[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 165 (Friday, August 25, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50361-50373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7160]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 222 and 223

[Docket No. 050315074-6117-02; I.D. 022405B]
RIN 0648-AS92


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Sea Turtle Conservation

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to require sea turtle conservation 
measures for all sea scallop dredge vessels fishing south of 41[deg] 
9.0' N. latitude from May 1 through November 30 each year. All vessels 
with a sea scallop dredge and that are required to have a Federal 
Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, regardless of dredge size or 
vessel permit category, must modify their dredge(s) when fishing south 
of 41[deg] 9.0' N. latitude, from the shoreline to the outer boundary 
of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This action is necessary to help 
reduce mortality and injury to endangered and threatened sea turtles in 
scallop dredge gear and to conserve sea turtles listed under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Any incidental take of threatened sea 
turtles in sea scallop dredge gear in compliance with this gear 
modification requirement and all other applicable requirements will be 
exempted on the ESA's prohibition against takes.

DATES: Effective September 25, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory 
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) prepared 
for this final rule may be obtained by writing to Ellen Keane, NMFS, 
Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Keane (ph. 978-281-9300 x6526, 
fax 978-281-9394, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abcec7c7cec585c0cecac5ceebc5c4caca85ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="41242d2d242f6f2a24202f24012f2e20206f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>) or Barbara Schroeder (ph. 
301-713-1401, fax 301-713-0376, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03616271616271622d70606b716c66676671436d6c62622d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb9baa9b9baa9baf5a8b8b3a9b4bebfbea99bb5b4babaf5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either 
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(ESA). The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback 
(Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea 
turtles are listed as endangered. The loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and 
green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for 
breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific 
coast of Mexico that are listed as endangered. Due to the inability to 
distinguish between these populations of green turtles away from the 
nesting beach, NMFS considers green sea turtles endangered wherever 
they occur in U.S. waters. Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, loggerhead, and 
green sea turtles are hard-shelled sea turtles. The incidental take, 
both lethal and non-lethal, of loggerhead and unidentified hard-shelled 
sea turtles as a result of scallop dredging has been documented in the 
sea scallop dredge fishery. In addition, non-lethal takes of a green 
and a Kemp's ridley sea turtle have been documented in this fishery.
    This action, taken under the authority of section 4(d) of the ESA, 
is necessary to provide for the conservation of threatened loggerhead 
sea turtles, and will have ancillary benefits for Kemp's ridley and 
green sea turtles, which have been observed taken in the sea scallop 
dredge fishery, albeit to a lesser extent than loggerheads. Under the 
ESA and its implementing regulations, taking endangered sea turtles - 
even incidentally - is prohibited. The incidental take of endangered 
species may only legally be exempted by an incidental take statement or 
an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 7 or 10 the ESA, 
respectively. Existing sea turtle conservation regulations at 50 CFR 
223.206(d) exempt fishing activities and scientific research from the 
prohibition on takes of threatened species under certain conditions. 
Any incidental take of threatened loggerhead sea turtles in sea scallop 
dredge gear in compliance with this gear modification requirement and 
other applicable requirements is exempted from the prohibition against 
takes. Additional background information for this action is included in 
the preamble to the proposed rule (70 FR 30660, May 27, 2005).
    Based on the available information, NMFS has determined that the 
use of a dredge modified with a chain mat will prevent most, if not 
all, captures of sea turtles in the dredge bag as well as any ensuing 
injuries as a result of being caught in the dredge (e.g., crushing in 
the dredge bag, crushing on deck, etc.). In addition, it is possible 
that this action may reduce drowning due to forced submergence 
following an interaction with sea scallop dredge gear on the seafloor. 
Sea turtles observed captured in the scallop dredge fishery in 2003 
ranged in size from 55 107 cm (21.6 - 42.1 inches) from notch to tip 
(curved carapace length). When converted to straight carapace length 
(SCL) based on the formula for loggerheads provided in Teas (1993), the 
size range of the loggerhead sea turtles observed captured in the 
fishery in 2003 is 51-100 cm (20.1 - 39.4 inches). NMFS reviewed size 
at stage data for Atlantic loggerheads. Depending on the dataset used, 
the cutoff between pelagic immature and benthic immature loggerhead sea 
turtles was 42-49 cm (16.5 - 19.3 inches) SCL, and the cutoff between 
benthic immature and sexually mature loggerhead sea turtles was 
described as 83 90 cm (32.7 - 35.4 inches) SCL (NMFS SEFSC, 2001). 
Other authors define the benthic immature stage for loggerheads as 36 
100 cm (14.2 - 39.4 inches) (Bass et al., 2004). Based on these 
datasets and observer measurements of loggerhead sea turtles captured 
in the sea scallop dredge fishery, NMFS anticipates that both benthic 
immature and sexually mature loggerhead sea turtles are captured in 
this fishery. NMFS recognizes that, on rare occasions, sea turtles that 
interact with the modified gear may be small enough to enter the dredge 
bag, and that this interaction may result in the capture of the sea 
turtle in the bag. However, NMFS expects this to be a rare occurrence 
based on the life history of loggerhead sea turtles and the observer 
measurements.
    This action requires all vessels with a sea scallop dredge and that 
are required to have a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, 
regardless of dredge size or vessel permit category, to modify their 
dredge(s) with a chain mat configuration when fishing south of 41[deg] 
9.0' N. latitude (lat.) from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the 
EEZ.

New Information

    On May 27, 2005, NMFS published a proposed rule to require the 
modification of sea scallop dredge gear for Federally-permitted vessels 
fishing in the mid-Atlantic. Comments on this proposed action were 
requested through June 27, 2005. Since the publication of

[[Page 50362]]

the proposed rule, three new pieces of information have become 
available. First, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) re-
examined observer records to clarify the species identity of two 
individual sea turtle takes that were observed in the sea scallop 
dredge fishery in 1996 and 1997. With respect to interactions between 
sea scallop dredge gear and sea turtles, ``observed take'' and 
``observed'' refer to interactions that were seen and documented by a 
NMFS approved observer while on-watch. The 1996 take was deemed to be a 
loggerhead sea turtle and the 1997 take a green sea turtle. Secondly, a 
sea turtle take occurred in August 2005 in the Georges Bank sea scallop 
dredge fishery. The observer was off-watch at the time the sea turtle 
was taken. It is important to note that when an observer is off-watch 
at the time of the take much of the information on the haul that would 
otherwise be recorded will not be included in the observer's report. 
This sea turtle was identified as a Kemp's ridley sea turtle and this 
identification was confirmed through photographs. Lastly, a bycatch 
estimate of loggerhead sea turtles captured in the 2004 mid-Atlantic 
sea scallop dredge fishery became available. This assessment estimated 
180 loggerhead sea turtles (CV = 0.37) to have been captured in sea 
scallop dredge gear operating in the Mid-Atlantic from June 1 through 
November 30.

