hook Rule 

• Step 3: 

Evaluation 

Step 2: Meets Threshold? 

Step 2: Meets Threshold? 

Future Action 

Step 4: 

Follow 

Up 

Action 
Alternative D2: Seasonal requirement for Weak Hooks (Preferred Alternative) 

This alternative would modify regulations to require vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as defined 

at 50 CFR § 105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are 

required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in

the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to use weak hooks when 

bluefin tuna are highest in abundance from January through June and throughout their spawning

season, which is from April to June. Fishermen may voluntarily choose to continue to use weak

hooks when they are not required. 

Alternative D3: Remove the Weak Hook Requirement 

This alternative would remove regulations that require vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as

defined at 50 CFR § 105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or

are required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for 

use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to use weak hooks. 

NMFS would continue to encourage voluntary use of weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico as a

conservation strategy for bluefin tuna. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Further Analyzed 

2.3.1 Modify the size of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

NMFS considered whether modifications to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area should be 

included as alternatives in this rulemaking. Specifically, NMFS considered whether it was

appropriate to consider an alternative that would modify (e.g., contract, expand, or move the

boundaries of) the gear restricted area to [continue to] encompass bluefin bycatch “hotspots.”

Hotspots consist of discrete areas with elevated bluefin tuna interactions. In the FEIS for 

Amendment 7, NMFS identified a hotspot within an area off the Coast of North Carolina, which led 

to the establishment of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. NMFS designed the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area based on the identification of areas with relatively high bluefin interaction 

rates with pelagic longline gear, establishing the established the Area’s boundaries by drawing 

boxes around cells with higher interaction rates and an appropriate buffer. The goal of the area was 

to help reduce bluefin interactions within the GRA. 

In considering alternatives for the present action, NMFS compared pelagic longline data depicting 

the average number of bluefin interactions per year in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

before and after implementation of the Amendment 7 management measures. Approximately 3,278 

bluefin tuna interactions were reported in the HMS logbooks between 2006 and 2011 (an average 

annual number of ~468 per year). Between 2012 and 2014, the average annual number of

interactions dropped to 94 per year within the boundaries of the gear restricted area. Following

implementation of Amendment 7 measures, the average annual number of bluefin interactions in 

the gear restricted area dropped to approximately 31 bluefin tuna per year (using 2015-2017 data, 

Table 3.12). 

The two maps in Figure 4.9 show the distribution of the average annual number of bluefin 

interactions in the mid-Atlantic region against the boundaries of the gear restricted area (outlined 

24 Summary of the Alternatives 
with a heavy black line) before and after Amendment 7 implementation. Each grid cell in the maps 

are labeled with the average annual number of interactions per year occurring in that area (i.e.,

interactions across all data points falling within that cell were summed up and divided by the 

number of years to derive an average). Interaction hotspots are clearly visible in the map reflecting 

pre-Amendment 7 data (left side map), such as the four dark red grid cells depicting between 

approximately 27 to 96 interactions per year. These interaction rates are approximately 6 to 10

times higher than in adjacent cells shown within the gear restricted area, and between

approximately 16 and 330 percent higher than cells shown on the map which are outside and

adjacent to the boundary. In contrast, after implementation of Amendment 7 measures (right side 

map), while there are cells that produce approximately 30 percent more interactions than adjacent 

cells, the magnitude of interactions in the same area became much smaller (~ 2 to 4 per year/grid 

cell).Across the two timeframes, the hotspot is no longer apparent followingimplementation of

Amendment 7. Because the interaction rates were less skewed across cells and a hotspot, was no 

longer visually distinguishable, NMFS was unable to delineate any appropriate new or modified

GRA boundary around cells with higher interaction rates and an appropriate buffer for impact

analyses. 

During the scoping comment period and meetings for this action, several comments suggested that

a geographic expansion of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area could be warranted. However, all

areas suggested for “expansion” were either already covered within the current gear restricted area 

boundaries, or had minimal bluefin interactions following implementation of Amendment 7 during 

the December - April effective periods for the gear restricted area. 

NMFS determined that there was no scientifically-supportable basis for identifying and further 

analyzing such an alternative, (modifying the gear restricted area in a way that would retain a 

portion of it, or expanding the current boundaries). Such an alternative, absent a rational basis for

its design would not meet the objectivesof this rulemaking: 

• Objective 1: Minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin and other Atlantic HMS. The data 

NMFS reviewed indicates that any alternative that modified or retained the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area would have negligible beneficial ecological impacts for bluefin tuna. Retaining 

portions ofthe gear restricted area wouldnot contribute effectively towards the goal of

minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna. Similarly, the areas considered for 

expansion either had no bluefin interactions, or no data to warrant such an expansion. NMFS 

therefore had no indication that such expansions would enhance the objective of minimizing 

bycatch. 

• Objective 2: Simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS management, to the extent practicable, by 

reducing any redundancies in regulations established to reduce bluefin tuna interactions that 

apply to the pelagic longline fishery. The gear restricted area provisions impose regulations that 

are intended to reduce bluefin interactions, as do the regulations associated with the IBQ

Program. When Amendment 7 was adopted and implemented, it was not known to what extent 

the IBQ Program alone would reduce bluefin interactions within the fishery. There was also

evidence of a bluefin hotspot within the area ultimately identified as the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area. The data post-Amendment 7 implementation shows that the IBQ Program has

reduced bluefin bycatch effectively. Furthermore, data from the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area indicates that a hotspot no longer exists within the area or the nearby surrounding areas.

Thus, given the minimal ecological benefits of expanding or retaining a portion of the gear

restricted area, such actions may not be justified as being needed to achieve MSA management

objectives. Because there are already measures in place that require the pelagic longline fleet to 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 25 
account for bluefin interactions, expanding the area or retaining it may not meet the objective of 

simplifying and streamlining Atlantic HMS management measures. 

• Objective 3: Optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fishery to harvest target species quotas 

(e.g., swordfish), to the extent practicable, while also considering fairness among permit/quota 

categories. As discussed in Chapter 4, most of the pelagic longline fleet has met the criteria 

established for access based on performance metrics. However, for a small number of

individuals, retaining a portion of the current gear restricted area or expanding the gear

restricted area does not optimize the ability to harvest target species quotas. The Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area is situated in a location where wintertime fishing activities are largely

dependent on weather and wind direction. Cape Hatteras and adjacent Diamond Shoals shelter

fishing grounds to the south and west from northerly and westerly winds, and to the north from

southerly and westerly winds. Retaining the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area absent any

identifiable, science-based conservation benefit reduces operational flexibility of fishermen to 

safely conduct fishing activities in short, favorable wintertime weather windows. 

26 Summary of the Alternatives 
Description of Affected Environment 

This chapter describes the affected environment (the fishery, the gears used, the communities

involved, etc.), and provides a view of the current condition of the fishery, which serves as a 

baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the different alternatives. This chapter also

provides a summary of information concerning the biological status of the bluefin tuna stock; the

marine ecosystems in the fishery management unit; the social and economic condition of the fishing

interests, fishing communities, and fish processing industries; and the best scientific information

available concerning the past, present, and possible future condition of bluefin tuna stocks, 

ecosystems, and fisheries. 

3.1 Summary of Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management

The authority to manage Atlantic HMS fisheries was designated to NMFS by the Secretary of

Commerce. The HMS Management Division develops regulations for Atlantic HMS fisheries within 

NMFS. HMS fisheries require management at the international, national, and state levels because of

their highly migratory nature. NMFS manages HMS fisheries in federal waters (domestic) and the 

high seas (international), while individual states establish regulations for some HMS in their own

waters. However, there are exceptions to this generalization. For example, as a condition of their

permit, federally-permitted HMS fishermen are generally required to follow federal regulations in 

all waters (including state waters). However, if a state has more restrictive regulations than the

federal regulations, the state regulations may prevail. 

While NMFS does not generally manage HMS fisheries in state waters, states are invited to send

representatives to HMS Advisory Panel meetings and to participate in stock assessments, public

hearings, or other fora. NMFS continues to work on improving its communication and coordination

with state agencies and welcomes comments from states about various pelagic longline fishery

measures. NMFS will share this rulemaking with the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean states

and territories. To the extent practicable, NMFS will work with states, Councils, and the Atlantic and 

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions to ensure complementary regulations are implemented 

across jurisdictions. 

On the international level, and the United States participates in meetings of the International

Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and in stock assessment conducted by

its Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). NMFS implements conservation and

management measures adopted by ICCAT and through other relevant international agreements,

consistent with ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. ICCAT has assessed numerous stocks, and has 

conducted several ecosystem risk assessments for various HMS species, among other things. Stock

assessments and management recommendations are listed on ICCAT’s website. International 

cooperation is critical to the effective conservation and management of bluefin tuna stocks 

(western Atlantic and eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean), given the species’ highly migratory nature.

ICCAT conservation and management occurs both through stock assessments and

recommendations. 

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

3 
3.1.1 Atlantic HMS Stock Status 

The term “stock of fish” means a species, subspecies, geographical grouping or other category of

fish capable of management as a unit MSA §3(42)). “Stock” may also refer to a multispecies complex

managed as a single unit due to the occurrence of two or more species being harvested together.

Stock assessments measure the impact of fishing and on stocks and project harvest levels that 

maximize the number of fish that can be caught while preventing overfishing, and where necessary, 

rebuilding depleted stocks. The thresholds that NOAA Fisheries uses to determine the status of 

Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) are presented in Figure 3.1. These thresholds are fully

described in Chapter 3 of the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP (64 FR 29090; May

28, 1999) (1999 HMS FMP) and in Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (64 FR 29090; May 28, 1999),

and were carried over in full in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (71 FR 58058; October 2,

2006). These thresholds are based on those described in a paper providing the initial technical

guidance for implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (Restrepo et al. 1998). 

Images like Figure 3.1 are often used by stock assessment scientists to summarize the results of

various stock assessment models. Generally, if the model results are in the white portion of the

figure, a stock may have a status of “not overfished” and “overfishing is not occurring.” Similarly, if 

the model results are in the gray portions of the figure, a stock may have a status of “overfished,” 

“overfishing is occurring,” or both. 

Figure 3.1 Illustration of the Status Determination Criteria and Rebuilding Terms 

In summary, a stock is considered “overfished” when the current biomass (B) is less than the 

biomass for the minimum stock size threshold (B < BMSST). The minimum stock size threshold

(MSST) is determined based on the natural mortality of the stock and the biomass at maximum

sustainable yield (BMSY). Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the maximum long-term average yield

that can be produced by a stock on a continuing basis. The biomass can fall below the BMSY without 

causing the stock to be declared “overfished” as long as the biomass is above BMSST. If a stock is 

declared overfished, action to rebuild the stock is required by law. A stock is considered rebuilt 

when B is greater than BMSY. It is important to note that the International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) uses different thresholds for the overfished stock status 

28 Description of Effected Environment 

I 

~ Overfis~ing 

Arei, 

I 

1.0 ---------------~----rI ------------ MFMT = FMsv J I Fov = Final Ta rget 

F /FMSY 

0.0 

Overfished 

Area 

< 1--======== 

,.. 

"' "' :. 

o:i 

~ ~ 

II 

.,, 

..!! 

I<, 

"' "' "' 

= .s 

cc 

C: 

i 

> I 

~I 

~ ' I 

t;; I 

~I ~, 

~ I 

!S I 

91 

51 

"' ;:l l 

ai I 

I 

1.0 

= 0.75 FMSY 

- ;,-

"' "' :; OJI 

... i:Q 

~ 0 

"l oi 

C I ~ "' II "l > 'T 0 

~ II 
determination. ICCAT defines an overfished status as Byear relative to BMSY, while the domestic 

definition of an overfished status is Byear relative to BMSST. A stock may be determined as

“overfishing may be occurring” if the current fishing mortality (F) is greater than the fishing

mortality at MSY (FMSY) (F > FMSY). In the case of F, the maximum fishing mortality threshold is FMSY. 

Thus, if F exceeds FMSY, overfishing is occurring and action to end overfishing is required by law.

The same status determination criteria for overfishing are applied by ICCAT and NOAA Fisheries for 

HMS. 

A stock is considered healthy when B is greater than or equal to the biomass at optimum yield (BOY)

and F is less than or equal to the fishing mortality at optimum yield (FOY).

The domestic thresholds used to calculate the status of Atlantic HMS as described in the 1999 FMP 

and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish FMP are: 

• Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT) = Flimit = FMSY. 

• Overfishing is occurring when Fyear > FMSY. 

• Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) = Blimit = (1-M) BMSY when M < 0.5 or MSST = 0.5BMSY 

when M ≥ 0.5, M = natural mortality. Formula exceptions include blue marlin (0.9BMSY), white 

marlin (0.85BMSY), and west Atlantic sailfish (0.75BMSY). In many cases an average M across age 

classes or sensitivity runs from a stock assessment model is used to calculate MSST. 

Domestically, an overfished status is defined as Byear relative to BMSST. 

• Biomass target during rebuilding = BMSY. 

• Fishing mortality during rebuilding < FMSY. 

• Fishing mortality for healthy stocks= 0.75FMSY (Final target = FOY). 

• Biomass for healthy stocks = BOY ≈ 1.25 to 1.30BMSY. 

• Minimum biomass flag = (1-M)BOY. 

• Level of certainty of at least 50 percent but depends on species and circumstances. 

• For some stocks (e.g., bluefin tuna, albacore), spawning stock biomass (SSB) is used as a proxy 

for biomass. 

• For sharks, in some cases, spawning stock fecundity (SSF) or number of fish (N) can be used as

a proxy for biomass since biomass does not influence pup production in sharks. SSF is the sum

of the number of mature sharks at age multiplied by pup-production at age. 

NMFS annually provides a current list of the status of Atlantic HMS in the HMS Stock Assessment

and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report, which may be downloaded at the Atlantic HMS website. See 

Table 2.1 in the most recent SAFE Report for a complete list of stock status summaries. Table 3.1 

below summarizes the most recent stock status information for target and bycatch species in the

pelagic longline fishery (NMFS 2019). In preparing this action and considering alternatives, NMFS

considered relevant information in the most recent stock assessments for each of the stocks listed 

below. These stock assessments are listed in the table below (Table 3.1). 

For the quota-managed stocks listed below, including western Atlantic bluefin tuna and North

Atlantic swordfish, the actions considered and analyzed in this DEIS would not affect or alter the 

science-based quotas for the stocks. Only the time and place (i.e., for GRA/closed area alternatives), 

and/or manner (i.e., gear/weak hooks) in which the allowable quotas are caught could be affected. 

Any action considered would manage stocks within the allowable catch levels. For these stocks, 

NMFS has implemented the quotas through rulemaking with the appropriate environmental 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 29 
analyses of the effects of quota implementation. Those rulemaking actions and analyses are not 

repeated here. They include: 

• Final Rule on Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Northern Albacore Tuna Quotas; Atlantic Bigeye and

Yellowfin Tuna Size Limit Regulations. (83 FR 5139, October 11, 2018). In this final rule, NMFS 

modified the baseline annual U.S. quota and subquotas for bluefin tuna and the baseline annual 

U.S. North Atlantic albacore quota to reflect quotas adopted by the International Commission

for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Supporting documents, including the

Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis, may be downloaded from the HMS website at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-species/. 

• 2012 Swordfish Quota Adjustment Rule (77 FR 45273; July 31, 2012). In this final rule, NMFS 

analyzed the North Atlantic swordfish quota and quota adjustment process in the EA, Final RIR, 

and FRFA that were prepared for the rule. 

30 Description of Effected Environment 
Table 3.1 Atlantic HMSStock Status Summaries For Pelagic Longline Target (Swordfish and Yellowfin Tuna) and Bycatch (Bluefin Tuna, Blue

Marlin, White Marlin, Sailfish, Shortfin Mako, Dusky) Species 

Species 

Current Relative 

Biomass Level BMSY 

International 

Threshold 

Domestic Minimum 

Stock Size Threshold 

International 

Stock Status 

Domestic Stock 

Status 

Stock Assessment 

(Last Assessment Year) 

Western Atlantic 

bluefin tuna Unspecified* Unspecified*† BMSY 0.86 SSBMSY Unspecified* Unknown* 2017^ 

Atlantic y ellowfin tuna B2014/BMSY = 0.95 (0.71 -

1.36) Unspecified † BMSY 0.5 BMSY 

(age 2+) Ov erfished Not ov erfished 2016^ 

Atlantic Bigey e Tuna B2017/BMSY = 0.59 (0.42 -

.80) Unspecified † BMSY 0.6 BMSY Ov erfished Ov erfished 2018^ 

North Atlantic 

swordfish 

B2015/BMSY = 1.04 (0.82 -

1.39) 

82,640 t (51,580 -

132,010) BMSY 0.8 BMSY; (52,048 t) Not ov erfished Not ov erfished 2017 

Blue marlin SSB2016/SSBMSY = 0.69 

(0.52 - 0.91) Unspecified† BMSY 0.9 BMSY Ov erfished Ov erfished 2018 

White marlin (and 

roundscale spearfish) 

B2010/BMSY = 0.5 (0.42 -

0.60) 

29,240 t 

(27,260 - 30,720 t) BMSY 0.85 BMSY 

(23,171 - 26,112 t) Ov erfished Ov erfished 2012^ 

West Atlantic sailfish 

SSB2014/SSBMSY = 1.81 

(0.51-2.57) ‡ 

SSB2014/SSBMSY = 1.16 

(0.18-1.69)‡‡ 

1,438-1,636 t ‡,‡‡ BMSY 0.75 BMSY Not likely Not overfished— 

rebuilding 2016 

North Atlantic shortfin 

mako sharks B2015/BMSY = 0.57 - 0.95 62,555 t-123,475 t 

††† BMSY (1-M) BMSY‡‡* Ov erfished Ov erfished 2017 

Dusky sharks SSF2015/SSFMSY = 0.41 -

0.64 Unknown† NA (1-M) SSBMSY NA Ov erfished 2016 

*In the 2017 stock assessment, the SCRS indicated that it is not possible to calculate biomass-based reference points (e.g., BMSY) absent additional knowledge (or basis for assumptions) about how 

future recruitment potential relates to spawning stock biomass. 

†A value for BMSY (or its proxy) was not prov ided in the stock assessment. 

††There is insufficient information to estimate how many years it will take this stock to rebuild. 

†††Only the BSP2-JAGS and JABBA models prov ided BMSY values in biomass. The BMSY range encompasses the 8 scenarios run of the BSP2-JAGS and JABBA models. The SS3 model prov ided 

BMSY values in numbers. 

‡Stock Synthesis estimate based on increasing CPUE trends, with approx imate 95% confidence intervals. 

‡‡Stock Synthesis estimate based on decreasing CPUE trends, with approximate 95% confidence intervals. 

‡‡*M is unknown. 

^Upcoming assessments scheduled for 2019 (white marlin/roundscale spearfish, yellowfin tuna), 2020 (bluefin tuna), and 2023 (bigeye tuna) 

Source: 2018 Atlantic HMS SAFE Report. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 31 
3.2 Description and Management of the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

The pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic HMS primarily targets swordfish, yellowfintuna, and bigeye 

tuna in various areas and seasons. Secondary target species include dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus),

albacore tuna, and, to a lesser degree, pelagic sharks. Although this gear can be modified (e.g., depth

of set, hook type, hook size, bait) to target swordfish, tunas, or sharks, it is generally a multi-species 

fishery. These vessel operators are opportunistic, switching gear style and making subtle changes

to target the best available economic opportunity on each individual trip. Pelagic longline gear

sometimes attracts and hooks non-target finfish with little or no commercial value as well as 

species that cannot be retained by commercial fishermen due to regulations. For example, the 

pelagic longline fishery interacts with multiple managed or restricted bycatch species, including

bluefin tuna, shortfin mako, dusky shark, sandbar shark and billfish, etc. Pelagic longline gear may

also interact with protected species such as marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds. Thus, this 

gear has been classified as a Category I fishery with respect to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA). Any species (or undersized catch of permitted species) that cannot be landed due to

fishery regulations are required to be released, regardless of whether the catch is dead or alive. 

Pelagic longline gear is composed of several parts (Figure 3.2). The primary fishing line, or mainline 

of the longline system, can vary from five to 40 miles in length, withapproximately 20 to 30 hooks 

per mile. The depth of the mainline is determined by ocean currents and the length of the floatline. 

The floatline connects the mainline to several buoys and periodic markers which can have radar

reflectors or radio beacons attached. Each individual hook is connected by a leader, or gangion, to

the mainline. Lightsticks, which contain light emitting chemicals, are used, particularly when

targeting swordfish. When attached to the hook and suspended at a certain depth, lightsticks attract 

baitfish, which may, in turn, attract pelagic predators (NMFS 1999). 

When targeting swordfish, pelagic longline gear is generally deployed at sunset and hauled at 

sunrise to take advantage of swordfish nocturnal, near-surface feeding habits (NMFS 1999). In 

general, longlines targeting tunas are set in the morning, fished deeper in the water column, and

hauled back 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. 

Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 illustrate basic differencesbetween swordfish(shallow) and tuna (deep)

longline sets. Swordfish sets are buoyed to the surface, have fewer hooks between floats, and are 

relatively shallow. This same type of gear arrangement is used for mixed target species sets. Tuna

sets use a different type of float placed much further apart. Compared with swordfish sets, tuna sets 

have more hooks between the floats and the hooks are set much deeper in the water column. It is 

believed that tuna sets hook fewer turtles than the swordfish sets because of the difference in 

fishing depth. In addition, tuna sets use bait only, while swordfish sets use a combination of bait 

and lightsticks. Compared with vessels targeting swordfish or mixed species, vessels specifically

targeting tuna are typically smaller and fish different grounds. 

Regulations for the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery include minimum sizes for swordfish, 

yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and bluefin; gear and bait requirements; limited access vessel permits;

an IBQ program to limit incidental take of bluefin tuna; gear restricted areas; closed areas;

observers, protected species incidental take limits; reporting requirements (including logbooks);

mandatory workshop requirements; regional quotas for swordfish; and shark regulations. The

retention of billfish by commercial vessels, or the sale of billfish from the Atlantic Ocean, is 

32 Description of Effected Environment 
prohibited. As a result, all billfish caught on pelagic longline gear must be released or discarded, and

are considered bycatch. Many of the management strategies implemented have a spatial 

component. For example, some gear requirements are designated for certain areas (e.g., weak

hooks in the Gulf of Mexico, certain gear and bait combination requirements for the Northeast

Distant Area). The pelagic longline fishery is also bound to certain other regulations under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other laws. For example, in 2016 President Barack Obama created the 

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which protects pristine deep

marine ecosystems, under authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. All commercial fishing, 

excluding red crab and lobster fisheries, is prohibited. Atlantic HMS pelagic longliners may not 

possess commercial fishing gear within the boundaries of the monument is also prohibited, except

when the gear is stowed and not available for immediate use during passage without interruption 

through the monument. 

Figure 3.2 Typical U.S. Pelagic Longline Gear 

Source: Redesign from original in Arocha (1997). 

Figure 3.3 Pelagic Longline Gear Deployment Techniques 

Note: This figure is only included to show basic differences in pelagic longline gear configuration and to illustrate that 

this gear may be altered to target different species. 

Source: Hawaii Longline Association and Honolulu Advertiser. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 33 

' --- ' Hooks --

- --1000 Fcut- · l;IC'!Vioon Fl'o,"11!i, 

1D;;i,:!I Ft!>:11 Floan o li!iln ~,oi lll,tM,e11~f "'311 

Hook&: Deptl'l of 70' lo 1 IIO'i 

4-S Hooks Betweefl floalB 

!i;gh-llyer 

\/ 

---1/2 ,.ee --- 16etween Floitt; , 

Hooke.: Deplti o1 300' to 12001; 

20-40 Hook8 Betwe€!111 Floats 
3.2.1 Bluefin Tuna Management History

This section provides a brief overview of Atlantic HMS management on the domestic and

international level along with recent information on the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery. 

3.2.1.1 Domestic Management

Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and

ATCA. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield

on a continuing basis while preventing overfishing. 

The Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery is a quota-managed fishery, and catch (landings and dead

discards) must be accounted for within the available U.S. quota. The annual U.S. bluefin quota (set 

by ICCAT) is allocated domestically among seven quota categories, including two incidental

categories, the Longline and Trap categories, as well as the categories that direct on bluefin 

(General, Angling, Harpoon, and Purse Seine) and a Reserve category, used for research and

inseason quota transfers as warranted. Because the pelagic longline fishery primarily targets 

swordfish, yellowfintuna, and bigeye tuna, and incidentally catchesbluefin as bycatch, the Longline

quota category provides the pelagic longline fishery with bluefin quota to account for that bycatch.

The amount of quota allocated to each category is expressed in NMFS regulations as a percentage of 

the U.S. quota. 

Prior to the 2015 implementation of the IBQ Program, the Longline category was allocated 8.1 

percent of the total U.S. quota for landings. Pelagic longline vessels were limited in the number of

bluefin they could retain per trip (based on the amount of target species catch), and only landings

counted toward the Longline quota. Vessels could retain one, two, or three bluefin if they had 2,000

lb, 6,000 lb, or 30,000 lb of target catch, respectively. Bluefin caught in excess of this limit were 

required to be discarded. The category quota did not include an allowance for dead discards. 

Discards by the pelagic longline fishery were estimated annually and accounted for within the 

overall U.S. quota. Prior to the implementation of Amendment 7 and its IBQ Program, catches

(landings plus dead discards) of bluefin by pelagic longline vessels had been significantly over the 

Longline category quota for several years. Because the amount of quota allocated to the Longline 

category did not reflect the larger amount of catch including dead discards, NMFS had to rely on

underharvest from other quota categories and annual quota adjustments to account for dead 

discards, to ensure that the United States remained within its annual bluefin quota. In some years,

the activity of only a few pelagic longline vessels constituted the majority of the category quota

overharvests. It became apparent through discussions with the HMS Advisory Panel and various

data analyses that measures focused more on individual vessel accountability, versus fleet level 

accountability, would be needed to help realign the pelagic longline fleet catch to the Longline

category quota and that the category quota allocations should be re-examined. 

Therefore, the IBQ Program and electronic monitoring (EM) were implemented in the pelagic 

longline fishery in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico in 2015 by Amendment 7. Amendment 7 also

implemented substantial changes to the management of bluefin that affected all

participants/categories in the bluefin fisheries (both directed categories and those with bluefin 

bycatch).The most sweeping regulations were those affecting the pelagic longline fishery to reduce 

interactions with bluefin and provide vessel-level accountability. For example, EM requirements 

were implemented to provide NMFS a means to verify the accuracy of counts and identification of 

bluefin reported by the vessel owner/operator. In addition to implementing the IBQ Program, 

Amendment 7 implemented changes to the category quotas. Amendment 7 included an increase to 

the Longline category quota and increased management flexibility for transfers among quota 

categories through the Reserve category quota, as well as new gear restricted areas in the Atlantic 

34 Description of Effected Environment 
(and performance metrics for accessing this area) and Gulf of Mexico designed to reduce bluefin 

interactions. 

3.2.1.2 International Management of Bluefin Tuna

ICCAT, with its 52 contracting parties, manages tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and 

its adjacent seas and also conducts research and has adopted measures related to tuna species

caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT meets annually and adopts binding

recommendations and non-binding resolutions that are intended to achieve ICCAT Convention 

management goals and objectives3. ICCAT recommendations are binding instruments for

Contracting Parties, while ICCAT resolutions are non-binding and express the will of the 

Commission. The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) authorizes the Secretary to promulgate 

regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to implement binding ICCAT measures. The 

authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from

the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS. 

Atlantic bluefin tuna are managed by ICCAT as western and eastern stocks separated by a 

management boundary at the 45° W meridian. The two-stock hypothesis was supported by NMFS’s

2011 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Status Review of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ABT SRT 2011). 4. 

Further evidence of meta- or subpopulations for each stock was considered; however, the SRT

found the only conclusive evidence (under ESA definitions) was for two differentiated stocks (i.e.,

Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico). The SRT acknowledged evidence suggesting that there may be 

two discrete populations within the Mediterranean, but did not have enough information to

determine the significance of these populations to the species as a whole. 

In 2017, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 17-06 to establish interim conservation and

management measures for 2018 through 2020 for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock, including

establishing a total allowable catch (TAC) of 2,350 t (an increase of approximately 17 percent). This 

recommendation was adopted to be responsive to a 2017 SCRS stock assessment while recognizing

the need for a transition between the 20-year rebuilding program adopted in 1998 and a future 

approach to managing the stock that relies on management procedures to meet ICCAT Convention 

objectives (i.e., to maintain populations at levels that will support maximum sustainable yield).

Rather than continue to use divergent high and low recruitment scenarios based upon biomass

reference points that had dominated past assessments, SCRS decided to use an approach relying on

fishing mortality rate, using a rate of F0.1 as a proxy for biomass-based reference points. 

Application of the western bluefin tuna allocations among Contracting Parties, Cooperating nonContracting Parties, Entities, and/or Fishing Entities (CPCs), the percentages of which remained

unchanged from the previous recommendation, resulted in a total U.S. quota of 1,272.86 t, including

25 t for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the vicinity of the Northeast Distant

management area (NED) boundary. The Recommendation also details work to be undertaken by

the ICCAT and its scientific body toward the anticipated adoption of management procedures,

including a harvest control rule, for western Atlantic bluefin tuna by 2020. For eastern Atlantic and 

3 All ICCAT recommendations and resolutions are available on the ICCAT website: https://www.iccat.int/en/ 

4 On May 24, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned NMFS to list Atlantic bluefin tuna as

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS evaluated the petition as required

by the ESA, determined that the petitioned action may be warranted, and published a positive 90 day finding

(75 FR 57431). A Status Review was conducted under the requirements of the ESA and published on May 20,

2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 35 
Mediterranean bluefin tuna, Recommendation 17-07 increased the TAC for 2018-2020.

Management measures for the eastern fishery were updated in 2018 with Recommendation 18-02. 

3.2.2 Bluefin Tuna Spatial and Gear Management: Closed Areas, Gear Restricted 

Areas, Weak Hooks

In general, Atlantic HMS fishery participants may be required to comply with a number of different

types of fishery closures, depending on the combination of permits held. These may include 

closures or restricted areas for Council-managed species, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, 

National Monuments, and National Marine Sanctuaries, among other things. 

As previously described, pelagic longline is a heavily managed gear type and is strictly monitored. 

Because it is difficult for pelagic longline fishermen to avoid undersized or prohibited fish in some 

areas, NMFS incorporates “spatial management” in the form of area closures or gear restricted 

areas in the Gulf of Mexico and along the U.S. East Coast (Figure 3.4) as a component of effective 

fisheries management. The intent of some closures was to decrease bycatch in the pelagic longline

fishery by closing areas with the highest bycatch rates. Those that are intended to specifically

reduce bycatch of bluefin tuna are discussed in greater detail below, and are the focus of this 

rulemaking. 

There are also time/area closures to pelagic longline gear use designed to reduce the incidental

catch of undersized HMS (e.g., swordfish) and sea turtles. Management options for these areas are

not being considered in this action because they are not areas specifically created to manage bluefin 

tuna interactions and dead discards. (A separate NMFS action also is underway, and is in the 

scoping phase, to consider approaches to collect data and perform research in areas that are 

currently closed to certain gears or fishing activities for Atlantic HMS. Such research will help 

evaluate and support spatial fisheries management for Atlantic HMS in the future.) 

36 Description of Effected Environment 
Figure 3.4 Examples of Current Spatially Managed Areas That Prohibit or Restrict Pelagic Longline 

Fishing by U.S. Flagged Vessels 

3.2.2.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area 

The Northeastern United States Closed Area was implemented through the 1999 HMS FMP to 

reduce bluefin tuna discards in the pelagic longline fishery. NMFS determined that the western

Atlantic bluefin tuna stock was overfished in 1997 and a rebuilding plan was adopted by ICCAT in 

1998. In addition, the 1998 ICCAT Recommendation on western Atlantic bluefin tuna set a countryspecific dead discard allowance and required that all Contracting Parties, including the United

States, minimize dead discards of bluefin tuna to the extent practicable. Given the status of bluefin 

tuna and recommendations from ICCAT, at that time, NMFS investigated a range of different

time/area options for locations with high bluefin tuna bycatch in the 1999 HMS FMP for Atlantic

tunas, sharks, and swordfish. NMFS 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 (Figure 3.4), has since been closed from June 1 through June 30 each year). Considerable 

fishing effort with pelagic longline gear has been occurring on the outer seaward edges of this

Closed Area for the past 20 years. NMFS initially considered changes to the Northeastern United 

States Closed Area during the scoping process for Amendment 7, but did not include actions for that 

area in the Amendment 7 rulemaking. Although no comments were received specific to the NE 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 37 

30' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

Cape Hatteras 

Gear Restricted 

Are a E flee live 

Dec 1 - April 30 

(witll conditional 

access) 

Cape Hatteras Special Research Area 

Research Fishery/ Ooserver Requirement s 

Applies year-round. 

80"0' 0'"W 

~

. ') 

' \. Spring Gulf of Mexico ',_, - ' 

70"0' 0'"W 

closure 

Legend 

Northeast Distant 

Restricted Fishing Area 

Closed year-round except 

for specific oaiVgear 

configurati,ns 

c::::J Marine National Monument 

c::::J Pelagic Longline Closures 

R'x'?'x'.l Cape Hatteras Special 

Gear RestnctedAreas ~-. - ~ Research Area (CH SRA) 

Effective Apnl 1 - May 31 · ', · ~ 0 , -· '"· r---7 Pelagic Longline 

-._ c:J ' L__J Gear Restricted Areas 

95 190 

Nautical Mile:> ._..,..,,,. 

90' 0' 0'"W 

p --~ ~-

80"0' 0'"W 70'0' 0"W 60'0' 0"W 

S0' 0'0"N 

3o•o·o· N 

20'0'0"N 
closure option during Amendment 7 scoping, there was general support for reducing the size and

time of closed areas where possible. 

3.2.2.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

The Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is located off the coast of North Carolina and is effective 

from December through April. The Cape Hatteras gear restricted area was effective as of January 1,

2015, with the finalization of Amendment 7. The primary objectives of considering pelagic longline 

gear restricted areas in Amendment 7 were to reduce bluefin interactions, thereby decreasing the 

potential for dead discards, and to optimize fishing opportunity consistent with National Standard 8

by taking into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities, National 

Standard 9 by reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality, to the extent practicable, and National 

Standard 4 by selecting measures that do not discriminate between residents of different states.

This gear restricted area was designed based upon the identification of areas with relatively high

bluefin interaction rates with pelagic longline gear based on HMS logbook and observer data. 

The effectiveness of gear restricted areas depends upon the defined area and time of the 

restriction(s) coinciding with the presence of bluefin in the area(s), the availability of the target 

species outside of the gear restricted area(s), the presence of bluefin outside the gear restricted

area(s), annual variability in bluefin interactions, environmental conditions that may drive the

distribution of bluefin (e.g., the Gulf Stream), and other factors that affect the feasibility of fishing

for the target species outside of the gear restricted area(s). For example, fishing opportunities may

be reduced in gear restricted areas if vessels cannot relocate to nearby areas during that time (e.g.,

nearby areas are already heavily fished, or are inaccessible due to cost or safety concerns). A 

successful gear restricted area would balance the ecological benefits of the restriction, in this case 

the reduction in interactions resulting in dead discards and minimizing interactions with

protected/restricted resources, with the economic costs (e.g., reduction in pelagic longline fishing

opportunity for target species, increased costs of accessing other areas). The Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area was also designed to accommodate fishing practices of vessels that were excluded 

from the area or chose to fish outside of the area. The Gulf Stream moves from a southwest to a 

northeast direction just south of the gear restricted area. The final area implemented reflected a 

compromise to allow fishermen to set gear just to the south of the gear restricted area, with the

expectation that prevailing currents would push gear near, but not through, the gear restricted

area. Without this accommodation, fishermen would have lost access to productive fishing grounds

that were adjacent to the gear restricted area. NMFS concluded that this access would not affect the

needed conservation and management benefit of the area. 

Historically, the majority of interactions with bluefin tuna occurring in the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area were limited to a few pelagic longline participants. Through Amendment 7, pelagic 

longline vessel fishing access to this Gear Restricted Area was conditioned on the satisfaction of

certain performance metrics. This approach was intended to hold fishermen individually

accountable for their bluefin interactions, as opposed to holding the entire fleet responsible for high 

interactions by a small number of fishermen, and grant “qualified” vessels access to the area. A 

“qualified” vessel is one that has been issued, or is required to have been issued, an Atlantic tunas 

limited access longline permit (and other associated permits as required) and have demonstrated

an ability to avoid bluefin and comply with reporting and monitoring requirements associated with

the performance metric system. Vessels would be evaluated on against criteria (i.e., performance 

metrics) evaluating their ability to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program 

requirements, and comply with HMS logbook submission requirements using the three most recent 

years of available data associated with a vessel. If no data are available, then NMFS would not be 

able to make a determination about vessel access., and such vessels would be excluded from gear 

38 Description of Effected Environment 
restricted area access until NMFS has collected sufficient data for assessment(consistent with 

current operational Amendment 7 implementation procedures). Those vessels that meet the 

criteria for performance metrics would be allowed to fish in the closed area. The use of other 

authorized gears besides pelagic longline, such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel gear,

can be fished in the gear restricted area regardless of the vessel’s performance metric score 

provided the vessel abides by any rules/regulations that apply to these gear types and pelagic

longline gear is not onboard the vessel. 

Data collections to support analysis of performance metrics have enabled NMFS to observe the 

fleet’s responsiveness to management goals since implementation. NMFS has observed some 

positive trends with respect to bluefin avoidance across the fleet. For example, the fleet-wide 

averaged bluefin-to-target species ratio, indicative of the number of bluefin interactions per 10,000 

lb of target species landings per vessel, has decreased from 1.60 (data analyzed for the 2014-2015

effective period) to 0.91 (data analyzed for the 2018-2019 qualifying period) (Table 3.2). The 

lowest bluefin to target species ratios (0.65) were observed in data analyzed for the 2016-2017

effective period, i.e., data reported to the agency between 2013 and 2015. This constituted a period

of great uncertainty for fishery participants, since NMFS published the Amendment 7 proposed and

final rules in 2013 and 2014 and Amendment 7 measures were implemented in 2015. There was

comparatively low fishing activity in 2015 due to participants adjusting to the new regulations. 

NMFS has also observed some positive trends with respect to compliance. Across the life of the 

program, vessel compliance with Pelagic Observer Program communication requirements

increased from 89 percent to 94 percent. Similarly, the number of days on average it took fishery 

participants to submit logbook reports decreased by 52 percent. Data from vessels that fished in the 

Gear Restricted Area suggest that these participants have maintained low bluefin interactions and

high compliance with reporting and observer requirements (Table 3.3). 

Table 3.2 Fleet-Wide Pelagic Longline Bluefin Avoidance and Compliance Trends 

Effective 

Period 

Average Bluefin: Target 

Species Landings Ratio 

Average Percent of Trips

Compliant per Vessel

(%) 

Average # of Days to

Submit Logbook Reports 

2014–2015 1.60 89.08 46.18 

2015–2016 0.75 91.00 35.16 

2016–2017 0.65 93.48 23.77 

2017–2018 0.88 95.30 24.53 

2018–2019 0.91 94.76 22.63 

Table 3.3 Performance Trends for Vessels that Fished in the Cape HatterasGearRestricted Area

During Its Effective Periods, Dec–April(Averaged per Vessel) 

GRA Effective Period 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 

Logbook data considered in analysis 2006–2012 2012–2014 2013–2015 2014–2016 2015–2017 

Bluefin:target species ratio 3.72 0.77 0.70 0.85 1.04 

Percentof trips compliant with POP 87.96 95.04 97.47 99.48 98.37 

# days to submitlogbooks 44.29 28.18 18.82 20.44 12.60 

Target species landings 636,190 348,953 296,479 300,397 312,515 

Number of vessels that fished in GRA* 20 15 26 24 22 

*Data not averaged,equivalent to the number of vessels that fished in the GRA during the years analyzed for an 

effective period.E.g., 15 vessels granted access in 2015-2016 fished in the GRA between 2012 and 2014. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 39 

II 
3.2.2.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

The Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area consists of two areas in the Gulf of Mexico (one in 

the central Gulf of Mexico and the second in the eastern Gulf of Mexico). Unless gear is properly

stowed, access to these areas for vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear or to during the twomonth period from April through May each year is prohibited. NMFS implemented the Spring Gulf 

of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas in order to reduce dead discards and protect bluefin tuna on 

spawning grounds. The Gulf of Mexico is the only known spawning ground for western Atlantic 

bluefin tuna. 

The primary objectivesof considering pelagic longline gear restricted areas under Amendment 7

were to reduce bluefin interactions, thereby decreasing the potential for dead discards, and to

optimize fishing opportunity. The gear restricted areas were designed based upon the identification

of areas with relatively high bluefin interaction rates with pelagic longline gear based on HMS

logbook and observer data. The effectiveness of gear restricted areas depends upon the defined

area and time of the restriction(s) coinciding with the presence of bluefin in the area(s), the 

availability of the target species outside of the gear restricted area(s), the presence of bluefin 

outside the gear restricted area(s), annual variability in bluefin interactions, environmental 

conditions that may drive the distribution of bluefin (e.g., the Gulf Stream), and other factors that 

affect the feasibility of fishing for the target species outside of the gear restricted area(s). For 

example, fishing opportunities may be reduced in gear restricted areas if vessels cannot relocate to

nearby areas during that time (e.g., nearby areas are already heavily fished, or are inaccessible due 

to cost or safety concerns). Ideally, a successful gear restricted area balances the conservation and 

management need for and ecological benefits of the restriction (reduction in interactions resulting

in dead discards and minimizing interactions with protected/restricted resources) with the 

economic costs (e.g., reduction in pelagic longline fishing opportunity for target species, increased

costs of accessing other areas). 

The gear restricted areas encompass areas with historically elevated bluefin interaction in the 

eastern-central Gulf of Mexico. The gear restricted areas in the Gulf of Mexico were also created to 

encompass a recent shift in pelagic longline fishing activity eastward. Between 2009 and 2012,

there was a 10 to 20 percent shift from the Mid-Gulf Louisiana region to the eastern Gulf of Mexico 

region. In Amendment 7, NMFS considered whether it was appropriate to allow access via

performance metrics, similar to what was implemented for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area.

This process is intended to hold fishermen individually accountable for their interactions, as 

opposed to holding the entire fleet responsible for high interactions by a small number of 

fishermen. Performance based access was not anticipated to be effective in reducing bluefin tuna 

discards in the Gulf of Mexico, however. Analyses completed in Amendment 7 suggested that only a 

very small number of vessels would be denied access, as interactions with bluefin in the Gulf of 

Mexico are more evenly distributed among all of the vessels fishing there (i.e., most vessels had 

small numbers of fish) and not concentrated among a few vessels as in the area off Cape Hatteras.

Both Gulf of Mexico gear restricted areas are closed to pelagic longline gear fromApril 1 through 

May 31 annually. Each of these areas were identified as locations of high bluefin tuna 

concentrations and interactions with pelagic longline gear. Ultimately in Amendment 7, the Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas were closed to all vessels using pelagic longline gear onboard, 

instead of allowing performance-based access as in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, because 

the distribution of interactions was more widespread across both the area of interest and fleet 

participants. Other gear types authorized for use by pelagic longline vessels, such as buoy gear,

green-stick gear, or rod and reel, are allowed in these areas provided the vessel abides by any

rules/regulations that apply to those gear types. 

40 Description of Effected Environment 
3.2.2.4 Weak Hooks in the Gulf of Mexico 

A final rule to implement a requirement for the mandatory use of weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico 

pelagic longline fishery published on April 5, 2011 (76 CFR 18653). A weak hook is a circle hook

that meets NMFS’ current size and offset restrictions for the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fishery

but is constructed of round wire stock that is thinner gauge than the circle hooks currently used

and is no larger than 3.65 mm in diameter. These hooks may allow incidentally hooked bluefin tuna 

to escape capture because the hooks are more likely to straighten when a large fish is hooked, while

allowing the retention of smaller fish like swordfish and yellowfin tunas. The intent of this

requirement was to reduce the bycatch of bluefin tuna; allow the long-term beneficial

socioeconomic benefits of normal operation of directed fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico with minimal 

short-term negative socioeconomic impacts; and have both short- and long-term beneficial impacts 

on the stock status of Atlantic bluefin tuna. NMFS annually evaluates the impacts of the weak hook

requirement in the HMS SAFE Report, using reported landings of major target species from the Gulf

of Mexico to identify trends before (2007-10) and after (2012-16) implementation (Table 3.4).

Annual reported landings of swordfish and yellowfin tuna immediately followingimplementation of

the weak hook requirement appeared to be on the rise but decreased in 2014-2015. Landings of

yellowfin tuna and particularly swordfish increased in 2016. Bluefin interactions, reflected in the 

number of landings and discards, decreased since 2012. 

In order to remove interannual differences, the mean reported landings for each period were 

calculated and compared. The mean reported landings of albacore tuna were greater following

implementation. The mean reported landings of swordfish, bluefin and bigeye tuna were lower in 

the years following implementation of the weak hook requirement. Mean yellowfin tuna landings 

were about the same before and after implementation. Discards of swordfish and bluefin tuna were 

lower after implementation while blue marlin discards were slightly higher. White marlin discards

were higher after implementation than prior to implementation, and average catch-per-unit effort

increased by 77 percent. Nominal catch-per-unit effort (CPUE as expressed as catch per 1000 

hooks) between the two time periods was also analyzed. The catch-per-unit of effort of swordfish,

yellowfin, and albacore tuna kept was higher in 2012-2016 versus 2007-2010. The catch-per-unit

effort of bluefin tuna kept and discards were lower in 2012-2016 as were the catch-per-unit efforts 

of swordfish discards and bigeye tuna kept. The catch-per-unit effort of bluefin tuna kept was 39.5 

percent lower following weak hook implementation and the catch-per-unit effort of bluefin tuna 

discards were 38.9 percent lower. Blue marlin catch-per-unit effort was greater after the weak 

hook requirement went into effect. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 41 
Table 3.4 Reported Number of Hooks Fished and Landings of Major Target Species and Blue Marlin Interactions from the Gulf of Mexico (2007–

2016) 

Year 

Hooks 

(x1000) Swordfish Bluefin Yellowfin Bigeye 

White Marlin 

Discards 

Swordfish 

Discards 

Bluefin 

Discards 

Blue Marlin 

Discards 

2007 2,914.5 8,051 116 23,917 586 201 4,402 186 282 

2008 2,368.4 6,155 100 14,640 250 224 3,583 254 277 

2009 3,037.2 8,438 116 23,278 160 632 2,831 229 478 

2010 1,005.8 3,003 65 5,265 133 39 1,000 123 58 

2011* 1,334.7 5,464 23 13,512 30 175 1,882 19 152 

2012 2,655.5 10,129 137 25,419 292 521 3,292 206 484 

2013 2,312.2 9,143 44 17,593 180 281 2,022 67 279 

2014 2,219.7 4,868 53 15,212 151 407 1,401 68 223 

2015 1,465.5 2,304 17 9,877 189 335 1,036 31 229 

2016 1,618.6 2,907 14 15,263 135 501 1,370 84 276 

2017 1533.4 4,227 23 13,495 308 414 1,805 29 391 

2007–10 

mean 2,331.5 6,419.3 99.3 16,775 282.3 274.0 2,954 198 273.8 

2012–17 

mean 1967.5 5,596.3 48.0 16,143.2 209.2 409.8 1,821.0 80.8 313.7 

2007–10 

CPUE 2.7501 0.0426 7.1950 0.1211 0.1175 1.2670 0.0849 0.1174 

2012–17 

CPUE 2.8444 0.0244 8.2050 0.1063 0.2083 0.9255 0.0411 0.1594 *

Weak hooks were implemented in 2011. 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

42 Description of Effected Environment 
3.3 Pelagic Longline Target and Bycatch Species Biology and Habitat 

The following is a habitats comprising EFH of Atlantic HMS target species and bluefin tuna, originally

published in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and updated in Amendment 10 to the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP. 

Tuna, swordfish, and billfish distributions are most frequently associated with hydrographic

features such as density fronts between different water masses, and currents. The scales of these 

features may vary. 

• On the largest scale, the North and South Equatorial currents occur in the U.S. Caribbean

islands. The North Equatorial Current continues through the Caribbean Basin to enter the Gulf

of Mexico through the Yucatan Straits. The current continues through the Florida Straits to join 

the other water masses (including the Antilles Current) to form the Gulf Stream along the

eastern coast of the United States. Variations in flow capacities of the Florida Straits and the

Yucatan Straits produce the Loop Current, the major hydrographic feature of the Gulf of Mexico. 

These water movements in large part influence the distributions of the pelagic life stages of 

Atlantic HMS. 

• The river plume of the Mississippi River extends for miles into the Gulf of Mexico and is a 

predictable feature, depending on the season. 

• Fronts that set up over the DeSoto Canyon in the Gulf of Mexico, or over the Charleston Bump or 

the Baltimore Canyon in the Mid-Atlantic, may be of a much smaller scale. The locations of many

fronts or frontal features are statistically consistent within broad geographic boundaries. These 

locations are influenced by riverine inputs, movement of water masses, and the presence of

topographic structures underlying the water column, thereby influencing the habitat of Atlantic

HMS. 

The continental shelf is characterized by depths ranging from a few meters to approximately 60 m

(198 ft), with a variety of bottom habitat types. From the Scotian Shelf in the north, past Georges

Bank and through the Mid-Atlantic Bight, a shelf-slope front exists. This hydrographic boundary

separates the fresher, colder, and more homogeneous waters of the shelf and the horizontally

stratified, warmer, and more saline waters of the continental slope. The shelf-slope front may act as 

a barrier to shelf-slope transfer of water mass and momentum. 

From Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras, 26 large valleys that originate on the shelf cut into the seafloor

across the continental slope and rise. The current patterns in and around these submarine canyons

promote significant biological productivity and diversity. Peak currents occur near the canyon 

heads and flow down the canyon, while currents at intermediate depths flow up the canyon. Water

circulation may trap sediments in the canyon heads and produce conditions conducive to front

development. Atlantic HMS are known to aggregate in the areas where these fronts form, most

likely as productive feeding grounds. 

The shelf area of the Mid-Atlantic Bight averages about 100 km (60 mi) in width, reaching a

maximum of 150 km (90 mi) off New England near Georges Bank, and a minimum of 50 km (30 mi) 

offshore Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Current speeds are strongest at the narrowest part of the 

shelf where wind-driven current variability is highest. The distribution of marine species, including

HMS, along the Atlantic seaboard may be strongly influenced by currents, the warm Gulf Stream in 

the middle and south portions of the region, and generally by the combination of high summer and

low winter temperatures. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 43 
The Mid-Atlantic area from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina represents a 

transition zone between northern cold-temperate waters of the north and the warm-temperate 

waters to the south. Water temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic vary greatly by season. Consequently, 

many of the fish species of importance in the Mid-Atlantic area migrate seasonally, whereas the

major species in the other three areas are typically resident throughout the year (MMS, 1992;

1996). The shelf-edge habitat may range in water depth between 40 and 100 m (131 and 328 ft).

The bottom topography varies fromsmooth sand to mud to areas of high relief with associated 

corals and sponges. 

3.3.1 Bluefin Tuna Distribution and Migration

A thorough discussion of bluefin tuna life history is available in Amendment 10 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP (82 FR 42329; September 7, 2017)(Amendment 10), which addressed 

Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic HMS. The information below summarizes migration and

distribution information that is considered relevant to this action. 

Bluefin tuna are highly migratory and in the Western Atlantic generally range from 45° N lat. to the 

equator, but have also supported short-term fisheries off Brazil and in the North Sea (Fromentin

2010). The recognized spawning grounds for the western Atlantic stock is the Gulf of Mexico. The 

prevailing assumptions have been that mature western bluefin tuna follow an annual cycle of

foraging off the eastern United States and Canadian coasts from June through March. Bluefin tuna 

spawning from mid-April through June, mainly in the Gulf of Mexico, which is the only known 

spawning area for the western stock of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Protecting these fish during spawning 

can help the long-term rebuilding of the depleted bluefin tuna population. Although individuals 

may spawn more than once a year, it has generally been assumed that there is a single annual 

spawning period. However, recent tagging data and the presence of small (less than 235 cm curved 

fork length (CFL)) sexually mature females in the Gulf of Maine in June and July suggest that either

individual bluefin tuna do not spawn on an annual cycle (Lutcavage et al. 1999; Block et al. 2005;

Fromentin and Powers 2005; Goldstein et al. 2007), or a component of the western stock is

spawning somewhere other than the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., in the central North Atlantic or Gulf

Stream edge) (Mather et al. 1995; Lutcavage et al. 1999; Goldstein et al. 2007). 

Larval presence has been confirmed in the Gulf of Mexico (Richards 1991). Most of the larvae found 

in the Gulf of Mexico were located around the 1,000-fathom (1,828.8 m) curve in the northern Gulf

of Mexico, with some sporadic collections off Texas. Using a time series of larval bluefin tuna data

from the Gulf of Mexico, Muhling et al. (2010) defined favorable habitat for bluefin larvae as 

moderately warm waters (i.e., they were most commonly collected in 23.5 to 28 °C) outside the

Loop Current and Loop Current eddies, and outside of cooler, higher chlorophyll continental shelf 

waters. It appears that larvae are generally retained in the Gulf of Mexico until they grow into 

juveniles. 