Comments and Responses

    Nine comment letters from eight different individuals or 
organizations were received during the public comment period for the 
proposed rule. Five commenters were generally supportive of the action 
but provided comments on particular aspects of the proposed rule, and 
three commenters were opposed to the proposed action. Two public 
hearings were held during the comment period. One in Fairhaven, 
Massachusetts on June 16, 2005, and one in Cape May, New Jersey on June 
22, 2005. Two individuals provided oral comments. Both of the oral 
comments were generally supportive of the proposed action. One of the 
individuals also provided written comments. A complete summary of the 
comments and NMFS' responses, grouped according to general subject 
matter in no particular order, is provided here.
    Comment 1: Four comments addressed the spatial extent of the 
proposed rule. One commenter supported using a longitudinal line at 
70[deg] 20' W. longitude (long.) as the eastern boundary of the rule, 
one supported keeping the spatial extent as proposed as there is not 
evidence that sea turtles do not use the entire region, one stated that 
the spatial extent was too broad, and one urged caution when choosing a 
longitude closer to shore as sea turtles are found in warmer waters 
closer to the Gulf Stream. Additionally, this commenter felt that the 
northern boundary did not adequately assess the potential for 
interactions on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine, that ``near-
shore'' areas potentially prone to warmer waters should potentially be 
regulated more, and that special care should be taken for vessels to 
avoid waters close to known nesting beaches during sea turtle nesting 
and mating.
    Response: Sea turtle species that are found off the northeastern 
coast of the United States north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina are, 
in order of frequency of occurrence, loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp's 
ridley, and green sea turtles (Shoop, 1980; Shoop and Kenney, 1992). 
This action will provide for the conservation of threatened loggerhead 
sea turtles and will have ancillary benefits for Kemp's ridley and 
green sea turtles.
    Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles undergo 
temperature dependent seasonal migrations along the mid-Atlantic coast 
(Morreale and Standora, 1998; Plotkin and Spotila, 2002). In general, 
these turtles occur in waters off North Carolina year round, in the 
inshore waters (i.e., bays, estuaries, and other coastal waters) of 
Virginia from May through November, and in New York's inshore waters 
from June through October (NMFS, 1994). All three are species are known 
to occur in Massachusetts waters as far north as Cape Cod, but with the 
exception of rare sightings and strandings are not known to occur in 
more northern New England waters (Shoop and Kenney, 1992; Mitchell et 
al., 2003). Detailed information on the distribution of sea turtles can 
be found in the EA for this action.
    Off the northeastern U.S., loggerhead sea turtles are commonly 
sighted across the continental shelf from the shore to the shelf break 
as far north as Long Island (approximately 41[deg] 9.0' N. latitude), 
although further north and east sightings are sparse (CeTAP, 1982; 
Shoop and Kenney, 1992; Mitchell et al., 2003). During CeTAP surveys, 
loggerhead sea turtles, the most common sea turtle observed taken in 
the sea scallop dredge fishery, were rarely documented north of 41[deg] 
N lat (Shoop and Kenney, 1992). South of Cape Hatteras, loggerhead sea 
turtles are year-round residents (Mitchell et al., 2003).
    In the western Atlantic, Kemp's ridley sea turtles are found year-
round in the Gulf of Mexico and many juveniles migrate north along the 
east coast in the summer (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999). Off the 
northeastern U.S., inshore waters of southern New England, especially 
Cape Cod Bay and Long Island Sound, appear to be developmental habitat 
for juvenile Kemp's ridley and green sea turtles (Mitchell et al., 
2003; Morreale and Standora, 2005). During the summer and fall, Kemp's 
ridley and green sea turtles are expected to occur predominantly in 
inshore waters where the scallop fishery does not typically operate 
(Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Keinath et al., 1987; Morreale and 
Standora, 1993; Spotila et al., 1998). In addition, although the 
broadest extent of the western Atlantic green sea turtle's range is 
from Massachusetts to Argentina, including the Gulf of Mexico and the 
Caribbean, they are considered rare north of Cape Hatteras (Wynne and 
Schwartz, 1999). In 1997, a green sea turtle was observed taken in the 
sea scallop dredge fishery operating off of New Jersey. Based on the 
identification of species taken in this fishery and the distribution of 
green and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, NMFS expects the take of these 
species in the sea scallop dredge fishery to be rare.
    The hawksbill sea turtle is uncommon in waters of the continental 
United States, preferring coral reefs. There are accounts of hawksbills 
in south Florida and a number are encountered in Texas. In the north 
Atlantic, small hawksbills have stranded as far north as Cape Cod, 
Massachusetts. However, many of these strandings were observed after 
hurricanes or offshore storms. No takes of hawksbill sea turtles have 
been recorded in the northeast or mid-Atlantic fisheries covered by the 
Northeast Fisheries Science Center observer program. Hawksbills are not 
expected to be present in the area impacted by this action.
    Interactions with sea turtles have been observed in the sea scallop 
dredge fishery south of 41[deg] N. 9.0' N lat. to the Virginia/North 
Carolina border. A total of 61 sea turtles have been observed taken in 
the Atlantic sea scallop dredge fishery during normal fishery 
operations from 1996 through October 31, 2005. Of these, 44 were 
identified as loggerhead sea turtles, 1 was identified as a green sea 
turtle, and 15 were hard-shelled sea turtles that could not be 
positively identified. An additional 13 sea turtles were reported 
captured while the observer was off-watch. These include a Kemp's 
ridley sea turtle in the sea scallop dredge fishery in August 2005.
    Prior to 2005, no sea turtle takes had been observed in the sea 
scallop dredge fishery outside the mid-Atlantic region.

[[Page 50363]]

 In the 1999 and 2000 scallop fishing years, relatively high levels of 
observer coverage (22 percent - 51 percent) occurred in portions of the 
Georges Bank Multispecies Closed Areas that were conditionally opened 
to scallop fishing. Despite this high level of observer coverage and 
operation of scallop dredge vessels in the area during June - October, 
which is generally when the water could be warm enough to support sea 
turtles, no sea turtles were observed captured in scallop dredge gear 
in these years. From 2001 through 2004, observer coverage was low in 
the Gulf of Maine (<1 percent in 2001, 2002, and 2004) and Georges Bank 
regions (<1 percent in 2001, 2002, and 2003; < 2 percent from September 
through November 2004 with most of the coverage occurring in November) 
(Murray 2004, 2005). In August 2005, a Kemp's ridley sea turtle was 
taken at approximately 40[deg] 58' N. lat./67[deg] 16' W. long. by a 
dredge vessel operating on southern Georges Bank indicating that takes 
in this area are possible.
    Based on: (1) the known distribution of sea turtles, (2) sea 
scallop dredge fishing effort, and (3) the observed take of sea turtles 
in this fishery, NMFS expects the take of sea turtles by dredge vessels 
operating in the New England sea scallop dredge fishery on Georges Bank 
to be rare. However, the take of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle on 
southern Georges Bank is evidence that takes in this area are possible. 
It should be noted that this take occurred on southern Georges Bank, 
south of the 41[deg] 9.0' N. lat. boundary. Although takes of sea 
turtles north of this boundary are possible, NMFS expects interactions 
between sea turtles and sea scallop dredge gear in this area to be 
rare. This final rule requires vessels fishing south of 41[deg] 9.0' N. 
lat. from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ to use the 
chain mat configuration from May 1 through November 30 each year.
    Mating for loggerhead sea turtles takes place in late March to 
early June in the general vicinity of the nesting area, and eggs are 
laid throughout the summer. In the western Atlantic, most loggerhead 
sea turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the Gulf 
Coast of Florida, although Virginia is the northernmost extent of 
loggerhead nesting on the eastern coast of the United States (DeGroot 
and Shaw, 1993; USFWS 2004). Sea scallops only occur in inshore waters 
in the Gulf of Maine and Canada. Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate 
the overlap of sea turtles and sea scallop dredging in inshore areas 
during nesting and mating season.
    Comment 2: Two comments addressed the temporal extent of the 
proposed rule. One commenter supported the use of November 30, the 
preferred alternative, rather than October 15, as described in non-
preferred alternative 1, to better account for variability in sea 
turtle migration and fishing activities. The other commenter stated 
that the proposed rule is for too long a time and the modification 
should be required when sea turtles are in the area (a dynamic area 
management (DAM) program). The commenter explained that the DAM program 
could be implemented similarly to the program currently used for right 
whales and could use the observer program to report the presence of sea 
turtles in the area. The commenter also stated that the use of the 
turtle chains will consume more fuel, catch less scallops, and be less 
efficient. The commenter believes that a DAM program would minimize 
this loss of efficiency and the use of a non-renewable resource, fuel.
    Response: The temporal extent of these proposed measures are based 
on the time period associated with the overlap of sea turtles and the 
sea scallop dredge fishery using Cape Hatteras, North Carolina as the 
lower boundary. Cape Hatteras was chosen as the lower boundary as NMFS 
does not anticipate any fishing south of Cape Hatteras due to a lack of 
scallop resources. In general, hard-shelled sea turtles move from 
offshore to inshore and/or from south to north in the spring and in the 
opposite direction in the fall. These turtles occur year round in 
waters off North Carolina; however, they are considered rare North of 
Cape Hatteras in the winter (Mitchell et al., 2003). Hard-shelled sea 
turtles occur in the inshore waters (i.e., bays, estuaries, and other 
coastal waters) of Virginia from May through November, and in New 
York's inshore waters from June until October (NMFS, 1994).
    Interactions between the sea scallop dredge fishery and hard-
shelled sea turtles have been documented from late June to late 
October, and the potential for interactions exists during May and 
November due to the overlap of sea turtles and fishing distribution. 
Interactions with sea turtles have been observed in the sea scallop 
dredge fishery south of 41[deg] 9.0' N. lat. to the Virginia/North 
Carolina border. Based on the known distribution of sea turtles, as 
described in the response to Comments 1 and 2, the observed take of sea 
turtles in the sea scallop dredge fishery from June through October, 
and to account for variability in both sea turtle migration and fishing 
activity, the final rule requires vessels to use the modified sea 
scallop from May 1 through November 30 each year.
    At this time, it would not be feasible to implement a DAM program 
for sea turtles. The DAM program for right whales is based on 
scientific aerial survey effort. These aerial surveys for right whales 
are not designed to assess sea turtle distribution and, currently, 
there is no aerial survey program for sea turtles. The observer program 
is not the appropriate platform for looking for sea turtle aggregations 
as sea turtles are often difficult to see from a vessel, the program is 
not a scientific survey to assess distribution of protected species, 
and observer locations are determined by many criteria and may not be 
appropriate for evaluating aggregations of turtles in the mid-Atlantic.
    Comment 3: One commenter stated that the proposed rule should 
identify areas more prone to sea scallop dredge - sea turtle 
interactions based on water temperature and known sea turtle biology. 
The commenter also stated that although it is not reasonable to ask 
that all scallop dredging cease during warmer months, dredging should 
be restricted in shallow embayments and deeper offshore waters during 
these months.
    Response: During 2001-2003, sea surface temperature (SST) was found 
to be significant factor influencing sea turtle bycatch rates in the 
mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge fishery. In 2001 and 2002, a higher 
probability of turtle bycatch occurred after waters had warmed to 19 
[deg]C and in 2003, higher probabilities occurred after waters warmed 
to 22 [deg]C. These differences may reflect inter-annual variations in 
SST or turtle distributions, shifting patterns in the fishery, or 
interactions between random samples and statistical models (Murray, 
2004). Murray (2004) found that there may be a minimal threshold above 
which sea turtle bycatch is likely to occur, although this minimal 
temperature threshold is likely to fluctuate from year to year. SST was 
not found to be a significant predictor of sea turtle bycatch rates in 
the mid-Atlantic during the 2004 fishing year (Murray, 2005). 
Interactions in 2004 may have been influenced by a combination of depth 
zone and SST, and the small number of takes in 2004 relative to the 
number of dredge hours examined (approximately 1 take:1,000 observed 
dredge hours) may have precluded the detection of a significant effect. 
The rare nature of turtle interactions in 2004 made it difficult to 
identify variables significantly affecting bycatch rates, and even area 
and depth, selected for a best fit, were not strong predictors (Murray, 
2005).
    Due to the influence of temperature in 2001, 2002, and 2003 
affecting sea turtle

[[Page 50364]]

bycatch rates, NMFS considered an alternative which would provide 
protection to sea turtles when sea surface temperatures reached a level 
at which elevated sea turtle bycatch was expected. Under the 
alternative, vessels would be prohibited from fishing south of 41[deg] 
9.0' N. lat. and north of 38[deg] 0.0' N. lat. from May 1 through 
October 31 and south of 38[deg] 0.0' N. from May through November 30. 
NMFS rejected this alternative from further analysis as it would result 
in essentially the same impacts to sea turtles and the fishing industry 
as a closure from May 1 through November 30 each year (see Comment 4 
for a more detailed response regarding seasonal closures) and, given 
the recent bycatch analysis, the relationship between elevated levels 
of bycatch and SST is unclear. Requiring the chain mat modification 
when sea surface temperatures reached a level at which elevated sea 
turtle bycatch was expected would likely result in the same impacts as 
this action. The sea scallop dredge fishery is not expected to overlap 
with sea turtle distribution in shallow embayments of the mid-Atlantic 
as sea scallops do not occur in shallow embayments there. Sea scallops 
only occur in inshore waters in the Gulf of Maine and Canada.
    Comment 4: One comment was received that supported non-preferred 
alternative 3 (seasonal closure of the mid-Atlantic) to effectively 
protect sea turtles from scallop dredging during the summer by removing 
sea scallop dredge vessels from the times and places where sea turtles 
occur. The commenter stated that this is the only alternative that can 
be shown to effectively reduce loggerhead sea turtle takes and 
subsequent injury and mortality, that concern about displacement of 
effort adversely affecting habitat should not block protection of sea 
turtles, and that economic considerations in no way argue against 
alternative 3, in part because the economic analysis of alternative 3 
is grossly irrational (see Comment 17).
    Response: A seasonal closure of all waters south of 41[deg] 9.0' N. 
lat. was considered and analyzed in the EA. This alternative would 
provide the most protection to sea turtles as scallop dredge vessels 
would not be in the area when sea turtles are present. Sea scallop 
fishing is not distributed evenly throughout this area. In a review of 
Vessel Trip Reports for 2003 and 2004, reported trips for the mid-
Atlantic (defined in Murray as approximately 41[deg]15'N/70[deg]00'W to 
36[deg]06'N/70[deg]00'W) during the period June through November 
occurred from approximately 75[deg] 30.0' W. long. to approximately 
71[deg] W long. (Murray 2004, 2005). The commercial sea scallop fishery 
in the mid-Atlantic generally operates at depths between 35 - 75 m 
(memo from John Boreman to Patricia A. Kurkul, 6 December 2004).
    At this time, it is not known whether sea turtles interact with sea 
scallop dredge gear throughout the area in which the fleet operates in 
the mid-Atlantic or if interactions are limited to certain areas and 
certain times. Observer coverage has documented several trips on which 
more than one sea turtle was observed taken. In 2002, out of 62 
observed trips, one of the observed trips took three sea turtles and 
four of the observed trips took two sea turtles. In 2003, out of 71 
observed trips, one of the observed trips took four sea turtles, two of 
the observed trips took three sea turtles, and three of the observed 
trips took two sea turtles (Murray, 2004), and in 2004, out of 172 
observed trips, one observed trip took two sea turtles (Murray, 2005). 
At this time, NMFS does not know why some trips have multiple takes and 
does not have sufficient evidence to refine a potential closure area 
further.
    A closure of the mid-Atlantic would likely result in a shift of 
effort further north. A behavioral model, which does not exist at this 
time, would be necessary to assess shifts in effort. In the absence of 
this model, NMFS assumed the worse case scenario that vessels would 
choose not to fish an alternative area. According to the 2003 VTR data, 
of the 314 scallop dredge vessels that fished in the mid-Atlantic 
during May through November, 208 vessels fished exclusively in the mid-
Atlantic region and 106 vessels fished in the mid-Atlantic and further 
north. If, under a closure, vessels choose to relocate to fishing 
grounds not affected by the closure, gear conflicts may result. As the 
number of scallop vessels fishing on these grounds increases, the 
vessels would be competing with other scallop vessels that have 
historically fished these grounds as well as with each other. Other 
gear conflicts might include the lobster fishery and, to a lesser 
extent, the groundfish fishery. It is difficult to determine how much 
effort would increase on Georges Bank based on a closure in the mid-
Atlantic, but if effort were to increase on Georges Bank, there could 
be an increase in the bycatch of groundfish in this area.
    The extent of this shift and its impacts on physical, habitat, and 
biological resources in these areas cannot be quantified at this time. 
In general, a shift in effort would increase impacts to habitat in the 
areas outside of the mid-Atlantic and perhaps in the mid-Atlantic 
during the periods it would be open to sea scallop dredge fishing. 
During the closure (May through November), it is expected that there 
would be beneficial impacts to the mid-Atlantic habitat. The net 
impacts, and the magnitude of these impacts, to habitat are not clear. 
The economic analysis for a seasonal closure in the mid-Atlantic 
assumed the economically worst case scenario, that the alternative 
would not result in a displacement of effort. Instead, the analysis 
assumed that the vessels would not fish during the closure period (see 
Comment 17 for a more detailed response regarding the economic 
analysis). It is likely that some vessels will shift their fishing 
effort to other areas; therefore, the economic impact will be less than 
that assumed for the final EA. Due to these factors - the broad extent 
of the closure area, displacement of effort, and uncertainty of the 
extent of the area in which interactions are occurring - non-preferred 
alternative 3 was rejected.
    Comment 5: One commenter stated that all dredging should be banned 
year round in the area proposed. This commenter also stated that all 
longlines and purse seine fishing should be banned.
    Response: As described in the response to Comment 2, sea turtle 
presence varies with season. The capture of sea turtles in sea scallop 
dredge gear has been documented in the mid-Atlantic from June through 
October and the potential for takes exists in May and November due to 
the overlap of the sea scallop dredge fishery with sea turtle 
distribution. As described above, a single sea turtle take has been 
documented in the sea scallop dredge fishery on southern Georges Bank 
in August. As sea turtle distribution and sea scallop dredge effort are 
not expected to overlap from December 1 through April 30, extending the 
effective period of the rule through these months is not expected to 
provide additional benefit to sea turtles. A seasonal closure of the 
mid-Atlantic to sea scallop dredging is addressed in the response to 
Comment 4. The comments regarding longline and purse seine fisheries 
are not relevant to the proposed rule.
    Comment 6: Two comments were received relating to scallop dredge 
gear and operational modifications in the fishery. One commenter stated 
that the rule should require modifications to the dredge frame and 
cutting bar to reduce injury to sea turtles as well as modifications in 
the operation of the fishery, including not setting gear if a sea 
turtle is seen in wake, stopping gear at the 10-fathom mark for 30 
seconds

[[Page 50365]]