Larvae have also been documented outside of the Gulf of Mexico, and the possibility of additional

spawning areas cannot be discounted (McGowan and Richards, 1989). Larvae have been found as 

far north as the Slope Sea (Richardson et al. 2016), although their presence was previously

associated with advection from the Florida Straits and not from offshore spawning (McGowan and 

Richards 1989). In the Florida Straits, larvae are primarily collected along the western edge of the 

Florida Current, suggesting some active transport from the Gulf of Mexico. This could also explain

their occasional collection off the southeast United States in some studies. 

44 Description of Effected Environment 
In June, young-of-year bluefin (YOY) begin movements in schools to juvenile habitats (McGowan

and Richards 1989) thought to be located over the continental shelf around 34° N and 41° W long.

They have also been identified from the Dry Tortugas area in June and July (Richards 1991; ICCAT 

1997). Juveniles migrate to nursery areas located between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape 

Cod, Massachusetts (Mather et al. 1995). 

Variations in distribution and migration patterns have been noted through tagging studies and

fishery independent surveys. For example: 

• Lawson et al. 2010 noted that in March-April of a given year that tagged bluefin occupy weakly 

stratified, off-shelf waters along the edge of the Gulf Stream. As shelf waters warmed into the 

summer, the fish shifted distribution shoreward onto the shelf. Diving behavior changed by

season. The fish departed shelf waters by November. 

• Golet et al. (2013) studied the distribution of commercial sized (greater than 185 cm) bluefin

tuna schools in the Gulf of Maine. Using a 28-year (1979-2005) time series of commercial

bluefin tuna catches and sightings from fishermen’s logbooks, they noted a gradual eastward

shift of commercial sized bluefin tuna school distribution towards offshore and Canadian 

waters. The authors associated this shift in size distribution to the changes in size and

abundance of Atlantic herring. 

• Galuardi and Lutcavage (2012) developed and deployed mini PSAT on juvenile bluefin tuna 

(aged 2-5) captured in coastal recreational fisheries off Cape Cod from 2005 to 2009Tagged fish

traveled between summer habitats in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and off Southern New England

(coastal areas, the Gulf Stream margin and shelf break) to winter habitats in the South Atlantic 

Bight and the northern Bahamas. 

3.4 Essential Fish Habitat 

Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs and their amendments to describe 

and identify essential fish habitat (EFH),minimize to the extent practicable adverse effectson such 

habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and

enhancement of such habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those waters and

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.” (16 U.S.C. §

1802(10)). Implementing regulations for EFH provisions are at 50 C.F.R. 600, Subpart J. 

Adverse effects from fishing may include physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the 

substrate, and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other

components of the ecosystem. Based on an assessment of the potential adverse effects of all fishing

equipment types used within an area identified as EFH, NMFS must propose measures to minimize

fishing effects if there is evidence that a fishing practice is having more than minimal and lasting 

adverse effect on EFH. 

NMFS originally described and identified EFH and related EFH regulatory elements for all HMS in 

the management unit in 1999 , some of which were updated in 2003 via Amendment 1 to the 1999

HMS FMP ((68 FR 45237; August 1, 2003). EFH boundaries published in the 1999 HMS FMP and

Amendment 1 to the 1999 HMS FMP were updated in Final Amendment 10 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP (NMFS 2017). Amendment 10 included a complete review and update of the 

10 components of EFH, which includes updates to EFH boundaries and text descriptions and an

updated review of fishing and non-fishing impacts to EFH. Information presented in this section is 

summarized from Amendment 10, which reflects the best scientific information available. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 45 
Amendment 10 incorporates by reference several analyses that were completed in earlier Atlantic 

HMS FMP amendments. An EFH impacts analysis of all Atlantic HMS gears was completed for the

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and is shown in Table 3.5. 

Table 3.5 ImpactAssessment of HMSFishingGear on HMS and Non-HMS EFH 

HMS Gear Type 

Contacts 

Bottom SAV 

Coral 

Reef 

Hard 

Bottom 

Sand/

Shell 

Soft 

Bottom 

HMS EFH 

Water 

Column 

Bandit gear /+ 0 

Bottom longline X 0/ +/ +/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0 

Handline 0/ +/ +/+ 0/ 0/ 0 

Harpoon 0 

Gillnet, anchored X +/+ ++/ +/+ +/+ 0/+ 0 

Gillnet/strikenet 0 

Pelagic longline 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 

Purse seine, tuna 0/? 0/ 0/ 0/+ 0/+ 0 

Rod and feel 0/ +/ +/+ 0/ 0/ 0 

Tuna trap/fish 

weir X ++/++ - - 0/? 0/? 0 

SAV = submerged aquatic vegetation. 

“-”indicates thatthe gear type is not used in these habitattypes. 

Habitatimpacts are as follows: negligible = 0,low = +, medium = ++, high = +++, unknown=?. A blank indicates not 

evaluated. 

Source:The symbols before the slash are from the Caribbean FEIS,2004 (Table 3.15a).Symbols after the slash are 

taken from Barnette, 2001. 

Most HMS reside in the upper part of the water column and habitat preferences are likely

influenced by oceanic factors such as areas of convergence or oceanographic fronts (e.g., those

found over submarine canyons, continental shelf edges, or boundary currents), temperature 

convergence zones (e.g., boundaries of currents or features that influence currents including 

landforms such as Cape Hatteras or undersea features like the Charleston Bump, or surface 

structure (e.g., floating Sargassum mats). Although there is no substrate or hard structure in the 

traditional sense, these water column habitats can be characterized by their physical, chemical and 

biological parameters. The water column can be defined by a horizontal and vertical component.

Horizontally, salinity gradients strongly influence the distribution of biota. Horizontal gradients of

nutrients, decreasing seaward, affect primarily the distribution of phytoplankton and, secondarily, 

the organisms that depend on this primary productivity.Vertically, the water column may be

stratified by salinity, oxygen content, and nutrients. The water column is especially important to

larval transport. While the water column is relatively difficult to define in terms of habitat 

characteristics, it is no less important since it is the medium of transport for nutrients and

migrating organisms between estuarine, inshore, and offshore waters. 

NMFS completed reviews of fishing gear impacts in the 1999 HMS FMP, Amendment 1 to the 1988

Billfish FMP, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, and Amendments 1 and 10 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP. These analyses determined that the majority of HMS gears are fished within the water 

column and do not make contact with the sea floor. Because of the magnitude of water column

structures and the processes that create them, there is little effect expected from the HMS fishing 

activities with pelagic longline gear undertaken to pursue these animals. Excessive dead discards 

could induce minor, localized increases in biological oxygen demand. However, deployment of

pelagic longline gear is not anticipated to permanently affect the physical characteristics that define 

46 Description of Effected Environment 
HMS EFH such as salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and depth. Because pelagic longline gear

is fished in the water column and does not come in contact with the benthic environment, the 

pelagic longline fishery is anticipated to have minimal to no impact on EFH (for Atlantic HMS or for

other species managed under Council FMPs) associated with the benthic environment. 

For more information, please refer to the following websites: 

• Final Amendment 10 website. 

• EFH Boundaries may be viewed on the NMFS Habitat Mapper. 

• Shape files, metadata, a species list, and a preview map may be viewed on the EFH Data 

Inventory website. 

3.4.1 Bluefin Tuna EFH 

The EFH text descriptions for bluefin tuna are provided in this section, along with corresponding

maps for the Spawning/Eggs/Larvae (Figure 3.5), Juvenile (Figure 3.6), and Adult (Figure 3.7) life 

stages. This section also describes boundaries for a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (Figure 3.8). 

Spawning, eggs, and larvae: This life stage has been expanded into two areas of the Slope 

Sea (between North Carolina and Georges Bank, north of the 

Gulf Stream) due to the presence of extremely young larvae.

One area encompasses pelagic habitats on and off the

continental shelf, off the coast of North Carolina, and extends

to the shoreline between the NC/VA line and Oregon Inlet. 

The other area includes pelagic waters of the Slope Sea, 

extending to the outer United States’ EEZ south of Georges

Bank. From the mid-east coast of Florida in the Atlantic 

Ocean to the western Gulf of Mexico (seaward of the 100m

depth contour in the Gulf of Mexico). EFH for larvae is 

defined by habitat associations with temperatures ranging

from 23.5 to 28 °C. 

Juveniles (< 185 cm fork length (FL): Coastal and pelagic habitats of the Mid-Atlantic Bight and the

Gulf of Maine, between southern Maine and Cape Lookout,

from shore (excluding Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, 

Chesapeake Bay, and Pamlico Sound) to the continental shelf

break. EFH in coastal areas of Cape Cod are located between

the Great South Passage and shore. EFH follows the

continental shelf from the outer extent of the U.S. EEZ on 

Georges Bank to Cape Lookout. EFH is associated with

certain environmental conditions in the Gulf of Maine (16 to

19 °C; 0 to 40 m deep). EFH in other locations, associated

with temperatures ranging from 4 to 26°C, is often in depths

of less than 20 m (but can be found in waters that are 40-100 

m in depth in winter). 

Adults (≥ 185 cm FL): EFH is located in offshore and coastal regions of the Gulf of

Maine the mid-coast of Maine to Massachusetts; on Georges 

Bank; offshore pelagic habitats of southern New England; 

from southern New England to coastal areas between the 

mouth of Chesapeake Bay and Onslow Bay, North Carolina; 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 47 
from coastal North Carolina south to the outer extent of the 

U.S. EEZ, inclusive of pelagic habitats of the Blake Plateau, 

Charleston Bump, and Blake Ridge. EFH also consists of

pelagic waters of the central Gulf of Mexico from the

continental shelf break to the seaward extent of the U.S. EEZ 

between Apalachicola, Florida and Texas. 

Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC):

Pelagic waters of the Gulf of Mexico seaward of the 100m 

bathymetric line, extending to the seaward extent of the 

United States’ EEZ and eastward to the 82o W longitude 

meridian. 

Figure 3.5 Essential Fish Habitat for Spawning, Eggs, and Larvae of Bluefin Tuna 

Source: NMFS 2017. 

48 Description of Effected Environment 

Bluefln 1\Jna. Spawning, Eggs, Larvae 

Essential Fish Habitat 

0 500 1,000 

Kilometers 

--US EEZ 

BS'll8j2009EFH 

- 2017EFH 

Data Sources: CTS. CSTP. NEFSC obserite, progr,m. NEFSC, SEFSC pelagte obseNer poi,am. NMf EFPdataba,e, Richards 1976, 

McGowan and Rldtards. 1989. Muhhng 2010 

F\epa,ed by NOMF1sher1es, Offace of Sustai,iable Fisheries 

Highlyt.1.grato,y Spee1ts Man,g,emenl OMs1on, Silvtr Spring. MO 
Figure 3.6 Essential Fish Habitat for Juvenile Bluefin Tuna 

Source: NMFS 2017 

Figure 3.7 Essential Fish Habitat forAdult Bluefin Tuna 

Source: NMFS 2017 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 49 

Bluelln '!\Ina . Juvenile 

(< 185 cm FL) 

Essential Fish Habitat 

2'5 490 

Kiloineters 

462.S 

Kilome1ers 

fl§§ll':l 2009EFH 

- 2017EFH 

--United States EEZ 

-- United States EEZ 

~2009EFH 

- 2017EFH 

Data Sources: 

CT$. CSTP, NE.FSC ob•"• ' p,ogra.m, NEFSC. SEFSC pelagtc observer program, 

NMF EFP d1t1bue, Bilfish foundatiooct 

Data Sources, 

CTS, CSTP. NEFSC obsever program. 

NEFSC, SEFSC pelagic obsltfVer program, 

NMF EFP database. Btltish Foundation 
Figure 3.8 Bluefin Tuna Habitat Area of Particular Concern—Spawning, Eggs, Larval Life Stage 

Source: NMFS 2017 

3.5 Pelagic Longline Fisheries Data 

This section describes the pelagic longline fishery data (effort, fishery trends, data from closed

areas and gear restricted areas, and economic and societal environment), and provides a view of

the current condition of the fishery, which serves as a baseline against which to compare potential

impacts of the different alternatives. 

3.5.1 Effort Data 

Table 3.6 shows the average number of hooks fished by the pelagic longline fishery from 2006

through 2011 (n ≈ 6,195,209), 2012 through 2014 (n ≈ 7,369,858), and 2015 through 2017 (n ≈

5,467,037). The average number of hooks fished by the pelagic longline fishery over time shows a 

declining trend (Figure 3.9) along with the declining number of vessels deploying pelagic longline 

gear (Table 3.8). The 2006 through 2011 period encompasses the period after implementation of

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, while the 2012 through 2014 period encompasses the average 

number of hooks prior to the implementation of Amendment 7. The data from 2015-2017

represents post-Amendment 7 activity. 

50 Description of Effected Environment 

Bluefin Tuna EFH -Spawning, Eggs, Larvae 

Essential !Fish Habitat and HAPC 

,., 500 

- ::017EFH 

--United Stetes EEZ 

0 20171-tAPC 

01t1So,ui-01.,-

CTS, CSTP, NEFSC obsevt1 pog'8m, 

llEFSC, SEFSC pe&.gic obstrvt, P'09'•f1a. 

NMf EFPd~bas.t. lbcha•d-t 1916. l.iolOlltWI and R!Cttll'dl 1919. t.l!Nng 2010 
Table 3.6 Total Number of Hooks Fished by the Pelagic Longline Fishery

Time Period Average Annual # Hooks Fished 

2006–2011 

(average annual #hooks fished) 6,195,209 

2012–2014 

(average annual #hooks fished) 7,369,858 

2015–2017 

(average annual #hooks fished) 5,467,037 

Year Total Hooks Fished 

2015 5,855,977 

2016 5,217,547 

2017 5,327,587 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Figure 3.10 shows the areas with the greatest fishing effort are the Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic

Bight, South Atlantic Bight, Florida East Coast, and the Northeast Coastal. Since 2002, there have 

been notable trends in the distribution of pelagic longline fishing effort among the different areas.

Gulf of Mexico fishermen were detrimentally affected by the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, as 

evidenced by large declines in both number of hooks and percentage of effort exerted in the Gulf of

Mexico between 2009 and 2011. Changes in the percent distribution of effort are therefore more 

likely influenced by the activity of the Gulf of Mexico fleet in 2012. 

Figure 3.9 Average Number of Hooks Fished by the HMS Pelagic Longline Fishery from 2006–2011, 

2012–2014, and 2015–2017 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 51 

sooo 

7000 

s 6000 

8 

!il 5000 C' 

-z 

U) 

4000 ~ 

~ 3000 "--< 

Q 

§ 

U) '.1000 

1000 

0 

Total number of hooks f1d1ed by the 

pelagic Jongline fis.he1·y 

Average 2006-20 11 AYerage 201:1 -2014 • Awrage 2015--017 

7370 

6195 

5467 
Figure 3.10 Reported Hooks Fished by the HMS Pelagic Longline Fleet (2015–2017) 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

3.5.2 Recent Fishery Trends and the Individual Bluefin Quota Program

The primary objectives of considering pelagic longline gear restricted areas in this rulemaking 

are to reduce bluefin interactions, thereby decreasing the potential for dead discards, and to

optimize fishing opportunity. The following sections present data that describe the spatial

distribution of the fleet, and CPUE and fleet-wide catch data for pelagic longline target species 

(e.g., swordfish, yellowfin/bigeye tuna and dolphin) and bluefin tuna. Data on bluefin interactions 

that are specific to the areas considered in this rulemaking (i.e., Northeastern U.S. Closure and an 

adjacent open reference area included in the analysis, the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted area, and 

the Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area) are presented, as are and the Individual Bluefin Quota 

(IBQ) Program. 

3.5.2.1 Fishery-Wide Catch Data

Spatial distribution of pelagic longline target species catch-per-unit effort (catch per 10,000 hooks)

is shown in Figures 3.11 to Figure 3.15 and Table 3.7; these maps show catch-per-unit effort 

averaged over 1o latitude x 1o longitude grid cells (note differences in the scale of each map). Data

are displayed using quantile classification, a classificationmethod that distributes a set of values 

into groups that contain an equal number of values (i.e., the attribute values are added up; then

divided into the predetermined number of classes). The pelagic longline fishery experienced

moderately high catch-per-unit efforts for swordfish across much of the fishing grounds in the

Atlantic, with catch-per-unit effort hotspots occurring in the Grand Banks, Georges Bank, Florida

(Blake Plateau and Florida Keys), South Carolina (Charleston Bump region), and in the Sargasso Sea

(seaward of the Bahamian EEZ). Dolphin catch-per-unit effort hotspots occurred mainly within

coastal regions of the South Atlantic Bight. Two regional hotspots for yellowfintuna are apparent in

the Gulf of Mexico, and between North Carolina and Georges Bank. In comparison to these three 

52 Description of Effected Environment 

95"0'0"W 90"0'0"W 85"0'0"W BO"O'O"W 75"0'0"W 70"0'0"W 65°0'0"W 60"0'0'W 55"0'0'W 50"0'0"W 45"0'0'W 

HMS Logbook Data 

Total Number of Hooks Per Set 

2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

Total# Hooks • • 2,000 c:::J s,001- 10,000 ~ so,001 - 100,000 

~ 2.001- ~ooo ~ ,0,001 ~.ooo ~ ,00,001 - ~oo,ooo 

- Sl0,001 • 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
species, catch-per-unit effort is much lower and more dispersed for bigeye and bluefin tuna. A 

moderate catch-per-unit effort hotspot is apparent just outside of the Florida East Coast Closure, 

and moderately high catch-per-unit efforts for bluefin tuna are apparent off southern Georges Bank. 

Figure 3.11 CPUE of Bluefin Tuna (2015–2017) 

Catch-per-unit effort per cell = (sum of all bluefin tuna kept in a cell/sum ofall hooks deployed in a cell) × 10,000. 

Source: HMS Logbook Data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 53 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0"W 85'0'0'W 80' 0'0"W 75' 0'0'W 70'0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0"W 55' 0'0'W 50' 0'0"W 45' 0'0'W 

50' 0'0"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+--------'--

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Bluefin Tuna Catch 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

.. 

'i';. 

' " • 

# Bluefin Kept / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

[=i 0.00 - 0.28 - 0.78 - 1.74- 8.77 

1111111 0.01 - 0.27 - 0.79 - 1.73 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.12 CPUE of Swordfish (2015–2017) 

Catch-per-unit effort per cell = (sum of all swordfish kept in a cell/sum of all hooks deployed in a cell) × 10,000. 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

54 Description of Effected Environment 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0"W 85'0'0'W 80' 0'0"W 75' 0'0'W 70'0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0"W 55' 0'0'W 50' 0'0"W 45' 0'0'W 

50' 0'0"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+--------'--

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Swordfish Catch 

Per Unit Effort, 2015•2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

--} 

.,. \-')\.. ~ \ ';, ~ 

. M 

- .... ~ .. 

'i';. 

' " • 

# Swordfish Kept/ 10,000 Hooks Deployed 1,000 

C:=J 0.00 - 18.83 - 36.15 - 54.82 - 74.18 - 200.09 Kilometers 

1111 18.84 - 36.14 - 54.83 - 74.1 7 Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.13 CPUE of Yellowfin Tuna (2015–2017) 

Catch-per-unit effort per cell = (sum of all yellowfin kept in a cell/sum of all hooks deployed in a cell) × 10,000. 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 55 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0"W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O"W 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0'W SS' O'O'W SO' O'O"W 45'0'0'W 

SO' O'O"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----___._ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Yellowfin Tuna Catch 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Yellowfin Tuna Kept / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

CJ 0.00 - 0.59 - 1.76 - 3.85 - 7.99 - 27.26 

C=1 0.60 - 1.75 - 3.86- 7.98 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.14 CPUE of Bigeye Tuna (2015–2017) 

Catch-per-unit effort per cell = (sum of all bigeye tuna kept in a cell/sum ofall hooks deployed in a cell) × 10,000. 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

56 Description of Effected Environment 

100°0'0'W 95°0'0'W 90°0'0"W 85°0'0'W 80°0'0'W 75°0'0'W 70°0'0"W 65°0'0'W 60°0'0'W 55°0'0'W 50°0'0"W 45°0'0'W 

50' 0'0"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----__.,_ 

35°0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Bigeye Tuna Catch 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Bigeye Tuna Kept / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

[=i 0.00 - 0.11 - 0.57 - 2.16 - 4.17 - 13.41 

i. 0.12 - 0.56 - 2.17 - 4.16 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.15 CPUE of Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) (2015–2017) 

Catch-per-unit effort per cell = (sum of all dolphin keptin a cell/sum of all hooks deployed in a cell) × 10,000. 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 57 

100°0'0'W 95°0'0'W 90°0'0"W 85°0'0'W 80°0'0'W 75°0'0'W 70°0'0"W 65°0'0'W 60°0'0'W 55°0'0'W 50°0'0"W 45°0'0'W 

50' 0'0"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----__.,_ 

35°0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Dolphin Catch 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Dolphin Kept/ 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

[=i 0.00 - 0.43 - 1.03 - 2.08 - 4.79 - 70.69 

i. 0.44 - 1.02 - 2.09 - 4.78 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Table 3.7 Reported Numbers of Catch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2012–2017) 

Species 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Swordfish kept 51,544 44,556 32,908 27,730 24,456 23,332 

Swordfish discarded 7,996 4,756 4,655 5,382 4,437 7,116 

Blue marlin discarded 896 844 718 990 1,050 1,562 

White marlin discarded 1,432 1,239 1,580 2,885 2,153 2,221 

Sailfish discarded 795 456 445 715 855 657 

Spearfish discarded 270 342 306 837 745 686 

Bluefin tuna kept 392 273 379 320 411 464 

Bluefin tuna discarded 563 266 390 210 582 229 

Bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas kept 84,707 67,083 73,339 54,734 56,978 68,329 

Dolphin kept 42,445 34,250 63,217 53,526 46,376 29,141 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Table 3.8 Bluefin Interactions Across the Pelagic Longline Fleet (2012–2017) 

Year 

Vessels Deploying

Pelagic Longline Gear 

Vessels Reporting

Bluefin Interactions 

Percent with 

Interactions 

(%) 

Percent without 

Interactions 

(%) 

2012 122 94 77 23 

2013 115 88 77 23 

2014 110 92 84 16 

2015 104 69 66 34 

2016 85 66 78 22 

2017 88 60 68 32 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

3.5.2.2 Pelagic Longline Closures and Gear Restricted Areas

Spatial distribution of pelagic longline target species catch-per-unit effort (catch per 10,000 hooks)

are shown in Figure 3.11 to Figure 3.15; these maps show catch-per-unit effort averaged over 1o

latitude x 1o longitude grid cells. The pelagic longline fishery experienced moderately high catchper-unit efforts for swordfish across much of the fishing grounds in the Atlantic, with catch-per-unit

effort hotspots occurring off New England, Florida, and in the Sargasso Sea. Dolphin catch-per-unit

efforthotspots occurredmainly within coastal regions of the South Atlantic Bight. Two regional

hotspots for yellowfin tuna are apparent in the Gulf of Mexico, and between North Carolina and 

Georges Bank. In comparison to these three species, catch-per-unit effort is much lower and more 

dispersed for bigeye and bluefin tuna. A moderate catch-per-unit effort hotspot is apparent just 

outside of the Florida East Coast Closure, and moderately high catch-per-unit efforts for bluefin

tuna are apparent off southern Georges Bank. 

58 Description of Effected Environment 

II 
Northeastern United States Closed Area 

As mentioned in Section 3.2.2.1, the Northeastern United States Closed Area was implemented on

July 1, 1999, to reduce incidental catch of bluefin by pelagic longline gear, while also minimizing the

negative impact to targeted fishing activities. The Northeastern United States Closed Area is 

bounded by straight lines connecting the followingcoordinates, in the order given: 40°00' N. lat., 

74°00' W. long.; 40°00' N. lat., 68°00' W. long.; 39°00' N. lat., 68°00' W. long.; 39°00' N. lat., 74°00' 

W. long. This area is closed to pelagic longline vessels during the month of June. Table 3.9 and Table 

3.10 show the bluefin interactions in the Northeastern United States Closed Area from 1996-1997 

and from an area surrounding the closure (labelled the “Reference Area” in later analyses) in 2015-

2017, respectively. The number of bluefin discarded dead during the month of June decreased by

83 percent from 440 to 72. The grand total of dead bluefin (landings and dead discards) for 1996-

1997 and 2015-2017, decreased from 694 to 342 (~ 51 percent reduction), respectively. Between

2015 and 2017, the catch-per-unit effort of bluefin in June in the mid-Atlantic and southern New 

England region was highest in continental shelf habitats in the Cape Hatteras region, the MidAtlantic Bight, and east of the current boundaries of the Northeastern United States Closed Area

(Figure 3.16). However, it should be noted that some of the areas to the east of the Northeast 

Closure are now closed to the fishery as a result of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National 

Monument. Therefore, the catch-per-unit effort in future years may vary as a result of distribution 

of open fishing grounds for the same areas analyzed. 

Table 3.9 NortheasternU.S.Closed Area Bluefin Landings from 1996–1997 

Time Period Bluefin Kept Bluefin Discarded Alive Bluefin Discarded Dead Total Sum of Dead Bluefin 

January 0 0 0 0 

February 0 0 0 0 

March 0 0 0 0 

April 0 0 0 0 

May 3 85 67 70 

June 38 824 440 478 

July 18 166 72 90 

August 2 8 2 4 

September 0 0 1 1 

October 0 2 0 0 

November 7 6 7 14 

December 13 40 24 37 

Grand total 81 1131 613 694 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 59 
Table 3.10 NortheasternU.S.Reference Area*—Bluefin Landings from 2015–2017 

Time Period Bluefin Kept Bluefin Discarded AliveBluefin Discarded Dead 

Total Sum of Dead 

Bluefin 

January 0 0 0 0 

February 0 0 0 0 

March 0 0 0 0 

April 0 0 0 0 

May 3 16 15 18 

June 161 214 72 233 

July 59 71 11 70 

August 8 23 3 11 

September 2 0 0 2 

October 0 3 0 3 

November 5 9 2 7 

December 1 0 0 1 

Grand total 239 336 103 342 

2015 totals 38 74 10 48 

2016 totals 155 213 91 246 

2017 totals 46 49 2 48 

*See boundaries as depicted by blue shaded box in Figure 4.2 of this DEIS. 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

60 Description of Effected Environment 
Figure 3.16 CPUE-Bluefin Interactions 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

As mentioned in §3.2.2.2, the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area was implemented on January 1,

2015, in order to reduce incidental catch of bluefin by pelagic longline gear, while minimizing the 

negative impact to targeted fishing activities. Table 3.11 and Table 3.12 show the bluefin landings 

in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area from 2015-2017 and bluefin tuna interactions by 

disposition from 2006-2011, 2012-2014, and 2015-2017, respectively. The average annual number of 

dead bluefin for 2006-2011, 2012-2014, and 2015-2017, decreased from 110, to 13 to 2, respectively

(a total reduction of 98 percent). Catch-per-unit effort in and around the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area for the months of December-April (2015-2017) was very low compared to areas 

further northeast (Figure 3.17). 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 61 

75' 0'0'W 

40' 0'0"N 

35' 0'0"N 

Bluefin Tuna Catch Per Unit Effort 

June, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

70' 0'0'W 65' 0'0'W 

# Bluefin Interactions/ 10,000 Hooks Deployed 275 

D o.oo - 101 - 5.oo 

D 0.01 -0.50 - 501 . Kilometers 

- o.51 _ 1_00 D Northeastern U.S. Closed Area (2019) 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Table 3.11 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted AreaBluefin Tuna Landings from 2015–2017 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin Discarded 

Alive 

Bluefin Discarded 

Dead 

Total Sum of Bluefin 

Interactions 

January 8 3 1 12 

February 11 7 0 18 

March 6 5 0 11 

April 27 14 4 45 

May 15 0 0 15 

June 35 23 14 72 

July 0 1 0 1 

August 0 0 0 0 

September 0 0 0 0 

October 0 1 0 1 

November 4 1 0 5 

December 5 0 1 6 

Grand total 111 55 20 186 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Table 3.12 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted AreaBluefin Tuna Interactions by Disposition and Time 

Bluefin Interactions 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin Discarded 

Alive 

Bluefin Discarded 

Dead 

Total Bluefin 

Interactions 

2006–2011 

average annual # 

bluefin* 28 330 110 468 

2012–2014 

average annual # 

bluefin 31 50 13 94 

2015–2017 

average annual # 

bluefin 19 10 2 31 

2015 totals 4 0 1 5 

2016 totals 10 6 0 16 

2017 totals 43 23 5 71 

*See Table 3.24 (page 157) of NMFS2014. 

62 Description of Effected Environment 
Figure 3.17 CPUE-All Bluefin Interactions 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 

As discussed in section 3.2.2.3, the Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area was implemented on 

January 1, 2015, in order to reduce incidental catch of bluefin tuna by pelagic longline gear, while 

minimizing the negative impact to targeted fishing activities. The western Gulf of Mexico Gear

Restricted Area is bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates, in the order 

given: 26°30' N. lat., 94°40' W. long.; 27°30' N. lat., 94°40' W. long.; 27°30' N. lat., 89°00' W. long.; 

26°30' N. lat., 89°00' W. long; and the eastern Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area is bounded by

straight lines connecting the following coordinates, in the order given: 27°40' N. lat., 88°00' W. 

long.; 28°00' N. lat., 88°00' W. long.; 28°00' N. lat., 86°00' W. long.; 27°40' N. lat., 86°00' W. long. 

This area is closed to pelagic longline vessels during the month of April through May. Table 3.13,

Table 3.14 and Table 3.15 show the bluefin tuna interactions in the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline

gear restricted area by disposition from 2006-2012, and 2015-2017, and region-wide Gulf of

Mexico from 2015-2017, respectively. The number of bluefin tuna discarded dead during the month

of April and May decreased from 323 to 0 (a 100 percent reduction). Total bluefin tuna interactions 

for 2006-2012 and 2015-2017 in the GRA decreased from 1,105 to 71 (~ a 94 percent reduction), 

respectively. Total Gulf of Mexico region bluefin tuna interactions decreased from 1,105 to 198

across historical (2006-2012) and recent (2015-2017) time periods (~ an 82 percent reduction). 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 63 

BO' O'O'W r--------(T__,_ ____________ __:7::._5'~0'c::, O'; W:_-i __________ ~10~· 0~·0~"W~ ---

40•0·0"N I 

• 0 

35' 0'0"NI...._ __ __ 

0 0 0 

0 0 0.47 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

30' 0'0"Nl..._ ______ .,L ___ ,-__ L _ _j __ _ 

Bluefin Tuna Catch Per Unit Effort 

Dec, Jan -April 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

# Bluefin Interactions / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

D o.oo - 101 - s.oo 

D 0.01 - o.so - s.01 + 

- 0.51 _ 1 JO D Cape Hatteras Gear · Restricted Area (2019) 

0 0 

275 

Kilometers 

Da:a Source: HMS Logbook 
Catch-per-unit effort in April and May (2015-2017) was relatively low in areas surrounding the Gulf 

of Mexico Gear Restricted Area (i.e., 1-2 fish per 10,000 hooks) (Figure 3.18). 

Table 3.13 Bluefin InteractionsReported in the HMSLogbook byMonth in the Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Gear Restricted Area (2006–2012) 

Month Bluefin Kept Bluefin Discarded Alive Bluefin Discarded Dead Total 

January 38 4 3 45 

February 62 13 15 90 

March 64 48 46 158 

April 76 147 151 374 

May 79 87 172 338 

June 14 21 30 65 

July 0 0 0 0 

August 0 0 0 0 

September 0 0 1 1 

October 13 1 2 16 

November 6 0 0 6 

December 12 0 0 12 

Total 364 321 420 1,105 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Table 3.14 Bluefin InteractionsReported in the HMS logbook byMonth in the Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Gear Restricted Area (2015–2017) 

Bluefin Kept Bluefin Discarded Alive Bluefin Discarded Dead Total Sum of Bluefin 

January 7 3 1 11 

February 5 2 4 11 

March 11 13 12 36 

April 0 0 0 0 

May 0 0 0 0 

June 0 5 4 9 

July 1 2 0 3 

August 0 0 0 0 

September 0 0 0 0 

October 0 0 0 0 

November 0 0 1 1 

December 0 0 0 0 

Grand total 24 25 22 71 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

64 Description of Effected Environment 
Table 3.15 Gulf of Mexico (Region-Wide) Bluefin Landings from 2015–2017 

Bluefin Kept Bluefin Discarded Alive Bluefin Discarded Dead Total Sum of Bluefin 

January 8 3 3 14 

February 6 2 4 12 

March 14 15 15 44 

April 5 11 7 23 

May 6 21 9 36 

June 11 27 13 51 

July 4 7 1 12 

August 0 0 0 0 

September 0 1 0 1 

October 0 0 0 0 

November 0 1 1 2 

December 0 1 2 3 

Grand total 54 89 55 198 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Figure 3.18 CPUE-Gulf of Mexico Total Bluefin Interactions 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 65 

95' 0'0'W 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

Bluefin Tuna Catch Per Unit Effort 

April-May, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

90' 0'0'W 85' 0'0'W 

0 

0 

0 0 

# Bluefin Interactions/ 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

D o.oo - 1.01 . 5.oo 

D 0.01. o.5o - 5.01+ 

- 0.51 . 1.00 D Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (2019) 

0 

275 

Kilometers 

Data Source : HMS Logbook 
3.5.2.3 Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program

The Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery is a quota-managed fishery, and catch (landings and dead

discards) must be accounted for within the available U.S. quota. The annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota 

(established by ICCAT) is allocated among seven domestic quota categories, including the Longline 

category. The non-longline quota categories include other commercial and recreational gear types

and a Reserve category, used for research and inseason quota transfers as warranted. Most of these

categories are for directed bluefin tuna fisheries (commercial hand gear, purse seine (PS), and

recreational fisheries); however, fishermen in the Longline category are not allowed to direct on

bluefin tuna. Because the pelagic longline fishery incidentally catches bluefin tuna as incidental 

bycatch, while primarily targeting swordfish, yellowfintuna, and bigeye tuna, the Longline quota 

category was established to provide the pelagic longline fishery with bluefin quota to account for

that bycatch. The IBQ Program was designed to provide individual vessel accountability for bluefin 

tuna catch (landings and dead discards) and incentivize the pelagic longline fishery to minimize 

interactions with bluefin tuna. For additional information, please refer to the Draft Individual 

Bluefin Tuna (IBQ) Program Three-Year Review. 

IBQ Program and Bluefin Tuna Bycatch 

The IBQ Program implemented by Amendment 7 enhanced accountability for bluefin tuna catch at 

the individual vessel level and is supported by several reporting and monitoring requirements. The 

broad elements of Amendment 7 and the IBQ Program are described above in Section 5.1.1. Quota

allocations under the IBQ Program, including annual and inseason distributions of bluefin tuna 

quota, and quota adjustments based on changes to the overall U.S. bluefin tuna quota pursuant to 

ICCAT, are described below. 

Annual Distribution of Allocation 

IBQ allocations are distributed to IBQ shareholders on January 1 of each year. A shareholder’s share 

tier percentage is multiplied by the total pounds of Longline category quota available to derive the 

amount of allocation in pounds. The shareholder’s percentage is defined by the shareholder’s tier 

level: high (1.2 percent), medium (0.6 percent), or low (0.37 percent). If an IBQ shareholder has a 

permit that is not associated with a vessel, the relevant annual allocations of IBQ are not released to

the shareholder’s IBQ account until the permit is associated with a vessel. 

Inseason Distribution of Allocation 

NOAA Fisheries may transfer bluefin tuna quota from the Reserve category to other quota

categories throughout the year. These inseason transfers are based on consideration of regulatory 

determination criteria relating to the current circumstances in the fishery and the goals and

objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended. The regulations and processes 

pertaining to inseason transfers from the Reserve category to other categories are distinct from

those regulations and processes that determine annual IBQ distributions to shareholders. For each 

year since Amendment 7 was implemented, NOAA Fisheries has transferred quota into the Longline 

category inseason in order to achieve specific objectives. These objectives include reducing quota 

debt, encouraging full accounting of bluefin tuna catch by vessels that may be in debt, fostering

conditions in which permit holders become more willing to lease IBQ shares to other vessel owners, 

and reducing uncertainty in the fishery as a whole. 

NOAA Fisheries may distribute bluefin tuna quota inseason either to all IBQ share recipients or to

only active vessels in the fishery, regardless of whether the vessels are IBQ share recipients. This 

option provides flexibility with respect to which vessels receive IBQ inseason transfers and allows

NOAA Fisheries to achieve the objectives of the IBQ Program, such as accounting for bluefin during 

66 Description of Effected Environment 
longline operations and optimizing fishing opportunity for target species. Active vessels in this 

context are those with any fishing activity using pelagic longline gear over the course of the 

previous and subject year and are established with the required logbook, VMS, and/or EM data.

Table 3.16 includes data on the annual (January 1), inseason, and combined (total) distributions of 

IBQ by shareholder tier. 

Table 3.16 IBQ Allocations (t) to the Pelagic Longline Category by Share Tier (lb) in 2015–2018 

Quota Distribution IBQ (t) Date 

IBQ (lb) to Each Eligible Shareholder* 

High Tier 

(~1.2 %) 

Medium Tier 

(~0.6 %) 

Low Tier 

(~0.37 %) 

2015 

Annual allocation 137.3 January 1, 2015 3,616 1,808 1,124 

Transfer from Reserve category 34.0 July 28, 2015 551 551 551 

ICCAT baseline quota increase 11.0 August 28, 2015 292 146 90 

2015 Total 182.3 4,459 2,505 1,765 

2016 

Annual allocation 148.3 January 1, 2016 3,913 1,956 1,206 

Transfer from Reserve category 34.0 January 4, 2016 551 551 551 

2016 total 182.3 4,464 2,507 1,757 

2017 

Annual allocation 148.3 January 1, 2017 3,913 1,956 1,206 

Transfer from Reserve category** 45.0 March 2, 2017 1,102 1,102 1,102 

2017 total 193.3 5,015 3,058 2,308 

2018 

Annual allocation 148.3 January 1, 2018 3,913 1,956 1,206 

Transfer from Reserve category** 44.5 April 13, 2018 1,102 1,102 1,102 

ICCAT baseline quota increase 15.3 October 5, 2018 404 202 124 

2018 total 208.1 5,419 3,260 2,432 

*Only allocated to eligible shareholders, for which the valid permit was associated with a vessel. 

**Transfer from Reserve Category to active vessels only (vessels with recent fishing activity). 

Table 3.17 summarizes various IBQ Program metrics regarding allocation, catch, fishing effort, 

leasing of IBQ, and reporting and monitoring. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 67 
Table 3.17 Bluefin Catch and Other Metrics of the IBQ Program (2015–2017) 

Metric 2015 2016 2017 

Permits eligible for IBQ shares 136 136 136 

# vessels that fished with pelagic longline gear 104 85 89 

# vessels Landing Bluefin 59 55 58 

Total weight bluefin landed (lb, ww) 157,388 196,142 229,396 

Total weight bluefin landed (t, ww) 71.3 89.0 104.1 

Landed in Gulf of Mexico (t, ww) 3.7 3.5 5.7 

Landed in Atlantic (t, ww) 67.6 85.5 98.1 

# Bluefin landed 323 447 501 

# landed in Gulf of Mexico 15 13 21 

# landed in Atlantic 308 424 480 

metric tonnes (t) of NED* quota caught 

(max. 25 t) 24.9 17.3 25 

Total bluefin dead discards (t, ww) 17.1 22.6 11.4 

Discarded in Gulf of Mexico (t, ww) 5.6 7.1 6.5 

Discarded in Atlantic (t, ww) 11.5 14.8 3.7 

Discarded in NED* (t, ww) 0 0.7 1.2 

# trips with pelagic longline gear 1,124 1,025 1,078 

# pelagic longline sets 7,769 6,885 7,305 

# hooks 5,549,451 5,217,547 5,327,587 

Number of IBQ leases 49 81 85 

Number of participants leasing 44 63 52 

Average amountleased per transaction (lb) 2,580 1,743 1,789 

Total amountleased (lb) 126,407 141,183 152,050 

Average price per pound (weighted average) $ 3.46 $ 2.52 $ 1.67 

# Trips based on vessel monitoring system (VMS) prelanding 

declarations 1,030 990 793 

# Sets based on VMS bluefin reports 5,472 5,921 6,507 

# Vessels with installed electronic monitoring (EM) systems 111 113 112 

# Hard drives received 

785 (JunDec) 975 1,020 

# Vessels submitting hard drives 91 (Jun-Dec) 85 86 

*NED= northeastdistant area (See Figure 3.30). 

Sources: Dead discard data: POP and UDP; Landings, effort, and IBQ leasing data: UDP and IBQ Systems; VMS 

data; EM data: Saltwater, Inc. (NMFScontractor for installation and maintenance of EM systems) and ERT Corp. 

(NMFS contractor for review and storage of EM data). 

68 Description of Effected Environment 
Compliance with the Amendment 7 Regulations 

The data indicate that, in general, compliance with the Amendment 7 regulations is high. For

example, one of the reporting requirements is for dealers and vessel operators to report bluefin 

tuna landings and dead discards in the online IBQ System at the point of sale. The amount of 

landings of bluefin tuna, as indicated by data entered into the online IBQ System, was very similar 

to the amount derived from the preexisting mandatory bluefin tuna dealer reports, which was 

required for all commercially landed bluefin tuna regardless of gear type or geographic area. 

In 2017, there was close correlation between the number of bluefin retained as reported in the 

VMS, and the number of bluefin landed as reported on bluefin tuna dealer reports (Figure 3.19). 

Bluefin tuna dealer reports are maintained in the Commercial Bluefin Tuna Landings Database, also 

known as the electronic bluefin tuna landings database (eBFT). 

Figure 3.19 Number ofBluefin Tuna Reported Retained (VMS) vs. Number Landed (Dealer Data) in 2017 

(Jan–Dec, 2017) 

Sources:VMS; eBFT (dealer data). 

Preliminary analyses presented in the Draft Three-Year Review of the IBQ Program imply that the 

IBQ Program may have been successful in achieving its five objectives: 

• Based on a review of the landings and dead discards during the IBQ period, the IBQ Program 

may be considered successful in limiting bluefin tuna landings and dead discards in the pelagic 

longline fishery. Total bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead discards) after implementation of

the IBQ Program was reduced compared to total bluefin catch prior to implementation of the

IBQ Program. 

• The substantial reduction in total bluefin tuna catch described in the Draft Three-Year Review 

illustrated the effectivenessof the regulatory incentives to avoid bluefin tuna inherent in the 

IBQ Program. The regulatory incentives to avoid bluefin tuna interactions resulted from the 

combination of requirements associated with the IBQ Program, including individual allocations 

of bluefin tuna, accountability for bluefin tuna catch, VMS reporting, video monitoring, and

other regulations applicable to the pelagic longline fishery. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 69 

160 

140 

VMS 

- Dealer "O 

Q) 120 t:: 

0 

a. 

Q) 100 c:r:: 

C 

"" Q) 80 :, 

c1i 

~ 

Q) 60 ..c 

E 

:, 40 z 

20 

0 

F M A M A s 0 N D 
• The Draft Three-Year Review suggests that the IBQ Program also provided flexibility in the 

quota system to enable pelagic longline vessels to obtain bluefin tuna quota fromother vessels 

with available IBQ in order to enable full accounting for bluefin tuna landings and dead

discards, and minimize constraints on fishing for target species. 

• The Draft Three-Year Review suggests that the IBQ Program achieved the balance of limiting

bluefin tuna landings and dead discards with the optimizing fishing opportunities and

maintaining profitability. However, the Draft Three-Year Review stated that it was difficult to

separate out the influence of the IBQ Program from other factors (including swordfish imports, 

other regulations such as closed areas, as well as target species availability), and it is likely that 

the IBQ Program contributed to reduced revenue and fishing effort during the IBQ period. The 

reduction in fishing effort during 2015 compared to 2014 may have been due to uncertainty

regarding the new IBQ Program, as well as the factors driving the long-term reduction in fishing 

effort. 

• Analysis presented in the Draft Three-Year Review imply that NMFS was able to successfully 

balance achieving the IBQ Program objectiveswith impacts on the permit categories that target 

bluefin tuna and on HMS dealers, as well as the broader objectivesof the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

3.6 Economic and Social Environment 

This section provides a summary of socioeconomic information related to the pelagic longline

fishery as a whole. Information on top HMS ports from 2015 through 2017 is available in Chapter 8. 

In general, average ex-vessel price for bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, and swordfish has been

relatively stable between 2015 and 2017 and varied by $0.78, $0.18, and $0.47 per pound,

respectively (Table 3.18). Total landings for bluefin and yellowfin tunas have generally increased 

(with some variability) since 2015, however landings of swordfish decreased by ~ 556,000 lb

between 2015 and 2017. Ex-vessel annual revenue data trends are similar to those of total landings. 

In considering spatially referenced set revenue data (Figure 3.20 and Figure 3.21), the locations

with the highest average set revenue tend to be in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (i.e., the NED

fishery), the U.S. Caribbean, off Trinidad and Tobago, west of the Florida Keys, and in high seas

areas seaward of the Bahamian EEZ. However, locations with the highest set revenue are closer to

shore. Therefore, locations that tend to generate lower average revenue per set still produce the

most revenue overall. 

For more information on the overall economic status of HMS fisheries, please see Chapter 6 of the 

most recent HMS SAFE Report. 

70 Description of Effected Environment 
Table 3.18 Average Target Species Ex-Vessel Prices, and Overall Ex-Vessel Revenue (2013–2017) 

Species Year Annual Landings (lb dw) Average Ex-Vessel Price Ex-Vessel Annual Revenue 

2015 1,347,920 $6.45 $8,716,613 

2016 1,522,634 $7.23 $11,008,644 

Bluefin tuna 2017 1,490,321 $6.45 $9,581,816 

2015 1,965,050 $3.71 $8,494,781 

Yellowfin 2016 2,351,936 $3.53 $9,622,286 

tuna 2017 2,637,684 $3.70 $10,918,095 

2015 2,576,537 $4.07 $10,175,662 

2016 2,488,044 $4.54 $10,351,695 

Swordfish 2017 2,019,857 $4.32 $9,012,183 

Sources: HMS eDealer database, NMFS 2019. 

Figure 3.20 Average Pelagic Longline Set Revenue (2015–2017) by One Degree Grids 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 71 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0'W 85' 0'0'W 80' 0'0'W 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0'W 65' 0'0'W 60' 0'0'W 55' 0'0'W 50' 0'0'W 45' 0'0'W 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N 

35' 0'0"N 

30 ' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20 ' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

10' 0'0"N 

Average Set Revenue Per 

1° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

Grid Cell , 2015-2017 

Average= (Sum Revenue in Grid Cell / # Sets) 

- < $1 ,500.00 - $5,000.01 - $10,000.00 

$1 ,500.01 -$2,500.00 - $10,000.01 + 

D $2,500.01 - $5.ooo.oo 

1,100 

Kilometers 

Data Source : HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.21 Sum of Set Revenue (2015–2017) by One Degree Grids 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

3.7 Bycatch and Protected Species Management and Data 

This section summarizes information on Atlantic HMS fisheries bycatch, including fish species

managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and protected species interactions addressed by other 

regulatory programs. The 2018 HMS SAFE Report provides additional information on species

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and Migratory Bird

Treaty Act, including a description of the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team, Take Reduction

Plan, and measures to address protected species concerns. The interaction of seabirds and longline 

fisheries are also considered under the United States “National Plan of Action for Reducing the 

Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries” (NPOA-Seabirds). The pelagic observer program,

the primary tool used to monitor bycatch, is discussed in further detail in the 2018 HMS SAFE 

Report (e.g., observer coverage). 

In order to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in the domestic pelagic longline fishery, NMFS 

implemented regulations to close certain areas to this gear type (see Figure 3.4) and has banned the 

use of live bait by pelagic longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. 

72 Description of Effected Environment 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

10' 0'0"N 

100"0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0'W 85' 0'0'W so·o·o·w 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0'W 65' 0'0'W GO ' O'O'W 55' 0'0'W so·o·o·w 45' 0'0'W 

Sum Set Revenue Per 

1° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

Grid Cell , 2015-2017 

Set RE:Nenue ( x$1 ,000) 

- <$50 • $101-$250 • $501-$1,000 

- $51-$100 • $251-$500 - $1 ,001-$3,ooo 

- $3,001+ 

1, 100 

Kilometers 

Data Source : HMS Logbook 
In addition to the regulations mentioned above, to protect sea turtles, vessels using pelagic longline 

gear onboard must, at all times, in all areas open to pelagic longline fishing except the Northeast 

distant, possess onboard and/or use only 16/0 or larger non-offset circle hooks and/or 18/0 or

larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees. Only whole finfish and squid baits may 

be possessed and/or utilized with allowable hooks. Vessels fishing in the Northeast distant are 

required to use 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees and whole 

mackerel or squid baits. All pelagic longline vessels must possess and use sea turtle handling and 

release gear in compliance with NMFS careful release protocols. Additionally, all pelagic longline 

vessel owners and operators must be certified in the use of the protected species handling and

release gear. Certification must be renewed every three years and can be obtained by attending a 

training workshop. Approximately 18 to 24 workshops are conducted annually, and they are held in 

areas with significant numbers of pelagic longline permit holders. 

In 2009, to protect pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins, the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan 

(PLTRP) (74 FR 23349, May 19, 2009) included a requirement that pelagic longline vessel

operators fishing in the Cape Hatteras Special Research Area must contact NMFS at least 48 hours

prior to a trip, and carry observers if requested. The PLTRP also established a 20 nautical miles 

upper limit on mainline length for all pelagic longline sets in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and required

that an informational placard be displayed in the wheelhouse and on the working deck of all active 

pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic fishery. 

3.7.1 Bycatch Interactions and the Magnuson Stevens Act 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, “bycatch” has a very specific meaning: “Fish which are harvested

in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and 

regulatory discards. Such term does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and 

release fishery management program” (16 U.S.C. §1802(2)). Fish is defined as finfish, mollusks,

crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and 

birds (§1802(12)). Birds and marine mammals are therefore not considered bycatch under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery conservation and

management measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and minimize the 

mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided (16 U.S.C. §1851(a)(9)). In many fisheries, it is not

practicable to eliminate all bycatch and bycatch mortality. Some relevant examples of fish caught in 

Atlantic HMS fisheries as bycatch or incidental catch are marlin, undersized swordfish, and bluefin 

tuna by commercial fishing gear; undersized swordfish and tunas in recreational hook and line 

fisheries; species for which there is little or no market such as blue sharks; species caught and

released in excess of a bag limit; and prohibited species such as those in the prohibited shark

complex and longbill spearfish. Table 3.19 lists methods that are employed to reduce bycatch in the 

Atlantic HMS fisheries. 

As very few legal fishing gears are perfectly selective for the target species of each fishing

operation, expecting to eliminate bycatch of all non-target species in Atlantic HMS fisheries would 

be impractical. The goal of bycatch reduction, therefore, is to minimize the amount of bycatch to the

extent practicable and safely minimize the mortality of species caught as bycatch. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 73 
Table 3.19 Bycatch Reduction Methods in the Atlantic HMSFisheries 

Commercial Fisheries Recreational Fisheries 

Gear modifications (including hook and bait 

types) Circle hooks (mortality reduction only) 

Circle hooks 

Formal voluntary or mandatory catch-andrelease program for all fish or certain species 

Weak hooks Prohibiting retention of fish 

Time/area closures Education/outreach 

Performance standards De-hooking devices (mortality reduction only) 

Education/outreach 

Effort reductions (i.e., limited access) 

De-hooking devices (mortality reduction only) 

Prohibiting retention of fish 

NMFS scientists and managers continue to consult as necessary on reporting methodology design 

considerations including changes in monitoring and reporting technology to improve the quality of

target and non-target catch estimates as needed while considering cost, technical, and operational

feasibilities. NMFS uses mandatory self-reported logbook data (HMS and Coastal Fisheries Logbook

Programs, including a supplemental discard report), at-sea observer data (the Pelagic Longline,

Southeast Gillnet, and Bottom Longline Observer Programs), mandatory recreational fish landings 

reports, online reporting of dead discards of bluefin tuna in the commercial harpoon and hook and 

line fisheries (Atlantic Catch and Landings Reporting Site), and survey data (recreational fishery

dockside intercept and telephone surveys) to produce bycatch estimates for HMS fisheries. The 

incidental catch of bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery is monitored electronically via camera 

array, and catch reporting via vessel monitoring systems. Post-release mortality of HMS is

considered in stock assessments to the extent that the data allow. Fishing mortality estimates from

these sources of information, as incorporated in stock assessments, are critical to understanding

the overall status and outlook of a stock as well as helping to understand the available options for

conservation and management measures for the stock and potential implications for the ecosystem

in which it lives. 

3.7.2 Bycatch Data 

NMFS collects data on the disposition (released alive or dead) of bycatch species from logbooks

submitted by fishermen in the pelagic longline fishery. Observer reports also include disposition of

the catch as well as information on hook location, trailing gear, and injury status of protected

species interactions. These data are used to estimate post-release mortality of sea turtles and

marine mammals based on guidelines for each (Angliss and DeMaster 1998, Ryder et al. 2006). 

Bycatch information is summarized extensively in the HMS SAFE Report (see Chapter 8 of the 2017 

and 2018 versions). 

The pelagic longline fishery encounters a variety of species in addition to the target species,

including sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, sharks, and bluefin tuna. Data on bluefin tuna 

bycatch (i.e., discarded fish) is also available in Section 3.5.2.2 which summarizes some trends 

across the fishery (e.g., Table 3.7 and Table 3.8), and for specific spatially managed areas (e.g.,

Sections 3.5.2.2.1-Section 3.5.2.2.3). Information about Atlantic HMS bycatch since implementation

of Amendment 7 measures are shown in Table 3.20. In recent years (from 2015 to 2017), the 

number of swordfish, blue marlin, and large coastal shark discards have increased by 

74 Description of Effected Environment 
approximately 32 percent, 58 percent, and 30 percent, respectively (Table 3.20). However, between

2015 and 2017 the number of white marlin discards, sailfish discards, and pelagic shark discards

have decreased by 23 percent, 8 percent, and 43 percent, respectively. Bluefin tuna dead discards

increased by 9 percent between 2015 (n = 2010 fish) and 2017 (n = 219 fish); however, the

increase in bluefin tuna reported discards in 2016 is notable (n = 582) (see Table 3.17 for IBQ and

pelagic longline fishing trends such as number of hooks and sets deployed occurring currently with 

this bycatch). Projected numbers of discards associated with these bycatch species are associated 

with the ecological analysis of alternatives in Chapter 4. Appendix B also provides a summary of 

white marlin interactions as bycatch in a discussion of weak hook data, showing a statistically

significant increase in white marlin bycatch with the use of weak hooks. This statistically significant

increase in white marlin bycatch is notable, given that the seasonal application of weak hooks could

reduce Gulf of Mexico bycatch occurring in the second half of the year. 

Spatial trends in catch-per-unit effort of HMS bycatch were mapped and are summarized here: 

• Most of the bluefin tuna discards occurred in locations near the edge of the continental shelf 

break, in the NED, and in the central Gulf of Mexico (Figure 3.22). 

• Swordfish discard catch-per-unit effort was high primarily along the continental shelf break

from Georges Bank to the northern border of the Florida East Coast Closed Area, along the west

Florida shelf, and in the central Gulf of Mexico (Figure 3.23). 

• Dusky shark discard catch-per-unit effort (11.81 to 70.05 sharks per 10,000 hooks) was high in

the South Atlantic Bight between North Carolina and Central Florida, off the West Florida shelf, 

and in the U.S. Caribbean (Figure 3.24). 

• Blue marlin discard catch-per-unit effort was highest along the U.S. east coast continental shelf

break, off the west Florida shelf, and in the U.S. Caribbean (Figure 3.25). 

• White marlin discard catch-per-unit effort was highest along the U.S. east coast continental

shelf, at fishing locations seaward of the Bahamian EEZ, and in the U.S. Caribbean (Figure 3.26). 

• Roundscale spearfish discard catch-per-unit effort was highest at fishing locations seaward of 

the Bahamian EEZ, and in the U.S. Caribbean (Figure 3.27). 

• Sailfish discard catch-per-unit effort was highest in the South Atlantic Bight and in the Gulf of

Mexico (Figure 3.28). 

• Shortfin mako discards were highest off Georges Bank and the Grand Banks (Figure 3.29). 

Table 3.20 Reported Numbers of Catch in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2015–2017) 

Species 2015 2016 2017 

Swordfish discarded 5,382 4,437 7,116 

Blue marlin discarded 990 1,050 1,562 

White marlin discarded 2,885 2,153 2,221 

Sailfish discarded 715 855 657 

Bluefin tuna discarded 210 582 229 

Pelagic sharks discarded 45,082 27,900 25,564 

Large coastal sharks discarded 8,839 9,549 11,533 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 75 
Figure 3.22 Spatial Distribution ofBluefinDiscards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

76 Description of Effected Environment 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0"W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O"W 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0'W SS' O'O'W SO' O'O"W 45'0'0'W 

SO' O'O"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----___._ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Bluefin Tuna Discards 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Bluefin Discards/ 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

~ 0.00 - 1.92 - 3.71 - 6.13 - 11.81 - 70.05 

C=1 1.93 - 3.70 - 6.14 - 11.80 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.23 Spatial Distribution of Swordfish Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 77 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0"W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O"W 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0'W SS' O'O'W SO' O'O"W 45'0'0'W 

SO' O'O"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----___._ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Swordfish Discards 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Swordfish Discards / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

~ 0.00 - 1.92 - 3.71 - 6.13 - 11.81 - 70.05 

C=1 1.93 - 3.70 - 6.14 - 11.80 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.24 Spatial Distribution of Dusky Shark Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

78 Description of Effected Environment 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0"W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O"W 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60' 0'0'W SS' O'O'W SO' O'O"W 45' 0'0'W 

SO' O'O"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----___._ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Dusky Shark Discards 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Dusky Discards / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 1,000 

c=J 0.00 - 0.22 - 0.46 - 1.39 - 7.55 Kilometers 

C=1 0.01 - 0.21 - 0.47 - 1.38 Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.25 Spatial Distribution of Blue Marlin Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 79 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90'0'0"W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O"W 75' 0'0'W 70'0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0'W SS' O'O'W SO' O'O"W 45'0'0'W 

SO' O'O"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+---___._ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Blue Marlin Discards 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Blue Marlin Discards / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

c=J 0.00 - 0.30 - 1.12 - 2.56 - 4.90 - 27.37 

C=1 0.31 - 1.11 - 2.57 - 4.89 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.26 Spatial Distribution ofWhiteMarlin Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

80 Description of Effected Environment 

100' 0'0''W 95' 0'0''W 90'0'0''W 85' 0'0''W SO' O'O''W 75'0'0''W 70'0'0''W 65'0'0''W 60'0'0''W 55' 0'0''W 50' 0'0''W 45' 0'0''W 

50' 0'0"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N+-------'-... 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25'0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

White Marlin Discards 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# White Marlin Discards / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

D o.oo-o.89 - 3.19- 5.34 - 8.14-23.93 

- 0.90-3.18 - 5.35-8.13 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.27 Spatial Distribution ofRoundscale Spearfish Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 81 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0'W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O'W 7!' 0'0'W 70' 0'0'W 65' 0'0'W 60' 0'0'W 55' 0'0'W 50' 0'0'W 45' 0'0'W 

50' 0'0"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-tf---------3⁄4 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Roundscape Spearfish 

Catch Per Unit Effort 

2015-2017 

1 ° Latitude x 1 ° Longitude 

,.., 

' " • 

# Roundscale Spearfish Kept / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 

D aoo - o.57- 1.48 - 4.14 - 23.49 

D 0.0 1-0.56 - 1. 49-4.13 

1,000 

Kilometers 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.28 Spatial Distribution of Sailfish Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

82 Description of Effected Environment 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0"W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O"W 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0'W SS' O'O'W SO' O'O"W 45'0'0'W 

SO' O'O"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----___._ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Sailfish Discards 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Sailfish Discards/ 10,000 Hooks Deployed 1,000 

~ 0.00 - 0.64 - 1.20 - 2.08 - 26.92 Kilometers 

C=1 0.01 - 0.63 - 1.21 - 2.07 Data Source: HMS Logbook 
Figure 3.29 Spatial Distribution ofShortfinMako Discards within the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 83 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90'0'0"W 85' 0'0'W BO' O'O"W 75' 0'0'W 70'0'0"W 65' 0'0'W 60'0'0'W SS' O'O'W SO' O'O"W 45'0'0'W 

SO' O'O"N 

45' 0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N-+----___._ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

20' 0'0"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Shortfin Mako Shark Discards 

Per Unit Effort, 2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

(Quantile Classification) 

# Shortfin Mako Discards / 10,000 Hooks Deployed 1,000 

~ 0.00 - 0.29 - 0.55 - 1.21 - 29.89 Kilometers 

C=1 0.01 - 0.28 - 0.56 - 1.20 Data Source: HMS Logbook 
3.7.3 Interactions and the MMPA 

The MMPA of 1972 as amended is one of the principal Federal statutes guiding marine mammal

species protection and conservation policy. In the 1994 amendments, section 118 established the 

goal that the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals occurring during the course 

of commercial fishing operations be reduced to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality 

rate goal and serious injury rate within seven years of enactment (i.e., April 30, 2001). In addition,

the amendments established a three-part strategy to govern interactions between marine mammals

and commercial fishing operations. These include the preparation of marine mammal stock 

assessment reports, a registration and marine mammal mortality monitoring program for certain 

commercial fisheries (Category I and II), and the preparation and implementation of take reduction 

plans. NMFS relies on both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data to produce stock 

assessments for marine mammals in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. 

Marine mammal species that occur off the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts that are or could be of concern

with respect to potential interactions with HMS fisheries are included in Table 3.21. 

Table 3.21 List of Marine Mammals under the Protection of the MMPA 

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 

Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis Northern right whale Eubalaena glacialis 

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps 

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus 

Common dolphin Delphinis delphis Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus 

Short-beaked spinner 

dolphin Stenella clymene 

Harbor porpoise Phocoena Short-finned pilot whale 

Globicephela 

macrorhynchus 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus 

Killer whale Orcinus orca Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris 

Long-finned pilot whale Globicephela melas Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba 

Minke whale 

Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata White-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus 

Northern bottlenose 

whale Hyperoodon ampullatus 

Under MMPA requirements, NMFS produces an annual list of fisheries (LOF) that classifies 

domestic commercial fisheries, by gear type, relative to their rates of incidental mortality or serious 

injury of marine mammals. The LOF includes three classifications: 

1. Category I fisheries are those with frequent serious injury or incidental mortality to marine 

mammals. 

2. Category II fisheries are those with occasional serious injury or incidental mortality. 

3. Category III fisheries are those with remote likelihood of serious injury or known incidental 

mortality to marine mammals. 

The final 2018 MMPA LOF was published on February 7, 2018 (83 FR 5349). The Atlantic Ocean, 

Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico large pelagic longline fishery is classified as Category I (frequent

serious injuries and mortalities incidental to commercial fishing). Fishermen participating in

Category I or II fisheries are required to register under the MMPA and to accommodate an observer 

84 Description of Effected Environment 
aboard their vessels if requested. Vessel owners or operators, or fishermen, in Category I, II, or III 

fisheries must report all incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals during the

course of commercial fishing operations to NMFS. There are currently no regulations requiring

recreational fishermen to report takes, nor are they authorized to have incidental takes (i.e., they 

are illegal). 

Many of the marine mammals that are hooked by U.S. pelagic longline fishermen are released alive,

although some animals suffer serious injuries and may die after being released. The observed and 

estimated marine mammal interactions for 2013 to 2017 are summarized in Table 3.22. Marine 

mammals are caught primarily during the third and fourth quarters in the Mid Atlantic Bight 

(MAB), and during the second quarter in the South Atlantic Bight (SAB). These geographic areas are

illustrated in Figure 3.30, below. In 2017, the majority of observed interactions were with shortfinned pilot whales (Garrison, unpublished data). NOAA Fisheries monitors observed interactions

with sea turtles and marine mammals on a quarterly basis and reviews data for appropriate action, 

as necessary. 

Figure 3.30 Geographic Areas Used in Summaries of Pelagic Logbook Data 

The geographic zones are referred to as Caribbean (CAR), Gulf of Mexico (GOM),Florida east coast (FEC), south 

Atlantic bight (SAB), mid-Atlantic bight (MAB), northeast coastal (NEC), northeastdistant (NED), Sargasso Sea 

(SAR), north central Atlantic (NCA), tuna north (TUN), and tuna south (TUS). 

Source: Cramer and Adams 2000. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 85 

M 

_,_ 

au,.,....., 1aou, .... ___ ea..c...1A"CJ , .... loNMMlilllgN UIA81 

........ eo..ucci HeflllNllDllarlll IHI!)) _, NED ...... Nefllc..llMiw-.otM:A> 

Ni;C (94) na.Nl:d\11\H 

TWl8 ...... ITUI> (92) 

"" 

SAR 

(93) 

NCA 

(93) 

' · ~ -~ u 

TUN 

.. ... ... ... . ' .,. .. -«I ... . -a .,. 
Table 3.22 Marine Mammal Interactions in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2015-2017) 

Year Species 

Total Mortality Serious Injury* Alive* 

Obs. Est. Obs. Est. Obs. Est. Obs. Est. 

2015 

Beaked whale 1 4.0 - - 1 4.0 - -

Bottlenose dolphin 1 4.7 - - - - 1 4.7 

Common dolphin 2 14.4 - - 1 9.0 1 5.4 

Risso’s dolphin 2 8.4 - - 2 8.4 - -

Short-finned pilot whale 38 233.5 - - 32 202.9 6 30.7 

Sperm whale 1 1.3 - - 1 1.3 - -

Unidentified dolphin 2 8.5 - - - - 2 8.5 

Unidentified marine mammal 2 10.5 - - 1 5.8 1 4.7 

2016 

Long-finned pilot whale*** 0.3 1.3 - - 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.2 

Risso’s dolphin 4 22.0 1 5.6 1.5 10.5 1.5 5.9 

Short-finned pilot whale*** 22.7 130.8 - 5.1 19.3 111.1 3.4 14.6 

Unidentified dolphin 2 9.3 - - 1 1.2 1 8.1 

Unidentified marine mammal 2 4.1 - - 0.5 0.8 1.5 3.3 

Unidentified whale 1 9.2 - - 0.5 4.7 0.5 4.5 

2017 

Common dolphin 1 4.9 - - 1 4.9 0 -

Long-finned pilot whale*** 1.3 15.6 - - 0.3 3.3 1 12.3 

Risso’s dolphin 1 7.7 - - 0 - 1 7.7 

Short-finned pilot whale*** 29.7 340.3 - - 14 132.9 15.7 207.4 

Unidentified dolphin 1 5.3 - - 0 - 1 5.3 

Unidentified marine mammal 2 11.7 - - 0 - 2 11.7 

Obs.= observed; Est.= estimated. 

*Cases where serious injury cannot be determined based upon available data are partitioned based upon observed 

serious injury rates from past interactions. This results in proportional assignment of observed animals to the serious 

injury and alive categories. 

**Pantropical spotted dolphin was observed dead in an experimental set. 

***Pilot whales are not identified to species at sea by observers. Observed interactions are partitioned between the 

two species based upon location, water depth, and sea surface temperature at the time of the interaction. 

Sources: Garrison and Stokes, 2012, 2013, 2014. Garrison 2015, 2016, 2017—unpublished data. 

3.7.4 Interactions and the ESA 

The ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides for the conservation and recovery of

endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. The listing of a species is based on

the status of the species throughout its range or in a specific portion of its range in some instances.

Threatened species are those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future [16 U.S.C. §

1532(20)] if no action is taken to stop the decline of the species. Endangered species are those in

danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of their range [16 U.S.C. §

1532(20)]. Species can be listed as endangered without first being listed as threatened. The 

Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, is authorized to list marine and anadromous fish 

species, marine mammals (except for walrus and sea otter), marine reptiles (such as sea turtles), 

and marine plants. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the USFWS, is authorized to list 

walrus and sea otter, seabirds, terrestrial plants and wildlife, and freshwater fish and plant species. 

86 Description of Effected Environment 
In addition to listing species under the ESA, the service agency (NMFS or USFWS) generally must 

designate critical habitat for listed species concurrently with the listing decision to the “maximum

extent prudent and determinable” [16 U.S.C. §1533(a)(3)]. The ESA defines critical habitat as those 

specific areas that are occupied by the species at the time it is listed that are essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and that may be in need of special consideration, as well as those 

specific areas that are not occupied by the species that are essential to their conservation. Federal

agencies are prohibited from undertaking actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. 

Below is the list of ESA-listed species within the action area for this action and with which the HMS

fisheries that are the subject of this proposed action may interact. 

Marine Mammals Status 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Sea Turtles 

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 

Olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 

*Endangered/threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Critical Habitat 

Northern right whale (Eubaleana glacialis) Endangered 

Finfish 

Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) Endangered 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) **Endangered/threatened 

Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) ***Threatened 

Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) Threatened 

Giant manta ray (Mobula birostris) Threatened 

*Green sea turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened exceptfor the Florida breeding population, which is listed 

as endangered.Due to the inability to distinguish between the populations away from the nesting beaches, green sea 

turtles are considered endangered wherever they occur in U.S. waters. 

** Atlantic sturgeon have five distinct population segments.The population in the Gulf of Mexico is considered 

threatened.The other populations in the New York bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic are all 

considered endangered.

***Refers to the Central and Southwest Atlantic distinct population segment, the only population of this species that 

may interact with U.S. Atlantic HMSfisheries. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 87 
3.7.5 Sea Turtles 

NMFS has taken several significant steps to reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality in 

domestic longline fisheries, including: the required use of mitigation gear on pelagic longline 

vessels and handling/release guidelines and protocols (66 FR 17370); On March 30, 2001, NMFS 

implemented via interim final rule requirements for U.S. flagged vessels using pelagic longline gear 

on board to have line clippers and dipnets to remove gear on incidentally captured sea turtles (66

FR 17370); and additional gear, bait and safe handling regulations for the Atlantic pelagic longline

fishery to further reduce the mortality of incidentally caught sea turtles (69 FR 40734). NMFS 

conducts workshopsto educate longline and gillnet fishermen on all regulations and safe handling 

practices. 

Internationally, the United States is pursuing sea turtle conservation through international, 

regional, and bilateral organizations such as ICCAT, the Asia Pacific Fishery Commission, and FAO

Committee on Fisheries (COFI). At the 24th session of COFI held in 2001, the United States

distributed a concept paper for an international technical experts meeting to evaluate existing

information on turtle bycatch, to facilitate and standardize collection of data, to exchange

information on research, and to identify and consider solutions to reduce turtle bycatch. COFI

agreed that an international technical meeting could be useful despite the lack of agreement on the 

specific scope of that meeting. The United States has developed a prospectus for a technical 

workshop to address sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries as a first step. Other gear-specific

international workshops may be considered in the future. 

A history of sea turtle management, a summary of ESA consultation history, and a review of

regulations for the pelagic longline fishery is available in the HMS SAFE Report. 

Protected Species-Sea Turtles 

As a result of increased sea turtle interactions in 2001 and 2002, NOAA Fisheries reinitiated

consultation for the pelagic longline fishery and completed a new Biological Opinion on June 1, 

2004. The June 2004 BiOp concluded that long-term continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic 

longline fishery as proposed was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, 

green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles, but was likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of leatherback sea turtles. The Biological Opinion included a reasonable and 

prudent alternative (RPA), which was adopted and implemented within the pelagic longline fishery, 

and an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for 2004-2006 and each subsequent three-year period

(NMFS 2004a). 

Sea turtle bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery has decreased significantly in the last 

decade. From 1999 to 2003 (NMFS, 2019), the pelagic longline fleet targeting HMS interacted with

an average of 772 loggerhead and 1,013 leatherback sea turtles per year, based on observed takes 

and total reported effort. In 2005, the fleet was estimated to have interacted with 275 loggerhead

and 351 leatherback sea turtles outside of experimental fishing operations (Walsh and Garrison,

2006). In 2017, the U.S Atlantic pelagic longline fishery was estimated to have interacted with 78 

loggerhead sea turtles and 292 leatherback sea turtles (Garrison, 2018, unpublished data) (Table 

3.22). Distribution of interactions varies with species, but in general interactions per unit effort are

higher in the high seas seaward of the Bahamian EEZ, off Georges Bank, and off the Grand Banks

(Figure 3.31). The grid cell in Figure 3.31 that had the highest number of interactions per unit effort 

reflects 3 leatherback and 4 loggerhead interactions that occurred over 10 sets deployed (~8,365 

hooks). In 2017, the majority of loggerhead sea turtle interactions occurred in the South Atlantic 

bight and Gulf of Mexico areas (NMFS, 2019). Interactions with leatherback sea turtles were highest 

88 Description of Effected Environment 
in the mid-Atlantic bight, south Atlantic bight, and Gulf of Mexico areas (NMFS, 2019). The total

interactions for the 2013–15 Incidental Take Statement, takes the most recent and complete 3-year 

period, which were below the level established by the statement in the 2004 Biological Opinion for 

both loggerheads and leatherbacks (Table 3.23). NOAA Fisheries monitors observed interactions 

with sea turtles and marine mammals on a quarterly basis and reviews data for additional 

appropriate action, as necessary. 

Table 3.23 Estimated Sea Turtle Interactions and Sea Turtle Incidental Take Levels in the U.S. Atlantic 

Pelagic Longline Fishery by Species in 2010–2017 

Species 

Total 

(2010–12) 2013 2014 2015 

Total 

(2013–15) 2016 2017 

Total 

(2016–17) 

*Total 

3-Year 

ITS 

Level 

Leatherback 1,006 366 279 300 945 339 292 590 1,764 

Loggerhead 1,463 377 247 243 867 154 78 216 1,905 

Other/unidentified 

sea turtles 22 0 6 18 24 3 25 3 105 

*Applies to all subsequent three-year Incidental Take Statement periods (e.g.; 2010–12, 2013–15, 2016–18); 2017 

data are preliminaryestimates. 

Figure 3.31 Spatial Distribution ofSea TurtleCPUEwithin theU.S.Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 89 

100' 0'0'W 95' 0'0'W 90' 0'0'W 85' 0'0'W 80' 0'0'W 75' 0'0'W 70' 0'0'W 65' 0'0'W 60' 0'0'W 55' 0'0'W 50' 0'0'W 45' 0'0'W 

50' 0'0"N 

45"0'0"N 

40' 0'0"N -II-----___,,__ 

35' 0'0"N 

30' 0'0"N 

25' 0'0"N 

2o· o·o"N 

15' 0'0"N 

Sea Turtle Catch Per Unit Effort 

2015-2017 

1° Latitude x 1° Longitude 

# Sea Turtles Per 10,000 Hooks Deployed 1,000 

D <0.25 - o.51 -1 .00 - 501. Kilometers 

D 0.26-0.50 - 1.01-5.oo Data Source : HMS Logbook 
3.7.6 Interactions with Seabirds 

Gannets, gulls, greater shearwaters, and storm petrels are occasionally hooked by Atlantic pelagic 

longline gear. These species and all other seabirds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. The majority of longline interactions with seabirds occur as the gear is being set. The birds eat

the bait and become hooked on the line. The line then sinks and the birds are subsequently

drowned. 

The NPOA-Seabirds was released in February 2001, and calls for detailed assessments of longline 

fisheries, and, if a problem is found to exist within a longline fishery, for measures to reduce seabird

bycatch within two years. Because interactions appear to be relatively low in Atlantic HMS fisheries,

such measures have not been necessary. The 2014 Report on the Implementation of the United 

States National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries 

was submitted to the UN FAO in June 2014. 

Observer data indicate that seabird bycatch is low in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery (NMFS

2018). In 2017, there were 89 active U.S. pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean Sea that reportedly set approximately 5.3 million hooks. Seven seabirds 

were observed taken (two unidentified shearwaters, two herring gulls, one northern gannet, one 

northern fulmar, and one unidentified seabird). Five seabirds were released dead and two seabirds

were released alive. 

3.8 References 

Angliss, R.P. and D.P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating serious and non-serious injury of marine

mammals taken incidental to commercial fishing operations. NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS OPR-13: 48 p.

Aranda G, Abascal FJ, Varela JL, and A. Medina. 2013. Spawning behavior and post-spawning

migration patterns of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) ascertained from satellite 

archival tags. PLoS ONE. 8(10): e76445.

Arocha, F. 1997. The reproductive dynamics of swordfish Xiphias gladius L. and management

implications in the northwestern Atlantic. University of Miami, Ph.D. Dissertation. Coral

Gables, FL. 383 p.

Beerkircher, L. R., Cortés E., and M. Shivji. 2002. Characteristics of shark bycatch observed on 

pelagic longlines off the southeastern United States, 1992–2000. Mar. Fish. Rev. 64:40–49.

Block B.A., Teo S.L.H., Walli A., Boustany A., Stokesbury M.J.W., Farwell C.J., Weng K.C., Dewar H., and

T.D. Williams. 2005. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna. 

Nature. 434: 1121-1127. 

Butler C.M., Rudershausen PJ, Buckel JA. 2010. Feeding ecology of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus

thynnus) in North Carolina: diet, daily ration, and consumption of Atlantic menhaden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus). Fish Bull. 108: 56-69.

Byrne, M.E., E. Cortes, J.J. Vaudo, G.C.M. Harvey, M. Sampson, B.M. Wetherbee, and M. Shivji. 2017.

Satellite telemetry reveals higher fishing mortality rates than previously estimated,

suggesting overfishing of an apex marine predator. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284:

20170658. 

Cramer, J. and H. Adams. 2000. Large pelagic logbook newsletter: 1998. NOAA Technical

Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-433. 25 p.

Dragovich, A. 1969. Review of studies of tuna food in the A

Description of Effected Environment 

tlantic Ocean. U. S. Fish wildl. Serv.Spec. 

Sci. Rep.-Fish. 593:21 p. 

90 
Druon JN, Fromentin JM, Hanke AR, Arrizabalaga H, Damalas D, Tičina V, Quílez-Badia G, Ramirez K,

Arregui I, Tserpes G, Reglero P. 2016. Habitat suitability of the Atlantic bluefin tuna by size 

class: An ecological niche approach. Progress in Oceanography. 2016 Mar 31;142:30-46.

Evans K, Patterson TA, Reid H, Harley SJ. 2012. Reproductive schedules in Southern bluefin tuna: 

are current assumptions appropriate? PLoS ONE 7(4): e34550. doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0034550.

Fairfield-Walsh, C., and L. P. Garrison. 2006. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in

the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2005. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-539, 52 

p.

Fromentin JM, Reygondeau G, Bonhommeau SG, Beaugrand G. 2013. Oceanographic changes and

exploitation drive the spatio-temporal dynamics of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Fish Oceanogr. 

23(2): 147-156.

Fromentin JM. 2010. Atlantic bluefin tuna. In: International Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2006-2009. ICCAT Manual. International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tuna. p. 93-111. http://www.iccat.int/en/ICCATManual.htm

Fromentin and Powers 2005?? 

Galuardi B and Lutcavage M. 2012. Dispersal routes and habitat utilization of juvenile Atlantic

bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, tracked with mini PSAT and archival tags. PLoSONE 7(5):

e37829. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037829.

Galuardi B, Royer F, Golet W, Logan J, Neilson J, Lutcavage M. 2010. Complex migration routes of

Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) question current population structure paradigm.

Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 67: 966-976.

Garrison 2005?? 

Garrison, L.P. and L. Stokes. 2012. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and sea turtles in the U.S. 

Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2011. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC632, 61 p.

Garrison, L.P and Stokes, L. 2013. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and sea turtles in the U.S. 

Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2012. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA NMFSSEFSC-655: 62 p.

Garrison, L.P and L. Stokes. 2014. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and sea turtles in the U.S. 

Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2013. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC667: 61 p.

Garrison 2015? 

Garrison, L.P. and L. Stokes. 2016. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the US

Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet during 2015. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA NMFSSEFSC-709: 61p

Gibson AJA and Campana SE. 2005. Status and recovery potential of porbeagle shark in the 

Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2005/053.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2005/2005_053-

eng.htm

Golet WJ, Cooper AB, Campell R, Lutcavage M. 2007. Decline in condition of northern bluefin tuna

(Thunnus thynnus) in the Gulf of Maine. Fish Bull. 105: 390-395. 

Golet WJ, Galuardi B, Cooper AB, Lutcavage ME. 2013. Changes in the Distribution of Atlantic bluefin 

tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the Gulf of Maine 1979-2005. PLoS ONE 8(9): e75480. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075480.

Hayes CG, Jiao Y, Cortés E. 2009. Stock assessment of scalloped hammerheads in the Western North

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

29:1406-1417. 

Heinisch G, Rosenfeld H, Knapp JM, Gordin H, Lutcavage ME. 2014. Sexual maturity in western

Atlantic bluefin tuna. Sci Rep 4:7205. doi:10.1038/srep07205. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 91 
Hutt, C., S. Lovell, and G. Silva. 2014. The Economic Contributions of Atlantic Highly Migratory

Species Anglers in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, 2011. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-147, 34 p.

Lawson GL, Castleton MR, Block BA. 2010. Movements and diving behavior of Atlantic bluefin tuna

Thunnus thynnus in relation to water column structure in the northwestern Atlantic. Mar

Ecol Prog Ser. 400: 245-265.

Logan JM, Rodriguez-Marin E, Goni N, Barreiro S, Arrizabalaga H, Golet W, Lutcavage M. 2011. Diet 

of young Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in eastern and western Atlantic foraging 

grounds. Mar Biol. 158: 73-85. 121 

Lutcavage ME, Galuardi B, Lam TC. 2012. Predicting potential Atlantic spawning grounds of

Western Atlantic bluefin tuna based on electronic tagging results 2002-2011. ICCAT

SCRS/2012/157. 7 p.

Muhling BA, Lamkin JT, Roffer MA. 2010. Predicting the occurrence of Atlantic bluefin tuna

(Thunnus thynnus) larvae in the northern Gulf of Mexico: building a classification model 

from archival data. Fish Oceanogr 19(6): 526-539.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, 

Swordfish and Sharks. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document.

NMFS. 2000a. Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, 

Swordfish and Sharks. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document.

NMFS. 2003. Final amendment 1 to the fishery management plan for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and

sharks. USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2004a. Endangered Species Act-Section 7 Re-initiation of Consultation on the Atlantic Pelagic

Longline Fishery for Highly Migratory Species. Biological Opinion, June 1, 2004. 154 p.

NMFS. 2004b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Reduction of Sea Turtle 

Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery. NOAA, National

Marine Fisheries Service, HMS Management Division, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office

of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. pp. 1600.

NMFS. 2007. SEDAR 13 Stock assessment report: small coastal sharks, Atlantic sharpnose, 

blacknose, bonnethead, and finetooth shark. Silver Spring (MD): HMS Management Division. 

NMFS. 2008c. Regulatory amendment 2 to the 2006 HMS FMP: Atlantic Shark Management

Measures, July 15, 2008 NOAA, NMFS, HMS Management Division.

NMFS. 2011. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) report for Atlantic highly migratory

species. Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

NMFS. 2012. Continued Authorization of the Atlantic Shark Fisheries via the Consolidated HMS 

Fishery Management Plan as Amended by Amendments 3 and 4 and the Federal

Authorization of a Smoothhound Fishery (F/SER/201 1/06520). Biological Opinion, 

December 12, 2012. 378 p.

NMFS. 2013a. Annual report of the United States to ICCAT. US Department of Commerce, NOAA

Fisheries. ANN-045/2013.

NMFS. 2013b. Regulatory amendment 5a to the 2006 HMS FMP: Atlantic Shark Management

Measures, July 3, 2013 NOAA, NMFS, HMS Management Division. 

92 Description of Effected Environment 
NMFS. 2015a. Annual report of the United States to ICCAT (2014). US Department of Commerce,

NOAA Fisheries. ANN-038/2015.

NMFS. 2016a. Annual Report of the United States to ICCAT (2015). US Department of Commerce,

NOAA Fisheries. ANN-048/2016.

NMFS. 2019. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) report for Atlantic highly migratory

species. Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

Restrepo VR, Thompson GG, Mace PM, Gabriel WL, Low LL, MacCall AD, Methot D, Powers JE, Taylor

BL, Wade PR, Witzig JF. 1998. Technical guidance on the use of precautionary approaches to

implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-31.

Ryder, C.E., T.A. Conant, and B.A Schroeder. 2006. Report of the workshop on marine turtle longline

post-interaction mortality. USDOC, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/OPR-29.

Schleyer, M.H. and B.J. Tomalin. 2000. Damage on South African coral reefs and an assessment of

their sustainable diving capacity using a fisheries approach. Bulletin of Marine Science

67(3):1025-1042.

Standing Committee on Research and Statistics SCRS. 1997. Report of the ICCAT SCRS bluefin tuna

stock assessment session. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers. ICCAT 46(1):1-186.

SCRS. 2007. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2006-07, Part II;2:47-262.

SCRS. 2008. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2007-08, Part I; 2:31-271.

SCRS. 2009a. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2008-09, Part II; 2:45-344.

SCRS. 2009b. Report of the 2009 porbeagle stock assessments meeting (Copenhagen, Denmark, 

June 22 to 27, 2009). ICCAT Collect Vol Sci Pap. 2010; 65(6):1909-2005.

SCRS. 2010. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2010-11, Part I; 2:1-265.

SCRS. 2011. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2010-11, Part II; 2:1-268.

SCRS. 2012a. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2012-13, Part I; 2:1-296.

SCRS. 2012b. 2012 Shortfin mako stock assessment and ecological risk assessment meeting (Olhão, 

Portugal - June 11 to 18, 2012). ICCAT Collect Vol Sci Pap. 2013; 69(4):1427-1570.

SCRS. 2013. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2012-13, Part II; 2:1-343.

SCRS. 2014a. ICCAT Report for Biennial Period, 2014-15, Part I; 2:1-348.

SCRS. 2014b. Report of the 2014 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Stock Assessment Session. International

Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Madrid, Spain, September 22-27 2014.

SCRS. 2015. Report of the standing committee on research and statistics. ICCAT September 28-

October 2, 2015; Madrid, Spain.

SCRS. 2016. Report of the standing committee on research and statistics. ICCAT October 3-7, 2016;

Madrid, Spain.

SCRS. 2017. Report of the standing committee on research and statistics. ICCAT October 2-6, 2017;

Madrid, Spain.

SEDAR 34a. 2013. Stock assessment report: HMS Atlantic sharpnose shark. SEDAR, SAR Section II, 

242 p.

SEDAR 34b. 2013. Stock assessment report: HMS Bonnethead shark. SEDAR, SAR Section II, 222 p.

Shah, A., J.W., Watson, D. Foster, and S. Epperly. 2004. Experiments in the Western Atlantic

Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate Sea Turtle Mitigation Measures in the Pelagic Longline

Fishery-Summary of Statistical Analysis. NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, Pascagoula, MS. Unpublished

Report.

Teo SL, Block BA. 2010. Comparative influence of ocean conditions on yellowfin and Atlantic bluefin 

tuna catch from longlines in the Gulf of Mexico. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10756. 

doi:10.1371/journalo.pone.0010756 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 93 
Walli A, Teo SL, Boustany A, Farwell CJ, Williams T, Dewar H, Prince E, Block BA. 2009. Seasonal 

movements, aggregations and diving behavior of Atlantic BFT (TT) revealed with archival 

tags. PLoS ONE 4(7): e6151

Walsh, C.F. and L.P Garrison, 2006. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. 

Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC539. 51 p.

Watson, J.W., D.G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2003. Experiments in the Western Atlantic

Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate Sea Turtle Mitigation Measures in the Pelagic Longline

Fishery-Summary of Statistical Analysis. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, MS.

Unpublished report.

Watson, J.W., D.G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2004. Experiments in the Western Atlantic

Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate Sea Turtle Mitigation Measures in the Pelagic Longline

Fishery: Report on experiments conducted in 2001–2003. February 4, 2004. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast

Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, MS. 123 p.

Wilson SG and Block BA. 2009. Habitat use in Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus inferred from

diving behavior. Endang Species Res. 10: 355-367. doi: 10.3354/esr00240. 

94 Description of Effected Environment 
Environmental and Economic

Consequences of Alternatives 

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the potential effects of the alternatives described in

Chapter 2. The chapter focuses on the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives on

the environment to include bluefin tuna, other Atlantic HMS, and non-HMS species such as dolphin

fish; restricted and protected species; and essential fish habitat. Separate impact analyses were 

completed for each alternative except for the impacts on essential fish habitat, which is presented

as a single analysis for all of the alternatives due to anticipated low impact across all of the

alternatives and little change in the types of impacts across different habitats. 

For quota-managed stocks, including western Atlantic bluefin tuna and North Atlantic swordfish, 

the actions considered and analyzed in this DEIS would not affect or alter the science-based quotas 

for the stocks. Any action considered in the alternatives would manage stocks within these alreadyestablished allowable catch levels. For these stocks, NMFS previously implemented the quotas 

through rulemaking with the appropriate environmental analyses of the effectsof quota

implementation (see section 3.1.1). Where changes in catch do occur as a result of an alternative 

(e.g., increases in target catchin the pelagic longline fishery in Alternative A4 for yellowfintuna),

any such increases would be within the previously-analyzed quotas. The extent and effect of any

such changes is discussed and analyzed for the relevant alternatives below. 

NMFS has available a variety of sources of commercial fisheries data sources. This action focuses on 

area-based measures. Given that the action addresses discrete geographical area designations and

gear configuration within certain areas (rather than, for example, the amount of allowable catch for

a stock or estimates of stock abundance for a stock assessment), the most relevant data source for

this action is fishery-dependent data that reflects the needed geographic and other data for the 

area-based analyses. Atlantic HMS Logbook Data is required, self-reported data that includes

landings, discards, gear, location, and other set and trip information. All pelagic longline fishermen

with Atlantic HMS permits are required to use this logbook. There are also a few HMS fishermen

who use other gear types (e.g., greenstick, bottom longline, and rod and reel) who also report in this

logbook. This data provides specific latitude/longitude coordinates for fishing gear sets and

encompass all of the reported fishery dependent interactions of HMS-permitted participants in the 

pelagic longline fishery. In addition to the actual logbook forms (which includes a set form, a trip

form, and an economic information form), fishermen who use this logbook are also required to

submit “weigh out slips” when they submit the logbooks. Weigh out slips are provided to the 

fishermen by the dealers, are not required to meet a specific format, but do include, at least, the 

tally and weight of each individual fish from a given trip. With the implementation of Amendment 7, 

several additional reporting and monitoring requirements, which are described below, have been

placed on the pelagic longline fishery (e.g., electronic monitoring (EM), bluefin tuna landings and 

dead discard data submitted via the online IBQ System, bluefin tuna set reports submitted via

vessel monitoring systems (VMS)). Because the need for action focuses on the HMS pelagic longline 

fishery, because all HMS pelagic longline fishermen are required to report in this logbook, because 

the data can be cross-validated with other data sources, and because the data provides location and

other fishing variables required for the various analyses, NMFS used the HMS logbook as the 

primary data source for the analysis of this rulemaking in both the ecological and socioeconomic

sections to determine the effects on catch of target and protected/restricted species, after 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 95 

4 
considering all of the available data sources. Logbook data from the pelagic longline fishery reflect 

catchof select species, including bluefin tuna, target HMS (swordfishand yellowfinand bigeye

tunas), other marketable species such as dolphin fish, restricted HMS species (e.g., white and blue 

marlin, roundscale spearfish, sailfish, dusky sharks, and shortfin mako); and interactions with

protected species). 

Some additional considerations for the analyses include: 

• NMFS analyzed ecological impacts on species reported in the HMS logbook by reviewing and

projecting catch or fishing mortality of species under different scenarios, with the assumption

that catches that are much higher than those in recent years could have adverse stock 

implications if they cause the pelagic longline fisheries to exceed the already-established quotas 

or are otherwise deemed contrary to conservation and management objectives. Catches or 

fishing mortality that are much lower than those in recent years could have beneficial stock 

implications, if fishing pressure on those stocks is lessened and consequentially there are more 

individuals available to grow to maturity and produce the next generational cohort. Projected 

catches or fishing mortality that are slightly higher or lower than those in recent years, would

have minor adverse or beneficial ecological impacts. For example, a minor beneficial impact 

could reflect a management option that might benefit large individuals of different species (e.g.,

some of the weak hook options). A minor adverse impact could result in an increase in harvest 

that is still within the allowable catch limits established for that stock and would likely not 

result in adverse stock impacts that could cause a stock to become overfished. Projected catches 

or fishing mortality that do not vary from the range of catch expected to occur under a No

Action alternative (i.e., status quo) are anticipated to have the same type of impact. Unless

otherwise stated, this could be considered a neutral impact, which would likely maintain the 

current stock status and not contribute to the stock becoming overfished. 

• Atlantic HMS included in this analysis focused on certain species either due to relevant nature

to the rulemaking (bluefin tuna); prevalence as target species for the fishery (swordfish, 

yellowfinand bigeye tunas, and dolphin fish); or other reasons such as degree of public interest 

related to bycatch issues (billfish, sharks), substantial results in data analyses (white marlin), or

from public feedback received during the scoping process (white marlin, sharks). Other species

(e.g. skipjack and albacore tunas) data are available in the Atlantic HMS logbook but are limited 

by a lack of data points to complete spatial analysis or are not an important component of 

pelagic longline catch. 

• Similar to Atlantic HMS the protected species analysis were focused on certain species for 

different reasons, including but not limited to their prevalence in the data; existing regulations 

that prohibit their retention; a high degree of public interest; stock status; or the need to ensure 

that proposed management measures would not conflict with management requirements under

the MSA, the ESA, the MMPA, ICCAT recommendations, or other applicable laws. Other data are

available but are limited by a lack of data points to complete spatial analysis or a species

specific level of detail. 

• The retention of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, dusky sharks, and sea turtles are prohibited 

onboard pelagic longline vessels. As of 2018, the retention of shortfin mako sharks is only

allowed if the sharks are dead at haulback and other conditions are met. Data collected before 

the interim final rule (2018) and subsequent final FMP Amendment (2019) published were 

analyzed for this rule, and might reflect more catches and mortality than what is expected to

occur in data following implementation. 

96 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
• Roundscale spearfish was not included in analyses for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

due to lack of interactions during the effective period. Statistical analyses for weak hook

research cited extensively in discussion of Alternatives D1 through D3 were completed by

Southeast Fisheries Science Center staff on species that were caught in high enough numbers to

support robust statistical analyses. White marlin and roundscale spearfish data were combined 

because it can be difficult to differentiate between these species. 

NMFS used data from 2015 through 2017 to analyze potential ecological impacts of the alternatives

on the specified Atlantic HMS and protected species. These years were chosen because they follow

the January 2015 effective date of Amendment 7 for the gear restricted areas, which was the most

recent major bluefin tuna and pelagic longline fishery management action. Management measures

implemented under this rulemaking significantly changed the management structure for the pelagic 

longline fishery. Extending the time series for ecological impacts assessment further back in time to 

include additional years would encompass fishing effort that occurred under different regulations, 

making the analyses less representative of the existing regulatory environment. Older data relevant 

to the initial implementation of spatial management measures for the Northeastern United States

Closed Area and the Gulf of Mexico and Cape Hatteras gear restricted areas are summarized to

provide a point of reference. NMFS also anticipates including 2018 data, if available, to update DEIS 

analyses for the final EIS. 

4.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area 

The Northeastern United States Closed Area was implemented in 1999 for the purpose of reducing 

bluefin tuna dead discards across the pelagic longline fleet. Recently, there have been indications

that the Closed Area may not be needed to appropriately reduce bluefin interactions by the pelagic

longline fleet, given other management measures in place that serve that purpose. 

In this document, NMFS analyzes several alternatives to evaluate whether the Northeastern United

States Closed Area measures are still necessary to reduce and/or maintain low numbers of pelagic 

longline bluefin tuna discards and interactions. The alternatives, which are listed below, range from

maintaining the status quo under the No Action alternative to eliminating the closure. 

NMFS has heard from fishermen in the pelagic longline fishery that bluefin tuna concentrations may

have shifted away from the Northeastern United States Closed Area and, as a result, fishing effort 

outside the Northeastern United States Closed Area is now occurring in areas with higher bluefin 

tuna concentrations. NMFS analyzed data related to this issue. The data regarding higher catches

and catch rates of bluefin tuna occurring to the northeast of the closure in June is reflected in Figure 

3.16 During scoping for this rulemaking, NMFS received public comment supporting removal of the 

closure, making it smaller, and/or allowing pelagic longline fishermen into the area during June

provided that landings and dead discards do not meet a designated threshold. NMFS also received

comments that were opposed to losing the restrictions in the area and commenters also stated that 

data collection should occur before eliminating the areas. 

Alternative A1: No Action. This area would remain closed to all vessels using pelagic 

longline gear onboard from June 1st through June 30th of a given year. 

Alternative A2: Modify the current Northeastern United States Closed Area to remove a 

western portion of the closure. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 97 
Alternative A3: Apply individual performance based access to the Northeastern United 

States Closed Area. 

Alternative A4: Undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need for Evaluation of 

the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Closure (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative A5: Eliminate the Northeastern United States Closed Area. 

4.1.1 Alternative A1 No Action 

This alternative would maintain the Northeastern United States Closed Area as it is currently

defined, and the current regulations at § 635.21(c)(2)(i). The currently defined area would remain 

closed to all vessels using pelagic longline gear onboard from June 1 through June 30 of a given 

year. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

As described above, this alternative would not allow pelagic longline fishing to occur during June in 

the Northeastern United States Closed Area. Any potential positive ecological benefits in the area 

would continue to occur, but due to the area being implemented to reduce dead discards of bluefin

tuna in the pelagic longline fishery and not to lessen other environmental impacts, any potential

impacts of the area may be effectively redundant with the IBQ Program. This alternative would not 

allow for any fishery-dependent data collection during the course of normal fishing operations from 

the area to evaluate the necessity of the Closed Area. 

The Northeastern United States Closed Area has been closed for the past 20 years. Current 

information about catch rates during normal fishing operations within the area is thus not 

available. NMFS needed, therefore, to devise a way to analyze the impacts of these alternatives,

since some of the alternatives anticipate allowing some level of fishing within the Area. NMFS felt 

that using recent, fishery-wide data or average data from the entire area of the pelagic longline

fishery would not accurately reflect the potential impacts of opening a discrete geographic area to

fishing because pelagic longline trends can vary widely by region. Instead, NMFS looked for a 

discrete geographic area within the open area that would most accurately help approximate 

conditions within the Closed Area. NMFS determined an appropriate “reference area” surrounding

the Northeastern United States Closed Area (see Figure 4.1 under Section 4.1.2). This area was

selected because NMFS determined that it would be the most relevant spatially and temporally

(2015 through 2017) to help describe the ecological and socioeconomic impacts that could be 

anticipated within the Closed Area. 

Under Alternative A1, the reference area is used to provide baseline information about catches that

have recently occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Northeastern United States Closed Area. 

Under Alternatives A2 through A4, the reference area is used in data analysis to estimate catch-perunit effortsand compare potential impacts of different alternatives in the Closed Area because no

fishery-dependent data collected during the course of normal fishing operations is available from

within its boundaries. 

Recent landings and discards (2015 through 2017) of bluefin tuna and target species (swordfish, 

yellowfinand bigeye tunas, and dolphin) in the reference area during the month of June in the 

Northeastern United States Closed Area are anticipated to continue in future years under this

alternative (i.e., neutral impacts or no effect) (Table 4.1). This alternative would maintain recent 

98 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
catch levels and no fishery-dependent data from within the Northeastern United States Closed Area 

in June, resulting in neutral direct ecological impacts to bluefin tuna and target species in the shortand long-term. 

Table 4.1 Pelagic Longline Landings and Discards ofBluefin and TargetSpecies in the Open 

Reference Area During the Effective Period of the Northeastern U.S.Closed Area (June, 

2015–2017) 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Swordfish 

Discards 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Discards 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Discards 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Discards 

Dolphin

Kept 

Annual 

catch from 

open 

reference 

area in 

June 335 40 54 24 197 4 155 8 434 

Ecological Impacts on Selected Restricted and Protected Species 

Discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, and dusky sharks, as well as shortfin mako shark and

sea turtle interactions, in the reference area during the time period of the Northeastern United

States Closed Area (June) are shown in Table 4.2 for 2015 through 2017. All dispositions (e.g., kept

and discarded dead and alive) of shortfin mako sharks were tallied together, since the vast majority 

of interactions will result in discards following the implementation of Amendment 11, which

requires the release of any shortfin mako sharks that are alive at haulback, and given that the 

majority of shortfin mako sharks are alive at haulback. This alternative would maintain recent catch 

levels and would result in no fishery dependent data (during the course of normal fishing

operations) being gathered from within the Northeastern United States Closed Area in June, 

resulting in neutral indirect ecological impacts to restricted and protected species in the short- and 

long-term. 

Table 4.2 Pelagic Longline Discards of Restricted and Protected Species in the Open Reference Area 

during the Effective Period of the Northeastern U.S.Closed Area (June, 2015–2017) 

Roundscale 

Spearfish

Discards 

White 

Marlin 

Discards 

Blue 

Marlin 

Discards 

Atlantic 

Sailfish 

Discards 

Shortfin 

Mako Shark 

Discards 

Dusky Shark 

Discards 

Sea Turtles 

Interactions 

Annual 

Catch from 

Open 

Reference 

Area in 

June 9? 28 5 1 112 4 22 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Revenue for bluefin tuna and target species in the reference area during June are shown in Table 

4.3 for 2015 through 2017. Average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species combined

during this time period was $42,942. The no action alternative would maintain the recent landings 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 99 

11 
levels and corresponding revenues in the reference area, as well as no fishery-dependent data 

collectionduring the course of normal fishing operations from within the Northeastern United

States Closed Area in June because the area would remain closed to pelagic longline fishing, 

resulting in neutral direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts in the short- and long-term. 

Table 4.3 Pelagic LonglineRevenue forBluefin and Target Species in the Open ReferenceArea 

During the Effective Period of the Northeastern U.S.Closed Area (June, 2015–2017) 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Dolphin

Kept 

Total Target

Species 

Average annual 

revenue $16,914 $10,055 $4,832 $5,387 $5,755 $42,942 

Conclusion 

While this alternative would meet the objective to continue minimizing bycatch and bycatch

mortality of bluefin tuna through continued restrictions on fishing effort in this area during the

month of June, there is uncertainty due to lack of data fromwithin the Closed Area regarding

whether this Closed Area is redundant, still appropriately located, or if it still meets its original 

objectives. Given the current IBQ Program in place, which limits bluefin tuna mortality on an 

individual vessel basis, this alternative is likely redundant in effect, and thus likely unnecessary in 

the fishery. Additionally, this alternative does not meet the objective of simplifying and

streamlining Atlantic HMS management. Because this alternative does not address the likely

redundancies in regulations and maximize opportunity to harvest target species, it is not preferred

at this time. 

4.1.2 Alternative A2 Modify the current Northeastern United States Closed Area 

to remove a western portion of the closure.

Alternative A2 would modify the current Northeastern United States Closed Area by removing a

portion of the Closed Area west of 70°W longitude, thus leaving that specific area open to pelagic

longline fishing when the other sections of the closed area remain closed in June. 

Compared to areas east of 70o W longitude, the area west of 70°W longitude that is considered for

opening in this alternative did not historically have high numbers of bluefin tuna discards reported

in the HMS logbook during the time of data (1996 – 1997) originally analyzed for implementation of

the closure in the 1999 Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan for Sharks, Tunas and Swordfish

(64 FR 29090; May 28, 1999) (1999 HMS FMP).Figure 4.1 shows percent volume contours of

bluefin tuna interactions from June in 1996 and 1997 within the boundaries of the Northeastern 

United States Closed Area, which was the timeframe of data considered when the area was 

originally closed in 1999. Each contour encompasses the respective percentage of total bluefin tuna 

interactions occurring within the area, for example the red contour surrounds 50 percent of the 

total bluefin tuna interactions. Percent volume contours were calculated using the kernel density

estimation and isopleth tools in Geospatial Modeling Environment, and displayed for mapping in 

ArcGIS 10.3. Recent catch levels of bluefin tuna have been low in the open areas adjacent to the 

western portion of the Northeastern United States Closed Area which would be opened under this 

alternative compared to areas surrounding the area that would remain closed. NMFS anticipates 

that the areas immediately adjacent to the eastern portion of the Closed Area, which had higher

bluefin tuna interactions than the areas adjacent to west of 70°W longitude if the Northeastern

United States Closed Area, are effectively closedbecause of the National Monument, which includes 

100 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
the vast majority of productive water in this area. As described in Chapter 3 the National Monument 

located in this area prohibits commercial fishing, including pelagic longline gear. 

Figure 4.1 Distribution of Historical (1996–1997) Pelagic Longline Bluefin Interactions Occurring Within

the Boundaries of the Northeastern U.S. Closed Area 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

The effort that could occur in the area, if opened by this alternative, was estimated using both

historical and current effort. First, NMFS determined an appropriate reference area in the 

surrounding open areas of the Northeastern United States Closed Area and is the same area used to 

describe the impacts of taking no action (blue box, Figure 4.2). Data from this reference area was

used to estimate potential impacts of this alternative into areas that have no recent data to analyze.

NMFS determined that most of the current pelagic longline effort in this reference area could move 

into and access the area considered in this alternative for opening (areas west of 70°W, dark green

box in Figure 4.2) of Northeastern United States Closed Area. NMFS calculated the percent of total

hooks, reported through logbooks that were fished in the area of the Northeastern United States

Closed Area considered for opening (7 percent), the reference area, and area that would remain 

closed (93 percent) using June data from 1996 and 1997. These years of data were selected to

determine the percent of total hooks because this was the time period used to evaluate ecological

impacts and determine the necessity and appropriateness of a closure in the 1999 HMS FMP. The 

percentage of the total hooks calculated from the historical data was then multiplied by the effort 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 101 

13•o·aw 1')!'0'(J'W 

_.,, _., . 