during haul back, and restricting tow times to reduce drowning of sea 
turtles. Another commenter stated that NMFS should consider additional 
ways to reduce interactions of dredges with turtles, such as keeping 
discards on board during fishing operations.
    Response: NMFS is working with industry to evaluate the 
effectiveness of a dredge with a modified cutting bar and bail. This 
dredge was designed to reduce serious injury to sea turtles that may be 
encountered on the bottom. Initial testing of the gear in Panama City, 
FL showed that the gear was capable of deflecting a model turtle over 
the bail. However, additional studies are necessary to assess the 
effectiveness of this modification at reducing the severity of 
interactions on the ocean floor and at maintaining the scallop catch. 
This gear research is on-going.
    It has been suggested that the discard of scallop viscera during 
fishing operations may be attracting sea scallop dredge vessels to the 
fishing area. White (2004) reported loggerhead sea turtles 
opportunistically feeding on discards from gillnet vessels docked at a 
quay in Greece and there are anecdotal reports of sea turtles 
opportunistically feeding on discards in the shrimp trawl fishery. It 
is unclear whether the turtles were drawn to the vessel because of the 
discards or just happened to be in the same place as the vessels at the 
same time. At this time, NMFS has no evidence to refute or support the 
possibility that discards may be attracting sea turtles to the scallop 
vessel. In addition, it is not clear what the effect would be from a 
prohibition of dumping viscera. Sea turtles that may be attracted to 
discarded viscera might disperse away from fishing vessels if the 
practice is prohibited. Alternatively, these turtles may remain in the 
fishing area and feed on natural prey in the benthos. It is not clear 
that a prohibition on the discard of sea scallop viscera would reduce 
the risk of interaction.
    NMFS does encourage observers to collect all sea turtle carcasses 
brought on board for necropsy, including an analysis of stomach/GI 
samples for prey items. However, this is logistically difficult and, to 
date, only one sea turtle carcass has been returned and necropsied. 
Stomach and intestinal samples could not be obtained from this turtle 
due to its condition.
    In the draft EA for the proposed rule and the final EA, NMFS 
considered an alternative that would require operational modifications 
in the sea scallop dredge fishery. Although operational modifications 
could provide some benefit to sea turtles, the extent of these benefits 
is unclear. It would be difficult to ensure compliance and to assess 
the impact of these modifications on sea turtles. Due to this 
uncertainty, this alternative was rejected and not further analyzed.
    Comment 7: One commenter stated that the decrease in scallop catch 
would be greater than the 6.71 percent observed in the experimental 
fishery. Another commenter stated that the proposed rule affords a 
practical solution, that the modification could be retrofitted onto 
existing scallop dredges, and that the costs of the chains and losses 
of scallops are a reasonable measure for insuring the conservation of 
sea turtles stocks as well as the viability of the industry.
    Response: During the experimental fishery to test the chain mat 
configuration, scallop catches were variable from vessel to vessel and 
trip to trip, with differences ranging from -30.88 percent to 7.28 
percent (average -6.71 percent). The study authors and NMFS gear 
technologists anticipate that the difference in catch will decrease as 
industry becomes more familiar with the chain configuration. However, 
if vessels with a loss of catch do not choose not to offset this loss 
with an increase in effort, there is the potential for loss of revenue.
    Comment 8: Two comments were received on the species considered in 
the proposed rule. One commenter stated that the proposed rule should 
consider other species of sea turtles found in the geographic area of 
the proposed measures. One commenter stated that Kemp's ridley, green, 
and leatherback sea turtle may be captured by scallop dredges and 
trawls as a number of individuals captured in the fishery are not 
identified to species. In addition, the commenter stated that the 
unobserved take reported as a leatherback in the experimental fishery 
should be considered valid. The commenter believes that all four 
species are likely to be taken in the fishery; therefore, consultation 
should be reinitiated and take of all four species considered.
    Response: Since the publication of the proposed rule, two new 
pieces of information have become available indicating that Kemp's 
ridley and green sea turtles are vulnerable to capture in sea scallop 
dredge gear. Two sea turtles were observed taken in the sea scallop 
dredge fishery from 1996 through 1997. For the initial and subsequent 
Biological Opinions on the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management 
Plan, these sea turtles were considered unidentified hard shelled 
species based on discussions with some of the staff of the NEFSC. 
Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, the records 
maintained by the Fisheries Sampling Branch, NEFSC were re-examined 
and, on August 23, 2005, the NEFSC indicated that the 1996 sea turtle 
should be considered a loggerhead and the 1997 sea turtle should be 
considered a green based on written documentation provided by the 
observer and the observer's experience. Both of these observed takes 
occurred in the mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge fishery.
    Sea turtle species that are found off the northeastern coast of the 
United States north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina are, in order of 
frequency of occurrence, loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp's ridley, and 
green sea turtles (Shoop and Kenney, 1992). Additional information on 
the distribution of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill and green sea 
turtles is found in comment 1 and the EA for this action. This action 
will provide for the conservation of threatened loggerhead sea turtles. 
Based on information received subsequent to the publication to the 
proposed rule, it is also expected to have ancillary benefits for 
Kemp's ridley and green sea turtles, which have been observed taken in 
the sea scallop dredge fishery, albeit to a lesser extent than 
loggerheads.
    While the sea scallop dredge fishery does overlap with leatherback 
sea turtle distribution, NMFS has no confirmed report that this gear 
interacts with leatherback sea turtles, either in the water column or 
on the bottom. During the experimental testing of the modified sea 
scallop dredge gear, two unobserved interactions were reported. One of 
the unobserved interactions was reported by the fisherman as a 
loggerhead sea turtle. The second unobserved interaction was reported 
by the fisherman as a leatherback. NEFSC's general protocol for 
confirmation of at-sea species identification requires that the species 
be considered as unknown unless either the observer is experienced in 
sea turtle identification and has confidence in the identification, or 
the observer is inexperienced and has provided supporting information 
(i.e., photos, tissue samples). As far as the NEFSC is aware, the 
fishermen reporting the take of the leatherback and the take of the 
loggerhead have not been trained nor are they experienced in 
identifying sea turtle species. No supporting materials, such as photos 
or tissue samples, have been provided. Therefore, based on the 
confirmation protocol for at-sea species identification, the NEFSC 
considers the species identification of these takes to be ``unknown 
turtle species''. Leatherback sea turtles are predominantly a pelagic 
species and

[[Page 50366]]

feed on jellyfish. Since scallop dredge gear operates on the bottom, 
leatherback sea turtles are less likely to encounter this gear compared 
with loggerhead sea turtles. Given their large size, prey and habitat 
preferences, leatherback sea turtles are not expected to be struck by 
the gear operating on the bottom or caught in sea scallop dredge gear. 
In the unlikely event that a leatherback sea turtle were to interact 
with sea scallop dredge gear, the chain mat configuration would prevent 
it from entering the dredge bag, and would prevent subsequent injuries 
that might ensue from such capture.
    As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation 
is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control 
over the action has been retained and if: (1) the amount or extent of 
incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the 
agency action that affect listed species or critical habitat in a 
manner or to an extent not considered in the previous opinion; (3) the 
agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an 
effect to listed species or critical habitat not considered in the 
previous opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the action. This action does not 
trigger reinitiation.
    Although this action does not trigger reinitiation of consultation, 
NMFS reinitiated ESA section 7 consultation on the Scallop FMP on 
November 1, 2005. Observer coverage of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery 
in the 2005 fishing year and a review of past observer records has 
revealed new information on the fishery in relation to its effects on 
ESA-listed sea turtles. This information includes the take of five 
loggerhead sea turtles in the sea scallop trawl fishery, the take of a 
Kemp's ridley on southern Georges Bank, and confirmation from the NEFSC 
that a turtle observed taken in scallop dredge gear in 1997 should be 
considered a green sea turtle.
    Comment 9: Several comments were received on the nature of the 
interaction. One commenter expressed concerns that the tests on the 
chain mats have been limited and that additional research is needed to 
determine how ``dredge bars'' injure and kill sea turtles. A second 
commenter stated that it is unknown what happens when turtles interact 
with the chain mat modified dredge and that there is a significant risk 
that the chains do not reduce take, but simply change the nature of the 
interaction. This commenter also stated that, without video monitoring, 
it is possible that the rule may prevent real attempts to address the 
problem by hiding what is happening from view and that, to be 
effective, video work must be done in a systematic manner prior to 
proposing the modifications as a regulation. The commenter stated that 
the proposed action may do very little to reduce mortality and injury 
to sea turtles and that NMFS admits that the chain mat configuration 
would not lessen the number of sea turtles taken, injured, or killed by 
the dredge on the sea floor. The commenter stated that it stands to 
reason that a significant number of the sea turtles that are seriously 
injured and end up dying are caught on the sea floor as the dredge is 
towed on the sea floor for far more time than it is hauled up to the 
boat through the water column. Lastly, the commenter states that the EA 
does not appear to analyze how often injuries occur from interactions 
with the dredge in the water column, but the implication is that even 
without the turtle chains, such interactions are unlikely. Another 
commenter stated that it is unlikely that strikes by scallop dredges 
with turtle excluder devices represent a significant source of 
mortality or injury while fishing on bottom. The commenter stated that 
while fishing, dredges are towed at a relatively slow speed and that it 
appears that most injuries result from negative interactions caused 
when turtles enter the dredge, remain submerged, or are brought on 
deck.
    Response: NMFS recognizes the uncertainty regarding whether sea 
turtles interact with sea scallop dredges as the dredge is dragged 
along the bottom, as the dredge is hauled back, or both. It takes 
approximately 1 minute to set a dredge and approximately 10 minutes to 
haul back, dump the catch, and reset the gear. For the remainder of the 
haul, the gear is on the bottom. However, it is not known where sea 
turtles are encountering the gear. It is likely that sea turtles are 
interacting with the gear both in the water column and on the bottom. 
Sea turtles have been observed in the area in which sea scallop gear 
operates and they have been seen near scallop vessels when they are 
fishing or hauling gear. In addition, sea turtles are known to forage 
and rest on the sea floor as part of their normal behavior. The 
condition of sea turtles observed taken in the sea scallop dredge 
fishery ranges from alive with no apparent injuries to alive and 
injured to fresh dead. As described below, NMFS believes that 
interactions between sea turtles and sea scallop dredge gear that occur 
on the bottom are likely to result in serious injury to the sea turtle. 
Based on this assumption, NMFS believes that the unharmed/slightly 
injured turtles observed captured in the sea scallop dredge bag follow 
an interaction with sea scallop dredge gear in the water column.
    Data do not exist on the percentage of sea turtles interacting with 
the chain mat-modified gear that will be unharmed, sustain minor 
injuries, or sustain serious injuries that will result in death or 
failure to reproduce. However, there are several assumptions that can 
be made to assess the degree of interaction. With the chain mat 
installed over the opening to the dredge bag, it is reasonable to 
assume that sea turtles, which would otherwise enter the dredge bag, 
will instead come into contact with the chain mat at least. NMFS 
recognizes that this modification may not reduce the number of sea 
turtles interacting with sea scallop dredge gear, but it is reasonable 
to assume that the modification will reduce mortality and the severity 
of injury following interactions that occur in the water column. After 
an interaction in the water column, severe injuries to sea turtles 
following capture in a dredge bag without the chain mat configuration 
likely result from crushing by debris in the dredge bag, dumping of the 
turtle on the vessel's deck, or crushing them with falling gear. NMFS 
does not have information on the proportion of takes occurring in the 
water column. However, preventing the turtles from entering the dredge 
bag will prevent injuries resulting from such capture and likely result 
in a non-serious interaction following an encounter in the water 
column.
    With the chain mat in place, it is reasonable to assume that the 
sea turtles on the sea floor would still interact with the gear, but 
that the nature of the interaction would be different. With the 
modified gear, the sea turtles may still be hit by the leading edge of 
the frame and cutting bar and would likely be forced down to the sea 
floor rather then swept into the dredge bag. Since the turtles are not 
being swept into the bag, they could be run over by the dredge bag and 
club stick. At this point, the turtle will have likely already been hit 
and run over by the cutting bar and the leading edge of the dredge 
frame, which constitutes a substantial weight. In 2005, NMFS worked 
with industry to test a dredge with a modified cutting bar and bail 
designed to minimize the severity of impacts to turtles that may be 
encountered on the bottom. A standard New Bedford style dredge was used 
as a control, and both dredges were equipped with the chain mat 
configuration, although the purpose of the project was not to study the 
chain mats. The project used turtle carcasses