•-

-~.. ..-- ~··- ~ 

-

71•0'0-W 70"0"0'W 

.. 

1 

• 

· Mid-Atlantic Bight Northeast Coast 

(MAB) Statistical Area (NEC) Statistical Area 

74"f/f1"V',/ 7'J"0T1W 7'J!'0''1'W 

Distribution of Bluefin Tuna 

PLL Interactions in the 

Northeastern PLL Closure 

June 1996-1997 

70°a0"W 6~0'0vV 

Percent Volume Contour 

(estimated to contain xo/o of 

all bluefin tuna interactions) 

0.5 0.9 

0.75 --0.95 

61·a·aw WO'O'W 

68°0'trW 6r0T1'W 66"0'0-W 

D Current Northeastern PLL Closure 

Bl National Monument (eff. 2017) 

NE Closure . 70° W Long. Modification 

Statistical Area Boundaries 

36°0'0-N 
occurring in June in the reference area from 2015 through 2017 to predict the amount of effort that 

would be fished in the open portion of the Northeastern United States Closed Area. Both historical 

and current effort numbers were annualized (Table 4.4). 

Figure 4.2 Reference Area (Blue Box); Area Considered for Opening (Green Box) in Alternative A2;

Area that Could Remain Closed (Red Box) 

Table 4.4 Annual PredictedEffort Calculations for the Modified NortheastU.S.Pelagic Longline 

Closed Area 

Historical Effort 

in Closed Area 

Eest of 70W 

Historical Effort in Open

Reference Area and 

Portion of Closure to 

Remain Closed 

Historical Percent 

of Total Hooks in 

the Closed Area 

Current Effort in 

NE Open 

Reference Area 

Expected Effort to be

Fished in Area 

Considered for 

Opening 

12,625 hooks 171,048 hooks 7 percent 50,407 hooks 3,528 hooks 

102 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

n Portion of the Northeastern 

United States Closed Area 

id-Atlantic Bight Pelagic Longline 

Statistical Area 

Northeast Open Reference Area 

Northeast Central Pelagic Longline 

Statistical Area 
To estimate the catches that could occur during the month of June in the area considered for

opening under this alternative , NMFS used regional species-specific catch-per-unit effort from

2015 through 2017 for the month prior (May) and the month after (July) the closure to predict 

catch-per-unit efforts and catch numbers. The catch-per-unit efforts for both months provide a

range of catches that may occur during the month of June. The catch-per-unit efforts for May and

July were calculated from pelagic longline sets within the portion of the Northeastern United States 

Closed Area (i.e., the green box in Figure 4.2) that is being considered for opening under this

alternative, which provide the best available data for the Northeastern United States Closed Area.

The catch-per-unit efforts were then multiplied by the predicted effort numbers (Table 4.5) to

estimate the range of predicted catch that could occur in the area being considered for opening

under this alternative. These catch-per-unit effortswere used to estimate catch that could occurin 

the area considered for opening because no fishing has occurred in that area since 1999. NMFS 

determined that historical catch-per-unit efforts in the Northeastern United States Closed Area 

when it was open (pre 1999) were not appropriate to estimate catches due to numerous changes in

the management of the pelagic longline fishery. 

From 2015 to 2017, no fishing effort occurred during the month of May, in the area being

considered for opening under this alternative; therefore, May catch-per-unit effortswere not

available. With the absence of data from May, NMFS is using July as a proxy for catch estimates.

Given that NMFS predicts, in the effort analysis above, only seven percent of the current effort

would occur in the area considered for opening under this Alternative, NMFS assumed that 93 

percent of the current effort would still occurin the reference area. Therefore, NMFS calculated 

catch numbers for the reference area and included those catches to come up with the overall 

ecological impacts to all species considered in this analysis. These catch numbers were annualized

for each species and shown in Table 4.5. Some effort would presumably still occur outside the area 

even after opening it and to estimate the total impact of Alternative A2, 93 percent of the baseline 

catch (under the No Action Alternative) has been added to Table 4.5 (second to last row). 

NMFS estimated the annual harvest from the area that would be opened under this alternative by

multiplying the catch-per-unit effort of adjacent areas (reference area) by the estimated annual

effort (3,528 hooks) and dividing by 10,000 hooks. Dividing by 10,000 was necessary since catch

rates were are presented on a per 10,000 hook basis. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 103 
Table 4.5 CPUE and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for Bluefinand Target Species for the Northeastern U.S.Closed

Area (2015–2017) 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Swordfish 

Discards 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Discards 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Discards 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Discards 

Dolphin

Kept 

CPUE July (per 10,000 hooks) 29.3 5.8 1.1 0.3 37.8 1.2 38.4 0.3 8.8 

Estimated June effort 3,528 hooks 

Predicted catch in modified closed 

area (based on 7 percent of fishing 

effort) 10 2 1 1 13 1 14 1 3 

Predicted catch occurring in the 

open reference area (based on 93 

percent of fishing effort) 312 37 50 22 183 4 144 7 404 

Predicted total catch from the 

modified closed area and open 

reference area (sum of two rows 

above) 322 39 51 23 196 5 158 8 407 

Annual catch from open reference 

area in June (shown from 

Alternative A1 for ease of 

comparison) 335 40 54 24 197 4 155 8 434 

104 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

II 
Alternative A2 would result in direct short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts on all target 

species (Table 4.2). Under this alternative, NMFS expects little change in the amount of fishing 

effort in the reference area on an annual basis, compared to the No Action alternative. Also, NMFS

expects that the historical percentage of total hooks fished in the reference area and area 

considered for opening will not change substantially as a result of this alternative (Table 4.4). The 

catch estimated for all target species from the area being considered for opening under this

Alternative is below the level under the No Action alternative (June catches from the reference area 

adjacent to the closure). 

The expected ecological impacts on bluefin tuna as a result of this alternative would result in direct 

short and long-term neutral impacts. The range of predicted catch is slightly less than the current 

landings and dead discards occurring in the reference area analyzed in the No Action alternative

(Table 4.2). Opening the area west of 70°W longitude is anticipated to result in three additional 

landed bluefin tuna and two additional discards. As noted above, this portion of the closure 

historically (1996-1997) had low numbers of bluefin tuna and the area continues to have low 

CPUEs for bluefin tuna in July. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

The predicted catch for all billfish species and dusky sharks is expected to slightly increase or stay 

the same and would result in indirect short- and long-term neutral impacts when compared to 

Alternative A1, the No Action alternative (Table 4.6). The predicted catch for all sea turtle species 

and shortfin mako is expected to result in indirect short- and long term neutral to minor beneficial

impacts when compared to the No Action alternative. During the implementation of the

Northeastern United States Closed Area in 1999 NMFS determined that the closure would not affect 

the pelagic longline catch of bycatch species based on the redistribution analysis completed in the 

FMP. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 105 
Table 4.6 CPUE and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for Restricted and Protected Species for the Northeastern U.S.

Closed Area (2015–2017) 

Roundscale 

Spearfish

Discards 

White 

Marlin 

Discards 

Blue Marlin 

Discards 

Atlantic 

Sailfish 

Discards 

Shortfin Mako 

Shark 

Discards 

Dusky 

Shark 

Discards 

Sea Turtles 

Interactions 

CPUE July (per 10,000 hooks) 0.8 10.4 1.3 0.1 4.0 0 1.1 

Estimated June effort 3,528 hooks 

Predicted catch in modified closed 

area (based on 7 percent of fishing 

effort) 1 4 1 1 1 0 1 

Predicted catch occurring in the 

open reference area (based on 93 

percent of fishing effort) 8 26 5 2 104 4 20 

Predicted total catch from the 

modified closed area and open 

reference area (sum of two rows 

above) 9 30 6 3 105 4 21 

Annual catch from open reference 

area in June (shown from Alternative 

A1 for ease of comparison) 9 28 5 1 112 4 22 

106 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Socioeconomic Impacts 

Table 4.7 Predicted Pelagic Longline Landings and Average Annual Revenue for Bluefin and Target

Species for the Northeastern U.S. Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area in June 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Dolphin

Kept 

Average annual catch in 2015–2017 335 149 197 155 434 

Predicted range of catch 322 51 196 158 407 

Percent change from 2015–2017 catch to 

predicted catch

(%) -4 -66 -1 +2 -6 

Average annual revenue in 2015–2017 $16,914 $10,055 $4,832 $5,387 $5,755 

Predicted range of average annual 

revenue $16,257 $3,442 $4,808 $5,491 $5,397 

Total average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and select target species in June of 2015 through 

2017 was $42,942 (Table 4.7, sum of bottom row). The predicted total average annual revenue 

under this alternative would be $35,394. Under Alternative A2, revenue from most species is

predicted to decrease during the month of June, particularly for bluefin tuna. Revenue from bigeye

tuna, on the other hand, could increase slightly. Fishing revenue impacts for this alternative are 

expected to be neutral despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue. Fishermen will make 

decisions about where to fish in any given year depending on fish availability and will likely decide 

not to fish in the area considered for opening under this alternative if they discover it lowers their

fishing revenue. Most revenue from bluefin tuna and target species would come from the reference 

area since much of the effort would still occur there. 

The area considered for opening under this alternative would provide increased flexibility for 

fishermen to adapt to changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. 

This alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to optimize

target catch while minimizing bycatch. 

An unquantified long-term beneficial socioeconomic benefit of this alternative is a reduction in trip 

length and associated fuel costs. The alternative would open areas for pelagic longline fishing that 

are closer to shore than where most of the effort is currently occurring during the month of June in 

the adjacent open areas. In addition, shorter trip lengths could also reduce the opportunity costs for

crew and captains on the vessel by reducing the number of days they are away at sea fishing.

Shorter trip lengths can also reduce the social impacts of crew and captains being separated from

their families while at sea. These benefits are likely to be small due to much of the effort still 

occurring in the open areas. 

In the long-term, overall socioeconomic impacts are expected to range between minor beneficial to

neutral based on the increased flexibility in fishing areas, potentially shorter trips and associated

lower fuel costs, and thus potentially increased profits from fishing. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 107 
Conclusion 

Given the low numbers of expected target catch in this proposed opened area, this alternative 

would not provide access to the more productive areas of the modified Northeastern United States 

Closed Area. Opening a portion of the Northeastern United States Closed Area would not alleviate 

uncertainty about whether the area remaining closed is still needed to achieve bluefin tuna bycatch 

management objectives. Also, this alternative does not provide an evaluative mechanism for the 

modified Northeastern United States Closed Area that would remain closed, does not address 

redundant regulations in the fishery, known data is over 20 years old, and there are considerable 

differences in management strategies for the fishery. For these reasons NMFS is not preferring this 

alternative at this time. 

4.1.3 Alternative A3: Apply individual performance based access to the 

Northeastern United States Closed Area. 

This alternative would convert the Northeastern United States Closed Area to a gear restricted area 

(i.e., the “Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area”), and apply performance based access

using the access criteria currently used for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (currently

codified at § 635.21(c)(3) and § 635.14). The performance metrics defined at § 635.14 are: (1) level 

of bluefin tuna interactions/avoidance; (2) observer program participation; and (3) logbook

submissions. Vessels would be evaluated against these performance metrics, evaluating their ability

to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and comply with HMS

logbook submission requirements using the three most recent years of available data associated

with a vessel. If no data are available, then NMFS would not be able to make a determination about 

vessel access., and such vessels would be excluded from gear restricted area access until NMFS has 

collected sufficient data for assessment(consistent with current operational Amendment 7

implementation procedures). Those vessels that meet the criteria for performance metrics would 

be allowed to fish in the closed area. This measure would be evaluated after at least three years of

data have been collected to determine whether it effectively achieves the management objectivesof 

this rulemaking. 

The application of existing performance based gear restricted area access regulations can provide 

an example of how this alternative could be applied for the Northeast United States Gear Restricted 

Area. In the analyses of gear restricted area access for 2019, two pelagic longline vessels that fished

in the reference area were excluded from the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area out of a total of a

total 14 vessels that fished in the reference area. Those same vessels would also be excluded from 

the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area under this alternative. Therefore, given this

basis for comparison in access determinations, at least 86 percent of vessels that fished in the

reference area would be expected to have access to the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted

Area under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, the use of other authorized gear types such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or 

rod and reel, would be allowed in the Northeast United States Gear Restricted Area by all pelagic 

longline vessels. NMFS could stop access by all pelagic longline vessels to the gear restricted area 

via inseason action to address issues including: (1) failure to achieve or effectively balance the 

objective of reducing dead discards with the objective of providing fishing opportunity; (2) bycatch 

of bluefin tuna or other HMS that may be inconsistent with the objectives or regulations or the 2006

Consolidated HMS FMP or ICCAT recommendations; or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or 

108 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
protected species that is inconsistent with the MMPA, ESA, Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan

(PLTRP), or relevant biological opinions. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

To estimate effort that would occur in the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area under 

this alternative, both historical effort and current effort were used. As in Alternatives A1 and A2 

above, NMFS determined an appropriate reference area in the surrounding open areas of the 

Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area (blue box, Figure 4.3) to estimate catch and effort 

in the Northeastern United States Closed Area if it were to be opened to qualified vessels based on

individual performance metrics. This area was selected because NMFS determined that most of the 

current pelagic longline effort in the reference area could have the ability to move into and access

the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area if it were opened under this alternative. NMFS 

calculated the percent of the total hooks that were fished in the area that became the Northeastern

United States Closed Area” (80 percent) and in the open portions of the reference area (20 percent)

in June in 1996 and 1997. These years were selected because this data was used to determine and

finalize the closure in the 1999 HMS FMP. The percentage of the total hooks calculated from the

historical data were then multiplied by the annual effort occurring from June of 2015 through 2017

to predict the amount of effort that would be fished in the area (the “Northeastern United States

Gear Restricted Area”) if finalized as a gear restricted area rather than a closed area and if access to

the area were based on individual performance metrics. (green box, Figure 4.3). Both historical and

current effort numbers were annualized (Table 4.8). 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 109 
Figure 4.3 Reference Area (Blue Box) for the Northeastern United States Closed Area/Gear Restricted

Area (Green Box) 

Table 4.8 Annual Predicted Effort Calculations for the Northeast U.S. Pelagic Longline Gear Restricted

Area (abbreviated “NE U.S. GRA”) with Performance Metrics 

Historical Effort 

in NE U.S. GRA 

Historical Effort in 

Open Reference

Area 

Historical Percent of 

Total Hooks in the NE 

U.S. GRA 

(%) 

Current Effort in 

NE Open 

Reference Area 

Expected Effort to

Be Fished in NE 

U.S. GRA 

146,311 hooks 37,362 hooks 80 50,407 hooks 40,325 hooks 

To estimate the catches that could occur during the month of June in the Northeastern United States

Gear Restricted Area, NMFS used regional catch-per-unit efforts for the month prior (May) and the

month after (July) the closure to predict catch-per-unit efforts and catch numbers. The catch-perunit efforts for both months provide a range of catch that may occur during the month of June. The 

catch-per-unit efforts for May and July were calculated from pelagic longline sets within the

Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area, which provide the best available data for the 

Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area because these are the two months that straddle 

the period of when the area is currently closed (June). The catch-per-unit efforts were then 

110 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

Northeastern United States Closed Area 

Mid-Atlantic Bight Pelagic Longline 

Statistical Area 

Northeast Open Reference Area 

Northeast Central Pelagic Longline 

Statistical Area 
combined with the predicted effort numbers to come up with a range of predicted catch that would

occur in the gear restricted area. Given that NMFS predicted only 80 percent of the current effort 

would occur in the gear restricted area, NMFS assumed that 20 percent of the current effort would 

still occur in the reference area. Therefore, NMFS calculated catch numbers for the reference area 

and included those catches to develop the overall ecological impacts to all species considered in this 

analysis. These catch numbers were annualized for each species and shown in Table 4.9. Some

effort would presumably still occur outside the gear restricted area and to estimate the additional 

impact of Alternative 3, 20 percent of the baseline catch (under the No Action Alternative) would be

added to the predicted catch in order to estimate the total impact Table 4.9 (second to last row). 

NMFS calculated the annual number of individuals that were expected to be caught by taking the 

catch-per-unit effort ranges and multiplying by the predicted annual effort (40,325 hooks), and

dividing that number by 10,000. Dividing by 10,000 was necessary since catch rates presented on a 

‘per 10,000 hook’ basis. 

The analysis in Table 4.9 assumes that all vessels that fished in the reference area would have 

access to the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area (i.e., given that they would be 

required to meet the performance criteria for access). As described above, at least 86 percent of 

vessels that fished in the reference area would have had access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area in 2019, and a comparable level of access would be expected for the Northeastern United 

States Gear Restricted Area. There could be a slight decrease in effort or catch within the gear

restricted area from the values described here, with a corresponding increase in effort or catch in

the open area, because vessels excluded from the gear restricted area would likely continue to fish

in the open area, but the predicted ranges of catch still represent the best estimate for these areas. 

Ecological impacts on bluefin tuna as a result of this alternative are expected to be direct, shortterm, minor, and beneficial, as the range of catch, presented in Table 4.9 (row Predicted Range of

Total Catch from the NE U.S. GRA and Open Reference Area) estimated is slightly lower than catches

under the No Action alternative (A1).Additionally, a disincentive to catchingbluefin tuna would be

created by this alternative because allowing performance based access to the Northeastern United

States Gear Restricted Area means any vessels that do not effectively avoid bluefin tuna would be 

excluded from the gear restricted area in subsequent years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 111 
Table 4.9 CPUE Ranges and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for Bluefin and Target Species for the NortheasternU.S.

Gear Restricted Area (2015–2017) 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Swordfish 

Discards 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Discards 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Discards 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Discards 

Dolphin

Kept 

CPUE range from May & July (per 

10,000 hooks) 33.5–50.0 0–7.1 1.0–16.7 0–0.4 35.0–88.8 0–1.0 

16.7– 

29.8 0 0–8.8 

Estimated June effort 40,325 hooks 

Predicted range of catch in the NE 

U.S. GRA with performance (based 

on 80 percent of fishing effort) 135–202 0–29 4–67 0–2 141–358 0–12 67–120 0 0–37 

Predicted catch occurring in the 

open reference areas (based on 20 

percent of fishing effort) 67 8 11 5 39 1 31 2 87 

Predicted range of total catch from

the NE U.S. GRA and open 

reference area (sum of two rows 

above) 202–269 8–37 15–78 5–7 180–397 1–13 98–151 2 87–124 

Annual catch from open reference 

area in June (shown from Alternative 

A1 for ease of comparison) 335 40 54 24 197 4 155 8 434 

112 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

II II II 
The ecological impacts on most target species as a result of this alternative would result in direct 

short-term impacts that are likely to be neutral. With performance-based access under this 

alternative, NMFS expects minimal change in the amount of total effort that has currently been

fished in the reference areas on an annual basis. Also, NMFS does not expect the historical

percentage of total hooks fished in the open and gear restricted area will change substantially due 

to this alternative. The range of catch estimated for many target species is at or below the current

June catches from the areas adjacent to the gear restricted area, with the exception of retained

yellowfintuna. The ranges of yellowfin tuna catches for Alternative A3 are above and below the 

catches in the no action alternative. Should the catches increase, the magnitude of potential

increases in yellowfin tuna catch would be small (it would increase catch by 200 fish and are not

anticipated to greatly increase the overall United States catch of yellowfin tuna. Therefore, the 

ecological impacts for yellowfin tuna direct short-term impacts that are likely to be neutral. 

Long-term impacts on these species would depend on future trends in performance-based access to

the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area. If the number of vessels allowed access to 

these areas remains consistent over time, long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as

short-term impacts. If fewer vessels have access to the areas in the future, effort in these areas 

would be expected to decrease, and long-term impacts on bluefin tuna and target species would be 

expected to be incrementally more beneficial. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

The methods used for estimating protected species catches were the same as presented above for

impacts to bluefin tuna and pelagic longline target species. The predicted effort is the same hook

value as used above. Discards were summed for all of the billfish species and dusky sharks. All 

dispositions of shortfin mako sharks were tallied together since the vast majority of interactions 

will be discarded alive following the implementation of Amendment 11 (84 FR 5358; February 21,

2019). Also, due to low interactions with sea turtles, all sea turtle interactions were combined. The 

catch numbers were annualized for each of these restricted and protected species and shown in

Table 4.10. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 113 
Table 4.10 CPUE Ranges and Predicted Pelagic LonglineDiscard Ranges forRestricted and Protected Species for the Northeastern U.S.Gear 

Restricted Area (2015–2017) 

Roundscale 

Spearfish

Discards 

White Marlin 

Discards 

Blue Marlin 

Discards 

Atlantic 

Sailfish 

Discards 

Shortfin 

Mako 

Shark 

Dusky Shark 

Discards 

Sea Turtles 

Interactions 

CPUE Range from May & July (per 

10,000 hooks) 0–1.0 0–11.3 0–1.6 0–0.1 6.8–22.2 0 0–1.2 

Estimated June effort 40,325 hooks 

Predicted catch in NE U.S. GRA 

(based on 80 percent of fishing effort) 0–4 0–46 0–7 0–1 28–90 0 0–5 

Predicted catch occurring in the open 

reference areas (based on 20 percent

of fishing effort) 2 6 1 0 22 1 4 

Predicted total catch from the NE 

U.S. GRA and open reference area 

(sum of two rows above) 2–6 6–52 1–8 0–1 50–112 1 4–9 

Annual catch from open reference 

area in June (shown from Alternative 

A1 for ease of comparison) 9 28 5 1 112 4 22 

114 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
The predicted catch of roundscale spearfish, blue marlin, Atlantic sailfish, dusky sharks, and

shortfin mako sharks is expected to result in indirect short-term minor beneficial to neutral

impacts because the predicted range of total catch for these species is expected to be lower or only

slightly higher (blue marlin 3 additional fish on high range).than the catch from the no action

alternative (Alternative A1). The predicted catch for all sea turtle species is expected to result in 

indirect short-term minor beneficial impacts because the catch of sea turtles is expected to be 

substantially less than what occurs in the adjacent open areas during the month of June (22 total

interactions). Therefore, the impacts are expected to be indirect short-term minor beneficial

impacts. 

The upper range for white marlin discards are predicted to be slightly higher than what the 

discards are in the reference areas in June (no action, Alternative A1). Although this upper range of

catch could exceed the current catch occurring in the open areas, the catch of 52 white marlin on an 

annual basis would result in indirect short-term minor adverse impacts to the stock. 

Long-term impacts on these species would depend on future trends in performance based access to

the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area. If the number of vessels allowed access to 

these areas remains consistent over time indirect, long-term impacts would be expected to be the 

same as short-term impacts. As described above, this analysis assumes that all vessels that fished in

the reference area would have access to the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area. There 

could be a slight decrease in effort or catch within the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted

Area from the values described here, with a corresponding increase in effort or catch in the open 

area, due to vessels excluded from the gear restricted areas, but the predicted ranges of catch still 

represent the best estimate for these areas. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Landings estimates presented in the Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species section

were used to estimate a range of socioeconomic impacts on pelagic longline vessels. Average 

revenue for each species was calculated using data from the month of June in the reference area 

highlighted in blue in Figure 4.3. The average price was then used to present a range of impacts

related to bluefin tuna and target species landings for pelagic longline vessels. This range was 

derived from the range of total catch including catches from the reference area. Landings numbers 

for bluefin tuna and target catch were used to predict the socioeconomic impacts (Table 4.11). 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 115 
Table 4.11. Predicted Pelagic LonglineCatch Ranges andAverage AnnualRevenue Ranges forBluefin 

and TargetSpecies for the Northeastern U.S. Gear Restricted Area in June 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Dolphin

Kept 

Average annual catch in 2015–2017 335 149 197 155 434 

Predicted range of catch 202–269 15–78 180–392 98–151 87–124 

Percent change from 2015–2017 

catch to predicted catch

(%) -40 to -20 -90 to -48 -9 to + 99 -37 to -3 -80 to -71 

Average annual revenue in 2015– 

2017 $16,914 $10,055 $4,832 $5,387 $5,755 

Predicted range of average annual 

revenue 

$10,199– 

$13,581 

$1,012– 

$5,264 

$4,415– 

$9,615 

$3,406– 

$5,248 

$1,154– 

$1,644 

Total average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species in June of 2015 through 2017 was 

$42,942 (Table 4.11). The predicted range of total average annual revenue under this alternative 

would be $20,185 to $35,352. Revenue from some species is predicted to decrease during the 

month of June, particularly for bluefin tuna and dolphin. Revenue from yellowfin tuna, on the other

hand, could increase substantially. Fishing revenue impacts for this alternative are expected to be 

neutral despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue. Fishermen will make decisions about 

where to fish in any given year depending on fish availability and would likely decide not to fish in

the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area if they qualify for access and discover it lowers

their fishing revenue. 

Implementing performance based access would provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt 

to changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. This alternative

would also give fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to optimize target catch

while minimizing bycatch. 

An unquantified short-term beneficial socioeconomic benefit of this alternative is a reduction in trip 

length and associated fuel cost. The Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area would open 

areas for qualified pelagic longline vessels that are closer to shore than where most of the effort is 

currently occurring during the month of June in the adjacent open areas. The gear restricted area is 

approximately 320 miles wide from west to east, so allowing fishing in the area could reduce some 

trips by hundreds of miles. Less fuel consumption would lower the trip cost and increase the trip 

profit, which may influence fishermen’s decisions on fishing in the Northeastern United States Gear

Restricted Area under performance metrics. In addition, shorter trip lengths could also reduce the 

opportunity costs for crew and captains on the vessel by reducing the number of days they are 

away at sea fishing. Shorter trip lengths can also reduce the social impacts of crew and captains

being separated from their families while at sea. 

In the short-term, overall socioeconomic impacts are expected to range between minor positive to

neutral based on the increased flexibility in fishing areas, potentially shorter trips and associated

lower fuel costs, and thus potentially increased profits from fishing. There could be a slight 

decrease in revenues in the long-term within the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area 

116 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
from the values described here, with a corresponding increase in revenues in the open area, due to

vessels excluded from the gear restricted area, but the predicted ranges of catch still represent the 

best estimate for socioeconomic impacts. 

Conclusion 

As described above, the majority of vessels fishing in the reference area would be expected to have 

access to the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area under this alternative, which

minimizes any benefit to applying performance based access. Although this alternative would allow

access to most pelagic longline vessels in the short-term, over time if less vessels are qualified for 

access to the area it could reduce the amount of data collection from the area. This alternative does 

not present much difference in ecological or socioeconomic impacts from opening this area as a 

Monitoring Area (Alternative A4) or eliminating the Closed Area (Alternative A5). Depending on the 

access levels, this alternative may not meet the objectivesof optimizing the ability of the pelagic 

longline fleet to harvest target species, since this alternative may limit access to all pelagic longline 

vessels. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time. 

4.1.4 Alternative A4: Evaluate the Northeastern United States Closed Area 

(Preferred Alternative)

This alternative would convert the “Northeastern United States Closed Area” to a monitoring area 

called the “Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area” and establish a three-year 

evaluation period during which fishing would be allowed in the Monitoring Area. Fishing activity 

would be closely monitored by NMFS under a four-step process (Figure 4.4) that would prohibit 

fishing if the fleet had to use more than a specified threshold amount of IBQ allocation to account 

for bluefin landings or dead discards in the Monitoring Area?. (Step 1, Figure 4.4). 

Under this alternative NMFS would establish a threshold of 150,519 pounds of IBQ allocation that 

could be used to account for landings and dead discards of bluefin caught within the boundaries of

the Monitoring Area for the month of June each year. This threshold amount was calculated based 

on the average amount of IBQ allocation that has been available but unused for the past four years 

in the Atlantic region from June 1 through December 31 (Figure 4.5, Table 4.12). This threshold 

would ensure that opening the area to fishing would not compromise the ability of fishery

participants to obtain enough IBQ allocation to account for bluefin landings and dead discards for

the rest of the year Atlantic-wide. The average annual amount of IBQ allocation used by pelagic 

longline vessels from January through the end of May over the past four years (2015-2018) is

shown in Table 4.12, along with the amount of allocated quota remaining for use from June through

the end of December. 

If the threshold is not met (Step 2, Figure 4.4, Scenario 1) during the month of June in a given year, 

pelagic longline fishing could continue fishing in the Monitoring Area in June of the following year. 

If the threshold is exceeded in a given year (Step 2, Figure 4.4, Scenario 2), the area would revert 

back to a closure for the remainder of June that year and would remain closed in June for the rest of 

the three-year evaluation period. When/if the IBQ allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to 

be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register. On and after

the effective date of the notice, for the remainder of the evaluation period and subsequent years, 

unless NMFS determines otherwise, the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring 

Area would be closed to pelagic longline fishing. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 117 
If the threshold has not been reached during the evaluation period (Step 1 and Step 2, Figure 4.4), 

then the Monitoring Area would remain open in following years while NMFS finalizes an evaluation 

report and considers next steps in a future action (green boxes under Scenario 1 in Step 3 and Step

4, Figure 4.4). The evaluation report would include but not be limited to, target species landings

and effort, bluefin catch rates, IBQ debt from vessels fishing in the area, percentage of IBQ allocation

usage, compliance with other pelagic longline regulations, and amount of bycatch with restricted or

protected species. If the threshold has been reached during the evaluation period, then the area 

would remain closed during future effective periods (red boxes under Scenario 2 in Step 3 and Step

4, Figure 4.4). This report would also determine whether future rulemaking is necessary to modify

the management of the Monitoring Area after the three year evaluation period. 

The predicted effort that would occur in the Monitoring Area was estimated using both historical

and current effort. As described in alternatives A1-A3 above, NMFS determined an appropriate

reference area in the surrounding open areas of the Northeastern United States Closed Area (e.g., 

Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3). The analysis and impacts for bluefin tuna and target species as described in 

Alternative A3 would be the same for this alternative (see Table 4.8 and Table 4.9). Similarly, the

methods used for estimating protected species catches were the same as presented above in

Alternative A3. The analysis and impacts for protected and restricted species as described in

Alternative A3 would be the same for this alternative (Table 4.10). Socioeconomic impacts are also 

anticipated to be the same as Alternative 3 (Table 4.11). 

Figure 4.4 Flowchart of the Evaluation Process for the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline

Monitoring Area 

Green indicates the monitoring area is open to fishing; red indicates the monitoring area is closed to fishing; gradient 

green to red indicates an inseason action closed the monitoring area to fishing). 

118 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

Actions Covered in PLL GRA & Weak Hook Rule Future Action 

Step 3: .. 

Evaluation 

Step 2: Meets Threshold? 
Figure 4.5 Average IBQ Use By the Pelagic Longline Fishery in the Atlantic Region and the

Corresponding Threshold for the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring

Area 

Table 4.12 IBQ Usage in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (2015–2018) 

Year 

Atlantic IBQ 

Usage 

(January–May) 

Atlantic 

Quota 

Net Atlantic 

Quota 

(June– 

December) 

Percent Used in 

Atlantic 

(%) 

Percent Remaining in 

Atlantic 

(%) 

2015 35,449 196,749 161,300 18 82 

2016 58,237 212,512 154,275 27 73 

2017 48,892 212,512 163,620 23 77 

2018 89,629 212,512 122,883 42 58 

Average 58,052 208,571 150,519 28 72 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

As was found for Alternative A3, ecological impacts on bluefin tuna as a result of this alternative are

expected to result in direct, short-term, minor beneficial impacts and for, all target species as a 

result of the preferred alternative would result in direct short-term impacts that are likely to be 

neutral (Table 4.9). Minor beneficial impacts are expected since decreases in catch are expected for

some species. The increases in yellowfin tuna catch are expected to be neutral based on the 

discussion in Alternative A3. 

Long-term impacts on these target species would depend on the result of the three-year Evaluation 

Period for this Monitoring Area (Table 4.9). If this area remains open after the Evaluation Period, 

long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as short-term impacts. If the area is closed

after the Evaluation Period, NMFS anticipates that long-term ecological impacts would be 

comparable to the No Action alternative (i.e., neutral). 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 119 

~ 28 % 72 % 150,519 lb"' 546 fish ·;; 

i =1::::::::::::::::::::~_l_~_1_,:::::::::~~~:::::::::::::~'i 

l!' Jan 1 Jun 1 Jun 30 Dec 31 .. 

~ 
Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

The predicted catch of blue marlin, Atlantic sailfish, dusky sharks, and shortfin mako sharks is 

expected to result in indirect short-term minor beneficial to neutral impacts (Table 4.10). The 

impacts for all sea turtle species is expected to result in indirect short-term minor beneficial results.

White marlin catch would result in indirect short-term minor adverse impacts to the stock. During 

the evaluation report at the end of the three year period a comprehensive analysis of bycatch will 

be completed and NMFS could take further action, if necessary, to address any concerns about

increased catches. 

Long-term impacts on these species would depend on the result of the three-year evaluation period 

for this Monitoring Area. If these areas remain open after three years, long-term impacts would be 

expected to be the same as short-term impacts. If the area is closed after the evaluation period,

NMFS anticipates that long-term ecological impacts would be comparable to the No Action

alternative (i.e., neutral). 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

As with the ecological impacts, the socioeconomic impacts are expected to be the same as 

Alternative A3 and in the short-term, range between minor beneficial to neutral (Table 4.11). 

Although extremely unlikely, some pelagic longline fishermen could use all of their IBQ allocation

limiting their ability to fish for the rest of the year. Long-term socioeconomic impacts would depend

on the result of the three-year evaluation period for this Monitoring Area. If these areas remain

open after three years, long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as short-term impacts. 

If the area is closed after the evaluation period, NMFS anticipates that long-term economic impacts

would be comparable to the No Action alternative (i.e., neutral). 

Conclusion 

This alternative is expected to meet the objectives of optimizing the ability of the pelagic longline

fleet to harvest target species and also minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna and

other Atlantic HMS. This alternative is also expected to meet the objective of adequately conserving 

and managing the bluefin tuna stock consistent with the quotas because the IBQ Program will be 

able to adequately account for any bluefin tuna catch that occursin the monitoring area, while also 

giving vessel owners more flexibility in deciding where to operate. It should allow the pelagic 

longline fishery to continue fishing from January through May in a manner they have in the past

four years (2015-2018), and have a threshold level that provides both sufficient opportunities for

fishermen to target swordfish and BAYS tunas and limits excessive interactions with bluefin tuna

while the Monitoring Area is effective. This alternative is aligned with the intent to promote

individual accountability within the pelagic longline fishery, since fishermen would have the 

opportunity to affect future regulatory behavior through responsible fishing practices. This 

alternative also provides a mechanism to enact a carefully controlled process to evaluate and

potentially reduce redundant regulations. For these reasons this alternative is preferred at this 

time. 

120 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
4.1.5 Alternative A5 Eliminate the Northeastern United States Closed Area. 

This alternative would eliminate all restrictions currently associated with the Northeastern United

States Closed Area, and open the area to fishing with pelagic longline gear during the current closed

period of June 1 through June 30. This area would continue be open for all of the other months of

the year. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

Since this alternative would allow access to all pelagic longline vessels by removing regulations

related to the Northeastern United States Closed Area the impacts to bluefin tuna and target species 

catches would be the same as presented in Alternative A3 (Table 4.9). Although the estimated catch 

numbers would be the same, the impacts to bluefin tuna and target species would be long-term, 

rather than short-term as analyzed in the alternative. Therefore, ecological impacts on bluefin tuna 

as a result of this alternative are expected to result in direct, short-term, minor beneficial impacts. 

The ecological impacts on all target species as a result of this alternative would result in direct longterm impacts that are likely to be neutral. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

The methods used for estimating protected species catches were the same as presented above in

Alternative A3. The predicted catch of blue marlin, Atlantic sailfish, dusky sharks, and shortfin 

mako sharks is expected to result in indirect short-term minor beneficial to neutral impacts (Table 

4.10). The impacts for all sea turtle species is expected to result in indirect short term minor 

beneficial results. White marlin catch would result in indirect short-term minor adverse impacts to 

the stock. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Since this alternative would allow access to all vessels by removing regulations related to the

Northeastern United States Closed Area the socioeconomic impacts would be the same as presented 

Alternative A3. In the long-term, overall socioeconomic impacts are expected to range between

minor positive to neutral based on the increased flexibility in fishing areas, potentially shorter trips

and associated lower fuel costs, and thus potentially increased profits from fishing (Table 4.11). 

Conclusion 

Elimination of the Northeastern United States Closed Area is anticipated to have similar impacts as

the evaluative option (Alternative A4), and the modification of the Northeastern United States

Closed Area (Alternative A3). However, NMFS is not preferring this alternative at this time, given

uncertainty with the catch estimates in the analysis and the ability to restrict fishing if bycatch

impacts to the bluefin tuna or other species are beyond acceptable levels. This alternative also does 

not provide a mechanism for NMFS to initiate the review of the area after the three year monitoring

period. This alternative does not align with the objective of adequately conserving and managing 

the bluefin tuna stock and minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna and other

Atlantic HMS with the lack of NMFS ability to restrict fishing if bycatch levels of bluefin tuna or

other species are beyond acceptable levels. This alternative is not preferred at this time. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 121 
4.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

In this document, NMFS analyzes alternatives to evaluate whether the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area measures are still necessary to reduce and/or maintain low numbers of pelagic 

longline bluefin tuna discards and interactions. Because the pelagic longline fleet is operating under 

the regulations associated with the IBQ Program, opening the area to pelagic longline fishing would

maintain rigorous accountability for bluefin tuna bycatch while reducing redundant regulations and

providing more opportunities to harvest target species (e.g., swordfish and yellowfin tuna). 

Through the scoping process, pelagic longline fishermen have suggested that the Cape Hatteras 

Gear Restricted Area is no longer needed to limit bluefin tuna interactions given the apparent 

effectivenessof the IBQ Program. During scoping for this rulemaking, NMFS received comments in 

favor of removal of the area and to allow pelagic longline fishermen into the area during December

through April provided that interactions do not meet a designated threshold. NMFS also received 

comments that opposed removing the area, and in one case supporting an expansion of the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. 

The alternatives, which are listed below, include maintaining the status quo under the No Action

alternative and eliminating the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. 

Alternative B1: No Action. Maintain the current gear restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina, from December through April as well as the performance metrics for 

access to the area. 

Alternative B2: Eliminate the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Preferred Alternative) 

4.2.1 Alternative B1: No Action. Maintain current gear restricted area off Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, from December through April as well as the 

performance metrics for access to the area

This alternative would maintain the current boundaries and restrictions associated with the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Figure 4.6). Access to the area would continue to be based on an 

annual evaluation of performance metrics. Vessel data reflecting the three most recent years of 

available data is compiled annually from HMS logbooks and the Pelagic Observer Program. For 

example, vessel access for the effective period of December 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019 was

determined based on data from 2015 through 2017, as HMS logbook data are generally not

available for a given year until the following August due to late reporting and QA/QC processes.

Vessels would be evaluated against criteria (i.e., performance metrics) evaluating their ability to

avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and comply with HMS

logbook submission requirements using the three most recent years of available data associated 

with a vessel. Vessels would be allowed to fish in the area using pelagic longline gear if they are 

determined by NMFS to have a relatively low rate of interactions with bluefin tuna relative to target 

species landings, and that are compliant with reporting and monitoring requirements. If no data 

are available, then NMFS would not be able to make a determination about vessel access., and such 

vessels would be excluded from gear restricted area access until NMFS has collected sufficient data 

for assessment(consistent with current operational Amendment 7 implementation procedures).

Those vessels that meet the criteria for performance metrics would be allowed to fish in the closed 

area. 

122 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Under this alternative, the use of other authorized gear types such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or 

rod and reel, would be allowed in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area by all pelagic longline 

vessels. NMFS could stop access by all pelagic longline vessels to the area via inseason action to 

address issues including: (1) failure to achieve or effectively balance the objective of reducing dead 

discards with the objective of providing fishing opportunity; (2) bycatch of bluefin tuna or other 

HMS that may be inconsistent with the objectives or regulations or the 2006 Consolidated HMS

FMP or ICCAT recommendations; or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or protected species that is

inconsistent with the MMPA, ESA, PLTRP, or relevant biological opinions. 

Figure 4.6 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

It is reasonable to expect under the no action alternative that catch data would likely be similar to 

recent years (Table 4.13). Approximately 21 bluefin tuna mortalities (19 fish kept and 2 discarded

dead) were reported for sets made from vessels granted access to the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area per year. Another 10 bluefin tuna were discarded alive by vessels granted access to

the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area per year. Similarly, there were approximately 2,135 target 

species retained per year by vessels granted access to this area. Swordfish and yellowfin tuna 

comprised 45 percent (~953 fish/year) and 36 percent (~760 fish/year) of the target species 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 123 

Cape Hatteras Gear 

Restricted Area 

~ Gear Restricted Area 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

Coordinates are clockwise from the 

southern most shoreward point of the 

gear restricted area: 

34°50'N, 75°10w: 35°40'N, 75°10w: 

35°40'N, 75° ow: 37°10'N, 75°ow: 

37°1o'N, 74°20w: 35°30'N, 74°20w 

34°50'N. 7 5°ow 

37' 30'0"N 

37' 0'0"N 

36' 0'0"N 

35' 30'0"N 

35' 0'0"N 

34' 30'0"N 

34' 0'0"N 

33' 30'0"N 

O"W 

77' 30'0"W 76' 30'0"W 

75' 30'0"W 74' 30'0"W 

39'0'0"N 

38' 30'0"N 

38' 0'0"N 

37' 30'0"N 

37'0'0"N 

36' 30'0"N 

36' 0'0"N 

35' 30'0"N 

35' 0'0"N 

34' 30'0"N 

34' 0'0"N 

33' 30'0"N 

75' 30'0"W 74' 30'0"W 
retained. Fishery wide, the area within the boundaries of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

contributed 5.94 percent of the total hooks fished during this portion of the year, and 9.58 percent 

of the hooks fished year round. Bluefin tuna mortalities (i.e., fish retained and discarded dead) in

the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area recently accounted for 15.55 percent of the total bluefin 

tuna mortalities incurred by the pelagic longline fleet fromDecember to April. Ecological impacts to 

bluefin tuna and other target species are anticipated to be direct, short- and long-term neutral due 

to no anticipated changes in fishing effort as a result of retaining the gear restricted area. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

Ecological impacts to restricted species and sea turtles are anticipated to be neutral due to no

anticipated changes in fishing effort as a result of retaining the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

under this No Actionalternative (Table 4.14). Between 2015 and 2017, portions of the fleet granted

access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area contributed to less than 1 percent of the average 

annual, fleet-wide white marlin (3 fish/year), blue marlin (3 fish/year), and sailfish (0 fish/year) 

discards occurring during the effective period (Table 4.14, row F). Similarly, this area accounts for a 

small proportion of the average annual number of dusky shark discards (6.25 percent or ~4 

sharks/year) and sea turtle interactions (14.28 percent or 9 turtles/year) occurring across the 

fishery during this time period. 

During the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area effective months in 2015 through 2017 (JanuaryApril, December), data from within the boundaries of this gear restricted area accounted for nearly

46 percent of the average annual shortfin mako discards across the fishery. However, in 2018 and

2019 rulemakings were completed to address ICCAT management recommendations aimed at

reducing shortfin mako landings in commercial and recreational fisheries. While these measures

are not expected to change the number of shortfin mako interactions (NMFS 2019), they may

increase the number of shortfin mako live discards. Therefore, it is possible that the total number of

shortfin mako discards may be different than what is estimated in this analysis. 

124 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Table 4.13 Average Annual Numbers of Target Species Kept and Bluefin Dead Discards (2015–2017) Reported for Sets Made within the 

Boundaries of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area and Calculations of Anticipated Ecological Effects of Alternative B1 (Rounded 

to the Nearest Whole Fish) 

Month Hooks 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Discarded 

Alive 

Bluefin 

Discarded 

Dead 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Dolphin 

Kept 

A January 21,193 3 1 0 170 6 9 0 

B February 7,291 4 2 0 33 1 3 0 

C March 1,673 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 

D April 14,059 9 5 1 89 31 108 49 

E December 62,586 2 0 0 660 325 639 8 

F 

Gear restricted area Dec–Apr 

average annual total

(A+B+C+D+E) 106,803 19 10 2 954 363 761 57 

G 

Average annual # interactions across 

fishery (Jan–Apr, Dec) 1,797,932 115 45 20 8,966 3,328 7,713 3,345 

H 

Gear restricted area percent of 

average annual totals across fishery 

(Jan–Apr, Dec) 

(F/G)*100 

(%) 5.94 16.52 22.22 10 10.64 10.91 9.87 1.70 

I 

Gear restricted area all months 

average annual total 523,853 37 18 7 1,862 3,154 9,382 3,618 

J 

Average annual # of interactions 

across fishery 

(year round) 5,467,037 398 261 79 25,173 14,659 36,061 43,014 

K 

Gear restricted area percent of

average annual totals across fishery 

(year round) 

(I/J)*100 

(%) 9.58 9.30 6.90 8.86 7.40 21.52 26.02 8.41 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 125 
Table 4.14 Average Annual Numbers of Restricted Species and Sea Turtles (2015-2017) Reported for Sets Made within the 

Boundaries of the Cape HatterasGear Restricted Area, and Calculations of Anticipated Ecological Effects of Alternative B1 

(Rounded to the Nearest Whole Fish) 

Month 

Roundscale 

Spearfish

Discards 

White Marlin 

Discards 

Blue Marlin 

Discards 

Sailfish 

Discards 

Shortfin 

Mako 

Discards 

Dusky 

Shark 

Discards 

Sea Turtle 

Interactions 

A January 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 

B February 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 

C March 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

D April 0 1 0 0 10 0 1 

E December 0 2 3 0 28 2 7 

F 

Gear restricted area Dec–Apr 

average annual total

(A+B+C+D+E) 0 3 3 0 53 4 9 

G 

Average annual # interactions 

across fishery (Jan–Apr, Dec) 365 724 403 249 116 64 63 

H 

Gear restricted area percent of 

average annual totals across 

fishery (Jan–Apr, Dec) 

(F/G)*100 

(%) 0 0.41 0.74 0 45.69 6.25 14.28 

I 

Gear restricted area all months 

average annual total 10 200 50 39 108 147 66 

J 

Average annual # of interactions 

across fishery 

(year round) 756 2,410 1,201 742 501 354 249 

K 

Gear restricted area percent of 

average annual totals across 

fishery 

(year round) 

(I/J)*100 

(%) 1.32 8.30 4.16 5.26 21.56 41.53 26.50 

126 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

II 
Socioeconomic Impacts 

Since the implementation of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area the majority of the active

pelagic longline vessels evaluated against criteria for performance metrics have been granted

access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Table 4.15). However, the number of permit

holders with data available for analysis has declined, coincident with an increase in the number of

permits in “NOVESID” status (i.e., permits are renewed but not associated with a vessel) (Table

4.15). In the first year of the program, 136 vessels (~48 percent of the 281 pelagic longline permits)

were determined to have sufficient data for the analysis, while 145 permits were either in NOVESID

status, were inactive during the initial analysis period, or were in an invalid status. Approximately

75 percent of active vessels were granted access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. During 

the 2018-2019 effective period, 97 vessels (~34.5 percent of pelagic longline permits) had data 

available for analysis. This is indicative of trends observed recently in the fleet suggesting reduced 

fishery participation by permit holders since implementation of Amendment 7 management

measures. Although there appears to be some stabilization over the last two years with respect to

the number of permits and associated vessels that are either in an invalid permit status (i.e.,

NOVESID) or have no data to analyze, the number of permit holders granted access to the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area has recently decreased. Approximately 86 percent of active vessels

were granted access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in the 2018-2019 effective period,

the lowest percentage within an effective period since the first year of implementation. 

Table 4.15 Access Decisions by Effective Period, Based on Permit Status and Data Availability 

Data and Permit Status 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 

Data available/ 

valid permit 

Decision: Yes 

Decision: No 

136 

102 

34 

115 

105 

10 

108 

101 

7 

101 

91 

10 

97 

83 

14 

Data available/ 

no valid permit 10 14 15 15 

No data available/invalid permit status 

NOVESID 

145 

29 

166 

35 

172 

41 

179 

51 

181 

51 

Sources: HMS logbook data, Pelagic Observer Program. 

Further investigation into these data reveal that in recent years an increasingly larger proportion of

vessels not qualified for access to the CHGRA are choosing to fish in the Northeast Distant Area

(NED), which has a separate 25 mt quota to account for bluefin tuna mortalities (Figure 4.7), and

bluefin bycatch within that 25 mt is subject to different regulations Many of these vessels have not

fished in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area since implementation of Amendment 7 

management measures. For example, the four vessels not qualified for access to the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area in 2018 with the highest number of bluefin tuna interactions deployed

between 32 and 100 percent of their sets in the NED between 2015 and 2017 (all months combined

for December - April). Furthermore, although the percentage of sets in the NED versus the rest of 

the Atlantic has not changed much across the fleet, a higher percentage of total Atlantic bluefin tuna 

landings are coming from the NED (Figure 4.7). These data raise questions about the ability of the

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area to incentivize fleet-wide reductions in bluefin tuna interactions,

especially if vessels are fishing elsewhere throughout the year, yet NMFS recognizes IBQ is not

being used in the NED until the 25 t set-aside quota is reached, hence the fishing practices differ.

Only one vessel denied access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in 2018 due to failure to

meet the bluefin avoidance performance metric had previously fished within the Cape Hatteras 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 127 
Gear Restricted Area in recent years between the months of December and April (data not shown to 

protect data confidentiality). Furthermore, although bluefin tuna-to-target species ratios and

compliance performance metrics (i.e., those associated with Pelagic Observer Program and Atlantic

HMS logbook reporting) for vessels not qualified for access have improved since the qualifying

period (2006-2012), they have also increased since the second year of effectiveness for the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Chapter 3, Table 3.3). Many of the vessels not qualified for access

are fishing in domestic statistical management areas far from the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area from December through April, and may not be incentivized by performance metrics (see Table 

4.16 and Figure 4.8 for a list and map showing). For example, the domestic statistical management

area with the greatest number of sets by vessels not qualified for access due to bluefin tuna to 

target species ratios was the NED. Many vessels not qualified for access due to compliance issues

made sets in the Florida East Coast domestic statistical management area. These vessels are likely

more constrained by the IBQ Program in terms of accounting for and minimizing bluefin tuna

interactions than any constraints that might arise from the presence of the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area. 

Since implementation of the IBQ Program in 2015, revenue generated by pelagic longline fishing in

the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area for target species such as swordfish and yellowfin tuna has 

increased despite higher numbers of participants being excluded in later years (Table 4.17). This is 

to be expected as fishermen adjust business and fishing practices to comply with performancebased access the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area and IBQ programs, and become more familiar

with leasing markets. During its effective period (December-April, 2015 through 2017), sets made

within the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area contributed approximately 8.9 percent of the 

revenue generated for swordfish, 24.5 percent of the revenue from bigeye tuna, and 15 percent of

the revenue from bluefin tuna (Table 4.18). 

Figure 4.7 Distribution of Pelagic Longline Fishing Activity and Bluefin Landings in the Northeast

Distant Area versus the Rest of the Atlantic Fishing Region (Does Not Include Gulf of

Mexico) 

Source: Draft Three-Year Reviewof the IBQ Program. 

128 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

• Percent PLLSetsin NED • Percent Bluefi'l Landings From NED 

60% 

50% 

50% 

40% 

39% 

30% 

22% 

20% 15% 

.1 10% :I 8% iii 5% 5% 4% 4% 

0% •• • • 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 
Table 4.16 Distribution of Set Locations (2015–2017) for Vessels not qualified for access to the Cape 

HatterasGear Restricted Area due to Bluefin Avoidance (n = 8 vessels) and Compliance 

Issues (n = 6 vessels) 

Domestic Statistical Management 

Area 

(see Figure 4.8) 

Bluefin 

Avoidance 

(# Sets) 

Bluefin 

Avoidance 

(% of Total)

(Total = 1,613) 

Compliance 

(# Sets) 

Compliance

(% of Total)

(Total =

596) 

CAR **   **  

FEC 107 6.6 212 35.6 

GOM 79 4.9 ** ** 

MAB 230 14.3   

NEC 207 12.8 **  ** 

SAB 258 16.0 129 21.6 

SAR 217 13.5 36 6.0 

NED 504 31.2   

NCA ---- ---- **  ** 

Other* 5 0.3 ----- -----

*Set locations are exactly on the border between two statistical areas and cannotbe assigned to a specific statistical 

area. 

^Pelagic Observer Program data used to calculate performance metric scores. POP data not used to compute or 

analyze set locations. 

**Data not shown to protect confidentiality. 

Sources: HMS logbook data, Pelagic Observer Program. 

Figure 4.8 Domestic Statistical Management Areas 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 129 

Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM) 

Caribbean 

(CAR) 

Sargasso Sea 

(SAR) 
Table 4.17 Estimated Set Revenue by Year and Species in the Cape HatterasGear Restricted Area

during EffectiveMonths (Dec–Apr), Rows A-C Rounded to the Nearest Dollar 

Year Swordfish 

Yellowfin 

Tuna 

Bigeye 

Tuna Dolphin 

Bluefin 

Tuna Total 

A 2015 $424,830 $41,812 $93,773 $318 $14,740 $575,473 

B 2016 $273,545 $35,348 $135,761 $3,530 $24,692 $472,876 

C 2017 $341,544 $161,576 $562,056 $1,770 $84,901 $1,151,846 

D 

Percent Change (2015 

→ 2017)

((C-A)/A) * 100 

(%) -19.6 +286.4 +499.4 +456.1 +476.0 +100.1 

Retaining the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is likely to have neutral socioeconomic impacts

fleet-wide, as the majority of vessels not qualified for access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area did not make sets within this area either prior to implementation or after implementation

when access was granted. Retaining the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area may have temporary,

minor adverse socioeconomic impacts to individual vessels that either recently made sets in the 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area or may be denied access in the future. 

Table 4.18 Average Annual Estimated Set Revenue from Pelagic Longline Target Species and Bluefin 

in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, 2015–2017 

Month Swordfish Yellowfin Bigeye Dolphin Bluefin 

A 1 $76,232.15 $1,200.07 $3,843.92 $0 $3,529.36 

B 2 $17,399.21 $182.00 $232.50 $0 $5,438.39 

C 3 $978.92 $48.00 $118.33 $0 $8,447.98 

D 4 $31,717.69 $11,358.82 $15,675.21 $1,492.90 $19,279.75 

E 12 $220,311.42 $66,789.71 $243,993.33 $380.00 $4,748.83 

F 

Gear restricted area Dec– 

April average annual $

(A+B+C+D+E) $346,639.39 $79,578.60 $263.578.60 $1,872.90 $41,444.31 

G 

Fleet-wide Dec–Apr average 

annual $ $3,907,155.02 $2,455,605.23 $1,079,034.74 $112,630.11 $276,750.61 

H 

Gear restricted area percent 

of total $ 

(F/G)*100 

(%) 8.87 3.24 24.45 1.66 14.98 

Sources: HMS logbook, HMS eDealer. 

130 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

11 
Conclusion 

Retaining the current regulations for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area would meet the 

objectives of continuing to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of

bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear. However, under the IBQ Program

there is an individual vessel cap on bluefin tuna mortality that limits the number of landings or

dead discards by fishery participants operating in this area. Retaining a gear restricted area with 

performance based access to limit bluefin tuna interactions (which no longer restricts many active

fleet participants) while at the same time restricting fishery participants to an individual limit on 

bluefin tuna mortality creates a regulatory environment where multiple laws are in place to achieve 

the same objective.. This alternative is not aligned with the objective to simplify and streamline

HMS management by reducing redundant regulations. Because it does not meet all the objectives of 

the rulemaking, NMFS is not preferring the No Action alternative at this time. 

4.2.2 Alternative B2: Eliminate the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Preferred 

Alternative)

This alternative would remove the current Gear Restricted Area off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina 

as currently defined in § 635.2 and all of its specific regulatory provisions, restrictions, and 

prohibitions. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

Removing the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is not anticipated to have major impacts on the

western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock. Future fishing activity by vessels in this area would be strictly

controlled by the IBQ Program. The majority of the fleet has had access to the area in recent years 

(Table 4.15). Despite this, there have been substantial reductions in the average annual number of

interactions between historical periods (2006-2011, ~ 468 average annual interactions/year; see

Chapter 3, Tables 3.24-3.26 of NMFS 2014), years immediately prior to Amendment 7

implementation (2012-2014, ~ 94 average annual interactions/year), and recent (2015 through

2017, ~ 31 average annual interactions/year) time periods in the boundaries of the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area (Chapter 3.0, Section 3.5.2.2, Table 3.12). The hotspot of bluefin tuna 

interactions that was previously noted in Amendment 7 and used to delineate the Gear Restricted

Area no longer appears to occur following implementation of Amendment 7 management measures

(Figure 4.9-Figure 4.11, confidential data not shown). The amount of effort (Figure 4.10) and the 

catch-per-unit effort (Figure 4.11) that has occurred in the region has decreased before and after

implementation. High catch rates (e.g., one cell in the right side map of Figure 4.11 has a catch-perunit effort of 37.21 bluefin tuna per 10,000 hooks) in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area are a 

product of the effect of a reduction in hooks deployed and single sets that had a handful of bluefin 

tuna. As noted in Table 4.15 above, approximately 14 percent of the active pelagic longline vessels 

with sufficient data to evaluate for performance based access were denied access to the Gear

Restricted Area in 2018-2019. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 131 
Figure 4.9 Number ofBluefin Interactions per Year in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, Before 

and After Implementation of Amendment 7 Management Measures 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

132 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

Comparison of Bluefin 

Interactions Per Year 

In GRA Effective Period 

Pre-A 7 and Post-A 7 

(December - April) 

Average Annual# of 

Bluefin Interactions / Year 

c::J o.oo 

c::J o.01-1.00 

- 1.01-5.00 

- 501-1000 

- 10.01-5000 

- 50.01 - 100.00 

Fishing Activi1y 

% of Total Bluefin 

Interactions 

Pre-A7 33.5% 

PostA7 8.4% 

Average Annual # Interactions = 

[Total / # Years Analyzed) 

Data are aggregated to 

protect confidentiality 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 

Pre-Amendment 7 

2006 - 2012 

0.29 

Post-Amendment 7 

2015-2017 

0.3 
Figure 4.10 Number ofHooks Deployed per Year in the Cape HatterasGear Restricted Area, Before and

After Implementation of Amendment 7 Management Measures 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 133 

Comparison of Hook Pre-Amendment 7 Post-Amendment 7 1,600 

Deployment Per Year 2006 - 2012 2015-2017 

In GRA Effective Period 2,545 

Pre-A7 and Post-A7 

(December -April) 633 3,680 865 

643 3,216 1,823 

Average Annual# Hooks 4,054 

0 <500 1,337 

0 501 -2,500 

_ 2,501 - 5 ,000 

_ 5,001-10,000 

- 10,001 - 25,000 

c:]cape Hatteras GRA 

Fishing Activity 

% of Total Hooks 

Deployed by Fleet 

Pre-A7 7.4% 

PostA7 5.9% 

Data 

protec

are 

t con

agg

fi

regate

dentialit

d 

y 

to 1,014 B Data Source: HMS Logbook 890 
Figure 4.11 Bluefin CPUE in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, Before and After Implementation of 

Amendment 7 Management Measures 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area would grant access to a small number of vessels 

that previously have been temporarily prevented from fishing in this area. Under this alternative, 

we anticipate that the IBQ Program will be able to adequately account for any bluefin tuna catch

that occurs in the area, including accounting for any additional catch by these previously-excluded 

vessels, while also giving vessel owners more flexibility in deciding where to operate. 

The vessels that did not qualify for access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in winter 2018-

2019 were cumulatively issued 35,151 lb of Atlantic IBQ allocation and 3,041 lb of Gulf of Mexico 

IBQ annual allocationin 2017 and 2018. Assuming that the average weight of Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico landed bluefin tuna are 275 lb whole weight (ww) and 551 lb ww, respectively, the vessels

that did not qualify for access were issued enough IBQ allocation on January 1 to account, 

collectively, for approximately139 bluefin tuna per year. In addition, since implementation of the 

IBQ Program, NMFS has transferred between 34 and 44 mt of quota inseason to the Longline

category through transfers from the Reserve category, which would cover an additional 26-33

bluefin tuna from the Atlantic region (for a total of 165-172 bluefin tuna). On average the vessels 

not qualified for access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in winter 2018-2019 collectively

caught 204 bluefin tuna per year between 2015 and 2017 in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The 

excess (= 204 -165 or = 204 – 172, depending on the year) was fully accounted for using IBQ 

134 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

Comparison of Bluefin Pre-Amendment 7 Post-Amendment 7 

CPUE In GRA Effective 2006 - 2012 2015-2017 

Period Pre-A 7 10.82 1 and Post-A7 

12.08 1 

(December - April) 

2.25 0 

~ 1.14 5.43 0 c:]cape Hatteras GRA 

0 0 3.66 CPUE (All Interactions) 

C] 0.00 - 1.00 99 1.37 0 

D 1.01 -5.oo 0.3 6.97 

- 501 - 10.00 2.44 

- 10 01 - 25.00 

- 25.01 - 50.00 2.21 8.96 

Fishing Activity 0 5.74 0 

BLUEFIN CPUE 

IN GRA - ALL CELLS 

(# Fish/# Hooks) •10,000) 

Pre-A7 

30.82 BFT / 10k hooks 

Po

2.87 

st A7 

BFT / 1 Ok hooks 

2.82 

~ 0 

Data are agg regated to 

~ ~ 0 protect confidentiality B 0 0 0 8 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 

0 0 0 0 
allocation either from inseason transfers or via leasing from other shareholders. IBQ shareholders 

that landed or discarded dead more bluefin than what can be covered by the allocation in their 

accounts entered a status referred to as “quota debt”. There was usually an excess of quota

available across the active pelagic longline vessels to cover quota debt. For example, in 2017 NMFS 

distributed 193.3 metric tons (426,098 lb) of IBQ allocation to the pelagic longline fleet; two-thirds 

of this amount (275,483 lb) was distributed annually as Atlantic IBQ category allocation. The total 

accountable catchwas 115.5 metric tons (~254,631 lb, approximately 54 percent of the total

adjusted available quota for the pelagic longline fleet) was comprised of 104.1 metric tons of 

landings and 11.4 metric tons of dead discards (Table 3.17). 

As a result of an ICCAT baseline quota increase, the 2018 adjusted total allocation available to the

pelagic longline fleet was even higher (208.1 metric tons, or ~ 458,781 lb). Preliminary 2018 catch 

estimates, available on the SERO Catch Shares Online website under “Additional Information” (see 

report entitled “Commercial Quotas/Catch Allowances (All Years)”) with Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, 

and purse seine IBQ allocation categories were ~ 90 metric tons, ~8.41 metric tons, and 16.6 metric

tons, respectively, for a total catch of ~115.7 metric tons. Total accountable catch data for 2018, 

including dead discards, will be finalized and presented in the next Atlantic HMS SAFE report. 

The Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area may in itself no longer serve as an incentive for some 

vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. In the analyses supporting the implementation of the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area in Amendment 7, NMFS found that 34 of the 136 vessels with sufficient history

to participate in the IBQ Program fished within the boundaries of the gear restricted area between

2006 and 2012 during the months of December through April. Of these, fourteen vessels

(approximately 39 percent) were not qualified for access to the area in winter 2014-2015. In more

recent winters, the number of vessels denied access to the gear restricted area that previously

fished within its boundaries has grown smaller. For example, only one vessel that did not qualify for 

access to the gear restricted area in 2018-2019 had recently deployed gear within its boundaries 

during the months of December through April in 2015, 2016, and 2017 (data not shown to protect 

confidentiality). Most of the other vessels that did not qualify for access did not make a set within

the boundaries of the gear restricted area. Rather, they fished in other locations such as the South

Atlantic Bight, Sargasso Sea, Gulf of Mexico, or in open areas of the Mid-Atlantic Bight during the

effective months (December-April) (Table 4.16). Many of the vessels that did not qualify for access 

in 2018-2019 were highliner vessels that follow swordfish and yellowfin tuna through migratory 

pathways, and move between seasonal fishing grounds in locations far from the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area. Several of the vessels that did not qualify for access have an established history of 

fishing in other locations. NMFS does not anticipate that these vessels will redistribute effort back 

into the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area as they are likely situated to participate in HMS

fisheries elsewhere (e.g., the Grand Banks/NED Area, the Blake Plateau, or the high seas east of the

Bahamas). 

The Amendment 7 performance-based access rules of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area are 

no longer needed to reduce bluefin tuna interactions because: (1) bluefin interactions, effort, and

catch rates within the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area have been reduced to the point that an

interaction hotspot is no longer discernible, despite continued access by the majority of the fleet; 

(2) bluefin tuna catch is controlled through the IBQ program and vessels are capped at the total

number of landings and dead discards they can accrue without significant financial consequences,

and (3) most vessels may not be incentivized by the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area since most

effort (and bluefin tuna interactions) is happening outside of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted

Area. Fishing patterns are not expected to change greatly from the catch data described under the 

No Action alternative since the majority of the fleet has had access in recent years, and to date all 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 135 
bluefin tuna interactions have been fully accounted for under the IBQ program. Therefore, the 

ecological impacts to bluefin tuna are expected to be the same as the No Action alternative, neutral. 

Ecological impacts to target species (e.g., swordfish, yellowfin tuna) are expected to be neutral

across the fleet. As discussed above, most fishery participants were granted access to the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. Those that are denied access may only be denied temporarily, i.e., a 

single year, before being granted access again. GIS analyses of catch rates (# fish per 10,000 hooks 

deployed) within the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area and in surrounding areas suggest that

spatial catch rate patterns are similar before and after implementation of Amendment 7 for 

swordfish (Figure 4.12) and yellowfin tuna (Figure 4.13). As previously noted, only one vessel that 

did not qualify for access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area deployed gear within the area 

between 2015 and 2017. This participant had access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in

preceding years. Given the extremely small proportion of effort that is expected to be excluded from

the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area as a result of access decisions, and the temporary nature of

such decisions, removal of the gear restricted area provisions are anticipated to have negligible 

impacts on target species stocks. 

Figure 4.12 Catch Rates (# fish per 10,000 hooks deployed) of Swordfish Before and After

Implementation of Amendment 7 

136 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

Comparison of Swordfish 

CPUE In GRA Effective 

Period Pre-A 7 

and Post-A7 

(December - April) 

c:J Cape Hatteras G RA 

SWOCPUE 

C] o.oo 

D 0.01 - 50.00 

Q 50.0 1 - 100.00 

- 100.01 - 150.00 

- 150.01 - 200 .00 

- 200.01 - 325.00 

Fishing Activit y 

% of Seasonal Total 

Swordfish 

Interactions 

Pre-A7 10.5% 

Post A7 10.6% 

Data are aggregated to 

protect confidentiality 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 

Pre-Am endment 7 

2006 - 2012 

• 

• 

B • • 

•• ooP • 

• 

Post-Amendment 7 

2015-2017 

• 

• 
Figure 4.13 Catch Rates (# fish per 10,000 hooks deployed) of Yellowfin Tuna Before and After

Implementation of Amendment 7 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted or Protected Species 

Ecological impacts to restricted species (billfish, shortfin mako, and dusky sharks) and protected

species (sea turtles) are expected to be neutral across the fleet. As discussed above, most fishery

participants are granted access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, and for the most part, 

recent (2015 through 2017) interactions in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area with billfish and

dusky sharks were small (Table 4.14). Only one vessel recently excluded from the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area deployed gear within the area between 2015 and 2017. No interactions with

billfish, dusky sharks, or sea turtles were reported in the HMS logbook by this individual vessel

within the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. Given the extremely small proportion of effort that 

is expected to be excluded from the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area as a result of access 

decisions, low numbers of expected interactions from the majority of the fleet that does have access

to the area, and the temporary nature of such decisions (access decisions only are effective for a 

single year), removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area provisions are anticipated to have 

negligible impacts on these stocks. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 137 

Comparison of Yellowfin 

CPUE In GRA Effective 

Period Pre-A 7 

and Post-A7 

(December - April) 

c:J Cape Hatteras G RA 

# Yellowfin / 10,000 Hooks 

C] 0.00 

C] 0.01 - 1000 

- 10.01 - 50.00 

- 50.01 - 125.00 

- 125.01 - 225.00 

- 225.01 - 500 .00 

Fishing Activit y 

% of Seasonal Total 

Yellowfin Tuna 

Interactions 

Pre-A7 9.0% 

PostA7 13.8% 

Data are aggregated to 

protect confidentiality 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 

Pre-Amendment 7 

2006 - 201 2 

• 

• 

~ • • 

·. w • 

• 

Post-Amendment 7 

201 5-201 7 

• 

• 
The Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area represents an important fishing ground for shortfin mako 

sharks (e.g., see catch-per-unit effort data in Figure 4.14). For example, fishing in this area 

accounted for 64.5 and 80.5 percent of the fleet-wide interactions occurring from December-April

before and after implementation of Amendment 7 measures. The increase in the proportion of

interactions coming from this area over the two time periods is noteworthy. Vessels that fished in

this area and were recently excluded from the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area did retain some 

shortfin mako between 2015 and 2017 (data not shown to protect confidentiality). However, in

2018 and 2019 rulemakings were completed to address ICCAT management recommendations

aimed at reducing shortfin mako landings in commercial and recreational fisheries. While these 

measures are not expected to change the overall number of shortfin mako interactions across the 

fishing extent of the fleet (NMFS 2019), they may increase the number of shortfin mako live 

discards and decrease the number of shortfin mako retained within and outside the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the majority of the fleet had access to 

this area, and individuals denied access in one year often had access in preceding years. Over a

long-term scale, interactions are not likely to change much, and ecological impacts on shortfin mako

are anticipated to be neutral. 

Figure 4.14 Catch Rates (# fish per 10,000 hooks deployed) of Shorfin Mako Before and After

Implementation of Amendment 7 

138 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

Comparison of 

Shortfin Mako CPUE 

In GRA Effective 

Period Pre-A 7 

and Post-A7 

(December - April) 

c:]cape Hatteras GRA 

Shortfin Mako / 10,000 Hooks 

C] o.oo 

C] 0.01 -5.00 

- 501 - 10.00 

- 10 01 - 25.00 

- 25.01 - 50.00 

- 5001 + 

Fishing Activity 

% of Seasonal Total 

Shortfin Mako 

Interactions 

Pre-A7 64.5% 

Post A7 80.5% 

Data are aggregated to 

prote ct confidentiality 

Data Source: HMS Logbook 

Pre-Amendment 7 

2006 - 2012 

• 

• 

B • • 

•• §=§=P • 

• 

Post-Amendment 7 

2015-2017 

• 

• 
Socioeconomic Impacts 

Removing the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is likely to have neutral to minor and beneficial

socioeconomic impacts, depending on the scale of consideration. Socioeconomic impacts are

anticipated to be the same as for Alternative C1. Fleet-wide effectson fishing revenue (Table4.17, 

Table 4.18) for this time period are anticipated to be neutral as the majority of the fleet had access 

to the area and continued to fish in it following implementation of Amendment 7 management

measures. Vessels recently denied access (for the 2018-2019 effective period) to the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area fished in a variety of locations (Table 4.16) between 2015 and 2017. Many of

these vessels did not make sets within this area either prior to implementation or after

implementation when access was granted. Revenue for these vessels may therefore be based on

factors other than access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. Removing the Gear Restricted

Area may have temporary, localized and minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts to a small number 

of individual vessels. Removing this restriction would remove functionally redundant layers of

regulation and year-to-year uncertainty associated with access decisions. It may also provide a 

small number of fishermen with more options regarding fishing locations. The Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area is situated in a location where wintertime fishing activities are largely depending

on weather and wind direction. Cape Hatteras and adjacent Diamond Shoals shelter fishing grounds

to the south and west fromnortherly and westerly winds, and to the north fromsoutherly and

westerly winds. Removing the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area could enable greater flexibility 

for fishermen to safely conduct fishing activities in short, favorable wintertime weather windows. 

Conclusion 

There are multiple regulations that restrict bluefin tuna mortality in this region. Under the IBQ

Program there is an individual vessel cap on bluefin tuna mortality that limits the number of 

landings or dead discards by fishery participants operating in this area. As previously indicated, the 

pelagic longline fleet has only used a little over half of the available Atlantic category IBQ allocation 

to cover landings. Retaining a gear restricted area with performance based access to limit bluefin 

tuna interactions (which no longer restricts many active fleet participants) while at the same time 

restricting fishery participants to an individual limit on bluefin tuna mortality through the IBQ

Program creates a regulatory environment where multiple regulations are in place to achieve the 

same objective. 

There is also some question as to the ability of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area to incentivize

fleet-wide reductions in bluefin tuna interactions, especially if vessels are fishing elsewhere. The 

purpose of performance metrics is to incentivize adjustments in fishing behavior to reduce bluefin 

tuna mortality, and they are especially useful in addressing excessive mortality by a small number

of participants in a targeted area. When the program was first initiated, approximately 25 percent

of the active fleet did not qualify for access. Many of these vessels had historically fished, and had

large numbers of reported interactions with bluefin tuna in the boundaries of what became the 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area between 2006 and 2012. Many of the vessels that were denied

access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in 2018 never recently (2015 through 2017)

fished in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. Several of these vessels fished in other locations,

such as the South Atlantic Bight, the Blake Plateau, or areas seaward of the Bahamian EEZ. Poor

bluefin tuna avoidance scores are now largely attributable to bluefin tuna captured or discarded

dead under a separate 25 t quota for the NED, often at different times of year than when the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is effective (Figure 4.7). As landings and dead discards count against 

the 25 t NED set-quota until this threshold is reached, vessel operators have no incentive to avoid 

or release bluefin tuna, as they are not counted against their IBQ. However, these interactions have 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 139 
been incorporated into performance metric calculations that grant or deny access to the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. This aspect is being reconsidered under the Amendment 13 

rulemaking. In addition, there no longer appears to be a hotspot of bluefin tuna interactions even 

though the majority of the fleet has been granted access to the area. This implies that sufficient 

incentives are in place through the IBQ Program to control excessive bycatch by vessels that are 

operating locally or regionally. 

Removing the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area balances the objectives to optimize ability to

harvest target species with continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. It also simplifies 

and streamlines HMS management by reducing redundant regulations. For these reasons, this 

alternative is preferred at this time. 

4.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

In this document, NMFS analyzes several alternatives to evaluate whether the Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Gear Restricted Areas measures are still necessary to reduce and/or maintain low numbers of 

pelagic longline bluefin tuna discards and interactions. The alternatives, which are listed below, 

range from maintaining the status quo under the No Action alternative to eliminating the closure. 

The preferred alternative being considered for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

supports the purpose, need, and objectives of this action. Further support of this is outlined in the 

conclusion section of the preferred alternative (Alternative C3) of this chapter. 

NMFS was asked to consider whether the Gulf of Mexico gear restricted areas are still needed to 

limit bluefin tuna interactions, given the reductions achieved in Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna 

mortality (landings and dead discards) in recent years. During scoping for this rulemaking, NMFS 

received comments in support of eliminating the gear restricted areas and allowing pelagic longline

fishermen into the areas during April-May provided that interactions do not meet a designated

threshold. However, commenters also expressed strong opposition to modifying or removing the 

Gulf of Mexico gear restricted areas or relieving restrictions on pelagic longline fishing in the Gulf of 

Mexico in any way. Commenters also recommended not applying performance metrics due to 

anticipated minimal conservation benefits. 

Alternative C1: No Action. Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas remain closed to all 

vessels using pelagic longline gear onboard from April 1 through May 31 of a given 

year. 

Alternative C2: Apply individual performance based access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas. 

Alternative C3: Evaluate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (Preferred 

Alternative). 

Alternative C4: Eliminate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. 

140 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
4.3.1 Alternative C1: No Action 

This alternative would maintain the current regulations regarding the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas at § 635.2 and § 635.21(c)(2)(vi). These areas would maintain current restrictions 

that prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear for all vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard from 

April 1 through May 31 each year. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

As described above, this alternative would not allow pelagic longline fishing to occur during April

and May within the boundaries of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. The bluefin tuna 

present in this area during April and May are primarily there for spawning in the only known 

spawning grounds of the western Atlantic stock. The Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

were identified in Amendment 7 as areas of higher concentrations of bluefin tuna in April and May.

Since this spawning activity is occurring reducing interactions in the Gulf of Mexico through this

gear restricted area could enhance spawning potential and stock growth. Any potential protection 

of bluefin tuna in the areas could continue to occur, but due to the areas being implemented to 

reduce dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery, it is effectively redundant with the IBQ

Program. This alternative would not allow for any data collection from the areas that could be used

to evaluate the necessity or effectiveness of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area. 

Because the gear restricted areas have been closed to data collection for three years, and pelagic 

longline fishery data from the open areas of the Gulf of Mexico is available, an assessment of the 

ecological impacts from maintaining the gear restricted areas was based on analyzing logbook data

from the surrounding region (i.e., the open areas of the entire Gulf of Mexico during April and May), 

with the expectation that recent trends would likely be reflective of future trends if nothing

changes. Catches of bluefin tuna and target species (swordfish, yellowfinand bigeye tunas, and

dolphin) in the Gulf of Mexico during the time period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 

Areas are shown in Table 4.19 for 2015 through 2017. The amount and distribution of effort is not 

anticipated to change under the No Action alternative. The protection of spawning fish in the areas 

would continue to occur if the areas remain closed to pelagic longline gear., Fishery dependent data 

could not be collected that characterizes what catches could have occurred under the IBQ Program

in the area and if the area is appropriate located (i.e., is it achieving its intended goals). Therefore,

this alternative would maintain recent catch levels and patterns, resulting in neutral direct 

ecological impacts to bluefin tuna and target species in the short- and long-term. 

Table 4.19 Pelagic Longline Landings and Discards for Bluefin and Target Species in the Open Area of

the Gulf of Mexico during the Time Period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted

Areas (April–May, 2015–2017) 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Swordfish 

Discards 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Discards 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Discards 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Discards 

Dolphin

Kept 

Average 

annual 

catch 522 157 4 5 1,518 106 14 1 117 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 141 
Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

Discards of white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, and dusky sharks, as well as shortfin mako shark and 

sea turtle interactions, in the Gulf of Mexico during the time period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas are shown in Table 4.20 for 2015 through 2017. All dispositions of shortfin mako

sharks were tallied together since the vast majority of interactions will be live releases following

the implementation of Amendment 11, which requires the release of any shortfin mako sharks that 

are alive at haulback of the gear. This alternative would maintain recent catch levels because the 

amount and distribution of effort is not anticipated to change, resulting in neutral indirect 

ecological impacts to restricted and protected species in the short- and long-term. 

Table 4.20 Pelagic Longline Discards or Interactions for Restricted and Protected Species in the Open

Area of the Gulf of Mexico during the Time Period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas (April–May, 2015–2017) 

Roundscale 

Spearfish

Discards 

White 

Marlin 

Discards 

Blue 

Marlin 

Discards 

Atlantic 

Sailfish 

Discards 

Shortfin 

Mako Shark 

Interactions 

Dusky 

Shark 

Discards 

Sea Turtle 

Interactions 

Average 

annual 

catch 8 46 31 29 12 15 4 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Given the restrictions that prohibit pelagic longline fishing in the gear restricted areas during their

effective period, data in this section reflect pelagic longline revenue for open areas of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Revenue for bluefin tuna and target species in the Gulf of Mexico during the time period of

the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas are shown in Table 4.21 for 2015 through 2017.

Average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species combined during this time period was

$627,842. This alternative would maintain the recent landings levels and revenues, as well as the 

continued lack of data collection from within the gear restricted areas, resulting in neutral direct 

(fishermen) and indirect (supporting businesses and communities) socioeconomic impacts in the 

short- and long-term. 

Table 4.21 Pelagic Longline Revenue for Bluefin and Target Species in the Open Area ofthe Gulf of 

Mexico during the Time Period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (April–

May, 2015–2017) 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Dolphin

Kept 

Total Target

Species 

Average Annual 

Revenue $260,018 $6,648 $351,899 $5,519 $3,758 $627,842 

142 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

11 11 
Conclusion 

While this alternative would provide continued protections for bluefin tuna in the peak months of 

spawning, April and May, in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas there is uncertainty 

due to lack of data from within the gear restricted areas as to whether they are still appropriately 

located or needed to meet bluefin tuna management objectives. As described in Chapter 1, and

shown in the analyses in Alternatives C2, C3, and C4, the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 

Areas may no longer be necessary to reduce and/or maintain low numbers of pelagic longline 

bluefin tuna discards and interactions, particularly given the recent successes with the IBQ

Program and the shift in management focus towards individual vessel accountability in the pelagic 

longline fishery. Therefore, although the No Action alternative might meet the objective of

continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna, it does not meet the

objectivesof optimizing the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to harvest target species quotas or 

streamlining and simplify HMS management by reducing regulations that may be redundant in

effect. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time. 

4.3.2 Alternative C2: Allow individual performance-based access to the Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

This alternative would allow performance-based access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted

Areas using the access criteria currently used for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (currently

codified at § 635.21(c)(3) and § 635.14). The performance metrics defined at § 635.14 are: (1) level 

of bluefin tuna interactions/avoidance; (2) observer program participation; and (3) logbook

submissions. Vessels would be evaluated against these criteria (i.e., performance metrics) to

evaluate their ability to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, 

and comply with HMS logbook submission requirements using the three most recent years of 

available data associated with a vessel. Vessel data reflecting the three most recent years of

available data would be compiled annually from HMS logbooks and the Pelagic Observer Program. 

For example, in 2020, vessel access for the gear restricted area’s effective period of April 1 through 

May 31 would be determined based on data from2016 through 2018, as 2019 HMS logbook data

would generally not be available for a given year until the following August (2020) due to late

reporting and QA/QC processes. Vessels would be allowed to fish in the areas using pelagic longline 

gear if they are determined by NMFS to have a relatively low rate of interactions with bluefin tuna

relative to target species landings, and that are compliant with reporting and monitoring

requirements. If no data are available, then NMFS would not be able to make a determination about 

vessel access, and such vessels would be excluded from access to the Cape Hatteras and Spring Gulf 

of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas until NMFS has collected sufficient data for assessment (consistent

with current operational Amendment 7 implementation procedures). If a vessel has demonstrated

its ability to avoid bluefin tuna, but has had poor compliance with reporting and monitoring

requirements, it would not be allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear in these areas fromApril 1

through May 31. This program would be evaluated after at least three years of data have been 

collected to determine whether these measures effectively achieve the management objectives of 

this rulemaking. If deemed appropriate, NMFS could take further action based on the findings of the 

evaluation that might include continuing the performance based access, reverting the areas back to

a gear restricted areas without performance based access, converting the gear restricted areas to

Closed Areas, opening the areas to pelagic longline fishing, or some other action. 

The application of existing performance based gear restricted area access regulations can provide 

an example of how this alternative could be applied for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 

Areas. In the analyses of gear restricted area access since implementation, up to three pelagic 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 143 
longline vessels associated with Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares have been excluded from the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area in any given year, out of a total of 52 vessels associated with Gulf of

Mexico IBQ shares. Those same vessels would also be excluded from the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas under this alternative but could access the area if those vessels increase their 

performance level. Therefore, given this trend in access determinations, under this alternative, at 

least 94 percent of vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ would be expected to have access to the Spring

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas but given the high likelihood of increased compliance and 

bluefin tuna avoidance NMFS assumed all vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ would have access. 

Under this alternative, the use of other authorized gear types such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or 

rod and reel, would be allowed in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas by all properly

permitted vessels. NMFS could stop access by all pelagic longline vessels to the areas via inseason

action to address issues including: (1) failure to achieve or effectively balance the objective of 

reducing dead discards with the objective of providing fishing opportunity; (2) bycatch of bluefin 

tuna or other HMS that may be inconsistent with the objectivesor regulations or the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP or ICCAT recommendations; or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or 

protected species that is inconsistent with the MMPA, ESA, PLTRP, or relevant biological opinions. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

The predicted effort that could occur in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas with 

performance based access was estimated using both historical effort and current effort. First, NMFS

calculated the percent of the total hooks that were fished in the area covered by the current Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, and the open area of the Gulf of Mexico outside those areas, in

April and May of 2012 through 2014. These years were selected because it is the three-year period

immediately preceding implementation of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas in

Amendment 7. Data from this time period are assumed to closely reflect a situation that could occur

under this alternative if access were granted to the gear restricted area (since most vessels would

have access). The percentage of the total hooks calculated from the historical data were then 

multiplied by the effort occurring in the open area of the Gulf of Mexico in April and May of 2015 

through 2017 (i.e., the three-year time period when the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

have been in effect), to predict the amount of effort that would be fished in the Spring Gulf of

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas if performance based access is applied (Table 4.22). Both historical 

and current effort numbers were annualized. 

Table 4.22 Annual Predicted Effort Calculations for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

Historical effort in the 

area of the Gulf of 

Mexico Gear Restricted 

Areas (April and May,

2012–2014) 

Historical effort in the 

area outside the Gulf 

of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas 

(April and May, 2012-

2014) 

Historical percent

of total hooks in 

the Gear 

Restricted Areas 

Current effort 

in Gulf of 

Mexico Open

Area 

(April and 

May, 2015–

2017) 

Expected effort 

to be fished in 

Monitoring

Areas 

142,757 hooks 243,614 hooks 37 percent 176,447 hooks 65,194 hooks 

To estimate the catches that could occur during the month of April and May in the Spring Gulf of

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, NMFS used fleet-wide catch-per-unit efforts for the month prior 

(March) and the month after (June) the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas are in place to 

144 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
predict catch-per-unit efforts and catch numbers for the months of April and May. The catch-perunit efforts for both months provide a range of catch rates that may be expected to occur during the 

months of April and May. The catch-per-unit efforts for March and June were derived from pelagic 

longline sets within the area of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas in 2015 through 

2017, which provide the best available data for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. The 

catch-per-unit efforts were multiplied with the predicted effort numbers to provide a range of 

predicted catch that would occur in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. Given that

NMFS anticipates that only 37 percent of the current effort (2015-2017) would occur in the Spring

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, it is assumed that the remaining 63 percent of effort would 

still continue to occur in the open area of the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, NMFS calculated catch 

numbers for the open area along with the predicted catches in the gear restricted area to determine 

the overall ecological impacts to species considered in this analysis. These catch numbers were 

annualized for each species, as shown in Table 4.23. Some effort would presumably still occur

outside the area even after allowing access to the area, therefore, 63 percent of the baseline catch

has been added to Table 4.23 (second to last row) to estimate the total impact of Alternative C2. 

NMFS calculated the annual harvest from the area to be opened under this alternative by

multiplying the catch-per-unit effort by the estimated annual effort, and dividing that number by

10,000, which was necessary since catch rates are presented on a unit per 10,000 hook basis. 

This analysis assumes that all vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares would have access to the 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. As described above, at least 94 percent of vessels with 

Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares have had access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area since

implementation, and a comparable or higher level of access would be expected for the Spring Gulf

of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. There could be a slight decrease in effort or catch within the 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas from the values described here, witha corresponding

increase in effort or catch in the open area, due to vessels excluded from the areas, but the 

predicted ranges of catch still represent the best estimate for these areas. 

The short-term direct ecological impacts on bluefin tuna as a result of the preferred alternative are 

likely to be neutral, as the range of catch estimated is comparable to current catchesunder the No

Action alternative (Alternative C1, compare catch-per-unit effort in Table 4.19 and Table 4.23). 

Additionally, allowing performance based access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

would mean any vessels that have not shown the ability to effectively avoid bluefin tuna would be 

excluded from the areas. Catch of bluefin tuna is also limited to the amount of IBQ available to 

pelagic longline vessels for the Gulf of Mexico, which was set at a sustainable level under 

Amendment 7. The operational rules surrounding the individual vessel cap will not change, and the 

same restrictions previously implemented for the fleet would still be operational if vessels were 

granted performance based access. This lack of change in the regulatory environment further

underscores the neutral impact that this alternative would have on bluefin tuna. 

The short-term direct ecological impacts on all target species as a result of this alternative are likely

to be neutral (Table 4.23). Current catches of target species from the open area of the Gulf of Mexico 

fall within the range of predicted catches, with the exception of a predicted lower number of 

swordfish kept. Also, the ranges of yellowfintuna catches are above and below the expected catches

of yellowfin tuna under alternative C2 (compare catch-per-unit effort in Table 4.19 and Table 4.23). 

Should the catches increase, the magnitude of potential increases in yellowfin tuna catch are small

and are not anticipated to greatly increase the overall United States catch of yellowfin tuna.

Therefore, the direct short-term ecological impacts for yellowfin tuna are likely to be neutral. As 

described under the socioeconomic impacts, access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 145 
Areas will give fishermen the opportunity to make decisions about where to fish depending on fish 

availability, and the flexibility to fish in areas that optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. If

swordfish and yellowfin tuna landings in the Gulf of Mexico decrease due to shifting effort into the 

gear restricted areas, as predicted in this analysis, then fishermen would likely remain outside of 

the areas, maintaining neutral ecological impacts to those species. 

146 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Table 4.23 CPUE Ranges and Predicted Pelagic Longline Landing and Discard Ranges for Bluefin and Target Species for the Spring Gulf of

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas and Total Gulf of Mexico in April–May 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Swordfish 

Discards 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Discards 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Discards 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Discards 

Dolphin

Kept 

CPUE range from March & June, 

2015–2017 (per 10,000 hooks) 7.5–19.8 8.4–13.5 0–0.6 0.4–0.7 52.2–97.0 0.6–19.5 0.7–4.2 0–0.3 0.9–9.7 

Predicted effort in the gear 

restricted areas 65,194 hooks 

Predicted range of catch in the 

gear restricted areas (based on 37 

percent of fishing effort) 49–129 55–88 0–4 2–4 340–632 4–127 5–28 0–2 6–63 

Predicted catch in the open area 

(based on 63 percent of fishing 

effort) 329 99 3 3 956 67 9 1 74 

Predicted range of total Gulf of 

Mexico catch (sum of two rows

above) 378–458 154–187 3–7 5–7 1,296–1,588 71–194 14–37 1–3 80–137 

Average annual catch from the 

open areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

(Alternative C1) 522 157 4 5 1,518 106 14 1 117 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 147 

11 
Long-term impacts on these species would depend on future trends in performance based access to

the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. If the number of vessels allowed access to these 

areas remains consistent over time, long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as shortterm impacts. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

The same methods for estimating protected species catches were used as presented above for

impacts to bluefin tuna and pelagic longline target species. The predicted effort is the same hook

value as used above (i.e., see hook data in Table 4.22 and Table 4.23). Discards were summed for all 

of the billfish species and dusky sharks. All dispositions of shortfin mako sharks were tallied

together since the vast majority of interactions will be discards following the implementation of

Amendment 11. Also, due to low interactions with sea turtles, all sea turtle interactions were

combined. The catch numbers were annualized for each of these restricted and protected species, 

as shown in Table 4.24. The last row of data in the table shows the average annual catch under

Alternative C1 (No Action) for comparison purposes. 

Compared to the No Action alternative (C1), white marlin and blue marlin discards are predicted to 

decrease slightly or increase slightly under this alternative, while sailfish discards would decrease 

slightly or increase. This alternative would result in short-term indirect minor beneficial to minor

adverse impacts to marlins and sailfish. Shortfin mako shark interactions and dusky shark discards 

would decrease, resulting in short-term indirect minor beneficial impacts. Sea turtle interactions

would remain the same under this alternative, resulting in short-term indirect neutral impacts. If

the number of vessels allowed access to these areas remains consistent over time, long-term 

impacts would be expected to be the same as short-term impacts. As described above, this analysis 

assumes that all vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares would have access to the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. There could be a slight decrease in effort or catch within the Spring

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas from the values described here, with a corresponding increase 

in effort or catch in the open area, due to vessels excluded from the areas, but the predicted ranges

of catch still represent the best estimate for these areas. 

148 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Table 4.24 CPUEs Ranges Discards for Restricted and Protected Species for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas and Total Gulf of

Mexico in April–May 

Roundscale 

Spearfish

Discards 

White Marlin 

Discards 

Blue Marlin 

Discards 

Atlantic 

Sailfish 

Discards 

Shortfin Mako 

Shark 

Interactions 

Dusky 

Shark 

Discards 

Sea Turtle 

Interactions 

CPUE range from March & June, 

2015–2017 (per 10,000 hooks) 0.9–5.7 

0.7–4.0 

0.5–3.2 0.2–5.4 0.1–0.5 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 

Predicted effort in the gear 

restricted areas 65,194 hooks 

Predicted range of catch in the 

gear restricted areas (based on 

37 percent of fishing effort) 6–37 4–26 3–21 1–35 1–3 0–1 1–2 

Predicted catch in the open area 

(based on 63 percent of fishing 

effort) 5 29 20 18 8 9 3 

Predicted range of total Gulf of 

Mexico catch (sum of two rows

above) 11–42 33–55 23–41 19–53 9–11 9–10 4–5 

Average annual catch from the 

open areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

(Alternative C1) 8 46 31 29 12 15 4 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 149 
Socioeconomic Impacts 

Catch estimates presented in Table 4.24 were used to estimate a range of socioeconomic impacts on

commercial pelagic longline fishermen. Average annual revenue for each species was calculated

using data from the months of April and May in the open area of the Gulf of Mexico (Table 4.25). 

The average annual revenue was then used to present a range of revenues for bluefin tuna and 

target species landings for pelagic longline vessels. This range was derived from the predicted

range of total catch, including catches fromwithin the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

and from the open area of the Gulf of Mexico. Revenue ranges for bluefin tuna and target species

were interpreted to discuss the socioeconomic impacts. 

Table 4.25 Predicted Pelagic Longline Catch Ranges and Average Annual Revenue Ranges for Bluefin

and Target Species for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas in April–May 

Swordfish 

Kept 

Bluefin 

Kept 

Yellowfin 

Kept 

Bigeye 

Kept 

Dolphin

Kept 

Average annual catch in 2015– 

2017 522 4 1,518 14 117 

Predicted range of catch 378–458 3–7 1,296–1,588 14–37 80–137 

Percent change from 2015–2017 

catch to predicted catch 

(%) -28 to -12 -25 to +75 -15 to +5 0 to +164 -32 to +17 

Average annual revenue in 2015– 

2017 $260,018 $6,648 $351,899 $5,519 $3,758 

Predicted range of average 

annual revenue 

$188,289– 

$228,139 

$4,986– 

$11,634 

$300,435– 

$368,126 

$5,519– 

$14,586 

$2,569– 

$4,400 

Total average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species in April and May of 2015 through 

2017 was $627,842 (Table 4.25). The predicted range of total average annual revenue with

performance based access would be $501,799 to $626,885. Revenue from some species is predicted

to decrease during these twomonths, particularly for swordfish. Revenue from bigeye tuna, on the

other hand, is predicted to remain the same or increase. Overall socioeconomic impacts for this

alternative are expected to be neutral in the short-term, despite the predicted decrease in overall 

revenue. Fishermen will make decisions about where to fish in any given year depending on fish

availability. Access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas will provide increased

flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and

target catch. This alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to

optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. 

Long-term impacts on these species would depend on future trends in performance based access to

the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. If the number of vessels allowed access to these 

areas remains consistent over time, long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as shortterm impacts. As described above, this analysis assumes that all vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ

shares would have access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. There could be a slight

decrease in revenues within the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas from the values 

150 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
described here, with a corresponding increase in revenues in the open area, due to vessels excluded 

from the areas, but the predicted ranges of catch still represent the best estimate for these areas. 

Conclusion 

This alternative balances the objective to optimize the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to harvest 

target species quotas against the objective of continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality 

of bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS. The majority of the fleet that fishes in the Gulf of Mexico 

would be allowed into the area, and those participants would still be held individually accountable

under the IBQ program for bluefin tuna interactions. However, since the majority of vessels fishing 

in the Gulf of Mexico would be expected to have access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted

Areas under this alternative, any benefit to applying performance based access would likely be 

minimal. This alternative does not present much difference in ecological or socioeconomic impacts 

from opening these areas as Monitoring Areas (Alternative C3) or eliminating the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (Alternative C4). In order to meet the objective of optimizing the 

ability of the fleet to harvest target species, this alternative would add additional, somewhat 

complicated regulations to the area instead of streamlining and simplifying regulations. Therefore,

this alternative is not strongly aligned with the objective to streamline and simplifying HMS

regulations. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time. 

4.3.3 Alternative C3: Undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need 

for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (Preferred Alternative)

This alternative is similar in concept to Alternative A4 above. This alternative would convert the 

“Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area” to a monitoring area called the “Spring Gulf of Mexico 

Monitoring Area,” and establish a three-year evaluation period during which fishing would be 

allowed in the Monitoring Area. The reasons for establishing the gear restricted area are discussed

above in Alternative C1. Fishing activity would be closely monitored by the NMFS under a four-step

process (Step 1 of Figure 4.15) that would prohibit fishing if the fleet had to use an excessive 

amount of IBQ allocation to account for bluefin landings or dead discards. In Figure 4.15, green

boxes depict time periods when the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area would be open to

fishing. Red boxes depict time periods when the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area would be 

closed to fishing. The green to red gradient box depicts a time period in the second scenario when

an inseason action is hypothetically used to close the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area at the

end of April. The Monitoring Area would remain open to pelagic longline fishing during the months 

of April and May 31 of each year (previously the area had been closed to pelagic longline fishing 

during these months) (Step 1 of Figure 4.15). 

NMFS would apply a threshold of 63,150 pounds of IBQ allocation that may be used to account for 

landings and dead discards of bluefin tuna caught within the boundaries of the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Monitoring Area (Step 2, Figure 4.15, Figure 4.16). This threshold would be equivalent to

the amount of IBQ annual allocation distributed to vessels that fished in the region while the 

closures were effective between 2015 and 2017. This threshold would limit the amount of IBQ that 

could be used to account for bluefin landings and dead discards in the monitoring area to the 

amount of IBQ allocation that could be used by the portion of the fleet that was recently (2015

through 2017) active during these months in the Gulf of Mexico. Since fishing effort in the Gulf of 

Mexico is already controlled in the IBQ Program through regional IBQ quota category designations, 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 151 
the impacts from this alternative would primarily come from the Gulf of Mexico fleet. The intent of

this threshold design is to discourage a level of fishing beyond what has recently occurred in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Basing the threshold for closure on the annual allocation of active vessels from 2015

to 2017 would allow pelagic longline vessels to continue fishing in the same manner as they have in

the past three years, and have a threshold level that provides sufficient opportunities for fishermen

to target swordfish and yellowfin and bigeye tunas while the Monitoring Areas are effective. As 

presented Table 3.35 in Amendment 7, the annual average of bluefin tuna interactions that were 

occurring before implementation of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas (i.e., 2006

through 2012) was 118. This average was derived by not including the data from2011 due to

limited fishing fromrestrictions resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and rounding up to

the nearest whole fish. Thus, the threshold level of 114 dead discards or landings for the Monitoring

Area could be considered more restrictive with respect to bluefin tuna mortality. 

If the threshold is not met (Step 2, Figure 4.15, Scenario 1) during the month of April and May in a 

given year, pelagic longline fishing could continue fishing in the Monitoring Areas in April and May 

of the following year. If the threshold is exceeded in a given year (Step 2, Figure 4.15, Scenario 2), 

the area would revert back to gear restricted areas for the remainder of June that year and would 

remain closed in April and May for the rest of the three-year evaluation period. When/if the IBQ 

allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice with 

the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the remainder of

the evaluation period and subsequent years, unless NMFS determines otherwise, the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Monitoring Areas would be closed to pelagic longline fishing. 

If the threshold has not been reached during the evaluation period (Step 1 and Step 2, Figure 4.15), 

then the Monitoring Areas would remain open in following years while NMFS finalizes an 

evaluation report and considers next steps in a future action (green boxes under Scenario 1 in Step

3 and Step 4, Figure 4.15). The evaluation report would include but not be limited to, target species 

landings and effort, bluefin catch rates, IBQ debt from vessels fishing in the area, percentage of IBQ

allocation usage, compliance with other pelagic longline regulations, and amount of bycatch with

restricted or protected species. If the threshold has been reached during the evaluation period, then 

the area would remain closed during future effective periods (red boxes under Scenario 2 in Step 3 

and Step 4, Figure 4.15). This report would also determine whether future rulemaking is necessary

to modify the management of the Monitoring Area after the three year evaluation period. 

152 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Figure 4.15 Two Scenarios Depicting the Evaluation Process for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring 

Area 

Figure 4.16 Threshold for the Spring Gulf ofMexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area Equivalent to the

Annual Allocation Issued to Vessels that Fished During the Months of April and May from

2015 through 2017 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

The predicted effort that will occur in the Monitoring Areas was estimated using the same methods

described in Alternative C2 above (see Table 4.22). In total, 386,371 hooks were fished in the Gulf

of Mexico by the pelagic longline fleet in April and May between 2012 and 2014. Of these,

approximately 37 percent (n = 142,757) of hooks were deployed in the boundaries of what would 

become the Monitoring Areas. Assuming the same distribution of effort would occur if fishing was

allowed in Monitoring Areas, it is reasonable to anticipate that approximately 65,194 hooks may be

deployed within the Monitoring Area in a given year. Both historical and current effort numbers 

were annualized (Table 4.22). 

As discussed above in Alternative C2 and shown in Table 4.22, NMFS used fleet-wide catch-per-unit

efforts for the month prior (March) and the month after (June) the Gear Restricted Areas are in 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 153 

fan 1 

Actions Covered in PLL GRA & Weak Hook Rule Future Action 

• 

Step 1: Evaluation Period 

Step 2: Meets Threshold? 

Step 3: 

Evaluation 

Toti!I GOM IBQi!nnui!lt1llocation 

Step 4: 

Follow 

Up 

Action 

63,150 lb ,. 114 fi sh _______ 1_14_,4_2_9_1_b_=_2_09_ fis_h ________ _ 

:p~ 'I 

Apr 1 Jun 1 OP.c 31 
place to predict catch-per-unit efforts and catch numbers for the months of April and May. The 

catch-per-unit efforts for both months provide a range of catch that may be expected to occur

during the months of April and May. The catch-per-unit efforts for March and June were derived

from pelagic longline sets within the area of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas in 2015

through 2017, which provide the best available data for the Gear Restricted Areas. 

The short-term direct ecological impacts on bluefin tuna and target species as a result of the 

preferred alternative are likely to be neutral, as the range of catch estimated is comparable to 

current catches under the No Action alternative (C1), with the exception of a predicted lower

number of swordfish kept (Table 4.23). Additionally, the threshold established under this 

alternative limits the amount of bluefin tuna catch during this time period without closing the

Monitoring Areas. The threshold limits fishermen to the total amount of IBQ allocation issued to

vessels that fished during the months of April and May, discouraging these fishermen from

concentrating a year’s worth of effort into the Monitoring Area while it is effective. However, if they 

hit the threshold, they would still have the option of leasing additional Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation 

from other Gulf of Mexico IBQ shareholders. Any additional bluefin tuna interactions accrued on top

of this threshold could still be accounted for under the sustainable quota established for Gulf of

Mexico bluefin tuna under Amendment 7. This further underscores the neutral impact that this

alternative would have on bluefin tuna. 

As described under Alternative C2, access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Areas will give 

fishermen the opportunity to make decisions about where to fish depending on fish availability, and 

the flexibility to fish in areas that optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. If swordfish and

yellowfin tuna landings in the Gulf of Mexico decrease due to shifting effort into the Monitoring

Areas, as predicted in this analysis, then fishermen would likely remain outside of the areas, 

maintaining neutral ecological impacts to those species. 

The predicted range of bluefin tuna kept and discarded under this alternative is well below the 

threshold of 63,150 lb (equivalent to approximately 114 fish) set for the Spring Gulf of Mexico

Monitoring Areas. Therefore, the Monitoring Areas would not be expected to close during the threeyear evaluation period, and no changes to short-term impacts would be expected. 

Long-term impacts on bluefin tuna and target species would depend on the result of the three-year 

evaluation period for these Monitoring Areas. If these areas remain open after three years, longterm impacts during the Evaluation Period (Step 3 in Figure 4.15 above) would be expected to be 

the same as short-term impacts (i.e., neutral) because the fishery would still be managed under the 

IBQ Program (i.e., identical fishery and management conditions as during the Monitoring Period). If

the Monitoring Area was closed due to a threshold being hit, it would remain closed during the 

Evaluation Period. In this instance, the long-term ecological impacts on bluefin tuna and target 

species would likely be identical to the no action alternative, because the fishery conditions would 

revert back to status quo. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

The same methods and data for estimating restricted and protected species catches were used as

presented above under Alternative C2 for impacts to bluefin tuna and pelagic longline target 

species, including effort estimates (Table 4.24). Current discards of blue marlin, white marlin, and

sailfish from the open area of the Gulf of Mexico fall within the range of predicted discards under

this alternative, so short-term indirect impacts to these species are anticipated to be neutral.

Shortfin mako shark interactions and dusky shark discards would decrease, resulting in short-term 

154 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
indirect minor beneficial impacts. Sea turtle interactions would remain the same under this 

alternative, resulting in short-term indirect neutral impacts. Long-term impacts on these species 

would depend on the result of the three-year evaluation period for these Monitoring Areas. If these 

areas remain open after three years, long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as shortterm impacts. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Overall socioeconomic impacts for this alternative are expected to be neutral to minor beneficial in

the short-term, as in Alternative C2 (Table 4.25), despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue.

Fishermen will make decisions about where to fish in any given year depending on fish availability

and will likely decide not to fish in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Areas if they discover it 

lowers their fishing revenue. These Monitoring Areas will provide increased flexibility for 

fishermen to adapt to changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch.

This alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to optimize

target catch while minimizing bycatch. 

Long-term socioeconomic impacts would depend on the result of the three-year evaluation period

for these Monitoring Areas. If these areas remain open after three years, long-term impacts would 

be expected to be the same as short-term impacts. 