[[Page 50367]]

and model turtles to simulate a worse case scenario of a dredge 
overtaking a sea turtle lying on the bottom. During the study, the 
turtle carcasses were observed lodged in front of the cutting bar and 
pushed along, eventually going under the cutting bar and getting caught 
on the chain mat. The model turtle was deployed on one tow with the 
modified dredge. During this tow, the model turtle was deflected over 
the bail of the modified dredge, indicating that this type of 
modification might be effective at reducing the severity of encounters 
on the bottom. It is important to note that the project was limited in 
that behavioral responses of a live turtle encountering a dredge could 
not be assessed. The video from the study did show that it is possible 
that sea turtles encountering the dredge on the bottom may become 
caught on the chains after being hit by the leading bar of the dredge. 
However, this follows the turtle being struck by the leading edge of 
the dredge during which it is likely to have sustained serious 
injuries. NMFS has made the conservative assumption that a turtle in a 
bottom interaction sustains serious injuries on the bottom regardless 
of whether the chain mat is used. Under this conservative assumption, 
there would not be a benefit from the chain mat for bottom 
interactions. This assumption, however, may be too conservative in that 
it is possible that turtles in a bottom interaction may only receive 
minor injuries. In the unlikely scenario of a turtle receiving only 
minor injuries following a bottom interaction, the chain mat 
modification would prevent serious injuries that result from capture in 
the dredge bag (i.e., injuries from debris in the bag, forced 
submergence, dropping on deck, or crushing by the dredge). A detailed 
description the assumptions made and the assessment of the interactions 
can be found in the EA on this action.
    NMFS recognizes that the interactions between sea turtles and sea 
scallop dredges are likely to continue and may not be observed from on 
deck. In 2004 and 2005, NMFS conducted video research to document the 
nature of the interaction between sea turtles and sea scallop dredge 
gear. Approximately 80 hours of video were collected and reviewed. No 
sea turtles were documented. Further video work may be conducted under 
the Sea Scallop Research Set Aside Program. It is evident from these 
studies that using video to document the specific nature of sea turtle-
sea scallop dredge interactions, in general, and sea turtle-chain mat 
interactions specifically, is logistically difficult. Due to the low 
number of interactions between sea turtles and sea scallop dredge gear 
(approximately 1 take per 1,000 observed dredge hours in 2004), it will 
be difficult to obtain sufficient video documentation of sea turtle 
behavior to allow a thorough analysis of the types of interactions that 
may occur. Waiting for such video documentation would result in an 
extended delay in the use of a chain-mat modified dredge. As this 
modification is expected to provide a net benefit to sea turtles, NMFS 
believes it is important to move forward without delay.
    In addition, NMFS will monitor scallop fishing effort for 
significant increases or decreases in effort in the mid-Atlantic and 
the possible effects that changes in effort may have on sea turtles. 
NMFS is continuing to investigate modifications of the gear that may 
reduce the effects of interactions which occur on the ocean bottom.
    Comment 10: Two comments were received on the level of take in the 
sea scallop fishery. One commenter stated that NMFS has repeatedly 
failed to recognize the extent and impact of the scallop fishery's 
impact on threatened and endangered species, that the anticipated take 
level in the proposed rule does not incorporate the supposed benefits 
of the chain mat requirement, and that these benefits should be 
reflected in a reduction of allowed take. If the action is not expected 
to reduce take and injury, then further efforts are needed. In 
addition, the commenter urged NMFS to expeditiously provide information 
on genetic samples taken in this fishery. The second commenter stated 
that the proposed rule's estimated take was too low because the 2004 
Biological Opinion did not include a number of ways that dredges can 
take sea turtles (i.e., being hauled up on top of the gear, being 
wedged in the forward parts of the dredge frame, being held against the 
dredge by the pressure of the flow of water, or by being run over by 
the dredge and chain bag).
    Response: According to the December 2004 Biological Opinion, the 
agency anticipates that up to 749 sea turtles will be taken each year 
without the chain mat configuration in place, and that up to 479 of 
these are expected to sustain injuries leading to death or failure to 
reproduce. As described in the proposed rule (70 FR 30660) and in the 
response to Comment 9, up to 749 turtles may still interact with the 
gear. However, the chain mat configuration is expected to prevent 
serious injury leading to death or failure to reproduce caused by 
dumping of the turtles on the vessel's deck and crushing them by 
falling gear or debris in the bag following an interaction in the water 
column. At this time, the proportion of sea turtles interacting with 
the dredge gear in the water column cannot be quantified. In 2004 and 
2005, NMFS worked with industry to conduct approximately 80 hours of 
video research to document the nature of the interaction between sea 
turtles and sea scallop dredge gear and to investigate the behavior of 
sea turtles around sea scallop dredges, but no sea turtles were 
documented.
    Tissue samples for genetics samples have been collected from 
loggerhead sea turtles captured in the sea scallop dredge fishery, and 
the results are still pending. NMFS is working to obtain these results 
as soon as is reasonably possible.
    The bycatch estimate completed by the NEFSC, and the anticipated 
take level in the 2004 Biological Opinion, included any interaction 
occurring during an on-watch haul, that was not moderately or severely 
decomposed upon capture. This includes sea turtles hauled up on top of 
the gear, wedged in the forward parts of the dredge frame, or held 
against the dredge by the pressure of the flow of water as observed 
from on deck. Sea turtles may interact with sea turtle dredge gear in 
the water column or on the sea bottom and not be brought to the 
surface. These interactions cannot be quantified at this time.
    Comment 11: A number of comments were received on the need for 
additional research including monitoring the degree of progress made in 
reducing sea turtle bycatch, modifications to the dredge frame and 
cutting bar, video footage to document the interactions, and observer 
coverage on scallop dredge vessels and underwater video cameras on the 
dredge to evaluate the effectiveness of the chain mats. One commenter 
also expressed concern that the tests on the chain mats have been very 
limited, and urged NMFS to provide extensive observer coverage to 
determine the effectiveness of the chain mats.
    Response: As described above, NMFS will continue to monitor the 
take of sea turtles and the effectiveness of this regulation in the sea 
scallop dredge fishery through observer coverage, fishing effort data, 
and other data, as available. NMFS is currently working with industry 
to research the effectiveness of a dredge with a modified bail and 
cutting bar at reducing the severity of sea turtle interactions that 
are occurring on the sea floor bottom and retaining sea scallop catch. 
This research is described above. Video work conducted in 2004 by the 
NEFSC and industry did not

[[Page 50368]]