Conclusion 

This alternative is consistent with the objective of optimizing the ability of the pelagic longline fleet 

to harvest target species quotas, because it provides a carefully controlled mechanism to allow 

fishermen back into areas that were previously closed. This alternative also helps with the 

uncertainty due to lack of data from within the gear restricted areas as to whether they are still 

appropriately located or needed to meet bluefin tuna management objectives. This alternative gives 

fishermen the flexibility to determine where in the Gulf of Mexico they choose to fish to optimize 

target catch. This alternative would also be expected to have neutral ecological impacts on bluefin

tuna, as it provides mitigative measures to minimize bluefin tuna bycatch via the threshold and

evaluative aspects of the program. The individual accountability aspects of the IBQ Program would 

still be relied upon to incentivize bluefin tuna avoidance, meaning that there is still a proven means

to achieve the objectives of continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna

and other Atlantic HMS. In addition, this alternative simplifies and streamlines regulations in the 

Gulf of Mexico intended to reduce bluefin tuna, and is therefore consistent with that corresponding 

objective for this rulemaking. For these reasons, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time. 

4.3.4 Alternative C4: Eliminate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

This alternative would remove the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas as currently defined 

at §635.2 and all associated regulatory provisions, restrictions, and prohibitions. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

Since this alternative would allow access to all vessels by removing regulations related to the

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, the short-term impacts to bluefin tuna and target

species would be the same as presented in the preferred alternative (Alternative C3, see Table 

4.23). The short-term direct ecological impacts on bluefin tuna as a result of the preferred 

alternative are likely to be neutral, as the range of catch estimated is comparable to current catches 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 155 
under the No Action alternative (C1, Table 4.19). Additionally, catch of bluefin tuna is limited to the

amount of IBQ available to pelagic longline vessels for the Gulf of Mexico, which was set at a

sustainable level under Amendment 7, further underscoring the neutral impact that this alternative 

would have on bluefin tuna. The short-term direct ecological impacts on target species as a result of

the preferred alternative are also likely to be neutral (Table 4.23). Current catches of target species 

from the open area of the Gulf of Mexico fall within the range of predicted catches, with the 

exception of a predicted lower number of swordfish kept. As described under the socioeconomic

impacts, access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Areas will give fishermen the opportunity

to make decisions about where to fish depending on fish availability, and the flexibility to fish in

areas that optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. If swordfish and yellowfin tuna landings

in the Gulf of Mexico decrease due to shifting effort into the Monitoring Areas, as predicted in this

analysis, then fishermen would likely remain outside of the areas, maintaining neutral ecological 

impacts to those species. 

As described, this analysis does not predict adverse impacts to bluefin tuna or target species as a

result of this alternative. However, this alternative does not have the opportunity for monitoring

and evaluation of impacts provided by either Alternative C2 or C3. Therefore, while long-term 

direct ecological impacts on bluefin tuna would be expected to be neutral, there is more uncertainty

than for other alternatives. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

Since this alternative would allow access to all vessels by removing regulations related to the 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, the short-term impacts to restricted and protected

species would be the same as presented in the preferred alternative (Alternative C3, see Table 

4.24). Compared to the No Action alternative (C1), white marlin and blue marlin discards are 

predicted to decrease slightly or increase slightly under this alternative, while sailfish discards 

would decrease slightly or increase. This alternative would result in short-term indirect minor 

beneficial to minor adverse impacts to marlins and sailfish. Shortfin mako shark interactions and 

dusky shark discards would decrease, resulting in short-term indirect minor beneficial impacts. Sea

turtle interactions would remain the same under this alternative, resulting in short-term indirect

neutral impacts. Long-term impacts on these species would be expected to be the same as shortterm impacts. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Since this alternative would allow access to all vessels by removing regulations related to the

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, the short-term socioeconomic impacts would be the 

same as presented in the preferred alternative (Alternative C3, see Table 4.25). Total average 

annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species in April and May of 2015 through 2017 was

$627,842. The predicted range of total average annual revenue under this alternative would be 

$501,799 to $626,885. Revenue from some species is predicted to decrease during these two

months, particularly for swordfish. Revenue from bigeye tuna, on the other hand, is predicted to

remain the same or increase. Overall socioeconomic impacts for this alternative are expected to be 

neutral to minor beneficial in the short-term, despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue. 

Fishermen will make decisions about where to fish in any given year depending on fish availability. 

Elimination of these areas will provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing

distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. This alternative will also give

fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to optimize target catch while minimizing 

156 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
bycatch. Long-term socioeconomic impacts would be expected to be the same as short-term 

impacts. 

Conclusion 

Although this alternative gives fishermen the most flexibility to determine where in the Gulf of

Mexico they choose to fish to optimize target catch and minimize bycatch under the IBQ Program,

and although this alternative would be expected to have neutral ecological impacts on bluefin tuna, 

this alternative does not have the agency control provided by performance access in Alternative C2 

or by the monitoring aspects of the evaluation process in Alternative C3, resulting in more 

uncertainty in the long-term. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time. 

4.4 Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Alternatives 

NMFS is considering and analyzing the following range of alternatives concerning use of weak 

hooks in the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fishery. Weak hooks were initially implemented as part 

of a bycatch management strategy for bluefin tuna. There is a particularly high degree of interest in

protecting spawning bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico because the Gulf of Mexico is recognized as

the primary spawning grounds for western Atlantic bluefin tuna. 

Recently, pelagic longline fishermen have suggested that the mandatory, year-round use of weak

hooks in the Gulf of Mexico may no longer be needed to limit bluefin tuna bycatch given the 

apparent effectiveness of the IBQ Program and the seasonal distribution of bluefin tuna. Some

fishermen feel that the use of weak hooks has resulted in lower catchesof targeted fish such as 

large swordfish. During scoping for this rulemaking, NMFS received comments both in favor and 

opposed to relieving the weak hook restrictions. 

Alternative D1: No Action. Maintain the current requirement for HMS pelagic longline

fishermen to use weak hooks year-round when operating in the Gulf of Mexico 

Alternative D2: Seasonal requirement for weak hooks. (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative D3: Remove the weak hook requirement. 

4.4.1 Alternative D1: No Action. Maintain weak hook requirements in the Gulf of 

Mexico 

Under Alternative D1, NMFS would maintain the regulations currently at 50 CFR Part § 

635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) requiring vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as defined at 50 CFR 

105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are required to have 

been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic

Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, to use weak hooks year-round when 

operating in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

Under Alternative D1, NMFS would not make any changes to the pelagic longline weak hook

requirement year-round in the Gulf of Mexico. Weak hooks are hooks made of a thinner gauge wire 

that can straighten and release large fish when they are captured. In 2011, NMFS implemented the 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 157 
requirement for all HMS pelagic longline fishermen to use weak hookswhen operating in the Gulf of 

Mexico in order to reduce the catch of bluefin tuna and the rule was implemented rapidly to protect 

a large year class of bluefin tuna that was approaching maturity and expected to enter the Gulf of

Mexico to spawn for the first time (76 FR 18653; April 5, 2011). Weak hooks can allow incidentally 

hooked bluefin tuna to escape capture because the hooks are more likely to straighten when a large 

fish is hooked, thus releasing the fish. Research results showed that the use of weak hooks can

significantly reduce the amount of bluefin tuna caught by pelagic longline vessels (Appendix B).

NMFS recently updated an analysis of the impacts of weak hooks on pelagic longline landings and

CPUE of select target Atlantic HMS (e.g., swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna) and of discarded

Atlantic HMS (e.g., swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin) in the 2018 Atlantic HMS SAFE report 

(Table 3.4). Enhanced survival of spawners from this year class were hypothesized in the rule 

whichimplemented weak hooks, implying that the use of weak hooks could improve spawning 

success and size of subsequent year classes, ultimately increasing stock biomass. These benefits 

might continue under a no action alternative. 

Since the implementation of weak hooks in 2011, NMFS has adopted a number of new regulations

that affect the fishery. A comprehensive bycatch management program, the IBQ Program, issues 

individual quota (IBQ allocation) to IBQ shareholders which must be used to account for landings 

and dead discards of bluefin tuna. NMFS has also implemented a gear restricted area (the “Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area”, see Section 4.3 for alternatives pertaining to this area). Under

Alternative D1, NMFS would continue to require the use of weak hooks with no change. This 

measure would not change the current management structure in the Gulf of Mexico. Short and longterm direct ecological impacts would likely be neutral under Alternative D1 because landings,

discards, and CPUE of bluefin tuna and select target species are anticipated to remain unchanged

from those presented in Table 3.4. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

Weak hooks have varying impacts on restricted species, according to research conducted by the 

SEFSC (results summarized in Appendix B). Although not statistically significant, NMFS observed an 

approximately 1 percent reduction in the number of blue marlin and an approximately 23 percent

reduction in sailfish that were captured in experiments evaluating the use of weak hooks in the Gulf 

of Mexico pelagic longline fishery. Research conducted by NMFS from 2008-2012 (which included

data collection after initial implementation of the weak hook requirement) indicated that catch

rates of white marlin and roundscale spearfish were nearly 46 percent higher with weak hooks 

compared to the stronger circle hooks that had been allowed in the fishery, and the increased catch 

rates were statistically significant. 

Alternative D1, which would retain the weak hook requirements for the pelagic longline fishery, 

might facilitate the removal of fishing gear from large individuals of these restricted species.

Therefore, there may be some minor benefits to retaining the weak hook restrictions due to an

increase in post-hooking survival of larger fish that exert enough force to straighten the hooks prior

to being caught incidentally to target fishing operations. However, ecological impacts on these

restricted species are likely neutral given that (1) results from research conducted by the SEFSC on 

these species were not statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level (Appendix B), and 

(2) retaining the measure would likely not result in a change in the amount of effort or consequent

rate of incidental interactions of blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, or swordfish discards (see Table 

3.4). In contrast, adverse ecological impacts to white marlin and roundscale spearfish would be 

expected to continue under this alternative due to mandatory use of weak hooks 

158 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Regarding protected resources, this alternative would maintain existing possession and use 

requirements for bycatch mitigation gear, as well as protected species safe handling and release 

training and guidelines as currently specified by NMFS. The bycatch mitigation gear requirements 

and protected species safe handling and release training and guidelines were implemented to

reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of incidentally captured sea turtles, marine mammals, and 

other incidentally captured species and were thoroughly analyzed in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Pelagic longline fishermen would still be

required to abide by the circle hook requirements established under the 2004 BiOp for the purpose 

of mitigating sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality (possession and use of corrodible, i.e., nonstainless steel, 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees, or 16/0 or larger

non-offset circle hooks). Anecdotal reports from scientists that conducted the weak hook study

indicated that the weak hook was easier to dislodge from incidentally captured/foul hooked 

leatherback sea turtles than the current, required standard circle hook. However, the weak hook

research conducted in the Gulf of Mexico did not produce a large enough sample size to assess the 

impacts of weak hooks on sea turtles or other protected species. Since retaining the measure would

likely not result in a change in the amount of effort or consequent rate of incidental interactions, or

change the regulatory environment, NMFS anticipates the ecological impacts on protected species 

would be neutral. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Under Alternative D1, pelagic longline fishermen would continue to operate under the same 

regulations. Since there would be no change in the regulatory environment, the distribution of

effort and the amount of effort is anticipated to remain the same. Therefore, short and long-term 

direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts are anticipated to be neutral. 

Weak hook research conducted by NMFS from 2008-2012 indicated that there was no statistically

significant difference (at the 95 percent confidence level) in the catch rates of most targeted species

when compared to previously allowed stronger circle hooks, even though the catch rates of legally

sized swordfish did in fact decrease with weak hooks (Appendix B). This is in contrast to comments

NMFS has received from pelagic longline fishermen expressing concern about their perception that

swordfish catches have been reduced with weak hooks. Other alternatives were designed to offer

fishermen additional flexibility to choose a stronger circle hook (consistent with other existing

requirements for hook size and type) that they feel may work better for their fishing operations, 

while still meeting the management and conservation goals for bluefin tuna. 

Conclusion 

The No Action alternative meets the objective of continuing to minimize bluefin tuna mortality, 

however, it is not as closely aligned with other objectives of the rulemaking (i.e., to optimize the

ability of the longline fleet to harvest target quotas, and reduce functionally redundant regulations).

Research by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (see summary at Appendix B) shows that use of

weak hooks may increase catch-per-unit effort of white marlin, which is not compatible with the

objective of reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality of other Atlantic HMS. Alternative D1 would

continue to provide ecological benefits to bluefin tuna; however, it would also continue to adversely 

impact white marlin and roundscale spearfish. In the Final Environmental Assessment for 

implementation of the weak hook requirement in 2011, NMFS said that it would continue to closely

monitor fleet activities and catch statistics and if additional research showed a statistically

significant increase in bycatch, NMFS would consider making management measure adjustments 

such as seasonal application of the weak hook requirement or other modifications. Because an 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 159 
adjustment to the regulations to mitigate the adverse impacts to white marlin and roundscale

spearfish is justified and seasonal application of the weak hook requirement to protect bluefin tuna

from January through June when they are most abundant in the Gulf of Mexico is still needed, NMFS

does not prefer Alternative D1 at this time. 

4.4.2 Alternative D2: Seasonal Requirement for Weak Hooks

This alternative would modify regulations to require vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as defined

at 50 CFR 105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are 

required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in

the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to use weak hooks when 

bluefin tuna are highest in abundance from January through June. This requirement coincides with

their spawning season, which is from April to June... Fishermen may voluntarily choose to continue

to use weak hooks when they are not required. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

Alternative D2 would modify the pelagic longline weak hook requirement in the Gulf of Mexico by 

limiting it to January through June of each year to coincide with the highest abundance (Figure

4.17) and catch-per-unit effort (Figure 4.18) of bluefin tuna. The year-round requirement to use 

weak hooks in the HMS pelagic longline fishery was initially implemented to reduce the catch of

bluefin tuna and protect a large cohort expected to mature into the spawning stock in 2011. The 

weak hook requirement was complemented in 2015 by implementation of the IBQ program in

Amendment 7. The IBQ program has incentivized bluefin tuna avoidance among pelagic longline 

fleet participants, and restrained bluefin tuna landings and dead discards well within the Longline 

category quota allotted to fishery participants in the Gulf of Mexico. If weak hook requirements

were relaxed for half of the calendar year, the IBQ program would still effectively limit bluefin tuna

mortality through an individual cap on the total number of landings and dead discards. The IBQ

program provides a hard limit on bluefin tuna fishing mortality, and in some cases, the weak hook

requirement may have assisted fishermen to operate within IBQ limits by reducing their catch of

Bluefin tuna. The number of bluefin tuna interactions decreased substantially before (2012-2014)

and after (2015 through 2017) implementation of the IBQ program. However, the patterns of

interactions by month remained similar over time with more interactions happening from January

through June than in the second half of the year (Figure 4.17). 

Alternative D2 is anticipated to have neutral short- and long-term direct ecological impacts to 

bluefin tuna because the weak hook requirement would remain in effect when they are most 

abundant in the Gulf of Mexico, and the IBQ program would remain in place year round. The IBQ 

program would continue to limit bluefin tuna mortality for bluefin tuna that have not departed the 

Gulf by the time the weak hook requirement is not in place from July through December. Alternative 

D2 is also anticipated to have neutral short- and long-term direct ecological impacts to target 

species such as swordfish and yellowfin tuna because there is no statistical difference in the catch

rates for target species between weak hooks and the stronger circle hooks that fishermen used to 

use prior to 2011. 

160 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Figure 4.17 Bluefin Interactions with the Pelagic Longline Fishery in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ and 

Adjacent High Seas 

Source:HMS logbook data. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

Compared to Alternative D1, Alternative D2 is expected to have less adverse impacts to two

restricted species, white marlin and roundscale spearfish. Research conducted by NMFS from 2008-

2012 (which included data collection after initial implementation of the weak hook requirement)

indicated that catch rates of white marlin and roundscale spearfish were higher with weak hooks 

compared to the stronger circle hooks that had been allowed in the fishery and the increased catch 

rates were statistically significant. 

Figure 4.18 shows the seasonal changes in catch-per-unit effort for bluefin tuna and white marlin 

and demonstrates the potential for seasonal application of the weak hook requirement. Alternative

D2 would balance the benefits of the weak hook requirement for bluefin tuna with the need to 

mitigate adverse impacts for white marlin and roundscale spearfish by applying the weak hook 

requirement seasonally from January through June when bluefin tuna are most abundant in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Despite the potentially complementary benefits of the weak hook requirement and the 

IBQ program for bluefin tuna, the adverse impacts of weak hook use on white marlin and

roundscale spearfish continue to occur between January and June as described under Alternative 

D1 above. From July through December each year, the weak hook requirement would not exist and 

fishermen would be allowed to fish with the thicker gauge circle hooks that they used prior to 2011.

Alternative D2 would likely result in less use of weak hooks in the second half of the year, when the 

high catch rates of white marlin and roundscale spearfish are higher in the Gulf of Mexico (i.e.,

summer and fall), thus mitigating some impacts to these species. Alternative D2 is therefore 

anticipated to have positive ecological impacts to restricted species by: (1) maintaining

requirements that facilitate the removal of fishing gear on large animals in the first half of the year, 

which is expected to increase post-hooking survival of species caught incidentally to target fishing

operations; and (2) reducing potential impacts on species that have been shown through scientific 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 161 

200 

~ 180 C: 

0 160 tl 

~ 140 ~ 

c: 120 C: 

~ 100 :, 

:c 80 

~ 60 ~ 

.c 

E 40 :, 

2 20 

0 

0 2012-2014 0 2015-2017 
research to have statistically significant higher catches associated with weak hook use by not 

requiring weak hook in the second half of the year. 

Regarding protected resources, this alternative would maintain existing possession and use 

requirements for bycatch mitigation gear, as well as protected species safe handling and release 

training and guidelines as currently specified by NMFS. The bycatch mitigation gear requirements 

and protected species safe handling and release training and guidelines were implemented to 

reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of incidentally captured sea turtles, marine mammals, and 

other incidentally captured species and were thoroughly analyzed in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Pelagic longline fishermen would still be

required to abide by the circle hook requirements established under the 2004 BiOp for the purpose

of mitigating sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality (possession and use of corrodible, i.e., nonstainless steel, 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees, or 16/0 or larger

non-offset circle hooks).As cited in the weak hook final rule reports fromscientists that conducted

the weak hook research indicated that the weak hook was easier to dislodge from incidentally

captured/foul hooked leatherback sea turtles than the current, required standard circle hook.

However, the weak hook research conducted in the Gulf of Mexico did not produce a large enough

sample size to assess the impacts of weak hooks on sea turtles or other protected species. Since

retaining the measure would likely not result in a change in the amount of effort or consequent rate 

of incidental interactions, or change the regulatory environment, NMFS anticipates the ecological

impacts on protected species would be neutral. 

Figure 4.18 Bluefin and white marlinCPUE(# fish/10,000 hooks deployed) in the Gulf of Mexico (EEZ

and high seas), 2015-2017 

Source: HMS logbook data. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Under Alternative D2, fishermen would continue to operate under the current regulations for the

first half of a given year, and then would be allowed to choose whether or not to deploy weak hooks 

on pelagic longline gear. This alternative would likely result in short- and long-term minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts since it would give fishermen more flexibility in choosing how to 

162 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 

4.5 

;;;- 4 

:::, 

e, 3.5 

~ 3 0 

_g 2.5 

0 

g 2 

o' 

.-1 1.5 -.... 

-5; 1 

-.,...WhiteMcrlin .......,Bllefin Tuna 
fish. During the months without the weak hook requirement, fishermen could choose whether or 

not to use weak hooks based on their fishing operations. During the months when weak hook use is

required, weak hooks are expected to reduce the number of captured bluefin tuna as previously

analyzed in the rule implementing weak hooks. Use of weak hooks may help fishermen reduce IBQ 

allocation needed to cover incidental landings or dead discards, since the release of large fish

shortly after hooking means that fishermen would not have to account for those fish (if they are

never brought to boatside). 

Short- and long-term indirect socioeconomic impacts to businesses that support fishing would 

likely be neutral or slightly positive. Changing pelagic longline weak hook requirements in the Gulf 

of Mexico is unlikely to change fishing effort, but could increase circle hook sales if fishermen buy 

non-weak hooks to use in the second half of the year. 

Conclusion 

This alternative is anticipated to have positive ecological impacts by maintaining weak hook 

requirements when bluefin tuna are present in the greatest abundance for spawning in the Gulf of

Mexico, but removing the requirement in the second half of the year when catch-per-unit effort of

species that may be more vulnerable to capture on weak hooks increases (i.e., white marlin). This

alternative is therefore expected to strike the best balance between the objectivesof continuing to 

minimize bluefin tuna mortality and maximize opportunity for the pelagic longline fishery to

harvest target species. This alternative provides increased flexibility with respect to hook 

requirements in the second half of the year (provided basic circle hook requirements are still met). 

This alternative also balances the objective of reducing potentially redundant regulations against 

continuing to minimize bluefin tuna mortality by removing weak hook requirements in the second

half of the year when weak hooksmight not be needed as much to reduce interactions with

spawning bluefin tuna. For these reasons, NMFS is preferring this alternative at this time. 

4.4.3 Alternative D3: Remove the weak hook requirement

This alternative would remove regulations that require vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as 

defined at 50 CFR 105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are 

required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in

the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to use weak hooks. NMFS 

would continue to encourage voluntary use of weak hooksin the Gulf of Mexico as a conservation

strategy for bluefin tuna. 

Ecological Impacts on Bluefin Tuna and Target Species 

Under Alternative D3, NMFS would remove the pelagic longline weak hook requirement year-round 

in the Gulf of Mexico, but would encourage the voluntary use of weak hooks as a conservation

strategy. In 2011, NMFS implemented the requirement for all HMS pelagic longline fishermen to use 

weak hooks when operating in the Gulf of Mexico in order to reduce the catch of bluefin tuna and 

the rule was implemented rapidly to protect a large year class of bluefin tuna that was approaching

maturity and expected to enter the Gulf of Mexico to spawn for the first time (76 FR 18653; April 5, 

2011). Weak hooks can allow incidentally hooked bluefin tuna to escape capture because the hooks

are more likely to straighten when a large fish is hooked, thus releasing the fish. Statistically

significant (at the 95 percent confidence level) research results showed that the use of weak hooks 

can reduced the amount of bluefin tuna caught by pelagic longline vessels by 46 percent (Appendix 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 163 
B). Enhanced survival of spawners from this year class were hypothesized in the rule which 

implemented weak hooks, implying that the use of weak hooks could improve spawning success 

and size of subsequent year classes, ultimately increasing stock biomass. 

NMFS recently updated an analysis of pelagic longline landings and CPUE of select target Atlantic

HMS (e.g., swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna) and of discarded Atlantic HMS (e.g., swordfish, 

blue marlin, white marlin) before and after weak hook implementation in the 2018 Atlantic HMS 

SAFE report (Table 3.4). NMFS noted a 59.2 percent reduction in the average number of bluefin 

landings and a 51.7 percent reduction in bluefin discards in the Gulf of Mexico between a period 

prior to implementation (data spanning 2007 – 2010) and a period of time after implementation

(2012 – 2017). These findings are consistent with previous research, however the weak hook

requirement was also complemented in 2015 by implementation of the IBQ program in

Amendment 7. While removal of the requirement might mean that more bluefin tuna are brought to

the vessel and increase mortality of bluefin tuna, the IBQ Program would still effectively limit 

bluefin tuna mortality through an individual cap on the total number of landings and dead discards.

The IBQ Program regionally allocates quota to Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic fishermen, and has

provisions in place to ensure that Atlantic IBQ allocation cannot be used to account for Gulf of

Mexico bluefin mortalities. Furthermore, the Gulf of Mexico fleet has used very little of the total IBQ

allocated to cover the Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna landings and dead discards from 2015 through 

2017 (Table 3.16, Table 3.17). For example, preliminary data summarized and presented in the 

online IBQ System indicated that 7.7 percent, 13.7 percent, and 16.8 percent of the Gulf of Mexico 

IBQ allocation was caught in 2015, 2016, and 2017. If weak hooks reduced landings by 46 to 60 

percent, the reductions estimated in the EA for weak hook implementation and in a recent analysis 

presented in the 2018 SAFE (Table 3.4) might double the required quota usage to account for 

bluefin landings and dead discards. However, even with this increase in landings and dead discards, 

the pelagic longline fleet would likely still remain within its designated quota due to individual

accountability under the IBQ System Distribution and amount of effort is not anticipated to change 

as a result of modifying hook requirements. For these reasons, NMFS anticipates short- and longterm direct ecological impacts to bluefin tuna would likely be minor adverse to neutral. 

Research conducted by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center suggests that weak hooks do not

have a statistically significant effect at the 95 percent confidence level on target species catch

(although reductions in catch are noted with their use both in research and by

fishermen)(Appendix B). However, fishing mortality rates are unlikely to be affected. Selection of 

different types of hooks for use is not anticipated to change the distribution or amount of fishing

effort. Therefore, short and long-term direct ecological impacts to target species such as swordfish

and yellowfin tuna would likely be neutral under Alternative D3. 

Ecological Impacts on Restricted and Protected Species 

Weak hooks have varying impacts on restricted species, according to research conducted by the 

SEFSC (results summarized in Appendix B). Although not statistically significant, NMFS observed an

approximately 1 percent reduction in the number of blue marlin and an approximately 23 percent

reduction in sailfish that were captured in experiments evaluating the use of weak hooksin the Gulf 

of Mexico pelagic longline fishery. It is logical to assume that removing the weak hook requirement

might have some unquantifiable impact on these species, since exceptionally heavy individuals

might be brought to the boat instead of being released prior to haulback. The adverse impacts of

weak hook use on white marlin and roundscale spearfish, as described under Alternative D1 and D2 

above, could be minimized if fishermen choose to either not use weak hooks or use fewer weak 

hooks in the second half of the year when catch-per-unit effort of these species is higher. Research 

164 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
conducted by NMFS from 2008-2012 (whichincluded data collectionafter initial implementation of

the weak hook requirement) indicated that catch rates of white marlin and roundscale spearfish 

were nearly 46 percent higher with weak hooks compared to the stronger circle hooks that had

been allowed in the fishery, and the increased catch rates were statistically significant. 

Regarding protected resources, this alternative would maintain existing possession and use 

requirements for bycatch mitigation gear, as well as protected species safe handling and release 

training and guidelines as currently specified by NMFS. The bycatch mitigation gear requirements 

and protected species safe handling and release training and guidelines were implemented to 

reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of incidentally captured sea turtles, marine mammals, and 

other incidentally captured species and were thoroughly analyzed in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Pelagic longline fishermen would still be

required to abide by the circle hook requirements established under the 2004 BiOp for the purpose 

of mitigating sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality (possession and use of corrodible, i.e., nonstainless steel, 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees, or 16/0 or larger

non-offset circle hooks). Anecdotal reports from scientists that conducted the weak hook study

indicated that the weak hook was easier to dislodge from incidentally captured/foul hooked

leatherback sea turtles than the current, required standard circle hook. However, the weak hook

research conducted in the Gulf of Mexico did not produce a large enough sample size to assess the 

impacts of weak hooks on sea turtles or other protected species. 

Changing the type of hook is not anticipated to change rates of fishing or the distribution of fishing

effort. Therefore, the rate of incidental interactions are not anticipated to change. NMFS therefore 

anticipates neutral indirect impacts to most restricted and protected species, and short- and longterm minor beneficial indirect ecological impacts for white marlin and roundscale spearfish as a 

result of removing the weak hook requirement under Alternative D3. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Under Alternative D3, pelagic longline fishermen would no longer be required to deploy weak 

hooks with pelagic longline gear, and NMFS would encourage the voluntary use of weak hooks as a 

conservation strategy. This alternative would likely result in short and long-term minor beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts since it would give fishermen more flexibility in choosing how to fish. In the 

absence of a weak hook requirement, fishermen could choose whether to use the gear based on

their knowledge of bluefin tuna presence and distribution. Weak hooks may have, in some cases,

assisted fishermen in reducing use of IBQ allocation because large bluefin tuna were able to free 

themselves from gear before coming to the boat, and therefore never needed to be counted against

a vessel’s IBQ allocation. Some fishermen may still find their use beneficial in conserving their

permit’s IBQ, and would still have the option to deploy weak hooks under this alternative. For 

example, pelagic longline fishermen that plan to fish in areas with high rates of bluefin tuna

interactions may wish to deploy weak hooks to reduce interactions and conserve their IBQ. Under

Alternative D3, NMFS would encourage the voluntary use of weak hooks and leave the decision up 

to individual fishermen based on their experience and on-the-water knowledge. Any potentially

risky fishing practices leading to elevated interactions with Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna would still

be dis-incentivized under the IBQ Program but could lead to minor adverse impacts to fishermen if

more IBQ must be leased to continue fishing. 

Short- and long-term indirect socioeconomic impacts to businesses that support fishing would

likely be neutral. Changing pelagic longline weak hook requirements in the Gulf of Mexico is 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 165 
unlikely to change fishing effort, but could increase circle hook sales if fishermen buy more nonweak hooks. 

Conclusion 

This alternative strongly aligns with the objectives of simplifying and streamlining HMS 

management by removing a fishing regulation that may be redundant with the IBQ Program (since 

both are intended to control bluefin interactions and the IBQ Program provides for full accounting 

of bluefin mortality and sufficiently incentivizes fishermen to avoid bluefin) and optimizing the

ability of pelagic longline fishermen to harvest target quotas. However, removing the weak hook

requirement entirely does not align as closely as other alternatives with the objective to continue to

minimize bluefin tuna mortality, especially if fishermen do not elect to use weak hooks during 

spawning season when the risk of encountering spawning bluefin tuna is higher. Although the

current IBQ Program likely provides adequate protection for the bluefin tuna stock in the Gulf of

Mexico by limiting fishing mortality in the absence of weak hooks, the required use of weak hooks

may help fishermen manage their IBQ by reducing each fisherman's catch of bluefin tuna. The IBQ

Program likely provides sufficient biological protection but weak hooks may provide 

socioeconomic benefits for fishermen by extending their IBQ allocation, allowing them to fish for a

longer period each year. Additionally, during scoping NMFS received more support for retaining a 

seasonal weak hook requirement (Alternative D2) than removing weak hooks (this alternative) 

from multiple constituent groups including recreational fishermen, environmental non-government 

organizations, and commercial (pelagic longline and directed categories) fishermen (see Appendix

A: Summary of Comments from Scoping for a summary of comments). Overall, Alternative D2 is

considered as the alternative that would achieve a better balance between ecological needs of the 

resource and socioeconomic needs of the fishery over Alternative D3. Therefore, Alternative D3 is

not preferred at this time. 

4.5 Essential Fish Habitat 

Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(1), and as implemented by 50 C.F.R. §800.815, the Magnuson-Stevens

Act requires NMFS to identify and describe EFH for each life stage of managed species and to

evaluate the potential adverse effectsof fishing activities on EFH including the cumulative effectsof 

multiple fisheries activities. If NMFS determines that fishing gears are having an adverse effect on

HMS EFH, or other species’ EFH, then NMFS must include management measures that minimize 

adverse effects to the extent practicable. NMFS completed reviewsof fishing gear impacts in the 

1999 FMP, Amendment 1 to the 1988 Billfish FMP, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, Amendment 1 

to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, and the 2015 Final 5-Year Review of Atlantic HMS EFH. These 

analyses determined that the majority of HMS gears are fished within the water column and do not

make contact with the sea floor. 

This section focuseson the potential impacts on EFHof relieving pelagic longline restrictions 

(including Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, HAPCs) of Atlantic HMS and council-managed 

species. NMFS discusses the ecological impacts to EFH (including HAPCs) due to each preferred

action in this proposed rule. It also provides a review of Atlantic HMS EFH for the focal species of

this rulemaking, bluefin tuna. A detailed description of western Atlantic bluefin tuna EFH is 

available in Chapter 3. 

166 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
4.5.1 Impacts of Preferred Alternatives on Essential Fish Habitat

Water column habitats can be characterized by physical, chemical, or biological features. Offshore

water quality in the Atlantic is controlled by oceanic circulation, which, in the Mid-Atlantic is

dominated by the Gulf Stream and by oceanic gyres. A shoreward, tidal and wind-driven circulation 

dominates as the primary means of pollutant transport between estuaries and nearshore or coastal

waters. Water quality in nearshore water masses adjacent to estuarine plumes and in water masses 

within estuaries is also influenced by density-driven circulation. Suspended sediment concentration 

can also be used as an indication of water quality. For the Atlantic coastal areas, suspended

sediment concentration varies with respect to depth and distance from shore, the variability being

greatest in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic. Re-suspended bottom sediment is the principal

source of suspended sediments in offshore waters. Activities that may affect circulation patterns, 

oceanographic temperature and salinity gradients, water quality (i.e., oxygen content, sediment 

suspension, or nutrient loading) may affect the quality of the habitat and reflect an adverse impact 

on EFH. 

Fishing activity may theoretically have a minor localized effect on water quality. The gear is

typically deployed over short (24 hours or less) timeframes. A potential biochemical effect of

pelagic longline fishing could include localized increases in biological oxygen demand (BOD) as a 

result of high concentrations of dead discards. BOD is the amount of dissolved oxygen used by

organisms (i.e., bacteria) while metabolizing organic matter. Bacteria decomposition of dead

organisms can reduce dissolved oxygen in the water column below thresholds necessary for fish 

survival (e.g., Boyd 1973). Widespread fish kills associated with “dead zones” of hypoxia are more 

closely linked to agricultural runoff and pollution, freshwater discharge, and

circulation/stratification patterns (e.g., Rabalais et al. 2002). 

Two of the preferred alternatives would provide access opportunities for pelagic longline

fishermen. Preferred Alternatives A4 would establish the Northeastern United States Pelagic 

Longline Monitoring Area, and create a corresponding three-year evaluation period during which 

pelagic longline fishing would be allowed according to specified operational rules between June 1 

and June 30. Preferred Alternatives C3 would establish the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area, 

and create a corresponding three-year evaluation period during which pelagic longline fishing 

would be allowed according to specified operational rules between April 1 and May 30 of a given 

year. Following the evaluation period, the areas would remain either open or closed depending on

whether certain interaction thresholds were met, and NMFS would analyze fishery data to support 

future regulatory actions. 

Deployment of pelagic longline gear in areas that were previously closed for short periods of time 

would likely not have a widespread, detrimental effect on pelagic habitat that constitutes EFH for 

many Atlantic HMS. Although the areas in question have been closed to pelagic longline fishing for

20 years and 3 years, respectively, they are short in duration within a year. Fishing does occur in

the same areas during the weeks before and after they are effective. Due to prevailing 

oceanographic and climatological patterns, it is unlikely that gear set in the first week of July within

the Northeastern United States Closed Area would occur over remarkably different oceanographic

conditions. Fishing activity wouldlikely not have an acutely different type of impact on EFH if it 

was deployed in the same area one week earlier (when the area has historically been closed). 

In addition, granting access to these areas is not anticipated to increase dead discards of target

species or bycatch. These alternatives are not expected to change the amount of effort exerted by

pelagic longline fisheries due to the restricted nature of the fishery (i.e., permits are limited access,

IBQ operational rules may constrain effort). It is likely that effort by some participants will be 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 167 
redistributed to areas that are open to fishing. Dead discards associated with this action are not

likely to be of high enough concentration to induce enough of an increase in BOD to affect Atlantic

HMS EFH(or other council-managed species) at a degree that would compromise stock health. 

Preferred Alternative B2 would eliminate the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. This alternative

is not anticipated to change fishing techniques or distribution of effort in a way that would increase 

gear contact with bottom habitats that may be considered EFH. Furthermore, most of the pelagic

longline fleet has already had access to this area. Deployment of pelagic longline gear by vessels

that were previously, and temporarily, restricted from accessing the gear restricted area would

likely not have a widespread, detrimental effect on pelagic habitat that constitutes EFH for many

Atlantic HMS. Therefore impacts to EFH under this alternative are considered neutral. 

Alternatives D1, D2, and D3 consider changes to weak hook requirements in the Gulf of Mexico HMS

pelagic longline fishery. While each of these alternatives have different effects on fishermen, none

are anticipated to change fishing techniques in a way that would change the spatial distribution of

effort, increase gear contact with bottom habitats that may be considered EFH, or to impact EFH

designated in the pelagic environment. These alternatives are not expected to increase effort in the 

fishery. Preferred Alternative D2 would establish a seasonal (January-June) requirement for weak

hooks in the Gulf of Mexico. Changing the hook type requirement is not anticipated to change the 

spatial distribution of effort, increase the amount of fishing effort, increase gear contact with

bottom habitats that may be considered EFH, or impact EFH designated in the pelagic environment.

Thus, impacts to EFH fromAlternatives D1, D2, and D3 are expected to be neutral. 

168 Environmental and Economic Consequences of Alternatives 
Cumulative Impacts 

5.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

The geographic and temporal scope of the area and gear-based alternatives is widely varied.

Geographically the alternatives range from the weak hook requirement across the entire Gulf of 

Mexico to a spatially discrete area off the coast of Cape Hatteras, NC, and temporally they range

from weak hooks required year-round to only one month applicability for the Northeastern United

States Closed Area. 

Cumulatively, the area and gear measures encompass a large amount of open ocean that coincides

with a wide variety of activities during the applicable time periods, including fisheries for Atlantic 

HMS and for Council-managed species. Some examples of these fisheries include: the Northeast 

scallop fishery; Northeast groundfish fishery; tilefish fishery; Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery; Loligo 

and Illex squid trawl fisheries; shark bottom longline fishery; Atlantic dolphin/wahoo fishery; and

various recreational fisheries. Many of these fisheries occur in the benthic or mid-water areas of the

water column. The alternatives address operations of the pelagic longline fishery. Although these

other fisheries operate in some of the same areas open for pelagic longline fishing, minimal 

interactions occur between these fisheries and the pelagic longline fisheries Pelagic longline gear is 

fished high in the water column and is rarely used in the benthic to mid-water columns of the

ocean, where the majority of the other fisheries’ activities occur. Therefore, NMFS has determined 

that the appropriate scope of the cumulative effectsanalysis is limited to fisheries and activities or

actions that also affect the pelagic environment and habitats within the action area, primarily the, 

directed tuna and swordfish fisheries and fisheries that bycatch tunas or swordfish. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, NMFS has taken a number of actions in the past to, among other things, 

rebuild overfished fisheries and achieve maximize sustainable yield. These actions have included

FMPs, FMP amendments, and framework actions. The goals and objectives of these past rules are 

summarized in Chapter 3. NMFS is required to take similar actions in this document and can

reasonably expect to implement regulations in the future to address the management and

conservation of Atlantic tunas and swordfish in directed tuna or swordfish fisheries and in fisheries 

that catch tunas or swordfish. The need and objectives of this document are described in earlier 

sections, particularly Chapter 1.0, and are not repeated here. 

Recent major actions and proposed actions within HMS fisheries that may affect commercial and 

recreational HMS fishermen both directly and indirectly are listed below (Table 5.1). A 

comprehensive list of all actions annually can be found in Chapter 1 of the HMS SAFE Report. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 169 

5 
Table 5.1 Recent Major Actions within HMS Fisheries that May Affect Pelagic Longline and HMS

Fishermen Dealing with Bluefin 

Federal 

Register

Citation Date Rule or Notice 

2019 

84 FR 3742 2/13/2019 Inseason quota transfer from Reserve Category to General Category 

84 FR 5358 2/21/2019 Final Rule for Amendment 11 to Address Overfishing of Shortfin Mako Sharks 

84 FR 6701 2/28/2019 

Annual Adjustment of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Purse Seine and Reserve Category 

Quotas; Inseason Quota Transfer from the Reserve Category to General Category 

84 FR 7302 3/4/2019 Closure of the General categoryJanuary fishery for 2019 

84 FR 9719 3/18/2019 Closure of Angling Category TrophySouth 

2018 

83 FR 8037 2/23/2018 Proposed Rule to Revise Atlantic Shark Fishery Closure Regulations 

83 FR 8946 3/02/2018 

Emergency Interim Final Rule to Address Overfishing of Atlantic Shortfin Mako 

Sharks 

83 FR 8969 3/02/2018 

Notice of Intent for Scoping of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Pelagic Longline Area-Based 

and Weak Hook Measures 

83 FR 9232 3/05/2018 

Transfer of 10 Metric Tons of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota from the Reserve 

category to the January 2018 subquota Period and Closes the General Category 

Fishery for Large Medium and Giant Bluefin Tuna Until the General Category 

Reopens on June 1, 2018 

83 FR 9255 3/05/02018 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Shortfin Mako 

Shark Management Measures 

83 FR 10802 3/13/2018 

Blacktip shark, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks western Gulf of Mexico 

sub-region closure 

83 FR 17110 4/18/2018 

Annual Adjustment of Bluefin Tuna Purse Seine and Reserve Category Quotas; 

Inseason Quota Transfer from the Reserve Category to the Longline category for 

April 13–December 31 

83 FR 18230 4/26/2018 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Angling Category Fishery Daily Retention Limit Adjustment 

April 26–December 31 

83 FR 21936 5/11/2018 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Daily Retention Limit Adjustment 

for June 1–August 31 

83 FR 22602 5/16/2018 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Angling Category Gulf of Mexico Trophy Fishery Closure 

March 13–December 31 

83 FR 30884 7/2/2018 

Swordfish General Commercial Permit Retention Limit Adjustment July 1 – 

December 31, 2018 

83 FR 31517 7/6/2018 

Proposed Rule for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Northern Albacore Quotas; Minor 

Regulatory Change to Address Shark-damaged Tunas 

83 FR 31677 7/9/2018 Final Rule to Revise Atlantic HMS Shark Fishery Closure Regulations 

83 FR 33870 7/18/2018 

Atlantic Region Commercial Aggregated Large Coastal Shark and Hammerhead 

Shark Management Groups Retention Limit Adjustment July 18–December 31 

83 FR 35566 7/27/2018 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Angling Category Northern Area Trophy Fishery Closure July 

26 

83 FR 35590 7/27/2018 

Proposed Rule for Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMSFishery 

Management Plan on Shortfin Mako Shark Management 

83 FR 37446 8/1/2018 Adjustments to 2018 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas 

83 FR 38664 8/7/2018 

Inseason Transfer of 30 t Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota from the Reserve Category to 

the Harpoon Category 

170 Cumulative Impacts 
83 FR 42452 8/22/2018 

Extension of Emergency Measures to Address Overfishing of Atlantic Shortfin 

Mako Shark 

83 FR 42607 8/23/2018 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General CategoryFishery Daily Retention Limit Adjustment 

August 23–31 

83 FR 45866 9/11/2018 

Proposed Rule to Establish Quotas, Opening Dates, and Retention Limits for the 

2019 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season 

83 FR 47598 9/20/2018 

Comment Period Extension for the Proposed Rule for Amendment 11 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan on Shortfin Mako Shark 

Management 

83 FR 47843 9/21/2018 

Inseason Transfer of 30 t Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota from the Reserve Category to 

the General Categoryand Closure of the General Category Fishery September 23– 

30 

83 FR 50857 10/10/2018 

Inseason Transfer of 55 t Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota from the Reserve Category 

and Harpoon Category to the General Category and Closure of the General 

Category Fishery October 5–December 1 

83 FR 51391 10/11/2018 

Final Rule for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Northern Albacore Quotas; Minor 

Regulatory Change to Address Predator-damaged Tunas 

83 FR 52169 10/16/2018 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Reopen October 15–16 

83 FR 55108 11/2/2018 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Reopen October 31–November 2 

83 FR 57340 11/15/2018 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Reopen November 12–16 

83 FR 60777 11/27/2018 

Final Rule to Establish Quotas, Opening Dates, and Retention Limits for the 2019 

Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season 

83 FR 63831 12/12/2018 Selection of All Registered HMSTournaments for Reporting 

83 FR 67140 12/28/2018 General Category Quota Transfer from Dec 19 subquota to Jan 19 subquota 

2017 

82 FR 3209 1/11/2017 Final rule; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Technical Amendment to Regulations 

82 FR 4856 1/17/2017 

Notice of Receipt of an Application for Exempted Fishing Permit and Availability of 

Draft Environmental Assessment for Pelagic Longline Research in East Florida 

Coast Closed Area 

82 FR 10746 2/15/2017 

Extension of Comment Period and Announcement of Public Webinar for Exempted 

Fishing Permit Application for Pelagic Longline Research in East Florida Coast 

Closed Area 

82 FR 12296 3/2/2017 

Annual Adjustment of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Purse Seine and Reserve Category 

Quotas; Inseason Quota Transfer of 45 t from the Reserve Category to the 

Longline Category 

82 FR 12747 3/7/2017 

Inseason Transfer of 40 t Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota from the Reserve Category to 

the General Category and Adjusted Daily Retention Limit for March 5–March 31 

82 FR 14162 3/17/2017 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Angling Category Southern Area Trophy Fishery Closure 

March 20 

82 FR 16136 4/3/2017 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Closure March 29–May 31 

82 FR 16478 4/4/2017 

Final Rule to Implement Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS 

Fishery Management Plan 

82 FR 19615 4/28/2017 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Angling Category Recreational Daily Retention Limit 

Adjustment April 30–December 31 

82 FR 22616 5/17/2017 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Daily Retention Limit Adjustment 

for June 1–August 31 

82 FR 26603 6/8/2017 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Angling Category Gulf of Mexico Trophy Fishery Closure June 

7 

82 FR 36689 8/7/2017 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Daily Retention Limit Adjustment 

August 5–December 31 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 171 
82 FR 37566 8/11/2017 

Issuance of Exempted Fishing Permit and Availability of Final Environmental 

Assessment for Pelagic Longline Research in East Florida Coast Closed Area 

82 FR 37825 8/14/2017 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Angling Category Northern Area Trophy Fishery Closure 

August 11 

82 FR 39047 8/17/2017 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Closure August 16–31 

82 FR 39735 8/22/2017 

Proposed Rule to Establish Quotas, Opening Dates, and Retention Limits for the 

2018 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season 

82 FR 41356 8/31/2017 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Daily Retention Limit Adjustment 

September 1–December 31 

82 FR 43500 9/18/2017 

Adjustments to 2017 Northern Albacore Quota, North and South Atlantic Swordfish 

Quotas, and Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Reserve Category Quota 

82 FR 43711 9/19/2017 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Closure September 17–30 

82 FR 43710 9/19/2017 

Notification thatthe Northeast Distant Area (NED) quota is filled and Atlantic Tunas 

Longline Category Individual Bluefin Quota Accounting Rules Now Apply in the 

NED 

82 FR 46000 10/3/2017 

Inseason Transfer of 156.4 t Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota from the Reserve 

Category to the General Category 

82 FR 46934 10/10/2017 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Closure October 5–November 30 

82 FR 49303 10/25/2017 

Proposed Rule to Modify Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota Program Regulations for 

Accounting for Bluefin Tuna 

82 FR 49773 10/27/2017 

Proposed Rule for an Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Charter/Headboat Permit 

Commercial Sales Provision 

82 FR 55520 11/22/2017 

Transfer of Unused Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Harpoon Category Quota to the General 

Category; General Category Fishery Opens December 1 with 12.7 t Quota 

82 FR 55512 11/22/2017 

Final Rule to Establish Quotas, Opening Dates, and Retention Limits for the 2018 

Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season 

82 FR 57543 12/6/2017 

Final Rule for an Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Charter/Headboat Permit 

Commercial Sales Provision 

82 FR 57885 12/8/2017 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General Category Fishery Closure December 6–31, 2017 

82 FR 61489 12/28/2017 

Final Rule to Modify Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota Program Regulations for 

Accounting for Bluefin Tuna 

The preferred alternatives in this document implement measures to address commercial fisheries 

regulations related to the use of weak hooks and the management of areas previously closed for 

bluefin tuna. Commercial fishermen with pelagic longline gear would be subjected to modified 

requirements for access to pelagic longline Closed Areas and a gear restricted area, and

modifications to the requirements for the use of weak hooks. NMFS would continue collecting and

monitoring commercial landings of target species through existing reporting mechanisms. The 

preferred alternatives are designed to help remove regulatory redundancy and decrease the 

regulatory burden for fisherman targeting bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, skipjack tunas and 

swordfish; optimize the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to harvest target species quotas; and

continue to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality for bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS. The 

preferred alternatives reflect the best balance of the rulemaking objectives. Although impacts vary

by across species within broad groupings, in general the preferred alternatives have mostly neutral

or minor and positive ecological and economic impacts. Thus, the overall cumulative impacts of the

preferred alternatives could have minor beneficial cumulative ecological impacts and neutral to 

minor beneficial cumulative socioeconomic impacts. The followingpast and ongoing actions had or 

would have varying degrees of synergistic impacts on the human environment when considered in 

conjunction with the action in the alternatives: 

172 Cumulative Impacts 
• In 2011, NMFS published a rule that requires pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Gulf of 

Mexico to use weak hooks (76 FR 18653; April 5, 2011) to reduce bluefin tuna mortality in their

spawning grounds. White marlin and roundscale spearfish were shown to have statistically

significant increases in catch rates with this hook type. Although there was a projected increase 

in white marlin catches this regulation was expected to have moderate ecological benefits for 

spawning bluefin tuna. The 2011 weak hook requirement likely resulted in neutral cumulative

adverse socioeconomic impacts on fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region because catch

composition was not predicted to significantly change for target species, such as yellowfintuna

or swordfish. When this action is considered in conjunction with the 2011 weak hook

requirement, it is anticipated this action may have neutral cumulative socioeconomic impacts

on the pelagic longline fishery because this rule would change the requirement for weak hook

use to a seasonal requirement, which would not increase any burden on pelagic longline fishery 

participants. 

• On January 1, 2015, NMFS implemented Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS 

FMP (79 FR 71510; December 2, 2014) (Amendment 7). The rule dramatically changed bluefin 

tuna management, particularly within the pelagic longline fishery. Amendment 7 allocated U.S. 

bluefin tuna quota among domestic fishing categories; implemented measures applicable to the 

pelagic longline fishery, including IBQs, two new gear restricted areas, closure of the pelagic

longline fishery when annual bluefin tuna quota is reached, elimination of target catch

requirements associated with retention of incidental bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery, 

mandatory retention of legal-sized bluefin tuna caught as bycatch, expanded monitoring 

requirements, including electronic monitoring via cameras and bluefin tuna catch reporting via

VMS, and transiting provisions for pelagic longline and bottom longline vessels. The rule also 

had impacts on the recreational fishery by changing the allocation of the Angling category

Trophy South subquota for bluefin tuna for the Gulf of Mexico. This rule proposes to remove or

modify the gear restricted area measures implemented under Amendment 7. The remaining 

Amendment 7 measures for the pelagic longline fishery could have moderate beneficial

ecological cumulative impacts on bluefin tuna in conjunction with this action since the 

implementation of IBQs have reduced the amount of landings and dead discards of bluefin tuna 

and are considered to be a mitigative factor in deregulation. When this action is considered in 

conjunction with the Amendment 7, it is anticipated this action may have minor beneficial to

neutral cumulative socioeconomic impacts because this action would remove or modify some 

regulations that are redundant with IBQs. 

• On October 11, 2018, NMFS published a final rule (83 FR 51391) to adjust and recalculate the 

baseline annual U.S. quota and subquotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna and the baseline annual U.S. 

Northern Atlantic albacore tuna quota to reflect quotas adopted by ICCAT. Additionally, this

final rule updated regulatory language on school bluefin tuna, made a minor change to the

Atlantic tuna’s size limit regulations to address retention, possession, and landing of bigeye and

yellowfintuna damaged through predation by sharks and other marine species. Cumulative 

ecological impacts of the preferred alternatives in the final rule were expected to be neutral to 

minor beneficial, while the socioeconomic impacts were expected to be minor and beneficial.

The modification of language to address damaged tunas through predation by sharks and other

marine species, was primarily economic and administrative, and no environmental effects were 

anticipated because the change only allows for retention of a very limited number of fish that 

would otherwise be caught but need to be discarded. 

• On March 3, 2019, NMFS implemented Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS

FMP (84 FR 5358; February 21, 2019)(Amendment 11). This rule implemented management 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 173 
measures to address overfishing and rebuild the overfished North Atlantic shortfin mako shark 

stock (84 FR 5358). These measures are based on the ICCAT stock assessment that determined

that shortfin mako sharks are overfished and experiencing overfishing. Management measures

also reflect ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. Commercial measures would allow retention of 

shortfin mako sharks by HMS permit holders when caught with longline or gillnet gear and only

if the shark is dead at haulback. Retention of dead shortfin mako sharks with pelagic longline 

gear is allowed only if there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel. 

Recreational measures would increase the minimum size limit for retention of shortfin mako 

sharks from 54 inches FL (straight line) to 71 inches FL for males and 83 inches FL for females

and require the use of circle hooks for recreational shark fishing in all areas. Overall, 

Amendment 11 was expected to have beneficial ecological impacts in the short- and long-term 

and minor adverse or neutral cumulative socioeconomic impacts on participants in the 

recreational and commercial fisheries. When considered in combination of this action it is not 

anticipated to create any additional adverse impacts to pelagic longline fishermen or to the 

stocks in question. 

• In May 2019, NMFS published a Notice of Intent and announced the availability of a scoping

document for Amendment 13 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (Amendment 13).

The scoping document explores management options that would modify bluefin tuna 

management, particularly within the pelagic longline fishery. The Amendment 13 scoping

document includes options that would modify allocated U.S. bluefin tuna quota among domestic

fishing categories; implement measures applicable to the pelagic longline fishery, including 

IBQs, closure of the pelagic longline fishery when annual bluefin tuna quota is reached, 

elimination of target catch requirements associated with retention of incidental bluefin tuna in 

the pelagic longline fishery, sunset the purse seine fishery, and modify the directed fishery

category regulations as appropriate. The cumulative ecological impacts between the 

alternatives presented in this DEISand Amendment 13 depend on the scope and nature of

alternatives developed for Amendment 13. 

• In May 2019, NOAA Fisheries published a scoping document that considers options to perform

research and collect data in support of spatial Atlantic HMS fisheries management. Fisherydependent data is vital in informing and supporting effective fisheries management and areas

that restrict fishing effort often have a commensurate decrease in fishery-dependent data 

collection. Strategies to facilitate research and data collection in these areas could improve 

sustainable management of Atlantic HMS. The Issues and Options document considers ways to

perform research and collect data in all Atlantic HMS Closed Areas to assess the effectiveness of

spatial Atlantic HMS fisheries management. The cumulative ecological impacts between

alternatives considered in this DEISand the issues considered under the initiative to perform

research and collect data in support of spatial management depend on the scope and nature of

alternatives developed in the future for that draft rule. 

• The Deepwater Horizon Pelagic Fish Restoration program is currently active in the Gulf of 

Mexico region and selects pelagic longline vessels on an annual basis to participate in the 

program. These vessels are compensated to refrain from fishing pelagic longline gear when 

bluefin tuna are present and spawning in the Gulf of Mexico, and are encouraged to fish with

alternative gears (e.g. green-stick and buoy gear) for swordfish and yellowfin tuna. While the 

pelagic longline vessels are not actively fishing longline gear the IBQ allocations to those vessels 

are locked and cannot be used. This program will be active for another 6 to 10 years (depending

on the number of applicants; the program is funded to cover 60 “vessel years”). As a result of

vessels participating in this project, the number of vessels actively fishing pelagic longline in the 

174 Cumulative Impacts 
winter and spring in the Gulf of Mexico may decrease; therefore there could be minor beneficial

cumulative ecological impacts. 

• On September 15, 2017 the first marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean, the Northeast 

Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was created. The total area of the 

monument is 4,913 square miles of ocean. Commercial fishing and other resource extraction

activities have been prohibited within the monument boundaries on a year-round basis.

Recreational fishing is allowed to occur in the monument boundaries. The National Monument 

does not intersect with any areas considered in this rule. However, it is located in close 

proximity to the current boundaries of the Northeastern United States Closed Area. Since 

prevailing currents might cause gear set between the National Monument and the Northeastern

United States Closed Area to drift into a prohibited area, these closures may indirectly create a 

buffer zone with little fishing (since fishermen should be minimizing risk associated with gear

drift). Alternatives that maintain the eastern end of the Northeastern United States Closed Area 

would likely also maintain this buffer zone as a refuge for the species that live in or migrate 

through this area. However, since the National Monument has been in existence since 2016, the 

data analyzed in this DEIS encompass the recent redistribution of effort around the National

Monument and corresponding ecological and socioeconomic impacts. No additional cumulative

impacts are anticipated as a result of the National Monument, because the National Monument 

is already part of the management and regulatory environment. 

5.2 Cumulative Ecological Impacts

Each alternative is described in Chapter 2.0 and a detailed discussion of ecological impacts for each

alternative can be found in Chapter 4.0. Under Preferred Alternative A4, for a three year evaluation

period vessels using longline would be authorized to access the Northeastern United States 

Monitoring area during the month of June. NMFS will closely monitor the area, and after three

years, determine if a change in management is needed. During the evaluation period an annual 

bluefin tuna landing and dead discard threshold based on IBQ usage would apply to limit bluefin

landings and dead discards within the Monitoring Area. The threshold is based on the average 

annual amount of available IBQ in the Atlantic region from June 1 through December 31. When/if 

the IBQ allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure 

notice with the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the 

remainder of the evaluation period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise,

the Northeastern United States Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic longline fishing. If the 

threshold is not met while the Monitoring Area is effective, then pelagic longline fishing could 

continue in the Monitoring Area in subsequent effective months in the following year(s) for the 

duration of the evaluation period. This preferred alternative would allow NMFS to continue 

monitoring commercial landings of bluefin tuna in a timely and efficient manner. The status of the 

Monitoring Area following the evaluation period (i.e., whether the area remains open during the 

month of June), when NMFS is developing a report and any necessary follow up actions, depends on

whether the threshold has been reached. Ecological impacts of this alternative are likely to result in

direct short- and long-term neutral impacts on target catch species and minor beneficial impacts for 

bluefin tuna. Protected and restricted species indirect ecological impacts are likely to range in the 

short- and long-term from minor and beneficial to neutral. 

Preferred Alternative B2 would remove the current gear restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North

Carolina as defined in §635.2 and all associated regulatory provisions, restrictions, and prohibition.

Alternative B2 would likely result in short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts to all species

because most fishery participants were already granted access to the gear restricted area and this 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 175 
alternative would not greatly increase effort or catchesin this area. 

Preferred Alternative C3 would create the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area which will

authorize pelagic longline access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico United States Monitoring Area for a 

three year evaluation period. The Agency will closely monitor the area, and after three years,

determine if a change in management is needed. Similarly to Preferred Alternative A4, an annual

threshold of bluefin tuna landings and dead discards would be established to allow continued 

access during the months of April and May. This threshold is based on the amount of IBQ annual 

allocation distributed to vessels that fished in the region while the closures were effective (i.e., the 

months of April and May) between 2015 and 2017. When/if the IBQ allocation threshold is reached, 

or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal 

Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the remainder of the evaluation period and

subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise, the Northeastern United States

Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic longline fishing. If the threshold is not met while the 

Monitoring Area is effective, then pelagic longline fishing could continue in the Monitoring Area in 

subsequent effective months in the following year(s) for the duration of the evaluation period. The 

status of the Monitoring Area following the evaluation period (i.e., whether the area remains open

during the months of April and May), when NMFS is developing a report and any necessary follow

up actions, depends on whether the threshold has been reached. If the IBQ allocation threshold is 

reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice with the Office of the 

Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the remainder of the evaluation

period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise, the Gulf of Mexico 

Monitoring Areas would be closed to pelagic longline fishing. If the threshold is not met while the 

Monitoring Areas is effective, then pelagic longline fishing could continue in the Monitoring Area in 

subsequent effective months in the following year(s) for the duration of the evaluation period. This

would prevent additional Gulf of Mexico mortality, beyond what is allowed in the IBQ Program, 

from occurringas a result of allowing access to the Monitoring Areas. The limits on mortality would

likely result in direct, short- and long-term, neutral ecological impacts for bluefin tuna and target 

catch species. Impacts to protected and restricted species wouldlikely result in indirect, short- and 

long-term, in neutral to minor beneficial ecological impacts. 

Preferred Alternative D2 would modify the requirements for weak hooksfrom a year-round

requirement in the Gulf of Mexico to a seasonal requirement. Bluefin tuna mortality in the Gulf of

Mexico is currently capped by the IBQ Program and bluefin tuna spawn in the Gulf of Mexico in the

spring. Preferring a seasonal requirement for weak hook use would maintain the protections to

adult bluefin tuna during spawning, when they are most abundant in the Gulf of Mexico.

Modification of the weak hook requirement may increase the probability of retention of large target 

species (e.g., swordfish, yellowfin tuna), while still protecting spawning bluefin tuna in the spring. 

In the short- and long-term, the preferred alternative could have direct, neutral ecological impacts

on target species and bluefin tuna. Short- and long-term, indirect impacts on protected and

restricted species, are anticipated to be neutral since large changes in catch of these species are not

likely affected by weak hooks. This requirement could be potentially beneficial to white marlin and 

roundscale spearfish when the weak hook requirement is not in effect due to significantly higher

catch rates with weak hooks. 

176 Cumulative Impacts 
5.3 Cumulative Social and Economic Impacts 

Each alternative is described in Chapter 2.0 and a detailed discussion of socioeconomic impacts for

each alternative can be found in Chapter 4.0. 

Under preferred Alternative A4, for a three year period vessels using longline would be authorized 

to access the Northeastern United States Monitoring area, which would remain open during the 

effective period. The Agency will closely monitor the area and after three years determine if a 

change in management is needed. During the evaluation period a threshold based on IBQ usage 

would apply to limit bluefin tuna landings and dead discards within the Monitoring Area. This 

alternative would increase flexibility in fishing areas, potentially result in shorter trips and lower

fuel costs, and thus potentially increase fishing profits. Short- and long-term direct socioeconomic 

impacts of this alternative range from minor and beneficial to neutral. Indirect impacts to shoreside business may have reduced fuel sales that could result in minor adverse impacts. 

Preferred Alternative B2 would remove the current gear restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina as defined in § 635.2 and all associated regulatory provisions, restrictions, and

prohibitions. Alternative B2 would likely result in short- and long-term direct neutral to minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts because this would allow a small number of pelagic longline

vessels previously denied access to the area access by removal. Indirect short-and long-term 

socioeconomic impacts to shoreside businesses would likely be neutral. 

Preferred Alternative C3 would create the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area which would 

authorize pelagic longline vessels access the Spring Gulf of Mexico United States Monitoring Area.

The Agency will closely monitor the area and after three years determine if a change in

management is needed. A threshold for access based on the annual Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation

would prevent additional Gulf of Mexico mortality fromoccurring as a result of the evaluation

period within the Monitoring Area. This alternative would increase flexibility in fishing areas and

areas with higher target catch catch-per-unit efforts. Thus, direct, short- and long-term, neutral

socioeconomic impacts are likely to occur for pelagic longline vessels. Indirect, short- and longterm, impacts on shoreside businesses are expected to be neutral. 

Preferred Alternative D2 would modify the requirements for weak hooksto only a seasonal

requirement. Bluefin tuna mortality in the Gulf of Mexico is currently capped by the IBQ Program.

Preferring a seasonal requirement for weak hook use would maintain the protections to adult

bluefin tuna when they are most abundant in the Gulf of Mexico. Modification of the weak hook 

requirement would allow greater probability of retention of target species, while still protecting 

spawning bluefin tuna in the spring. In the long-term, any management alterations adopted in this

action could have direct, moderate beneficial socioeconomic impacts due to higher retention of

large target species while not affectingbluefin tuna landings. Short- and long-term, indirect impacts 

on shoreside businesses are expected to be minor beneficial due to possible increases in tackle 

sales and landings of larger target species. 

Overall, the preferred alternatives in this action are expected to have minor beneficial or neutral

cumulative socioeconomic impacts on participants in the commercial fisheries, based on the

detailed discussions of the socioeconomic impacts of each of the preferred actions in Chapter 4.0. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 177 
5.4 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment, which result from the incremental impacts

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). A cumulative impact includes the total effect on a

natural resource, ecosystem, or human community due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future activities or actions of federal, non–federal, public, and private entities. Cumulative impacts

may also include the effects of natural processes and events, depending on the specific resource in

question. Cumulative impacts include the total of all impacts to a particular resource that have 

occurred, are occurring, and would likely occur as a result of any action or influence, including the

direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a federal activity. The goal of this section is to

describe the cumulative ecological, economic and social impacts of past, present and reasonably

foreseeable future actions with regard to the management measures presented in this document

(Table 5.2). Direct and indirect impacts are combined in one row in the table below. Direct impacts

of the alternatives are related bluefin tuna and target species and indirect impacts of the 

Chapter 4.0). 

alternatives are related to restricted and protected resources. Both direct and indirect impacts of

the alternatives are related to the socioeconomic discussion in Table 5.2 (see full discussion in

178 Cumulative Impacts 
Table 5.2 Comparison of the Impacts of Analyzed Alternatives. Alternatives are Classified as Neutral, Minor and Adverse, and Minor and 

Beneficial.A Range of Minor Adverse to Minor Beneficial (or Vice Versa) May Include Neutral Impacts under Certain Conditions 

Alternative Quality Time 

Frame 

Target Species 

and Bluefin Tuna 

Restricted and 

Protected Species Socioeconomic 

Alternatives for the Northeast United States Closed Area 

A1 No Action 

Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Neutral Neutral 

Long-term Neutral Neutral Neutral 

Cumulative Neutral Neutral Neutral 

A2 Modify the Current Northeastern United 

States Closed Area to Remove a Western 

Portion of the Closure Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Long-term Neutral Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

A3 Apply Individual Performance Based 

Access to the Northeastern United States 

Pelagic Longline Closure. Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Long-term Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

A4 Evaluate the Northeastern United States 

Closed Area (Preferred Alternative) Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Long-term Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

A5 Eliminate the Northeastern United States 

Closed Area Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Long-term Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 179 
Alternative Quality Time 

Frame 

Target Species 

and Bluefin Tuna 

Restricted and 

Protected Resources Socioeconomic 

Alternatives for Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

B1 No Action. 

Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Neutral Neutral 

Long-term Neutral Neutral Neutral 

Cumulative Neutral Neutral Neutral 

B2 Remove the Cape Hatteras Gear 

Restricted Area (Preferred Alternative) Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Neutral Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Long-term Neutral Neutral Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral Neutral Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Alternative Quality Time 

Frame 

Target Species 

and Bluefin Tuna 

Restricted and 

Protected Resources Socioeconomic 

Alternatives for Spring Gulfof Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

C1 No action. 

Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Neutral Neutral 

Long-term Neutral Neutral Neutral 

Cumulative Neutral Neutral Neutral 

C2 Apply individual performance based 

access to the spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas. Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse Neutral 

Long-term Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse Neutral 

Cumulative Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse Neutral 

C3 Evaluate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Area (Preferred Alternative) Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Long-term Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

180 Cumulative Impacts 
C4 Eliminate the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Area Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Long-term Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral Minor beneficial to 

minor adverse 

Neutral to minor 

beneficial 

Alternative Quality Time 

Frame 

Target Species 

and Bluefin Tuna 

Restricted and 

Protected Resources Socioeconomic 

Alternative for Gulf of Mexico Weak Hooks 

D1 No action. 

Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Neutral to minor 

adverse Neutral 

Long-term Neutral Neutral to minor 

adverse Neutral 

Cumulative Neutral Neutral to minor 

adverse Neutral 

D2 Seasonal requirement for Weak Hooks 

(Preferred Alternative) Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral Neutral Minor beneficial 

Long-term Neutral Neutral Minor beneficial 

Cumulative Neutral Neutral Minor beneficial 

D3 Remove the Weak Hook requirement 

Direct/indirect 

Short-term Neutral to minor 

adverse Neutral Neutral 

Long-term Neutral to minor 

adverse Neutral Neutral 

Cumulative Neutral to minor 

adverse Neutral Neutral 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 181 
5.5 Mitigation and Unavoidable Impacts 

Mitigation is an important mechanism that Federal agencies can use to minimize, prevent, or

eliminate damage to the human and natural environment associated with their actions. 

As described in the Center for Environmental Quality regulations, agencies can use mitigation to

reduce environmental impact in several ways. Mitigation may include one or more of the following: 

avoiding the impact by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by

limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact

over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and

compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The 

mitigation measures discussed in an EIS must cover the range of impacts of the proposal and must

be considered even for impacts that by themselves would not be considered "significant." If a 

proposed action is considered as a whole to have significant effects, all of its specific effectson the 

environment must be considered, and mitigation measures must be developed where it is feasible 

to do so. NMFS may consider mitigation provided that the mitigation efforts do not circumvent the

goals and objectives of the rulemaking or the mandate to rebuild fisheries under the MagnusonStevens Act. 

5.6 Mitigation Measures 

5.6.1 Northeast Closed Area 

Preferred Alternative A4 would have neutral impacts because the measures would allow access to 

the Closed Area for data collection with a threshold in place to prevent excessive bycatch of bluefin

tuna. Preferred Alternative A4, which would rename the “Northeastern United States Closed Area”

as the “Northeastern United States Monitoring Area”. This alternative would establish a three-year

evaluation period during which fishing would be allowed in the Monitoring Area. Fishing activity 

would be closely monitored by the NMFS under a four-step process that would prohibit fishing if 

the fleet had to use an excessive amount of IBQ allocation to account for bluefin landings or dead 

discards. The Monitoring Area would remain open to pelagic longline fishing from June 1 to June 30 

of 2020, 2021, and 2022 (previously, the area was closed to pelagic longline fishing during this

time). However, NMFS wouldestablish a threshold of 150,519 pounds of IBQ allocation that may be

used to account for landings and dead discards of bluefin caught within the boundaries of the 

Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area. When/if the IBQ allocation threshold

is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice with the Office of the 

Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the remainder of the evaluation

period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise, the Northeastern United

States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic longline fishing. The inseason 

and annual evaluation period monitoring and resulting evaluation report would in effect result in a 

mitigation measure against excessive bycatch levels of all Atlantic HMS and protected species,

including white marlin, in the Northeastern United States Monitoring Area. This alternative would

have short- and long-term direct minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Creation of the 

Northeastern United States Monitoring Area is unlikely to affect total effort, and businesses that 

support commercial fishing such as dealers, processors, and bait and tackle suppliers are unlikely

to be affected, with the exception of fuel suppliers which is likely to be minor adverse. Thus, no

mitigation measures are necessary to address moderate adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

182 Cumulative Impacts 
5.6.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

When taken as a whole, Preferred Alternative B2 would have neutral direct ecological impacts on 

bluefin tuna, and neutral indirect ecological impacts to restricted species (billfish, shortfin mako, 

and dusky sharks) and protected species (sea turtles). As discussed in Chapter 4, most fishery

participants were granted access to the gear restricted area. Those that are denied access may only

have been denied temporarily, i.e., a single year, before being granted access again in a subsequent

year. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary to address adverse ecological impacts. The 

preferred alternatives could, however, result in neutral to minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts

from the increase in landings and in catch due to access of an opened fishing area. Cumulative direct

and indirect socioeconomic impacts are likely to be neutral as changes to the gear restricted area 

would likely not affect fleet-wide effort or landings, dealers, processors or bait and tackle shops. 

Removing the gear restricted area may have temporary, localized and minor beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts to a small number of individual vessels. Removing this restriction would 

remove functionally redundant layers of regulation and year-to-year uncertainty associated with

access decisions. It may also provide a small number of fishermen with more options regarding 

fishing locations. Thus, no mitigation measures are necessary to address adverse socioeconomic

impacts. 

5.6.3 Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 

Preferred Alternative C3 would have neutral ecological impacts because the measures would 

modify the gear restricted areas for the commercial fisheries. Thus, no mitigation measures are

necessary to address adverse ecologicalimpacts. Preferred Alternative C3, which wouldrename the 

“Spring Gulf of Mexico Closed Area” as the “Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area”. This alternative

would establish a three-year evaluation period during which fishing would be allowed in the 

Monitoring Area. Fishing activity would be closely monitored by the NMFS under a four-step 

process that would prohibit fishing if the fleet had to use an excessive amount of IBQ allocation to 

account for bluefin landings or dead discards. The Monitoring Area would remain open to pelagic 

longline fishing fromApril 1 through May 31 of 2020, 2021, and 2022 (previously, the area was 

closed to pelagic longline fishing during this time). However, NMFS would establish a threshold of 

63,150 pounds of IBQ allocation that may be used to account for landings and dead discards of

bluefin caught within the boundaries of the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring 

Area. When/if the IBQ allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would 

file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the 

notice, for the remainder of the evaluation period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS 

determines otherwise, the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area would be 

closed to pelagic longline fishing. The inseason and annual Evaluation Period monitoring and 

resulting Evaluation Report would in effect result in a mitigation measure against excessive bycatch 

levels of all species in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Areas. This alternative would have 

short- and long-term direct neutral socioeconomic impacts. This is because changes to the Closed

Area are unlikely to affect total effort, and businesses that support commercial fishing such as

dealers, processors, and bait and tackle suppliers are unlikely to be affected. Thus, no mitigation

measures are necessary to address adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

5.6.4 Gulf of Mexico Weak Hooks 

Preferred Alternative D2 would modify regulations to require vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, 

as defined at 50 CFR 105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or

are required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for 

use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to use weak hooks 

when bluefin tuna are highest in abundance from January through June and throughout their 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 183 
spawning season, which is from April to June. Fishermen may voluntarily choose to continue to use

weak hooks when they are not required. Preferring a seasonal requirement for weak hook use 

would maintain the protections to adult bluefin tuna when they are most abundant in the Gulf of

Mexico. As a result no mitigation effort would be necessary as no increase in bluefin tuna mortality 

is expected. Target species such as swordfish and tunas are unharvested which would not have a 

direct ecological impact and would not require mitigation efforts. Also as a result of the preferred 

alternative, reductions in white marlin catch rates could be achieved and would in effect create a 

mitigation measure for that species. Modification of the weak hook requirement would allow 

greater probability of retention of large target species individuals, while still protecting spawning

bluefin tuna in the spring. This alternative would have minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts.

This is because changes to the Closed Area are unlikely to affect total effort, and businesses that 

support commercial fishing such as dealers, processors, and bait and tackle suppliers are unlikely

to be affected. Thus, no mitigation measures are necessary to address adverse socioeconomic

impacts 

5.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

In general, there are no unavoidable adverse ecological impacts expected as a result of the 

preferred alternatives and corresponding management measures associated with pelagic longline 

fisheries. NMFS would continue to monitor the impact of the management measures in the 

preferred alternatives. Preferred alternatives A4 and C3 provide a mechanism to carefully monitor

access granted to areas that have been previously closed, and outline a process to support future 

proposed management measures, as necessary, to avoid any unanticipated adverse impacts. 

5.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

The management measures in the preferred alternatives would not result in any irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources. Overall, there are expected to be neutral ecological impacts 

because of the modification of pelagic longline regulations. The principal commitment of new 

resources would be related to implementation of the evaluation program for a three-year

Monitoring Period, such as tracking the use of IBQ allocation within the Monitoring Areas and 

initiating an area closure if the thresholds specified in Chapter 4 are reached. Current data streams

provide sufficient quantity and quality of data to closely track landings and discards (and

corresponding IBQ allocation use). NMFS has already codified a framework for inseason

management. 

Removing the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is not expected to result in a commitment of 

resources, as it removes regulations and corresponding obligations by the agency to spatially

mange the area. 

Shifting froma year-round weak hook requirement to a seasonal weak hook requirement is not

expected to require any new resources, and may reduce the amount of time required by

enforcement agents to check gear during routine boardings. 

184 Cumulative Impacts 
Regulatory Impact Review 

Rulemakings must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA). NMFS undertakes a regulatory impact review (RIR) for all regulatory actions of public

interest. . The RIR provides analyses of the economic benefits and costs of each alternative to the 

nation and the fishery as a whole. The information contained in Chapter 6, taken together with the 

data and analysis incorporated by reference, comprise the complete RIR. 

The requirements for all regulatory actions specified in E.O. 12866 are summarized in the following 

statement from the order: 

In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Costs and 

benefits shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that 

these can be usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are 

difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider. 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. 

E.O.12866 further requires Office of Management and Budget review of proposed regulations that 

are considered to be “significant.” A significant regulatory action is one that is likely to: 

• Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material

way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments of communities. 

• Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 

another agency. 

• Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients thereof. 

• Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the 

principles set forth in this Executive Order. 

6.1 Description of the Management Objectives 

Please see Chapter 1 for a description of the objectives of this rulemaking. 

This rulemaking specifically evaluates management measures that were intended to reduce bluefin

tuna dead discards (i.e., weak hooks, the Cape Hatteras and Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, 

and the NE Closed Area). Other management measures and time/area closures were enacted for 

reasons not specifically related to reducing bluefin tuna interactions and/or discards, and may be 

considered separately in a future rulemaking. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 185 

6 
The objectives of this rulemaking, consistent with the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic

HMS FMP and its amendments are to: 

• Continue to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna

and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear consistent with the conservation and 

management objectives (e.g., prevent or end overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, manage 

Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield) of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS

FMP, its amendments, and all applicable laws. 

• Simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS management, to the extent practicable, by reducing any

redundancies in regulations established to reduce bluefin tuna interactions that apply to the 

pelagic longline fishery. 

• Optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fishery to harvest target species quotas (e.g.,

swordfish), to the extent practicable, while also considering fairness among permit/quota

categories. 

6.2 Description of the Fishery 

Please see Chapter 3.0 for a description of the fisheries that could be affected by these management 

actions. 

6.3 Statement of the Problem 

Please see Chapter 1 for a description of the problem and need for this rulemaking. 

The purpose of this regulatory amendment to update pelagic longline bluefin tuna area-based and 

weak hook management measures is to evaluate whether some current area-based and gear

management measures are still necessary to reduce and/or maintain low numbers of pelagic 

longline bluefin tuna discards and interactions. This evaluation is necessary given the recent

successes with the IBQ Program including the shift in management focus towards individual vessel

accountability in the pelagic longline fishery; the continued underharvest of quotas in target 

fisheries particularly the swordfish quota; comments from the public and the HMS Advisory Panel

members indicating that certain regulations may be redundant in effect; and requests from the 

public and HMS Advisory panel members to reduce regulatory burden and remove duplicative 

regulations. 

6.4 Description of Each Alternative 

Please see Chapter 2 for a summary of each alternative and Chapter 4 for a complete description of

each alternative and its expected ecological, social, and economic impacts. Chapters 3 and 6 provide 

additional information related to the economic impacts of the alternatives. 

6.5 Economic Analysis of the Expected Effects of Each Alternative 

Relative to the Baseline 

Table 6.1 summarizes the net economic benefits and cost of each of the alternatives analyzed in this 

EIS. Additional details and more complete analyses are provided in Chapter 4. 

186 Regulatory Impact Review 
Table 6.1 Net Economic Benefits and Costs of Each Alternative 

Alternatives Economic Benefits Economic Costs 

Area-Based Alternatives 

Northeastern United States Closed Area 

Alternative A1: No 

Action. 

No change in economic benefits.Under this 

alternative pelagic longline vessel owners 

could maintain their recentlandings levels 

and corresponding revenues. 

No change in economic costs. Vessels in 

the pelagic longline fleet could continue 

to be prohibited from fishing in the 

Northeastern United States Closed Area 

in the month of June. 

Alternative A2: 

Modify the Current

Northeastern United 

States Closed Area 

to Remove a Western 

Portion of the Closure 

This reduction in extent of the Northeastern 

United States Closed Area could provide 

increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to 

changing distributions and concentrations of 

bluefin tuna and target catch. This alternative 

could also give fishermen the ability to make 

choices on where to fish to optimize target 

catch while minimizing bycatch. There is the 

potential that this alternative could resultin a 

reduction in trip length and associated fuel 

costs. Less fuel consumption would lower the 

trip costand increase the trip profit, which 

may influence fishermen’s decisions on 

fishing in the Monitoring Area. In addition, 

shorter trip lengths could also reduce the 

opportunity costs for crew and captains on 

the vessel by reducing the number of days 

they are away at sea fishing. 

Fishing revenue impacts for this 

alternative are expected to be neutral 

despite the predicted decrease in overall 

revenue. Fishing vessels could continue 

fishing where they are currently fishing or 

try fishing in the western portion of the 

closure. 

Alternative A3: Apply 

Individual 

Performance Based 

Access to the 

Northeastern United 

States Pelagic

Longline Closure. 

Implementing performance based access 

could provide increased flexibility for 

fishermen to adapt to changing distributions 

and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target 

catch.This alternative will also give fishermen 

the ability to make choices on where to fish to 

optimize target catch while minimizing 

bycatch. There is the potential that this 

alternative could resultin a reduction in trip 

length and associated fuel costs.Less fuel 

consumption could lower the trip cost and 

increase the trip profit, which may influence 

fishermen’s decisions on fishing in the 

Monitoring Area. In addition,shorter trip 

lengths could also reduce the opportunity 

costs for crew and captains on the vessel by 

reducing the number of days they are away at 

sea fishing. 

Fishing revenue impacts for this 

alternative are expected to be neutral

despite the predicted decrease in overall 

revenue. If all vessels do not meetthe 

performance criteria, the fishing revenue 

from this alternative will be lower than the 

revenue generated under Alternative A4 

and A5. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 187 
Alternative A4: 

Evaluate the 

Northeastern United 

States Closed Area 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

This Monitoring Area could provide increased 

flexibility for fishermen to adaptto changing 

distributions and concentrations of bluefin 

tuna and target catch. This alternative could 

also give fishermen the ability to make 

choices on where to fish to optimize target 

catch while minimizing bycatch. There is the 

potential that this alternative could resultin a 

reduction in trip length and associated fuel 

costs. Less fuel consumption could lower the 

trip costand increase the trip profit, which 

may influence fishermen’s decisions on 

fishing in the Monitoring Area. In addition, 

shorter trip lengths could also reduce the 

opportunity costs for crew and captains on 

the vessel by reducing the number of days 

they are away at sea fishing. 

Fishing revenue impacts for this 

alternative are expected to be neutral 

despite the predicted decrease in overall 

revenue. Long-term economic impacts 

could depend on the result of the threeyear evaluation period for this Monitoring 

Area. If this area remains open after

three years, long-term impacts could be 

expected to be the same as short-term 

impacts. 

Alternative A5: 

Eliminate the 

Northeastern United 

States Closed Area 

The elimination of this area could provide 

increased flexibilityfor fishermen to adapt to 

changing distributions and concentrations of 

bluefin tuna and target catch. This alternative 

could also give fishermen the ability to make 

choices on where to fish to optimize target 

catch while minimizing bycatch. There is the 

potential that this alternative could resultin a 

reduction in trip length and associated fuel 

costs. Less fuel consumption could lower the 

trip costand increase the trip profit, which 

may influence fishermen’s decisions on 

fishing in the Monitoring Area. In addition, 

shorter trip lengths could also reduce the 

opportunity costs for crew and captains on 

the vessel by reducing the number of days 

they are away at sea fishing. 

Fishing revenue impacts for this 

alternative are expected to be neutral 

despite the predicted decrease in overall 

revenue. 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

Alternative B1: No 

Action. 

No change in economic benefits. This 

alternative could maintain the recentlandings 

levels and corresponding revenues. 

No change in economic costs. Retaining 

the gear restricted area could have 

temporary, minor adverse economic 

impacts to individual vessels that either 

recentlymade sets in the GRA or may be 

denied access in the future. 

Alternative B2: 

Eliminate the Cape 

Hatteras Gear 

Restricted Area 

Removing the gear restricted area is likely to 

have neutral to minor and beneficial economic 

impacts, depending on the scale of 

consideration.Fleet-wide effects on fishing No change in economic costs. 

188 Regulatory Impact Review 
(Preferred revenue for this time period are anticipated to 

Alternative) be neutral as the majorityof the fleet had 

access to the area and continued to fish in it 

following implementation of Amendment 7 

management measures. Removing the 

closures could enable greater flexibility for 

fishermen to safely conduct fishing activities in 

short, favorable wintertime weather windows. 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

Alternative C1: No 

Action 

No change in economic benefits.This 

alternative could maintain the recentlandings 

levels and corresponding revenues. 

No change in economic costs. Vessels in 

the pelagic longline fleet could continue 

to be prohibited from fishing in the Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas in 

the months of April and May. 

Alternative C2: 

Apply individual 

performance based 

access to the Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas. 

Implementing performance based access 

could provide increased flexibility for 

fishermen to adapt to changing distributions 

and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target 

catch.This alternative will also give fishermen 

the ability to make choices on where to fish to 

optimize target catch while minimizing 

bycatch. There is the potential that this 

alternative could resultin a slight reduction in 

trip length and associated fuel costs. 

There could be a slight decrease in 

revenues within the Gear Restricted 

Areas. If not all vessels meetthe 

performance criteria, the fishing revenue 

from this alternative will be lower than the 

revenue generated under Alternative C3 

or C4. 

Alternative C3: 

Evaluate the Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

This Monitoring Area could provide increased 

flexibility for fishermen to adaptto changing 

distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna 

and target catch. This alternative could also 

give fishermen the ability to make choices on 

where to fish to optimize target catch while 

minimizing bycatch. There is the potential that 

this alternative could resultin a slight 

reduction in trip length and associated fuel 

costs. 

Fishing revenue impacts for this 

alternative are expected to be neutral 

despite the predicted decrease in overall 

revenue. Long-term economic impacts 

could depend on the result of the threeyear evaluation period for this Monitoring 

Area. If these areas remain open after 

three years, long-term impacts could be 

expected to be the same as short-term 

impacts. 

Alternative C4: 

Eliminate the Spring 

Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas 

Since this alternative would allow access to all 

vessels by removing regulations related to the 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, 

the short-term economic impacts would be the 

same as presented in the preferred 

alternative, C3. The elimination of this area 

could provide increased flexibility for 

fishermen to adapt to changing distributions 

and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target 

catch. This alternative could also give 

fishermen the ability to make choices on 

Fishing revenue impacts for this 

alternative are expected to be neutral 

despite the predicted decrease in overall 

revenue. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 189 
where to fish to optimize target catch while 

minimizing bycatch. There is the potential that 

this alternative could resultin a slight 

reduction in trip length and associated fuel 

costs. 

Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Alternatives 

Alternative D1: No 

Action No change in economic benefits. 

No change in economic costs. The IBQ 

program provides adequate protection for 

Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna and yearround weak hook use may be duplicative 

in conservation efforts and reduce 

fishermen’s flexibility. 

Alternative D2: 

Seasonal 

requirement for 

Weak Hooks 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

This alternative would likely result in shortand long-term minor beneficial economic 

impacts since it would give fishermen more 

flexibility in choosing how to fish. During the 

months without the weak hook requirement, 

fishermen could choose whether to use the 

gear based on their knowledge of bluefin tuna 

presence and distribution. There may be 

potential economic benefits for recreational 

fishermen that fish for white marlin or 

roundscale spearfish as a result of the 

anticipated decrease in catch rates and 

associated fishing mortality. 

There could be no change in economic 

costs. Weak hooks can help fishermen 

manage their IBQ by reducing the 

number of captured bluefin tuna that 

would be counted against their IBQ, so 

there is some risk that switch away from 

weak hooks could increase costs 

associated with IBQ usage if the switch 

caused an increase in bluefin tuna 

interactions. 

Alternative D3: 

Remove the Weak 

Hook Requirement 

This alternative would likely result in shortand long-term minor beneficial economic 

impacts since it would give fishermen more 

flexibility in choosing how to fish. In the 

absence of a weak hook requirement, 

fishermen could choose whether to use the 

gear based on their knowledge of bluefin tuna 

presence and distribution.There may be 

potential economic benefits for recreational 

fishermen that fish for white marlin or 

roundscale spearfish as a result of the 

anticipated decrease in catch rates and 

associated fishing mortality. 

Although this alternative would increase 

fishermen’s flexibilityin fishing 

techniques, NMFS does not prefer this 

alternative at this time because the 

required use of weak hooks could help 

fishermen manage their IBQ by reducing 

the number of captured bluefin tuna that 

would be counted against their IBQ. 

190 Regulatory Impact Review 
6.6 Conclusions 

As noted above, under E.O. 12866, a regulation is a “significant regulatory action” if it is likely to: (1) 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way 

the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of 

legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of E.O. 12866, the Office of

Management and Budget has determined that this action is not significant. A summary of the

expected net economic benefits and costs of each alternative, which are based on supporting text in

Chapter 4, can be found in Table 6.1. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 191 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is conducted to comply with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.) (RFA). The goal of the RFA is to minimize the economic

burden of federal regulations on small entities. To that end, the RFA directs federal agencies to

assess whether a proposed regulation is likely to result in significant economic impacts to a 

substantial number of small entities, and identify and analyze any significant alternatives to the 

proposed rule that accomplishes the objectivesof applicable statutes and minimize any significant 

effects on small entities. Certain data and analyses required in an IRFA are also included in other 

Chapters of this document. Therefore, this IRFA incorporates by reference the economic analyses

and impacts in Chapter 4 of this document. 

7.1 Description of the Reasons Why Action is Being Considered 

Please see Chapter 1 for a description of the reasons why action is being considered for the 

proposed action. 

7.2 Statement of Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for the 

proposed action. Please see Chapter 1 for a full description of the objectives of this action. 

The objectives of this rulemaking, consistent with the objectivesof the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic

HMS FMP and its amendments are to: 

• Continue to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna

and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear consistent with the conservation and 

management objectives (e.g., prevent or end overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, manage 

Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield) of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS

FMP, its amendments, and all applicable laws. 

• Simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS management, to the extent practicable, by reducing any

redundancies in regulations established to reduce bluefin tuna interactions that apply to the 

pelagic longline fishery. 

• Optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fishery to harvest target species quotas (e.g.,

swordfish), to the extent practicable, while also considering fairness among permit/quota

categories. 

The evaluation of some current area-based and gear management measures is necessary given the 

recent successes with the IBQ Program including the shift in management focus towards individual

vessel accountability in the pelagic longline fishery; the continued underharvest of quotas in target 

fisheries particularly the swordfish quota; comments from the public and the HMS Advisory Panel

members indicating that certain regulations may be redundant in effect; and requests from the 

public and HMS Advisory panel members to reduce regulatory burden and remove duplicative 

regulations. Evaluation of these regulations is consistent with Section 303(b)(2)(C), 16 USC

1853(b)(2)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

192 Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis 

7 
7.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 

the Proposed Rule Would Apply 

Section 603(b)(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) 

has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish

harvesters. Provision is made under SBA’s regulations for an agency to develop its own industryspecific size standards after consultation with SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public 

comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that 

differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only

for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effectsin fulfillment of the agency’s

obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the

Federal Register (FR), which NMFS did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015).

In this final rule effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size standard of $11

million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411)

for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because 

they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. The SBA has

established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including the scenic and

sightseeing transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes 

charter/party boat entities. The SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one with

average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million. 

Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the preferred alternatives, the average 

annual revenue per active pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 

active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue 

annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel between 2006 and 2016 

was less than $1.9 million, well below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial 

fishing businesses of $11 million. Other non-longline HMS commercial fishing vessels typically 

generally earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic

HMS commercial permit holders to be small entities (i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish

harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and

have combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations

worldwide). The preferred commercial alternatives would apply to the 280 Atlantic tunas Longline

category permit holders, 221 directed shark permit holders, and 269 incidental shark permit

holders. Of these 280 permit holders, 85 pelagic longline vessels were actively fishing in 2016 

based on logbook records. 

NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not likely directly affect any small 

organizations or small government jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be 

disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. 

More information regarding the description of the fisheries affected can be found in Chapter 3.0. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 193 
7.4 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an 

Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities Which Would be Subject

to the Requirements of the Report or Record 

Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and

other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, 

reporting, or record-keeping requirements. 

7.5 Identification of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rule 

Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant

Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and

managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic

laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, but are not limited to, the MagnusonStevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine

Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the

Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed action has been

determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules. 

7.6 Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

That Accomplish the Stated Objectives of the Applicable Statutes 

and That Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of the

Proposed Rule on Small Entities 

One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule 

which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant

economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis shall discuss significant 

alternatives such as: 

1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into

account the resources available to small entities. 

2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under 

the rule for such small entities. 

3. Use of performance rather than design standards. 

4. Exemptions fromcoverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 

These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C. § 603 (c)(1)-(4)). NMFSexamined each of

these categories of alternatives. Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot 

establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small entities or exempt small entities 

from coverage of the rule or parts of it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are 

considered small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. NMFS 

did incorporate performance standards when developing several of the area-based alternatives. As

described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking, and 

194 Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis 
provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives. The 

alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. 

7.6.1 Northeastern United States Closed Area 

Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, would maintain the current regulations regarding the

Northeastern United States Closed Area. The currently defined area would remain closed to all 

vessels using pelagic longline gear onboard from June 1st through June 30th of a given year. 

Average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species combined during this time period in the 

surrounding open reference area was $42,942. Since 14 vessels operated in this area in June 

between 2015 and 2017, the average annual revenue per vessel during this time period was $3,067.

This alternative would maintain the recent landings levels and corresponding revenues, resulting in

neutral direct economic impacts to these small entities. 

Alternative A2 would modify the current Northeastern United States Closed Area to remove 

portions of the closure (i.e., those areas west of 70o W longitude) that current analyses indicate 1)

did not historically have high numbers of bluefin discards reported in the HMS logbook during the

timeframe of data (1996-1997) originally analyzed for implementation of the closure in 1999, and

2) were adjacent to areas that recently (2015-2017) did not have bluefin interactions. Total average 

annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species in June of 2015 through 2017 was $42,942. The 

predicted range of total average annual revenue under this alternative would be $35,394. Since 14

vessels operated in this area in June between 2015 and 2017, the average annual revenue per 

vessel during this time period was $2,528. Under Alternative A2, revenue from most species is

predicted to decrease during the month of June, particularly for bluefin tuna. Revenue from bigeye

tuna, on the other hand, could increase slightly. Fishing revenue impacts for this alternative are

expected to be neutral despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue. Fishermen will make 

decisions about productive fishing grounds in any given year depending on fish availability and will 

likely decide not to fish in the area being considered for opening if they discover it lowers their 

fishing revenue. Most revenue from bluefin tuna and target species would come from the open 

reference area since much of the effort would still be predicted to occur there. 

This Monitoring Area will provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing 

distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. This alternative will also give

fishermen the ability to make choiceson where to fish to optimize target catchwhile minimizing

bycatchof Atlantic HMS. An unquantified benefit of this alternative is a reduction in trip length and

associated fuel cost. The alternative would open areas for pelagic longline fishing that are closer to

shore than where most of the effort is currently occurring during the month of June in the adjacent 

open areas. In the long-term, overall economic impacts are expected to range between minor

positive to neutral based on the increased flexibility in fishing areas, potentially shorter trips and

associated lower fuel costs, and thus potentially increased profits from fishing. 

Alternative A3 would convert the Northeastern United States Closed Area to a gear restricted area 

(i.e., the “Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area”), and allow performance-based vessel

access to the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area using the access criteria currently

used for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (currently codified at § 635.21(c)(3) and § 635.14).

Vessels would be evaluated against criteria (i.e., performance metrics) evaluating a vessel’s ability 

to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and comply with HMS

logbook submission requirements using the three most recent years of available data associated 

with a vessel. If no data are available, then NMFS would not be able to make a determination about 

vessel access, and such vessels would be excluded from gear restricted area access until NMFS has 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 195 
collected sufficient data for assessment (consistent with current procedures for the Cape Hatteras

Gear Restricted Area). Those vessels that meet the criteria for performance metrics would be 

allowed to fish in the closed area. This measure would be evaluated after at least three years of data 

have been collected to determine whether it effectively achieves the management objectives of this 

rulemaking. 

Total average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species in June of 2015 through 2017 was

$42,942, which is on average $3,067 per vessel for the 14 vessels fishing in that area. The predicted

range of average annual revenue per vessel during this time period under this alternative would be 

$1,442 to $2,525. Revenue from some species is predicted to decrease during the month of June,

particularly for bluefin tuna and dolphin. Revenue from yellowfin tuna, on the other hand, could

increase substantially. Fishing revenue impacts for this alternative are expected to be neutral

despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue. Fishermen will make decisions about productive 

fishing grounds in any given year depending on fish availability and will likely decide not to fish in

the Northeastern United States Closed Area if they qualify for access and discover it lowers their

fishing revenue. 

Implementing performance based access would provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt 

to changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. This alternative will

also give fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to optimize target catch while

minimizing bycatch. 

An unquantified short-term economic benefit of this alternative is a reduction in trip length and

associated fuel cost. The Northeastern United States Closed Area would open areas for qualified 

pelagic longline vessels that are closer to shore than where most of the effort is currently occurring

during the month of June in the adjacent open areas. The closure is approximately 320 miles wide 

from west to east, so allowing fishing in the area could reduce some trips by hundreds of miles. Less 

fuel consumption would lower the trip cost and increase the trip profit, which may influence

fishermen’s decisions on fishing in the Monitoring Area. In addition, shorter trip lengths could also

reduce the opportunity costs for crew and captains on the vessel by reducing the number of days

they are away at sea fishing. 

In the short-term, overall economic impacts are expected to range between minor positive to

neutral based on the increased flexibility in fishing areas, potentially shorter trips and associated

lower fuel costs, and thus potentially increased profits from fishing. 

Alternative A4, the preferred alternative, would convert the “Northeastern United States Closed 

Area” to a monitoring area, called the “Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring

Area” (i.e., the “Monitoring Area”) and establish a three-year evaluation period during which fishing

would be allowed in the Monitoring Area. Fishing activity would be closely monitored by NMFS

under a four-step process (Figure 2.3) that that would prohibit fishing if the fleet had to use IBQ

allocation in exceedance of an established threshold to account for bluefin landings or dead 

discards to account for bluefin landings or dead discards. The Monitoring Area would remain open 

to pelagic longline fishing from June 1 to June 30 each year (previously, the area was closed to 

pelagic longline fishing during this time). NMFS would establish a threshold of 150,519 pounds of 

IBQ allocation that may be used to account for landings and dead discards of bluefin caught within 

the boundaries of the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area. When/if the 

IBQ allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice 

with the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the 

remainder of the evaluation period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise, 

196 Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis 
the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic 

longline fishing. 

Following the evaluation period, NMFS would conduct an evaluation of data collected from the 

Monitoring Area. As part of this evaluation, NMFS would compile a report that would determine if a 

future rulemaking is necessary to modify the management of the Monitoring Area after the three 

year evaluation period. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 4, the status of the Monitoring Area

following the three-year evaluation period is dependent on whether the threshold has been

reached. 

The short-term economic impacts would be very similar to those of Alternative A3. Long-term 

economic impacts would depend on the result of the three-year evaluation period for this 

Monitoring Area. If these areas remain open after three years, long-term impacts would be expected 

to be the same as short-term impacts. 

Alternative A5 would eliminate all current restrictions associated with the Northeastern United 

States Closed Area. Since this alternative would allow access to all vessels in the month of June by

removing regulations related to the Northeastern United States Closed Area the socioeconomic 

impacts would be the same as presented in the preferred alternative, Alternative A4. In the longterm, overall economic impacts are expected to range between minor positive to neutral based on

the increased flexibility in fishing areas, potentially shorter trips and associated lower fuel costs, 

and thus potentially increased profits from fishing. 

7.6.2 Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

Alternative B1, the No Action alternative, would maintain the current gear restricted area off Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, from December through April as well as the performance metrics for 

access to that area at § 635.21 (c)(2)(v) and § 635.14, respectively. Vessels would be evaluated 

against criteria (i.e., performance metrics) evaluating their ability to avoid bluefin tuna, comply

with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and comply with HMS logbook submission

requirements using the three most recent years of available data associated with a vessel. If no data 

are available, then NMFS would not be able to make a determination about vessel access., and such 

vessels would be excluded from gear restricted area access until NMFS has collected sufficient data

for assessment (consistent with current operational Amendment 7 implementation procedures).

Those vessels that meet the criteria for performance metrics would be allowed to fish in the closed 

area. 

In the first year of the program, 136 vessels (~48 percent of the 281 pelagic longline permits) were 

determined to have sufficient data for the analysis, while 145 permits were either in NOVESID

status, were inactive during the initial analysis period, or were in an invalid status. Approximately

75 percent of active vessels were granted access to the gear restricted area. During the 2018-2019

effective period, 97 vessels (~34.5 percent) had data available for analysis. Approximately 85

percent of active vessels were granted access to the gear restricted area in the 2018-2019 effective

period. Only one vessel denied access to the GRA in 2018 due to bluefin tuna avoidance issues had 

previously fished within the gear restricted area in recent years (data not shown to protect data 

confidentiality). 

Since implementation of the IBQ program in 2015, revenue in the gear restricted area for top target

species has increased despite higher numbers of participants being excluded in later years. This is 

to be expected as fishermen adjust business practices to the gear restricted area and IBQ programs, 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 197 
and have become more familiar with leasing markets. During its effective period (December

through April, 2015 to 2017), sets made within the gear restricted area contributed approximately

8.9 percent of the revenue generated for swordfish, 24.5 percent of the revenue from bigeye tuna, 

and 15 percent of the revenue from bluefin tuna. 

Retaining the gear restricted area is likely to have neutral economic impacts fleet-wide, as the 

majority of vessels not qualified for access to the gear restricted area did not make sets within this

area either prior to implementation or after implementation when access was granted. Retaining

the gear restricted area may have temporary, minor adverse economic impacts to individual vessels

that either recently made sets in the gear restricted area or may be denied access in the future. 

Alternative B2 This alternative would remove the current gear restricted area off Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina, as currently defined in § 635.2 and all associated regulatory provisions, restrictions, 

and prohibitions. Removing the gear restricted area is likely to have neutral to minor and beneficial

economic impacts, depending on the scale of consideration. Fleet-wide effects on fishing revenue 

for this time period are anticipated to be neutral as the majority of the fleet had access to the area 

and continued to fish in it following implementation of Amendment 7 management measures. 

Vessels recently denied access (for the 2018-2019 effective period) to the gear restricted area 

fished in a variety of locations between 2015 and 2017. Many of these vessels did not make sets

within this area either prior to implementation or after implementation when access was granted.

Revenue for these vessels may therefore be based on factors other than access to the gear restricted

area. Removing the gear restricted area may have temporary, localized and minor beneficial 

economic impacts to a small number of individual vessels. Removing this restriction would remove 

functionally redundant layers of regulation and year-to-year uncertainty associated with access

decisions. It may also provide a small number of fishermen with more options regarding fishing

locations. The gear restricted area is situated in a location where wintertime fishing activities are 

largely depending on weather and wind direction. Cape Hatteras and adjacent Diamond Shoals

shelter fishing grounds to the south and west from northerly and westerly winds, and to the north

from southerly and westerly winds. Removing the closures could enable greater flexibility for

fishermen to safely conduct fishing activities in short, favorable wintertime weather windows. 

7.6.3 Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas

Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, This alternative would maintain the current restrictions

regarding the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas at § 635.2 and § 635.21(c)(2)(vi). NMFS 

would maintain current restrictions which prohibit fishing to all vessels with pelagic longline gear 

onboard from April 1through May 31 each year (vessels may transit the area if gear is properly

stowed). Average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species combined during this time 

period from 2015 to 2017 was $627,842, and given there were 46 pelagic longline vessels active in 

the Gulf of Mexico during that time period the average vessel generated $13,649. This alternative

would maintain the recent landings levels and resulting revenues, resulting in neutral direct 

economic impacts. 

Alternative C2 would apply performance based access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 

Areas. . Vessels would be evaluated against criteria (i.e., performance metrics) evaluating their

ability to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and comply with 

HMS logbook submission requirements using the three most recent years of available data 

associated with a vessel. If no data are available, then NMFS would not be able to make a 

determination about vessel access., and such vessels would be excluded from gear restricted area 

access until NMFS has collected sufficient data for assessment (consistent with current operational 

198 Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis 
Amendment 7 implementation procedures). Those vessels that meet the criteria for performance 

metrics would be allowed to fish in the closed area. This measure would be evaluated after at least 

three years of data have been collected to determine whether it effectively achieves the 

management objectives of this rulemaking. 

In the analyses of gear restricted area access for 2015 through 2019, up to three pelagic longline 

vessels associated with Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares have been excluded from the Cape Hatteras Gear

Restricted Area in any given year, out of a total of 52 vessels associated with Gulf of Mexico IBQ

shares. Those same vessels would also be excluded from the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted

Areas under this alternative. Therefore, given this trend in access determinations, at least 94 

percent of vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ would be expected to have access to the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Gear Restricted Areas under this alternative. 

Average annual revenue per vessel for bluefin tuna and target species in April and May of 2015 

through 2017 was $13,649. The predicted range of average annual revenue per vessel under this

alternative would be $10,909 to $13,628. Revenue fromsome species is predicted to decrease 

during these two months, particularly for swordfish. Revenue from bigeye tuna, on the other hand, 

is predicted to remain the same or increase. Overall economic impacts for this alternative are

expected to be neutral in the short-term, despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue.

Fishermen will make decisions about productive fishing grounds in any given year depending on 

fish availability. Access to the gear restricted areas will provide increased flexibility for fishermen

to adapt to changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. This 

alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to optimize target 

catch while minimizing bycatch. 

Long-term impacts on these species would depend on future trends in performance based access to

the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. If the number of vessels allowed access to these 

areas remains consistent over time, long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as shortterm impacts. As described above, this analysis assumes that all vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ

shares would have access to the gear restricted areas. There could be a slight decrease in revenues

within the gear restricted areas from the values described here, with a corresponding increase in 

revenues in the open area, due to vessels excluded from the areas, but the predicted ranges of catch 

still represent the best estimate for these areas. 