document any interactions between sea turtles and sea scallop dredge 
gear, but was successful in devising a methodology to video in front of 
sea scallop dredges. In 2005, approximately 73 hours of video work was 
conducted to document the nature of the interaction between sea turtles 
and sea scallop dredges and to investigate the behavior of sea turtles 
around sea scallop dredges. No sea turtles were documented.
    Comment 12: One commenter stated that the proposed action could 
have profound adverse effects on efforts to protect loggerhead sea 
turtles and thus on loggerhead turtle populations. The commenter 
claimed that without video monitoring, no one will know how many 
loggerhead turtles were taken, injured, and killed underwater, an 
accurate estimate of sea turtle takes would be impossible, and neither 
individuals nor the agency would be able to assess whether these takes 
may exceed the December 2004 incidental take statement. Another 
commenter expressed concerns that the chain mat modified dredge may 
contribute to underestimates of sea turtle capture by preventing 
injured and dead turtles from being brought on deck.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that interactions between sea scallop 
dredge gear and sea turtles are likely to occur and that these 
interactions may not be observed from on deck. As described above, NMFS 
will continue to use observer information, fishing effort data, and 
other data, as available, to monitor the fishery and its possible 
effects on sea turtles. NMFS will use observer data to continue to 
evaluate the take of sea turtles in other parts of the dredge (i.e., 
the forward parts of the frame and on top of the gear). In addition, 
observer coverage may provide information on the effectiveness of the 
chain mat modification. NMFS will monitor scallop fishing effort for 
significant increases or decreases in effort in the mid-Atlantic and 
the possible effects that changes in effort may have on sea turtles. 
This will be of particular importance for monitoring the level of take 
exempted in the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for the fishery. NMFS 
will develop a methodology, using observer and fisheries data, and 
other information as available, to assess compliance with the ITS. In 
addition, further video research may be conducted under the Sea Scallop 
Research Set Aside Program to evaluate the behavior of sea turtles 
around sea scallop dredge gear and to document the specific nature of 
the interaction.
    Comment 13: One comment was received regarding enforcement and 
monitoring of regulations to ensure vessel compliance. The commenter 
stated that a modification deadline should be implemented, that the 
proposed rule should mention self-reporting programs and observer 
programs because reporting and record-keeping measurements are 
necessary to assess if the modification is an effective means of 
reducing bycatch, and that NMFS should ensure that vessels have 
complied with the modification.
    Response: The effective date for the regulations is 30 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. NMFS will 
continue to use observer information, fishing effort data, enforcement, 
and other data, as available, to monitor the fishery and its possible 
effects on sea turtles. This includes self-reporting programs, such as 
the Vessel Trip Report program that is already in place in the fishery.
    Comment 14: One commenter stated that the rule is more 
appropriately enacted under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), rather than the ESA. The 
Atlantic sea scallop fishery is managed by the New England Fishery 
Management Council, which has expertise in the management of the 
scallop fishery and would be able to more quickly and efficiently 
adjust the rules as new information becomes available.
    Response: Implementing the proposed regulation under the ESA rather 
than the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not prevent NMFS from responding 
quickly and efficiently as new information becomes available. In 
addition, implementing this action under the ESA does not preclude 
future actions from being implemented under either the ESA or the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as appropriate.
    Comment 15: One commenter stated that NMFS should consider ways for 
fishermen, working in conjunction with appropriate veterinary or rescue 
facilities, to bring turtles with cracked shells to these facilities. 
In addition, developing good techniques to repair turtle shells damaged 
by boats and fishing gear is a growing need to be addressed.
    Response: Currently, information regarding the transfer of injured 
turtles to appropriate rehabilitation facilities is included in the 
fishery observer training packets, including contacts for appropriate/
authorized facilities from Maine to North Carolina. Observers are 
encouraged to make these arrangements for injured sea turtles as 
logistics and practicality allow, taking into account trip length and 
ability to transfer turtles quickly and safely. It is generally 
considered prohibitive if a turtle is taken during a multi-day trip, as 
a seriously injured turtle would need to be transferred immediately, 
all resources to enable the transfer would be voluntary/donated, the 
receiving facility must be able to accept the case, and must agree to 
the transfer before a turtle is brought in. Vessels in the limited 
access fleet generally take extended trips of up to 12-20 days. Often, 
based on NMFS' experience with trained observers, the transportation of 
sea turtles to rehabilitation facilities is logistically challenging.
    Currently, an agent or employee of NMFS while acting in the course 
of his/her official duties is exempt from the take prohibitions on 
endangered and threatened sea turtles while aiding an injured sea 
turtle in the marine environment. Regulations under 50 CFR 223.206(d) 
require fishermen who incidentally take turtles to return them to the 
water immediately (or after resuscitation), prohibit the landing, 
offloading, or transhipping of incidentally caught sea turtles. NMFS 
will consider whether and how it is possible under these provisions for 
a fishermen to work with rehabilitation facilities to bring sea turtles 
to these facilities. Currently, fishermen should contact the Sea Turtle 
Stranding and Salvage Network to see if a network member would meet the 
vessel and retrieve the turtle at sea.
    Comment 16: One commenter stated that the draft EA strongly 
supports a finding of significant impact. They state that the EA 
contends that the chain mat modification would significantly benefit 
sea turtles and that the characteristics of the geographic area, the 
presence of loggerhead sea turtles, indicate the need for an 
Environmental Impact Statement. They also state that the action is 
highly controversial, highly uncertain, and creates a significant 
precedent.
    Response: The draft EA supports a finding of no significant impact. 
There is expected to be a benefit to sea turtles by reducing serious 
injury and mortality following a take in the water column; however, the 
degree of benefit is limited given that the installation of a chain mat 
would only reduce the severity of injuries resulting from a portion of 
possible takes. No unique characteristics of the geographic area were 
identified. The presence of loggerhead sea turtles in the mid-Atlantic 
is not a unique characteristic of the area. The gear modifications are 
limited in geographic area and time and are implemented in an effort to 
facilitate the coexistence of fishing activity and sea turtles. These 
factors restrict the scope of the effects. This action is not highly 
controversial

[[Page 50369]]

given that the action is designed to benefit sea turtles, it would have 
a relatively small impact on the fishing industry, and the industry has 
petitioned NMFS for a similar action.
    While there is not perfect information available on the nature of 
the interaction between sea scallop dredge gear and sea turtles, NMFS 
has made reasonable assumptions in evaluating the risks and benefits of 
the proposed action. The best available scientific information shows 
that the use of the chain mat will prevent sea turtles from entering 
the dredge bag and prevent injuries ensuing from their capture. The 
action also does not set a significant precedent as gear modifications 
are a commonly used tool to reduce the severity of interactions between 
fishing gear and sea turtles.
    Comment 17: One comment was received on the economic analysis of 
alterative 3. The commenter stated that the economic analysis is 
grossly irrational as it does not take into account a shift of effort 
in the fishery, but rather assumes that during the closure season 
fishing activity that would ordinarily take place in the mid-Atlantic 
would simply disappear. According to the comment, the economic analysis 
must take shifting effort into account and properly analyze and 
quantify the economic impact caused by the limited seasonal 
displacement.
    Response: To properly estimate potential shifts in scallop dredge 
fishing effort, an economic behavioral model, which does not exist at 
this time, would be needed. In the absence of this model, NMFS assumed 
the worst case scenario in assessing the economic impacts of a seasonal 
closure. The conservative approach is to overestimate, rather than to 
underestimate, the total industry loss due to a regulation. According 
to the 2003 VTR data, 208 of the 314 vessels that were included in the 
analysis fished exclusively in the mid-Atlantic and 106 vessels fished 
both in the mid-Atlantic and the New England fishing areas. NMFS 
recognizes that some of these vessels would likely shift their effort 
to other areas if the mid-Atlantic were closed to sea scallop dredge 
fishing from May 1 through November 30.
    Comment 18: One comment was received on the failure to provide data 
on skate bycatch at the species level in the experimental fishery. The 
barndoor and thorny skates are included on NMFS national ``Species of 
Concern'' list and the American Fisheries Society of ``Marine Species 
at Risk''. The commenter stated NMFS should lead the way in fulfilling 
the Skate Fishery Management Plan's goals to improve the data-poor 
situation with skates by ensuring all approved experimental fisheries 
in the region record and report skate catches by species.
    Response: The sea scallop dredge research on the chain mat 
modification was conducted under a grant through the NMFS Sea Scallop 
Research TAC Set-Aside program. As such, the experimental fishery was 
operating under the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan, which 
requires that vessels submit Vessel Trip Reports (VTR) on which all 
bycatch species are reported to species level whenever possible. In 
addition, bycatch information for experimental fisheries is requested 
to the highest level possible. VTR codes for skates at the species 
level have existed since 2003 and NMFS has revised the printed VTR 
instructions to include species level codes for skates although they 
have yet to go to print. However, it is permissible for fishermen to 
report skates as unspecified and not at the species level. Thus, data 
collected at the species level may be incomplete.
    Comment 19: One commenter stated that the information used to 
support the preferred alternative is based on assumptions and 
guesswork, not scientific research and that this information is 
inadequate. The commenter stated that it is crucial to assess the 
effects of turtle chains through underwater video monitoring prior to 
proposing the non-experimental use of the chain mat. Furthermore, the 
commenter states that the studies on which the preferred alternative is 
based are fatally flawed as they rely only on on-deck observations and 
so only addressed whether the chain mat could reduce the number of sea 
turtles caught in the dredge and did not address whether the chains 
reduced the number of sea turtle takes, injuries, and deaths caused by 
scallop dredging.
    Response: The experimental fishery used two paired dredges, one 
equipped with a standard dredge and one equipped with a modified 
dredge. This paired design is an industry standard in gear work and is 
utilized to minimize unaccountable environmental variation. The study 
involved over 3000 paired hauls, which resulted in enough statistical 
power to be able to detect differences in the turtle catches between 
the modified and the unmodified dredge. There was a statistical 
difference between turtle catches in the control and modified dredges 
(at alpha - 0.05 level). NMFS recognizes that these studies relied on 
on-deck observations, and that sea turtles may be struck by the dredge 
while fishing near the bottom or while being hauled through the water 
column and not brought on-board. Unfortunately, these types of 
interactions cannot be quantified at this time because information on 
these interactions does not exist. However, the best available 
information does show that the chain mat modification prevents most, if 
not all, captures of sea turtles in the dredge bag; therefore 
preventing injuries that occur from such capture.
    Comment 20: One comment was received on the status of the 
loggerhead sea turtle. The commenter stated that the loggerhead sea 
turtle is no closer to recovery now than when it was originally listed 
and that the most recent data show that the number of loggerhead nests 
in Florida's Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge has dropped 
precipitously from 1998 to 2004.
    Response: A detailed description of the status of the species can 
be found in the Environmental Assessment for this action, while a 
summary is provided here. A number of stock assessments (TEWG, 
1998,2000; NMFS SEFSC 2001; Heppell et al., 2003) have examined the 
stock status of loggerhead sea turtles in the waters of the United 
States, but have been unable to develop any reliable estimates of 
absolute population size. Due to the difficulty of conducting 
comprehensive population surveys away from nesting beaches, nesting 
beach survey data are used to index the status and trends of loggerhead 
sea turtles (68 FR 53949, Sept. 15, 2003). There are at least five 
western Atlantic loggerhead subpopulations. These are the south 
Florida, northern, Dry Tortugas, Florida Panhandle, and Yucatan 
subpopulations. Genetic analyses conducted at the nesting sites 
indicate that they are distinct subpopulations (TEWG, 2000). NMFS has 
concluded that the survival and recovery of each of these nesting 
subpopulations are critical to the survival and recovery of the 
species.
    While nesting beach data is a useful tool for assessing sea turtle 
populations, the detection of nesting trends requires consistent data 
collection methods over long periods of time (USFWS and NMFS, 2003). In 
1989, a statewide sea turtle Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program 
was developed and implemented in Florida, and similar survey programs 
have been in implemented in Georgia, South Carolina, and North 
Carolina. Although not part of the INBS program, nesting survey data 
are also available for the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (USFWS and NOAA 
Fisheries 2003). However, the currently available nesting data is still 
too limited to indicate statistically reliable trends for these 
subpopulations.