Alternative C3, the preferred alternative, alternative would convert the “Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Area” to a monitoring area, called the “Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area” (i.e., the

“Monitoring Area”) and establish a three-year evaluation period during which fishing would be 

allowed in the Monitoring Area. Fishing activity would be closely monitored by the NMFS under a 

four-step process that would prohibit fishing if the fleet had to use IBQ allocation in exceedance of 

an established threshold to account for bluefin landings or dead discards to account for bluefin

landings or dead discards. The Monitoring Area would remain open to pelagic longline fishing from

April 1 through May 31 of 2020, 2021, and 2022 (previously, the area was closed to pelagic longline 

fishing during this time). However, NMFS would establish a threshold of 63,150 pounds of IBQ

allocation that may be used to account for landings and dead discards of bluefin caught within the

boundaries of the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area. When/if the IBQ

allocation threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure notice with 

the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of the notice, for the remainder of

the evaluation period and subsequent years after, unless NMFS determines otherwise, the 

Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic longline 

fishing. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 199 
Following the evaluation period, NMFS would conduct an evaluation of data collected from the 

Monitoring Area. As part of this evaluation, NMFS would compile a report that would determine if a 

future rulemaking is necessary to modify the management of the Monitoring Area after the three 

year evaluation period. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 4, the status of the Monitoring Area 

following the three-year evaluation period is dependent on whether the threshold has been

reached. 

Average annual revenue per vessel for bluefin tuna and target species in April and May of 2015 

through 2017 was $13,649. The predicted range of average annual revenue per vessel under this 

alternative would be $10,909 to $13,628. Revenue from some species is predicted to decrease 

during these two months, particularly for swordfish. Revenue from bigeye tuna, on the other hand, 

is predicted to remain the same or increase. Overall economic impacts for this alternative are

expected to be neutral in the short-term, despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue. 

Fishermen will make decisions about productive fishing grounds in any given year depending on

fish availability and will likely decide not to fish in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Areas if 

they discover it lowers their fishing revenue. These Monitoring Areas will provide increased

flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and

target catch. This alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to 

optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. 

Long-term economic impacts would depend on the result of the three year evaluation period for

these Monitoring Areas. If these areas remain open after three years, long-term impacts would be 

expected to be the same as short-term impacts. 

Alternative C4 would remove the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas. Since this alternative 

would allow access to all vessels by removing regulations related to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 

Restricted Areas, the short-term socioeconomic impacts would be the same as presented in the 

preferred Alternative C3. Average annual revenue per vessel for bluefin tuna and target species in 

April and May of 2015 through 2017 was $13,649. The predicted range of average annual revenue 

per vessel under this alternative would be $10,909 to $13,628. Revenue from some species is

predicted to decrease during these two months, particularly for swordfish. Revenue from bigeye

tuna, on the other hand, is predicted to remain the same or increase. Overall economic impacts for

this alternative are expected to be neutral in the short-term, despite the predicted decrease in

overall revenue. Fishermen will make decisions about where to fish in any given year depending on

fish availability. These Monitoring Areas will provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to

changing distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. This alternative will also 

give fishermen the ability to make choiceson where to fish to optimize target catchwhile 

minimizing bycatch. Long-term economic impacts would be expected to be the same as short-term 

impacts. 

7.6.4 Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Alternatives 

Under Alternative D1, NMFS would maintain the current regulations at 50 CFR§

635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) requiring vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as defined at 50 CFR 

105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are required to have 

been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic

Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, to use weak hooks year-round when 

operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Alternative D1 would not change the current weak hook

requirements in the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fishery, thus, economic impacts on small entities 

200 Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis 
would be neutral. However, this alternative would not address comments NMFS has received from 

pelagic longline fishermen expressing concern about their perception that swordfish catches have

been reduced with weak hooks. Under this alternative, fishermen would not have any additional

flexibility to choose a stronger circle hook (that also meets other existing requirements for hook

size and type) that they feel may work better for their fishing operations. Weak hook research

conducted by NMFS from 2008-2012 indicated that there was no significant difference in the catch

rates of any targeted species when compared to previously allowed stronger circle hooks, even 

though the catch rates of legally sized swordfish did in fact decrease with weak hooks. 

Alternative D2, the preferred alternative, would modify regulations to require vessels fishing in the 

Gulf of Mexico, as defined at 50 CFR § 105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that

have been issued, or are required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas

Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of 

Mexico to use weak hooks when bluefin tuna are highest in abundance from January through June

and throughout their spawning season, which is from April to June. Fishermen may voluntarily

choose to continue to use weak hooks when they are not required. This alternative would likely

result in short- and long-term minor beneficial economic impacts since it would give fishermen 

more flexibility in choosing how to fish. During the months without the weak hook requirement,

fishermen could choose whether to use the gear based on their knowledge of bluefin tuna presence 

and distribution. Furthermore, weak hooks can help fishermen manage their IBQ by reducing the 

number of captured bluefin tuna that would be counted against their IBQ. NMFS prefers this 

alternative at this time because it increase fishermen’s flexibility and helps fishermen manage their

IBQ by reducing the number of captured bluefin tuna that would be counted against their IBQ.

There may be potential economic benefits for recreational fishermen that fish for white marlin or 

roundscale spearfish as a result of the anticipated decrease in catch rates and associated fishing 

mortality. 

Under Alternative D3, NMFS would remove regulations that require vessels fishing in the Gulf of 

Mexico, as defined at 50 CFR § 105(c), that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been

issued, or are required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category

LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to use weak

hooks. NMFS would continue to encourage voluntary use of weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico as a

conservation strategy for bluefin tuna. This alternative would likely result in short- and long-term 

neutral economic impacts since it would give fishermen more flexibility in choosing how to fish. In 

the absence of a weak hook requirement, fishermen could choose whether to use the gear based on 

their knowledge of bluefin tuna presence and distribution. Weak hooks may have, in some cases,

assisted fishermen in reducing use of IBQ allocation because large bluefin were able to free 

themselves from gear before coming to the boat, and therefore never needed to be counted against

a vessel’s IBQ allocation. Some fishermen may still find their use beneficial in conserving their

permit’s IBQ, and would still have the option to deploy weak hooks under this alternative. For 

example, pelagic longline fishermen that plan to fish in areas with high rates of bluefin tuna

interactions may wish to deploy weak hooks to reduce interactions and conserve their IBQ. There 

could be some risk that not requiring weak hooks from January through June could result in an 

increased risk for high bluefin tuna interactions for pelagic longline vessels that fish during those

months but decide not to use weak hooks, and therefore, those vessels could face a higher risk in 

depleting their IBQ quota for the year. Under Alternative D3, NMFS would encourage the voluntary 

use of weak hooks and leave the decision up to individual fishermen based on their experience and 

on-the-water knowledge. Any potentially risky fishing practices leading to elevated interactions

with Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna would still be dis-incentivized under the IBQ Program. There may 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 201 
be potential economic benefits for recreational fishermen that fish for white marlin or roundscale 

spearfish as a result of the anticipated decrease in catch rates and associated fishing mortality. 

202 Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis 
Community Profiles 

8.1 Introduction 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires, among other things, that all FMPsinclude a fishery impact 

statement intended to assess, specify, and describe the likely effects of the measures on fishermen

and fishing communities (§303(a)(9)). 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the interactions of natural and human environments by

using a “systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural 

and social sciences...in planning and decision-making” (§102(2)(A)). Moreover, agencies need to

address the aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects, which may be direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Consideration of social impacts is a growing concern as fisheries experience 

increased participation and/or declines in stocks. The consequences of management actions need

to be examined to better ascertain and, to the fullest extent possible, mitigate regulatory impacts on 

affected constituents. 

Social impacts are generally the consequences to human populations resulting from some type of

public or private action. Those consequences may include alterations to the ways in which people 

live, work or play, relate to one another, and organize to meet their needs. In addition, cultural

impacts, which may involve changes in values and beliefs that affect people’s way of identifying

themselves within their occupation, communities, and society in general are included under this 

interpretation. Social impact analyses help determine the consequences of policy action in advance 

by comparing the status quo with the projected impacts. Community profiles are an initial step in

the social impact assessment process. Although public hearings and scoping meetings provide input

from those concerned with a particular action, they do not constitute a full overview of the fishery. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act outlines a set of National Standards that apply to all fishery

management plans and the implementation of regulations. Specifically, National Standard 8 notes 

that: 

“Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation

requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of

overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing

communities in order to: (1) provide for the sustained participation of such communities;

and (2) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such

communities” (§301(a)(8)). See also 50 CFR §600.345 for National Standard 8 Guidelines. 

“Sustained participation” is defined to mean continued access to the fishery within the constraints

of the condition of the resource (50 CFR §600.345(b)(4)). It should be clearly noted that National

Standard 8 “does not constitute a basis for allocation of resources to a specific fishing community

nor for providing preferential treatment based on residence in a fishing community” (50 CFR 

§600.345(b)(2). The Magnuson-Stevens Act further defines a “fishing community” as: 

“a community that is substantially dependent upon or substantially engaged in the harvest 

or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 203 

8 
vessel owners, operators, crew, and fish processors that are based in such communities”

(§301(16)). 

Likewise, specific to development and amendment of HMS FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

paragraph 304(g)(1)(C), requires the Secretary to: 

• Evaluate the likely effects, if any, of conservation and management measures on participants in

the affected fisheries. 

• Minimize, to the extent practicable, any disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in relation to foreign

competitors. 

NMFS (2001) guidelines for social impact assessments specify that the following elements are 

utilized in the development of FMPs and FMP amendments: 

1. The size and demographic characteristics of the fishery-related work force residing in the area; 

these determine demographic, income, and employment effects in relation to the workforce as a 

whole, by community and region. 

2. The cultural issues of attitudes, beliefs, and values of fishermen, fishery-related workers, other

stakeholders, and their communities. 

3. The effects of final actions on social structure and organization; that is, on the ability to provide

necessary social support and services to families and communities. 

4. The non-economic social aspects of the final action or policy; these include life-style issues,

health and safety issues, and the non-consumptive and recreational use of living marine 

resources and their habitats. 

5. The historical dependence on and participation in the fishery by fishermen and communities,

reflected in the structure of fishing practices, income distribution and rights. 

8.2 Method—Previous Community Profiles and Assessments 

Background information on the legal requirements and summary information on the community 

studies conducted to choose the communities profiled in this document is not repeated here and 

can be found in previous HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and was 

most recently updated in Chapter 6 of the 2011 HMS SAFE Report (NMFS 2011). Additionally, the

2011 and 2012 HMS SAFE Reports contain modified demographic profile tables from previous 

documents to include the same baseline information for each community profiled, and use 1990,

2000, and 2010 Bureau of the Census data for comparative purposes. Chapter 6 of the 2011 SAFE

Report is an update of the 2008 SAFE Report (NMFS 2008), and included available 2010 U.S. Census 

information. The 2008 SAFE Report consolidated all of the communities profiled in previous HMS

FMPs or FMP amendments and updated the community information where possible. Of the 

communities profiled, ten (Wanchese, Beaufort, and Hatteras, North Carolina; Dulac and Houma, 

Louisiana; Fort Pierce and Bay County, Florida; Barnegat Light, New Jersey; Fairhaven,

Massachusetts; and Wadmalaw, South Carolina) were originally selected due to the proportion of 

pelagic longline landings in the community (Table 8.1), the relationship between the geographic

communities and the fishing fleets, the existence of other community studies, and input from the 

HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels (since consolidated in 2006 into one HMS Advisory Panel). The 

descriptive community profiles are organized by state and include information provided by Wilson, 

204 Community Profiles 
et al. (1998), Kirkley (2005), Impact Assessment, Inc. (2004), and recent information obtained from 

MRAG Americas, Inc. (2008). 

This section presents social indicators of vulnerability and resilience developed by Jepson and 

Colburn (2013) for 10 communities selected for being among the top three ports for pelagic 

longline fishery commercial landings, (Table 8.1). Jepson and Colburn (2013) developed a series of 

indices using social indicator variables that could assess a coastal community’s vulnerability or 

resilience to potential economic disruptions such as those resulting from drastic changes in

fisheries quotas and seasons, or natural and anthropogenic disasters. Indices and index scores were 

developed using factor analyses of data from the United States Census, permit sales, landings

reports, and recreational fishing effort estimates from the MRIP survey (Jepson and Colburn, 2013).

The nine social indices developed by Jepson and Colburn (2013) can be divided into two categories:

1) fishing engagement and reliance, and 2) social vulnerability. For each index, the community is

ranked as scoring high (one standard deviation or more above the mean score), medium high (0.5 

to 0.99 standard deviations above the mean score), medium (0 to 0.49 standard deviations above 

the mean score), or low (below the mean score) on the index scale. 

Fishing Reliance and Engagement Indices 

Jepson and Colburn (2013) developed two indices each to measure community reliance and

engagement with commercial and recreational fishing, respectively. Commercial fishing

engagement was assessed based on pounds of landings, value of landings, number of commercial

fishing permits sold, and number of dealers with landings. Commercial fishing reliance was 

assessed based on value of landings per capita; number of commercial permits per capita; dealers

with landings per capita; and data on percentage of people employed in agriculture, forestry, and

fishing from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The recreational fishing engagement index was 

measured using MRIP estimates of the number of charter, private boat, and shore recreational

fishing trips originating in each community. The recreational fishing reliance index was generated

using the same fishing trip estimates adjusted to a per capita basis. MRIP data is not available for 

the state of Texas, so the recreational indexes for Texas were instead calculated based on 

recreational permit data from NMFS, and boat ramp data from the state of Texas. As such,

recreational index scores for Texas communities are only comparable to other communities within

the state. 

In Table 8.1, fishing reliance and engagement index scores are presented for 10 HMS communities.

Seven of the ten HMS communities scored either high or medium high on commercial or

recreational engagement, three of ten scored either high or medium high on commercial reliance,

and six of ten scored either high or medium high on recreational reliance, and only one community

(Bay County, FL) did not have any scores as there is no data at the county level in the Jepson and

Colburn (2013) report. Two communities that scored high on all four indices included Dulac, LA

and Barnegat Light, NJ, indicating that these communities have greater than normal dependence on

the recreational and commercial fishing sectors for jobs and economic support. Wanchese,

Beaufort, and Hatteras, NC, Fort Pierce, FL, and Fairhaven, MA scored high or medium high on both

fishing engagement indices, while scoring medium high, medium or low on both fishing reliance 

indices indicating that while Wanchese, Beaufort, and Hatteras, NC, Fort Pierce, FL, and Fairhaven, 

MA have a significant fishing community, it is not a massive component of the city’s overall 

population. Conversely, Wadmalaw Island, SC scored high on recreational reliance index, while 

scoring low on both commercial fishing indices suggesting this community has greater than normal 

dependence on the recreational fishing sector for jobs and economic support. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 205 
Social Vulnerability Indices 

Five indices of social vulnerability developed by Jepson and Colburn (2013) are presented in this

section (Table 8.1). The personal disruption index includes the following community variables 

representing disruptive forcesin family lives: percent unemployment, crime index, percent with no 

diploma, percent in poverty, and percent separated females. The population composition index

shows the presence of populations who are traditionally considered more vulnerable due to 

circumstances associated with low incomes and fewer resources. The poverty index includes 

several variables measuring poverty levels within different community social groups including:

percent receiving government assistance, percent of families below the poverty line, percent over

age of 65 in poverty, and percent under age of 18 in poverty. The labor force index characterizes the 

strength and stability of the labor forceand employment opportunities that may exist. A higher

ranking indicates fewer employment opportunities and a more vulnerable labor force. Finally, the

housing characteristics index is a measure of infrastructure vulnerability and includes factors that 

indicate housing that made be vulnerable to coastal hazards such as severe storms or coastal 

flooding. Fort Pierce, FL was the only HMS community to score high or medium high on all five 

indices of social vulnerability with Dulac, LA scored high on four of the five indices of social 

vulnerability. Four other HMS community scored high or medium high on two or three social 

vulnerability indices: Wanchese, NC; Beaufort, NC; Wadmalaw Island, SC; and Hatteras, NC while

Houma, LA scored medium or medium high on all five indices of social vulnerability. These scores 

suggest these communities would likely experience greater difficulty recovering from economic 

hardships caused by job losses in the recreational and commercial fishing sectors. 

206 Community Profiles 
Table 8.1 Social Vulnerability Indices for 10 HMS Communities for 2015–2017 

Community Population 

Fishing Engagement and Reliance Social Vulnerability 

Commercial 

Engagement 

Commercial 

Reliance 

Recreational 

Engagement 

Recreational 

Reliance 

Personal 

Disruption 

Population

Composition Poverty 

Labor 

Force Housing 

Wanchese, 

NC 1,753 HIGH MED HIGH MED HIGH HIGH LOW LOW 

MED 

HIGH LOW 

MED 

HIGH 

Dulac, LA† 1,463* HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH 

Houma, LA† 33,727* HIGH LOW LOW LOW MED HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM 

MED 

HIGH 

Fort Pierce, 

FL 42,744 MED HIGH LOW HIGH MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH 

MED 

HIGH 

MED 

HIGH 

Barnegat 

Light, NJ 592 HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW HIGH LOW 

Fairhaven, 

MA 15,873* HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM 

Bay County, 

FL‡ 168,852* 

Beaufort, 

NC 4,119 HIGH MEDIUM HIGH MED HIGH MED HIGH LOW LOW LOW 

MED 

HIGH 

Wadmalaw 

Island, SC 2,725* LOW LOW LOW HIGH LOW LOW LOW HIGH 

MED 

HIGH 

Hatteras, 

NC† 504* MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH HIGH MED HIGH LOW 

MED 

HIGH MEDIUM 

MED 

HIGH 

* Population estimates (2010 census) from https://factfinder.census.gov. † https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. ‡Jepson and Colburn (2013) and https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map web page do not provide social vulnerabilityindex 

analyses on a countylevel. 

Source: Jepson and Colburn 2013 and https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/index. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 207 
8.3 References 

Impact Assessment, Inc. 2004. Identifying Communities Associated with the Fishing Industry in

Louisiana. La Jolla, California. (NOAA-NMFS-Contract WC133F-02-SE-0297). 

Jepson, Michael and Lisa L. Colburn 2013. Development of Social Indicators of Fishing Community

Vulnerability and Resilience in the U.S. Southeast and Northeast Regions. U.S. Dept. of

Commerce., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129, 64 p. 

Kirkley, J.E. 2005. The communities of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery: An

overview of change associated with the HMS Fishery Management Plan. Department of Coastal 

and Ocean Policy, School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of 

William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia (NOAA-NMFS-HMS contract report). 

MRAG, Americas, Inc., and M. Jepson. 2008. Updated Profiles for HMS Dependent Fishing

Communities: Social Impact Assessment Services for HMS Fishing Communities. Solicitation 

Number: DG133F06RQ0381, 84 pp. 

NMFS. 2001. NMFS Operational Guidelines – Fishery Management Process: Appendix 2(g):

Guidelines for Assessment of the Social Impact of Fishery Management Actions. Silver Spring, 

MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

NMFS. 2008. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory

Species, 2008. Silver Spring MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries

Service. 446 pp. 

NMFS. 2011. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory

Species, 2011. Silver Spring MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 294 pp. 

NMFS. 2012. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory

Species, 2012. Silver Spring MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries

Service. 203 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year

Estimates, Table 8.1; generated by Nicolas Alvarado; using American FactFinder;

<http://factfinder.census.gov>; (13 March 2019). 

Wilson, D., B.J. McCay, D. Estler, M. Perez-Lugo, J. LaMargue, S. Seminski, and A. Tomczuk. 1998.

Social and Cultural Impact Assessment of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management 

Plan and the Amendment to the Atlantic Billfish Fisheries Management Plan. The Ecopolicy

Center for Agriculture, Environmental, and Resource Issues, New Jersey Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (NOAA-NMFSHMS contract report). 

208 Community Profiles 
Applicable Laws 

9.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

An FMP or FMP amendment along with any implementing regulations must be consistent with ten

national standards contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (sec. 301). This section describes how

the preferred alternatives in this action are consistent with the National Standards (NS) and

guidelines set forth in 50 CFR part 600. More information on the Magnuson-Stevens Act can be

found in earlier chapters. 

9.1.1 Consistency with the National Standards 

NS 1 requires NMFS to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery. 

The preferred alternatives in this action meet the requirements of National Standard 1 by adopting 

and implementing conservation and management measures that help achieve, on a continuing

basis, the optimum yield for directed HMS pelagic longline fisheries, while continuing to effectively 

manage and prevent overfishing of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Objectives include: continue to minimize 

bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS consistent with conservation

and management objectives; simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS management by reducing

redundancies in regulations; and optimize the ability of the pelagic longline fishery to harvest 

target species quotas. Preferred alternatives would result in management actions consistent with

the fishery conservation and management requirements of NS1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and

the requirements of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. 

The preferred alternatives would help to achieve optimum yield for target species, such as

swordfish and yellowfin tuna, by increasing opportunities and flexibility in locations where pelagic 

longline effort is directed. 

For quota-managed stocks, including western Atlantic bluefin tuna and North Atlantic swordfish, 

the actions considered and analyzed in this DEIS would not affect or alter science-based quotas for

the stocks, which were previously established consistent with relevant legal requirements, 

including NS1. Only the time and place (i.e., for GRA/closed area alternatives) and/or manner (i.e.,

gear/weak hooks) in which quotas are caught could be affected. Preferred alternatives are also

intended to be consistent with conservation and management requirements for other species,

including bycatch species, in the pelagic longline fishery. 

Preferred alternatives would remove (or evaluate the removal) of some existing area-based

restrictions on pelagic longline fishing that were originally implemented to help limit bluefin

bycatch. The alternatives are designed to ensure that (or evaluate whether) removing such

restrictions would not affect the pelagic longline fishery’s ability to appropriately limit incidental

catch of bluefin tuna, within the Longline category quota. Other previously-implemented

management measures, such as NMFS’s ability to transfer quota inseason fromone category to

another, further help ensure that, overall, the bluefin tuna fishery remains within its quota. 

The preferred alternatives would also modify regulations requiring weak hook use in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Existing regulations require pelagic longline vessels to use weak hooks in the Gulf of 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 209 

9 
Mexico year-round, but the preferred alternative would change this to required use from January

through June. This includes bluefin tuna spawning season, which is from April to June in the Gulf of

Mexico. Modifying the weak hook requirement in this way would increase opportunities for 

longline vessels to catch target species while leaving in place the requirement to use weak hooks 

when spawning bluefin are present in the greatest abundance and when they are spawning.

Removing the requirement to use weak hooks from July through December is not anticipated to

lead to overfishing to occur given the low abundance of bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico at that 

time and the fact that any catch would be within previously-established, science-based quotas. 

NS 2 requires that conservation and management measures be based on the best scientific 

information available. 

The preferred alternatives in this document are consistent with NS 2. The preferred alternatives are

based on the best scientific information available, including the latest stock assessments, scientific

research, and up-to-date data sources. The data sources cited throughout the DIES represent the 

best available science. 

NS 3 requires that, to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish be managed as a unit 

throughout its range and interrelated stocks of fish be managed as a unit or in close 

coordination. 

The preferred alternatives in this document are consistent with NS 3. Chapter 3 of the 2006

Consolidated HMS FMP describes the management units implemented by the FMP. This action

would not alter the established management unit for Atlantic HMS, which are managed as a unit 

throughout their range in U.S. federal waters (and state waters as a permit condition unless the 

states have more restrictive regulations). Given the highly migratory nature of the stocks, 

international efforts are critical to their conservation and management throughout their entire 

range. Thus, measures are adopted and implemented for many of these stocks through the 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and those measures are 

implemented domestically. Conservation and management measures in the 2006 Consolidated HMS

FMP and amendments address both domestic and international requirements for the stocks. 

NS 4 requires that conservation and management measures do not discriminate between 

residents of different states. Furthermore, if it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing 

privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation should be fair and equitable to all 

fishermen; be reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and should be carried out in 

such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive 

share of such privileges. 

The preferred alternatives in this document are consistent with NS 4. This rulemaking addresses 

geographically-based management measures, such as closed areas and geographically-discrete gear

restrictions or requirements. Thus, the preferred alternatives necessarily are limited in their

application geographically. The preferred alternatives would relieve restrictions applicable to 

certain geographic areas and thus present some additional options for some fishermen whose

access may have been more limited under existing regulations. None of the alternatives

discriminates between residents of different states. Furthermore, the HMS pelagic longline fishery

is highly mobile, and participants often travel long distances for fishing opportunities. The 

preferred measures do not discriminate between residents of different states since pelagic longline 

fishermen of all states will have access to areas affected by this action. The preferred alternatives

do not allocate or assign fishing privileges. 

210 Applicable Laws 
NS 5 requires that conservation and management measures should, where practicable, 

consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources with the exception that no such 

measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. 

The preferred alternatives in this document are consistent with NS 5. The preferred alternatives,

where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources. No such measures have

economic allocation as their sole purpose. Some of the preferred alternatives are anticipated to

increase efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources. For example, the preferred Northeastern 

United States Closed Area and Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area alternatives, Alternatives

A4 and C3, would undertake a review process to evaluate the continued need for the Northeastern

United States Closed Area. This review process allows access under controlled conditions, which

may increase operational efficiency of the fishery in harvesting target quotas by providing more 

fishing opportunity or flexibility in selection of fishing location while the area is under evaluation.

Preferred Alternative B2 would remove the current gear restricted area off North Carolina, which 

could provide more opportunity and flexibility for vessels recently denied access to the area.

Increased efficiency is also expected since areas within the gear restricted area have higher catchper-unit effort than areas outside of the gear restricted area (e.g., see Figure 4.11). Preferred

Alternative D2 would require use of weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico on a seasonal basis, instead of

the current year-round requirement. Fishermen would have the option to choose the best type of 

circle hook (weak hook or standard) to complement fishing practices in the second half of the year,

which is anticipated to increase efficiency. Retaining the weak hook requirement in the first half of

the gear might reduce efficiency in harvesting extremely heavy yellowfinand swordfish, however 

the additional protection offered to spawning bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico warrant this action. 

NS 6 states that conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for 

variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.The preferred 

alternatives in this documentare consistent with NS 6. 

The preferred alternatives in this action were designed to take into account and allow for variations

among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. Alternative analyses are 

based on consideration of multiple years of data to ensure that decisions are not based on a single,

possibly aberrant year of data. Furthermore, the analyses compare data frombaseline periods (i.e.,

prior to implementation of respective measures) against data recently collected to demonstrate 

temporal variations in the data. Each of the preferred alternatives were designed to give HMS 

pelagic longline fishermen more flexibility when fishing, allowing for adjustments in fishing 

techniques and location to better adapt to changing fishing conditions. Allowing increased access in

areas that currently restrict pelagic longline fishing (Alternatives A4, B2, and C3) would give

fishermen more flexibility to focuseffort in areas that increase target catchand decrease incidental

catch. Alternative D2 would allow pelagic longline fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico to decide 

whether to use weak hooksduring half the year. Providing this flexibility would give fishermen the

ability to better adjust to variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and

catches. 

NS 7 states that conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize 

costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. 

The preferred alternatives in this document are consistent with NS 7. The economic impacts section

of the DEIS provides detailed analyses of the costs and cost savings associated with each

alternative. The preferred alternatives were chosen, in part, to minimize costs while meeting 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 211 
required conservation and management objectives. The preferred alternatives were also structured

to avoid unnecessary duplication by taking into account the range of alternatives as well as existing

requirements on the relevant fisheries and existing measures in place for the pelagic longline

fishery. 

NS 8 states that conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the 

conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act(including the prevention of 

overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery 

resources to fishing communities in order to provide for the sustained participation of such 

communities, and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such 

communities. 

The preferred alternatives in this document are consistent with NS 8. The preferred alternatives 

would modify HMS pelagic longline regulations in a manner that increases fishermen’s access to 

target species while minimizing impacts to bluefin tuna and other incidentally-caught species. 

Because the preferred alternatives increase access and flexibility for fishermen, and reduce 

redundant regulations, beneficial social and economic impacts are likely. 

NS 9 states that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, 

minimize bycatch, and to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of 

such bycatch. 

The preferred alternatives in this document are consistent with NS 9, minimizing bycatch to the 

extent practicable and, to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimizing the mortality of

such bycatch. In the case of bluefin tuna, existing management measures (e.g. the IBQ program)

control fishing activity and incentivize pelagic longline fishery participants to minimize bycatch and

bycatch mortality, rendering some gear restricted areas, Closed Areas, and the weak hook

requirement potentially unnecessary and redundant. If fishermen interact with more bluefin tuna 

than can be covered with their IBQ allocation, then they cannot fish after certain time intervals (and

thereby incur additional bluefin tuna mortality) until all bluefin tuna mortality has been accounted

for in the IBQ Program. Therefore, the individual accountability aspects of the IBQ Program would

still be relied upon to incentivize bluefin tuna avoidance, meaning that there would be a proven

means to achieve the objectives of continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin

tuna and other Atlantic HMS. NMFS also considered minimizing bycatch of other species in selecting

its preferred alternatives, are reflected in Chapters 3 and 4. 

NS 10 states that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, 

promote the safety of human life at sea. 

The preferred alternatives in the document are consistent with NS 10. No impact to safety of life at 

sea is anticipated to result from these preferred alternatives. The preferred alternatives would not

require fishermen to travel greater distances, fish in bad weather, or otherwise fish in an unsafe 

manner. Rather, the preferred alternatives could reduce potential risks by providing greater 

flexibility and more fishing options. 

212 Applicable Laws 
9.2 Paperwork Reduction Act 

There are no new collection of information requirements in the action pursuant to the Paperwork

Reduction Act. 

9.3 Coastal Zone Management Act 

NMFS has determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the

enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of each state along the Atlantic 

coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This determination will be submitted for review by the 

responsible state agencies under section 307 of the CZMA. 

9.4 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and

adverse environmental effects of its regulations on minority and low-income populations. To 

determine whether environmental justice concerns exist, the demographics of the affected area 

should be examined to ascertain whether minority populations and low-income populations are

present. If so, a determination must be made as to whether implementation of the alternatives may

cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effectson these 

populations. 

Community profile information are available in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Chapter 9), a

recent report by MRAG Americas, and Jepson (2008) titled “Updated Profiles for HMS Dependent

Fishing Communities” (Appendix E of Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP), and in

the 2015 HMS SAFE Report. The MRAG report updated community profiles presented in the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP, and provided new social impacts assessments for HMS fishing communities

along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The 2011 and 2012 SAFE Reports (NMFS 2011 and

NMFS 2012) include updated census data for all coastal Atlantic states, and some selected

communities that are known centers of HMS fishing, processing or dealer activity. Demographic

data indicate that coastal counties with fishing communities are variable in terms of social

indicators like income, employment, and race and ethnic composition. 

The preferred alternatives were selected to minimize ecological and economic impacts and provide 

for the sustained participation of fishing communities. The preferred alternatives would not have 

any effects on human health nor are they expected to have any disproportionate social or economic

effects on minority and low-income communities. 

9.5 References 

MRAG, Americas, Inc., and M. Jepson. 2008. Updated Profiles for HMS Dependent Fishing 

Communities: Social Impact Assessment Services for HMS Fishing Communities. Solicitation

Number: DG133F06RQ0381, 84 pp. 

NMFS. 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office 

of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. pp. 1600. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 213 
NMFS. 2008. Final Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, 

and Sharks, and Highly Migratory. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly

Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. 

NMFS. 2011. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory

Species, 2011. Silver Spring MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 294 pp. 

NMFS. 2012. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory

Species, 2011. Silver Spring MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 203 pp. 

214 Applicable Laws 
List of Preparers 

The development of this rulemaking involved input from many people within NMFS, NMFS 

contractors, and input from the public, constituent groups, and the HMS Advisory Panel. Staff and 

contractors from the HMS Management Division, in alphabetical order, who worked on this

document include: 

• Nicolas Alvarado, Fishery Management Specialist 

• Randy Blankinship, Branch Chief 

• Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Branch Chief 

• Craig Cockrell, Fish Biologist 

• Peter Cooper, Acting Division Chief 

• Jennifer Cudney, Fish Biologist 

• Tobey Curtis, Fishery Management Specialist 

• Joseph Desfosse, Fishery Management Specialist 

• Steve Durkee, Fishery Management Specialist 

• LeAnn Hogan, Acting Division Chief 

• Brad McHale, Branch Chief 

• Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Management Specialist 

• Ian Miller, Fishery Management Specialist 

• Rick Pearson, Fishery Management Specialist 

• George Silva, Fishery Economist 

• Carrie Soltanoff, Fishery Management Specialist 

• Thomas Warren, Fishery Management Specialist 

10.1 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 

Under 304(g)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to consult and consider the 

comments and views of affected Fishery Management Councils, ICCAT Commissioners and advisory 

groups, and advisory panels established under 302(g) regarding amendments to an Atlantic HMS 

FMP. NMFS provided documents for the Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean Fishery Management

Councils, Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, and the HMS Advisory Panel at

various stages throughout the process. Specifically the HMS Advisory Panel will be consulted on 

this draft action at the 2019 Spring HMS Advisory Panel Meeting. Hard copies were also provided to

anyone who requested copies. 

The development of this document also involved considerable input from other staff members and

Offices throughout NOAA including, but not limited to: 

• Other Divisions within the Office of Sustainable Fisheries (Alan Risenhoover, Margo SchulzeHaugen, Anjanette Riley, Kris Gamble, and Rey Marquez). 

• NOAA General Counsel ( Megan Walline, Loren Remsberg) 

• NMFS NEPA (Steve Leathery and Cristi Reid). 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 215 

10 
Comments on the proposed rule and the draft environmental impact statement will be accepted for 

at least 60 days from the date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. An HMS

Advisory Panel meeting and numerous public hearings will be held along the Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico coasts. HMS stakeholders that are unable to attend these meetings, or that wish additional

opportunities to discuss the materials with staff, will be invited to attend at least one public 

webinar. Councils and commissions will be notified when the rulemaking materials are available 

and hard copies of those materials will be sent if requested. 

The Federal Register notice and the EIS, and any necessary addenda will also be made available to 

the public via the HMS webpage. 

216 List of Preparers 
Index 

Advisory Panel, 1-1, i, 8, 10, 12, 27, 34, 186,

192, 204, 215, 216, 223

Amendment 7, i, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 24, 25,

34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 50, 66, 69, 74, 95, 97,

108, 122, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,

136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145,

152, 154, 156, 160, 164, 173, 188, 197,

198, 199, 221

ATCA, i, 1, 14, 27, 34, 35

bigeye, 2, 4, 9, 31, 32, 34, 41, 52, 53, 56, 58,

66, 96, 98, 107, 128, 141, 150, 152, 156,

158, 164, 172, 173, 195, 198, 199, 200

bluefin tuna, 1-1, i, ii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 

15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34,

35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53,

58, 61, 63, 66, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 90, 91, 92,

93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 105, 107,

108, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120,

121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 131, 134, 135,

139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148,

150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159,

160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 172, 173,

174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 182, 183, 185,

186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196,

197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 209, 210, 212,

219, 220, 221, 223

Cape Hatteras, 1-1, ii, 1, 4, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21,

24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 59,

61, 62, 73, 97, 108, 111, 122, 123, 124, 125,

126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,

134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143,

144, 145, 168, 169, 175, 177, 180, 183,

184, 185, 188, 195, 197, 198, 199, 219, 220

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, 1-1, 4, 17,

24, 25, 26, 40, 61, 108, 111, 122, 123, 124,

127, 128, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137,

138, 139, 195

Charleston Bump, 4, 43, 46, 48, 52

DEIS, ii, 1, 10, 11, 14, 29, 60, 95, 97, 209, 211

EFH, 43, 45, 46, 47, 166, 167, 168

electronic monitoring, 1, 5, 34, 95, 173, 174

ESA, 1, 35, 86, 87, 88, 96, 109, 123, 144

Gear Restricted Area, 1-1, ii, 1, 4, 17, 19, 20,

21, 24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40, 52, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

97, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,

116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127,

128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,

136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144,

145, 151, 158, 168, 180, 181, 183, 184,

188, 195, 197, 199, 211, 219

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas, ii, 1, 4, 

12, 20, 21, 23, 40, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,

145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,

154, 155, 156, 180, 185, 189, 198, 199,

200, 220

Gulf of Mexico GRAs, 9 

Gulf Stream, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 167

highly migratory species, 1-1, i, 1, 28, 92, 93

HMS, 1-1, i, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17,

19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36,

37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52,

53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,

65, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95,

96, 97, 100, 101, 108, 109, 120, 121, 122,

123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,

134, 135, 137, 140, 143, 144, 151, 155,

157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164,

165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,

173, 174, 182, 186, 192, 193, 195, 197,

198, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210,

211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 223, 225

IBQ, 1-1, i, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22,

25, 32, 34, 52, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 95, 98,

100, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 127, 128,

131, 134, 135, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145,

148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157,

158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,

174,175, 176, 177, 182, 183, 184, 186, 190,

192, 196, 197, 199, 201, 212, 219, 220, 221

ICCAT, i, 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 27, 28, 30, 34,

35, 37, 45, 66, 67, 88, 91, 92, 93, 96, 108,

123, 124, 135, 138, 144, 173, 174, 210,

215, 221

LAP, 2, 23, 24, 157, 160, 163, 183, 200, 201

Magnuson-Stevens Act, i, ii, 1, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 

27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 45, 70, 72, 73, 166, 182,

192, 194, 203, 204, 209, 212, 215 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 217 

11 
172 

MMPA, 1, 32, 84, 96, 109, 123, 144

National Standard, 9, 28, 38, 73, 93, 203, 209

NED, 35, 68, 70, 75, 85, 127, 129, 135, 139,

NEPA, ii, 1, 9, 10, 11, 14, 203, 215

NMFS, 1-1, i, ii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27,

29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45,

46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 62, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,

84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,

97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 110,

111, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,

123, 124, 127, 131, 134, 135, 138, 140,

143, 144, 145, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157,

158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,

167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 182,

183, 184, 185, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196,

197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 208,

209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 219, 220, 221,

222, 223

Northeastern United States Closed Area, 1-1, 

ii, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 19, 37, 59, 97, 98, 99,

100, 101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 110, 117,

118, 121, 167, 169, 179, 182, 187, 188,

195, 196, 197, 211

optimum yield, 8

pelagic longline, 1-1, i, ii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,

27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 46,

50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,

72, 73, 74, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97,

98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 107,108, 109, 110,

113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121,

122, 123, 124, 127, 131, 135, 139, 140,

141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 150, 151,

152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159,

160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168,

169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 182, 

183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 192, 193, 195,

196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205,

209, 210, 211, 212, 220, 221, 222, 223

Pelagic Observer Program, 17, 19, 38, 39, 108,

122, 127, 128, 129, 143, 195, 197, 198, 223

quota debt, 6, 66, 135

Reserve category, 34, 66, 67, 134, 170

scoping, i, 1, 4, 8, 25, 36, 37, 96, 97, 122, 140,

157, 166, 174, 203, 219, 222 

sea turtles, 32, 36, 73, 74, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,

91, 96, 113, 115, 124, 137, 148, 159, 162,

165, 183

shark, 2, 23, 24, 32, 73, 74, 75, 90, 91, 92, 93,

99, 124, 142, 148, 154, 156, 157, 160, 163,

169, 170, 174, 183, 193, 200, 201

sharks, i, 1, 2, 3, 4, 29, 31, 32, 37, 73, 74, 75,

92, 96, 99, 105, 113, 115, 120, 121, 124,

137, 138, 142, 148, 170, 173, 174, 183

swordfish, 1-1, i, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 23,

24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, 52, 54,

58, 66, 70, 73, 74, 90, 92, 95, 96, 98, 120,

122, 128, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 145,

150, 152, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,

163, 164, 169, 172, 173, 174, 176, 183,

186, 192, 198, 199, 200, 201, 209, 211,

221, 222, 223, 224

time/area closures, i, 2, 8, 12, 36, 185

VMS, 2, 5, 67, 68, 69, 95, 173

weak hooks, ii, 3, 5, 9, 12, 23, 24, 29, 33, 41,

75, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164,

165, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 176, 177,

183, 185, 190, 200, 201, 209, 211, 221,

223, 224 

yellowfin, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 31, 32, 34, 41, 52, 55,

58, 66, 70, 93, 95, 96, 98, 113, 116, 119,

122, 123, 128, 135, 136, 141, 145, 152,

154, 156, 158, 160, 164, 172, 173, 174,

176, 196, 209, 211, 220, 223, 224 

218 List of Preparers 
Appendices 

Appendix A: Summary of Comments from Scoping 

NMFS published a notice of availability for a scoping document on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 8969). The 

comment period for the scoping phase of this actionwas open for 60 days, during which six scoping

meetings were held. The comment period closed on May 1, 2018. During the comment period, 

NMFS received substantial public comment and feedback on the management options in the 

scoping document. The following is a brief comment summary by subject matter received during 

the scoping process. Comments that are similar in nature are combined into one bullet. 

Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Closure 

• NMFS should expand the closure to the north and east to encompass the shift of bluefin tuna

and bluefin tuna interaction to the northeast. 

• NMFS should trim the western boundary of the area to open areas with no bluefin tuna 

interactions. 

• NMFS should consider a seaward expansion of the Closed Area. 

• NMFS should consider a temporal expansion to include both June and July. 

• NMFS should remove the area completely. Opening the Closed Areas will help spread the fleet 

out and give more flexibility to avoid bluefin tuna and protected resources. 

• NMFS should initiate experimental data collection in the area before it can be opened to the 

whole fleet. 

○ NMFS should either conduct this research themselves or issue an EFP in conjunction with 

NOAA Scientists to evaluate potential impacts of spatiotemporal changes to the NE Closure. 

• NMFS should not change management measures for this area (i.e., adopt a No Action 

management option). 

• NMFS should pursue the provisional application option, which would allow the Northeastern

United States Pelagic Longline Closed Area to remain open until bluefin tuna bycatch (landings

and discards) reaches a level that triggers a closure of the area in June (or by another 

designated point of time) of a given year. 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

• NMFS should eliminate the GRA because it is redundant with current IBQ program management 

measures. 

• NMFS should pursue the provisional application option, which would allow the Cape Hatteras

gear restricted area to remain open until bluefin tuna bycatch (landings and discards) reaches a 

level that triggers gear restricted area management measures. 

• NMFS should not relax regulations in this area, because longliners may be modifying gear to 

target bluefin tuna in and around the gear restricted area. 

• NMFS should expand the gear restricted area north to the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 219 
• NMFS should expand the gear restricted area by extending the southward boundary south to

the “triple zeros” (Loran line 41.0000), and moving the eastern boundary east by 30 minutes of 

longitude. 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas 

• NMFS should ban longline fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. 

• NMFS should pursue management strategies that maximize the protection of spawning bluefin

tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. 

• Options related to the Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas should not be included in the 

proposed rule. 

• The Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Areas have been a great success and NMFS should not 

change Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area management measures (i.e., a No Action 

management option): 

○ The gear restricted areas are the only tool that completely avoids interactions; IBQ by itself

is insufficient to reduce bluefin tuna interactions. 

○ The gear restricted area, along with weak hook measures, has reduced bluefin tuna bycatch

with no observed negative impacts on yellowfin tuna catches or other significant adverse 

socioeconomic impacts. 

• NMFS should make Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area management measures more restrictive. 

NMFS could combine the two areas currently comprising the gear restricted area into a larger

box that fully spans all areas with elevated bluefin tuna interactions. 

• Relieving restrictions to this area could create incentives to not participate in the Deepwater 

Horizon Oceanic Fish Restoration Project. 

• NMFS should pursue alternative gears rather than incentivizing pelagic longline activity. Use of

alternate gear in the gear restricted area offsets any economic impacts of the gear restricted 

area. 

• NMFS should remove the gear restricted area in order to maximize opportunities to harvest

yellowfin tuna. 

• NMFS should consider management measures that allow pelagic longline fishermen from 

locations outside of the Gulf of Mexico access to the gear restricted area. For example, NMFS 

could consider relaxing the regional restrictions in the IBQ program to allow fishermen with

Atlantic IBQ to fish in the gear restricted area. 

• NMFS should pursue the provisional application option, which would allow the Gulf of Mexico

gear restricted area to remain open until bluefin tuna bycatch (landings and discards) reaches a 

level that triggers gear restricted area management measures. 

• NMFS should not implement provisional application due to: administrative burden; unrealistic

to get real-time, accurate reporting; disaster set could undermine entire system. 

• NMFS should not consider implementing performance metrics for the Gulf of Mexico gear

restricted area. Application of performance metrics does not exclude many vessels, and would 

likely not produce the same benefits as noted for the Cape Hatteras gear restricted area.

Performance metrics in this area may incentivize underreporting. 

220 Appendices 
Weak Hooks 

• NMFS should expand weak hook regulations for the pelagic longline fishery. 

• NMFS should not change weak hook requirements in the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., a No Action 

management option). 

• NMFS should implement a seasonal (January to June) requirement of weak hooks 

• NMFS should completely remove the weak hook requirement due to redundant regulations and 

loss of large swordfish. NMFS could encourage the use voluntary use of weak hooks as a 

conservation strategy for bluefin tuna. 

• NMFS should consider designating bluefin tuna hotspots and in those hotspots require the use 

of weak hooks. 

Pelagic Longline Fishery Comments 

• NMFS should pursue no action options. The current regulations are a compromise. Keeping this

compromise intact avoids a total ban on pelagic longline fishing. 

• NMFS should prohibit commercial fishing with pelagic longline gear. 

• NMFS should not relax any pelagic longline regulations due to potential impact on bluefin tuna

and directed (e.g., handgear) commercial bluefin tuna fisheries. 

• NMFS should consider enlarging the size of, and extending the number of months, of pelagic 

longline spatial management areas 

• NMFS should not reopen any areas to pelagic longline gear. 

• NMFS should not seek to revitalize the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Instead of seeking

to increase landings through the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS should relax the restrictions on 

non-pelagic longline swordfish fisheries (e.g., allow for more non-pelagic longline swordfish 

permits). 

• NMFS should not rely on the IBQ Program as a sole tool for managing bluefin tuna bycatch on

pelagic longline boats in the Gulf of Mexico. This runs the risk of setting up a de facto pelagic 

longline quota for bluefin tuna in this region (contrary to ICCAT requirements for bluefin tuna 

in the Gulf of Mexico). 

• NMFS should facilitate a buyout of longline permits and vessels with those willing to sell. For

those not willing to sell, they should transition to buoy gear or green stick gear. 

• NMFS should not allow expansion of the pelagic longline fishery. 

• NMFS should consider more actions to ensure sustainable fishing and reduce bycatch

(observers documenting bycatch, deterrence of illegal pelagic longline fishing, and mandatory

use of bird-scaring streamers when deploying baited longlines). 

• Reversing Amendment 7 management measures will not reverse the decline of the pelagic 

longline fleet, which was occurring prior to implementation of Amendment 7. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 221 
Other Comments 

• NMFS should research 1) catch rates of swordfish on 16# and 18# circle hooks, and explain 

why 16# circle hooks don’t catch swordfish as well as 18#, and 2) whether 16# circle hooks

increase interaction rates with loggerhead turtles in the GOM. 

• Arguments presented by NMFS which support the modification of regulations in the scoping 

document are weak, specifically decreased target catch and declining pelagic longline fleet. 

222 Appendices 
Appendix B: Southeast Fisheries Science Center Gulf of Mexico Bluefin

Tuna Pelagic Longline Research—Weak Hooks 

Weak hooks are hooks made of a thinner gauge wire that can straighten and release large fish when

they are captured. In 2011, NMFS implemented the requirement for all HMS pelagic longline

fishermen to use weak hooks when operating in the Gulf of Mexico in order to reduce the catch of 

bluefin tuna and the rule was implemented rapidly to protect a large year class of bluefin tuna that 

was approaching maturity and expected to enter the Gulf of Mexico to spawn for the first time (76 

FR 18653; April 5, 2011). The requirement was based on research NMFS conducted from 2007 

through 2010 on the use of weak hooks by pelagic longline vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico 

to reduce bycatch of spawning bluefin tuna. NMFS continued the weak hook research for an 

additional year in 2012. 

This appendix summarizes data from a Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Gulf of Mexico

bluefin tuna pelagic longline experiment as recorded by Pelagic Observer Program observers.

Control gear configuration included a standard 16/0 Mustad carbon steel circle hook (#39960)

with sardine, squid or thread herring as bait. The experimental gear configuration includes a 

custom 16/0 Mustad circle hook constructed of 15/0 carbon steel material (i.e., a “weak hook”, 

#39988) with the same type of bait. Control and treatment hooks were deployed in alternating 

fashion on pelagic longline gear (Figure C.1). Hook timers (Lindgrin Pitman, HT600 600m) were 

deployed on 300 hooks (150 on each type), and temperature/depth recorders (Lotek Wireless

Model LAT1400, 1000 m, data point every 1-2 minutes) were deployed on 150 weak hooks, 

approximately 9m above the hooks. Eight vessels were involved in an experiment observing 418 

sets and deploying 245,881 hooks. An additional 51,067 hooks were deployed over 111 sets on 2 

vessels in 2012. Fisher’s Exact test was used to analyze results. Preliminary results of the research

with data through 2010 were presented in an appendix to the Final Environmental Assessment

(EA) to Require the Use of Weak Hooks on Pelagic Longline Vessels in the Gulf of Mexico - April 

2011. The most recent results of the SEFSC research were presented at the 2012 HMS Advisory 

Panel meeting (Foster and Bergmann, unpublished data5). A copy of the Final EA or the 

presentation may be requested by contacting Jennifer Cudney at jennifer.cudney@noaa.gov or 727-

824-5399. 

Updated research results showed that the use of a weak hook reduces the amount of bluefin tuna (-

46 percent change, statistically significant at p<0.05)(Table C.1). A statistically significant 22

percent reduction in the amount of wahoo captured on weak hooks was also noted. Some

reductions in the amount of target catch of yellowfin tuna and swordfish were noted but were not

statistically significant. However, statistically significant results also indicated that the catch of

white marlin and roundscale spearfish increased by nearly 46 percent on weak hooks. Results also 

indicate that the majority of escapes with weak hooks take place within 5 minutes of becoming

hooked (Figure C.2). 

Since the weak hook requirement has been in place for approximately 8 years (rule was finalized 

April 5, 2011), NMFS can compare fishing before and after the requirement using HMS logbook 

5 Foster D, C Bergmann. 2012. 2012 Update Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Research (Preliminary Results).

Presentation to the Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel. September 19-21, 2012 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 223 
data. In general, actual weak hook effects match results from the 2007-2010 research project. 

Bluefin tuna catch-per-unit effort and interactions both dropped after the requirement while catchper-unit effort and interactions for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and blue marlin remained relatively 

stable. White marlin/roundscale spearfish catch-per-unit effort and interactions increased with the 

use of weak hooks (Table C.2). These species were combined for analytical purposes because they 

can be difficult to tell apart, and because combination of data enabled a more robust sample size for 

analysis. 

FigureC.1 Experimental Gear Configuration for 2008–2010 Comparison of Standard Circle Hooks and 

Weak Hooks 

Table C.1 Catch Comparisons from Gulf of Mexico Exprimental Fishing Data (2008–2012) that Indicate 

Differences between Gear Rigged with Weak Hooks and Gear Rigged with Conventional

Hooks 

Target Species n Percent Reduction (%) p-value 

Bluefin tuna 134 46 0.0007** 

Yellowfin tuna total 3312 3.1 0.3723 

Yellowfin tuna kept 2547 6.0 0.1203 

Swordfish total 290 -7.1* 0.597 

Swordfish kept 69 27.5 0.02283 

Dolphinfish 918 9.9 0.1201 

Wahoo 375 22.3 0.0173** 

Restricted species—billfish 

Blue marlin 157 1.3 1 

Atlantic sailfish 62 22.9 0.3741 

White marlin/roundscale spearfish 172 -45.7* 0.0178** 

Managed sharks 

Large coastal sharks 108 16.9 0.3865 

Pelagic sharks 33 5.9 1 

*Negative value denotes an increase. 

**Statisticallysignificantatα < 0.05 level.

Source: D. Foster, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, unpublished data. 

224 Appendices 

Control Control 

Control 

Treat1uent Treat1uent Treattnent 

Control Control 

Treatment Treattnent 
FigureC.2 Quartile Plot Showing Time of Release Data for Straightened Hookswith Temperature/Depth 

Recorders 

Data Source:D. Foster, SoutheastFisheries Science Center,unpublished data. 

Table C.2 Pelagic Longline CPUE and Interactions with HMS Before (2008–2010) and After (2011–2016)

Implementation of the Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook Requirement 

Species 

2008–2010 

Average Annual

CPUE 

2011–2016 

Average Annual

CPUE 

2008–2010 Average 

Annual Interactions 

2011–2016 Average 

Annual Interactions 

Bluefin 

tuna 0.152 0.064 301 126 

Swordfish 3.883 4.504 8,366 7,636 

Yellowfin 

tuna 6.525 9.740 15,025 16,704 

Blue marlin 0.109 0.156 272 273 

White 

marlin 0.112 0.211 298 370 

Source:HMS logbook data. 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 225 

1.0 .,.------------------= rn=78 0.9 -+---------------------1 

2 0.8 -------------------

8 0. 7 +-----------,----,,....----,........:::,:.;,---t---' 

0 0.6 

C 0.5 ...-.--+---1 

0 

+:i 0.4 

(.) 

~ 0.3 

LL 0.2 

0.1 

0.0 -1--11- -,- ~ --~ -------..---.-----~ --......--1- --.-- ---. 

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 60 > 60 

Minutes 

All Sets