[[Page 50370]]

 To date, analysis of nesting data from the INBS program through 2003 
indicate that there is no discernable trend for the south Florida, 
northern, or Florida Panhandle subpopulations (68 FR 53949, September 
15, 2003). Given the relatively short period of survey effort for the 
Dry Tortugas subpopulation, no conclusions can be made at this time on 
the trend of this subpopulation. Survey effort overall at the Yucatan 
nesting beaches has been inconsistent and no trend can be determined 
for this subpopulation given the currently available data (68 FR 53949, 
September 15, 2003). More reliable nesting trend information is 
available from some south Florida and northern subpopulation nesting 
beaches that have been surveyed for longer periods of times. Using the 
information gathered from these select south Florida and northern 
subpopulation nesting beaches, the Turtle Expert Working Group 
concluded that the south Florida subpopulation was increasing based on 
nesting data over the last couple of decades, and that the northern 
subpopulations was stable or declining (TEWG, 2000).
    Similar to other loggerhead nesting beaches, counts at Archie Carr 
National Wildlife decreased from 2001 through 2004. Preliminary data 
for 2005 indicates that loggerhead nest counts at Archie Carr increased 
from the 2004 counts (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission, pers. comm., 2005). It should be recognized that this data 
is still preliminary and further analysis is needed. It is unknown at 
this time whether the overall nest counts represent an actual decline 
in the loggerhead subpopulations or not. Loggerhead sea turtles do 
exhibit a cyclical nesting pattern such that in some years nest counts 
are high while in others they are low. Natural events, such as the 
hurricanes of 2004, can also destroy many nests and affect nesting 
trends since a majority of the nests may be destroyed in any particular 
year. In addition, since nest counts are a reflection of only one sex 
and age class in the subpopulation (adult females), using nesting trend 
data to make conclusions about the status of an entire subpopulation 
requires making certain assumptions. These are that the current impacts 
to mature females are experienced to the same degree amongst all age 
classes regardless of sex and/or that the impacts that led to the 
current abundance of nesting females are affecting the current immature 
females to the same extent. There is no current evidence to support or 
refute these assumptions.
    In 2001, NMFS reviewed and updated the stock assessment for 
loggerhead sea turtles of the western North Atlantic, including 
information on nesting abundance and trends. The assessment also 
considered the impact of the U.S. pelagic longline fishery with and 
without the proposed changes in the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) 
regulations for the shrimp fishery using a modified population model 
from Heppell et al. (2003) to include new estimates of the duration of 
life stages and time at maturity and, unlike Heppell et al. (2003), 
also considered sex ratios other than 1:1 (NMFS SEFSC, 2001). A more 
detailed description of NMFS' assessment can be found in the supporting 
documents. Given the implementation of TED regulations to allow larger 
benthic immature and sexually mature loggerhead sea turtles to escape 
from shrimp trawl gear and given measures to increase pelagic immature 
survival by 10% have been implemented in the Highly Migratory Species 
fishery, loggerhead subpopulations in the western Atlantic should 
experience positive or at least stable growth as loggerheads in the 
various stage classes mature. These changes are unlikely to be evident 
in nesting beach censuses for many years given the late age at maturity 
for loggerhead sea turtles and the normal fluctuations in nesting.
    In-water population studies to measure abundance have also been 
conducted. Maier et al. (2004) used fishery-independent trawl data to 
establish a regional index of abundance. The study was designed to 
concentrate on loggerhead sea turtles with emphasis on the northen 
subpopulation, and was conducted along the southeast coast of the 
United States (Winyah Bay, South Carolina to St. Augustine, FL) from 
2000 2003. The loggerhead sea turtle was the dominant turtle collected 
during the study, with moderate levels of Kemp's ridley and a few green 
sea turtles encountered during the study. There was no significant 
difference for loggerheads in Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) among the 
years sampled. However, the annual mean CPUE did increase over the 
study period. The minimum rate of annual population change could not be 
detected within the four-year sampling period of the project. During 
the 4 years of the study, a disturbing trend of reduced catch rates in 
the smaller size classes was noted. Growth could account for a shift to 
larger size classes, but the observed decline in the percentages of sea 
turtles in the smallest size classes may indicate a recruitment 
failure. The pattern warrants continued observation. Maier et al. 
(2004) found that a comparison of loggerhead catch data from this study 
with historical values suggests that in-water populations of loggerhead 
sea turtles along the southeastern United States appear to be larger, 
possibly an order of magnitude higher than they were 25 years ago. 
SEAMAP long-term data provides further support for the conclusion of 
increasing abundance of in-water loggerhead populations with catch 
rates increasing substantially since the early 1990s (Maier et al., 
2004). This type of regional abundance may be useful in examining long-
term trends in overall turtle population status on a regional basis, 
but a number of inherent temporal, spatial, and, perhaps, environmental 
factors can affect catch rates and need to be recognized in developing 
a regional index of abundance.
    Comment 21: One commenter stated that there were two factors 
requiring the agency to reinitiate consultation. The first factor was 
Dr. Heppell's letter addressing the existing Biological Opinion. The 
second factor is the statement ``Biological resources, in particular 
sea turtles, have been, are, and will continue to be negatively 
impacted by a variety of past, present, and future activities. These 
cumulative impacts may be impacting the recovery of the species, 
although the extent cannot be quantified'' (draft EA, pg. 93). The 
commenter states that this is new information requiring reinitiation.
    Response: NMFS received a letter dated March 13, 2005 concerning 
the December 2004 Opinion on the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP. The concerns 
raised in the letter were responded to by NMFS' Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center and were addressed in the litigation on the December 
2004 Opinion. The letter does not trigger reinitiation. The cumulative 
impacts listed in the EA are not new information and were considered in 
the December 2004 Opinion. Therefore, that statement in the EA does not 
trigger reinitiation of the ESA Section 7 consultation on the Scallop 
Fishery.

Classification

    The rule has been determined to be significant by the Office of 
Management and Budget for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the 
proposed rule, which was described in the classification section of the 
preamble to the proposed rule. The public comment period ended on June 
27, 2005. No comments were received on the economic impacts of the 
proposed

[[Page 50371]]

action; one comment, as described above, was received on the economic 
impacts of non-preferred alternative 3 (seasonal closure). No changes 
were made as a result of such comments.
    NMFS has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 
that describes the economic impact this final rule would have on small 
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered and 
the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the 
preamble, in the SUMMARY, and in the FRFA. A summary of the analysis 
follows:
    The fishery affected by this final rule is the mid-Atlantic sea 
scallop dredge fishery. The action requires all vessels with a Federal 
Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, regardless of dredge size of 
vessel permit category, to modify their dredge gear when fishing south 
of 41[deg] 9.0' N. latitude, from the shoreline to the outer boundary 
of the EEZ. According to Vessel Trip Report Data for 2003, 314 vessels 
fished in this area from May 1 through November 30. The economic 
analysis assumes that all 314 vessels are independently owned and 
operated. All 314 sea scallop dredge vessels are considered small 
entities.
    This final rule does not contain any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other similar compliance requirements.
    The FRFA considered five alternatives. The preferred alternative 
(PA), non-preferred alternatives 1-3 (NPA 1-3), and the ``no action'' 
alternative. The PA, NPA 1-3, and the ``no action'' alternative were 
analyzed in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis and summarized 
in the proposed rule (70 FR 30660).
    NMFS selected the preferred alternative in the final rule (required 
the use of chain mats on all sea scallop dredges in the Mid-Atlantic 
from May through November 30) because this alternative would provide, 
with the exception of NPA 3 (seasonal closure of the mid-Atlantic), the 
most protection to sea turtles. The agency minimized impacts to small 
entities under this alternative by limiting the rule to the May through 
November time period and limiting the spatial extent to the mid-
Atlantic. While NPA 1 (use of chain mats on all sea scallop dredges in 
the Mid-Atlantic from May 1 through October 15) may have had slightly 
reduced economic impacts compared to the PA, NMFS rejected NPA 1 
because this alternative would leave sea turtles vulnerable to capture 
in the dredge bag from October 15 through November 30, a period when 
sea turtle distribution and sea scallop fishing overlap in the southern 
part of the fishery. While NPA 2 (use of chain mats on all large sea 
scallop dredges in the Mid-Atlantic from May through November 30) may 
have had slightly reduced economic impacts compared to the PA, NMFS 
rejected NPA 2 because this alternative would leave sea turtles 
vulnerable to capture in the dredge bag of smaller dredges operating in 
this area. Sea turtles have been documented taken in this smaller 
dredge gear. NMFS rejected NPA 3 (prohibit sea scallop dredge fishing 
south of 41[deg] 9.0' N. lat. from May 1 through November 30) because 
of the uncertainty of the extent of the area in which interactions are 
occurring, the broad extent of the closure, and the potential 
displacement of effort to other fishing areas. At this time, NMFS does 
not have sufficient information to further refine NPA 3 to limit the 
extent of the closure and rejected NPA 3, in part, because of the 
uncertainty regarding the extent of the area in which interactions 
between sea turtles and sea scallop dredge gear are occurring. NPA 3 
would have had the highest economic impact.
    This final rule is consistent with the ESA and other applicable 
laws.

Literature Cited

    Bass, A. L., S. P. Epperly, J. Braun-McNeill. 2004. Multi-year 
analysis of stock composition of a loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 
caretta) foraging habitat using maximum likelihood and Bayesian 
methods. Conservation Genetics. 5:783-796.
    CeTAP (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program). 1982. Final report 
on the cetacean and turtle assessment program. University of Rhode 
Island to Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 
Ref. No. AA551-CT8-48. 568 pp.
    DeGroot, K. A. and J. H. Shaw. 1993. Nesting activities by the 
loggerhead (Caretta caretta) at Back Bay National Wildlife Reguge, VA. 
Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science. 73:15-17.
    Heppell, S. S., L. B. Crowder, D. T. Crouse, S. P. Epperly, and 
N.B. Frazer. 2003. Population models for Atlantic loggerheads: past, 
present, and future. In A.B. Bolten and B. E. Witherington (editors) 
Loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. pp. 
255-273
    Keinath, J. A., J. A. Musick, and R. A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the 
biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-1986. Virginia J. Sci. 
38(4):329-336.
    Lutcavage, M. E. And J. A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of 
sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia. 2:449-456.
    Maier, P. P., A. L. Segars, M. D. Arendt, J. D. Whitaker, B. W. 
Stender, L. Parker, R. Vendetti, D. W. Owens, J. Quattro, and S. R. 
Murphy. 2004. Development of an index of sea turtle abundance based on 
in-water sampling with trawl gear. Final report to the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. 86 pp.
    Mitchell, G. H., R. D. Kenney, A. M. Farak, R. J. Campbell. 2003. 
Evaluation of occurrence of endangered and threatened marine species in 
naval ship trial areas and transit lanes in the Gulf of Maine and 
offshore of Georges Bank. Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division 
Newport, Rhode Island. NUWC-NPT Technical Memo 0-121A. 113 pp.
    Morreale, S. J. and E. A. Standora. 1998. Early life stage ecology 
of sea turtles in northeastern U.S. waters. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA 
Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-413. 49pp.
    Morreale, S. J. and E. A. Standora. 1993. Occurrence, movement, and 
behavior of the Kemp's ridley and other sea turtles in New York waters. 
Final Report April 1988 - March 1993. 70 pp.
    Morreale, S. J. and E. A. Standora. 2005. Western North Atlantic 
waters: Critical developmental habitat for Kemp's ridley and loggerhead 
sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 4(4)872-882.
    Murray, K. T. 2004. Bycatch of sea turtles in the mid-Atlantic sea 
scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) dredge fishery during 2003. 2nd ed. 
U.S. Dep Commer., Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 
04-11. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Woods Hole, MA. 25 pp.
    Murray, K. T. 2005. Total bycatch estimate of loggerhead turtles 
(Caretta caretta) in the 2004 Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten 
magellanicus) dredge fishery. U.S. Dep Commer., Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center Reference Document 05-12. Northeast Fisheries Science 
Center. Woods Hole, MA. 22 pp.
    NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1994. State and federal 
fishery interactions with sea turtles in the mid-Atlantic area. NOAA/
NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 13 pp.
    NMFS SEFSC (National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center). 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback 
sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline 
fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western 
North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NMFS, Miami, Fl, SEFSC Contribution 
PRD 00/01-08; Parts I-III and Appendices I-IV. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-
SEFSC-455, 343 pp.
    Plotkin P. T. and J. R. Spotila. 2002. Post nesting migrations of 
loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, from Georgia,

[[Page 50372]]

USA: conservation implications for a genetically distinct 
subpopulation. Oryx. 36(4):396-399.
    Shoop, C. R. 1980. Sea turtles in the Northeast. Maritimes 24:9-11.
    Shoop, C. R. and R. D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and 
abundance of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the 
northeastern United States. Herpetol. Monogr. 6:43-67.
    Spotila, J. R., P. T. Plotkin, and J. A. Keinath. 1998. In water 
population survey of sea turtles of Delaware Bay. Unpublished report. 
Final Report to NMFS Office of Protected Resource for work conducted 
under Contract No. 43AANF600211 and NMFS Permit no. 1007 by Drexel 
University, Philadelphia, PA. 21 pp.
    Teas, W. G. 1993. Species composition and size class distribution 
of marine turtle strandings on the Gulf of Mexico and southeast United 
States coasts, 1985-1991. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SERFSC-315. 43pp.
    TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 1998. An assessment update for 
the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta 
caretta) sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. U.S. 
Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-409 96 pp.
    TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2000. An assessment update for 
the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western 
North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 
pp.
    USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Loggerhead 
sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Fact Sheet. USFWS North Florida Field 
Office. Available at http://northflorida.fws.gov/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead-sea-turtle-htm. 3 pp.
    White, M. 2004. Observations of loggerhead sea turtles feeding on 
discarded fish catch at Argostoli, Kefalonia. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 
105:7-9.
    Wynne, K. and M. Schwartz. 1999. Guide to marine mammals and 
turtles of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Rhode Island Sea 
Grant. Narragansett, RI. 115 pp.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 222 and 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports.

    Dated: August 18, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch, III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

PART 222--GENERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED MARINE SPECIES

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 222 and 223 are 
to be amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31 
U.S.C. 9701.

0
2. In Sec.  222.102, the definition of ``Chain mat'' and ``Dredge or 
dredge gear'' are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  222.102  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Chain mat means a device designed to be installed in a scallop 
dredge forward of the sweep, as described in 50 CFR 223.206, for the 
purpose of excluding sea turtles from the dredge.
* * * * *
    Dredge or dredge gear, with respect to the fishery operating under 
the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan, means gear consisting 
of a mouth frame attached to a holding bag constructed of metal rings, 
or any other modification to this design, that can be or is used in the 
harvest of sea scallops.
* * * * *

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.12 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for Sec.  
223.206(d)(9).

0
2. In Sec.  223.205, paragraph (b)(16) is redesignated as (b)(17); 
paragraph (b)(15) is revised and new paragraph (b)(16) is added to read 
as follows:


Sec.  223.205  Sea turtles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (15) Fail to comply with the restrictions set forth in Sec.  
223.206(d)(10) regarding pound net leaders;
    (16) Fail to comply with the restrictions set forth in Sec.  
223.206(d)(11) regarding sea scallop dredges; or
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  223.206, paragraph (d) introductory text is revised and 
paragraph (d)(11) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  223.206  Exemptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.

* * * * *
    (d) Exception for incidental taking. The prohibitions against 
taking in Sec.  223.205(a) do not apply to the incidental take of any 
member of a threatened species of sea turtle (i.e., a take not directed 
towards such member) during fishing or scientific research activities, 
to the extent that those involved are in compliance with all applicable 
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(11) of this section, or 
in compliance with the terms and conditions of an incidental take 
permit issued pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (11) Restrictions applicable to sea scallop dredges in the mid-
Atlantic--(i) Gear Modification. During the time period of May 1 
through November 30, any vessel with a sea scallop dredge and required 
to have a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, regardless of 
dredge size or vessel permit category, present in waters south of 
41[deg] 9.0' N. lat., from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the 
Exclusive Economic Zone must have on each dredge a chain mat described 
as follows. The chain mat must be composed of ``tickler'' (horizontal) 
chains and ``vertical'' chains that are evenly spaced and configured in 
the following manner dependent on the dredge width: Dredges with a 
frame width of greater than 13 ft (3.96 m) must use 11 vertical and 6 
tickler chains; dredges with a frame width of 11 ft to 13 ft (3.35-3.96 
m) must use 9 vertical and 5 tickler chains; dredges with a frame width 
of 10 ft (3.05 m) to less than 11 ft (3.35 m) must use 7 vertical and 4 
tickler chains; dredges with a frame width of less than 10 ft (3.05 m) 
must use 5 vertical and 3 tickler chains. The tickler and vertical 
chains must be connected to each other with a shackle or link at the 
intersection point. If a vessel elects to

[[Page 50373]]

use a different configuration, the length of each side of the square or 
rectangle formed by the intersecting chains must be less than or equal 
to 14 inches (35.5 cm). The chains must be connected to each other with 
a shackle or link at each intersection point. The measurement must be 
taken along the chain, with the chain held taut, and include one 
shackle or link at the intersection point and all links in the chain up 
to, but excluding, the shackle or link at the other intersection point.
    (ii) Any vessel that harvests sea scallops in or from the waters 
described in (d)(11)(i) and that is required to have a Federal Atlantic 
sea scallop fishery permit must have the chain mat configuration 
installed on all dredges for the duration of the trip.
[FR Doc. 06-7160 Filed 8-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>