[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67063-67090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31252]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 950605147-5288-03; I.D. 112895A]
RIN 0648-AH33
Final List of Fisheries for 1996
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA), NMFS publishes its MMPA final List of Fisheries
(LOF) for 1996. The LOF classifies fisheries as either Category I, II,
or III, based on their
[[Page 67064]]
level of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals.
After February 29, 1996, the owner or authorized representative of a
fishing vessel or nonvessel fishing gear (hereinafter vessel owner)
which participates in a Category I or II fishery must register for and
obtain a valid Authorization Certificate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the
section 118 implementing regulations may be obtained by writing to
Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910. Information and registration material for the region in which a
fishery occurs, and reporting forms, may be obtained from the following
addresses: NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930-2298, Attn: Sandra Arvilla; NMFS, Southeast Region, 9721
Executive Center Drive North, St Petersburg, FL 33702; NMFS, MMAP,
Protected Species Management Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200,
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE, Seattle, WA 98115 Attn: Permits office; NMFS-PMRD, P.O. Box 22668,
709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99082.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn Angliss, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-713-2322; Douglas Beach, Northeast Region, 508-281-9254;
Charles Oravetz, Southeast Region, 813-570-5301; James Lecky, Southwest
Region, 310-980-4015; Brent Norberg, Northwest Region, 206-526-6140;
Steven Zimmerman, Alaska Region, 907-586-7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of the LOF, which places all
U.S. commercial fisheries into three categories based on their levels
of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, is
required by section 118 of the MMPA. The following provides the history
of this final 1996 LOF, clarification of the process used to classify
fisheries, and a description of difference between the LOF published
under section 114 of the MMPA and this final 1996 LOF.
History of the Final List of Fisheries for 1996
A proposed LOF for 1996 was published on June 16, 1995 (60 FR
31666) with proposed regulations implementing section 118. An EA was
prepared concurrently with the development of the proposed regulations
and the LOF and was made available when the proposed regulations were
published. The public comment period for the proposed regulations ended
on July 31, 1995; the public comment period for the proposed LOF ended
September 14, 1995.
The process used to develop the proposed and final rule
implementing section 118 included many opportunities for public
involvement, such as working sessions, public hearings, written
comments, press releases, and a regulatory alert. Additional details on
these activities are found in the preamble to the final regulations
implementing section 118, published on August 30, 1995 (60 FR 45086).
During July 1995, NMFS held 10 public hearings at various locations
throughout the country to receive comments on the proposed implementing
regulations and proposed LOF. A total of 86 individuals attended these
hearings, 28 of whom submitted oral comments on the proposed rule, LOF
or both. NMFS also received 23 written letters of comment specifically
on the LOF. Comments were received from fishers, fishing industry
groups, environmental groups, animal rights groups, state departments
of fisheries, other executive branch departments, and members of the
general public.
This final LOF responds only to those public comments addressing
the proposed LOF. Comments addressing the proposed implementing
regulations for section 118 were included in the preamble to the
section 118 final implementing regulations.
Definitions of Category I, II, and III Fisheries
The regulations implementing section 118 of the MMPA introduced a
new three category fishery classification scheme (50 CFR part 229)
based on a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the
total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then
addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This
approach is based on the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of
serious injuries and mortalities due to commercial fishing relative to
a stock's potential biological removal (PBR) level.
Tier 1: If the total annual mortality and serious injury across all
fisheries that interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10
percent of the PBR of such a stock, then all fisheries interacting with
this stock are placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries are
subject to the next tier to determine their classification.
Tier 2--Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock
in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR
level.
Tier 2--Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury in a given
fishery is greater than 1 percent but less than 50 percent of the PBR
level.
Tier 2--Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury in a
given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 1, therefore, considers the cumulative fishery mortality and
serious injury for a particular stock, while Tier 2 considers fishery-
specific mortality for a particular stock. Additional details regarding
how threshold percentages between the categories were determined are
provided in the final rule implementing section 118.
Differences Between the LOF Under Section 114 and the LOF Under Section
118
There are several key differences between the LOF required and
prepared under expired section 114 and the new LOF required and
prepared under section 118.
Under section 114, fisheries were classified based on the number of
incidental takes of marine mammals. As defined in 50 CFR 216.3, takes
include harassment. Under section 118, fisheries are to be classified
based on the number of serious injuries and mortalities that occur
incidental to that fishery. Also, under section 118 intentional lethal
mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals are prohibited.
Thus, incidental or intentional harassment, or intentional lethal takes
are no longer used to classify fisheries into a particular category.
The fishery classification criteria under section 114 were
dependent on the rate of all marine mammal takes per 20 days. The
criteria are now based on the annual rate of incidental, species-
specific serious injury and mortality of marine mammals relative to a
particular marine mammal stock's PBR level.
Under section 114, fisheries were typically classified primarily
based on observer data and logbook data, although analogy to fisheries
with similar gear types could be made. Under the new regulations
pursuant to section 118, observer data, logbook data, stranding data,
fishers' reports, anecdotal reports, and analogy are used to classify
fisheries.
Both sections 114 and 118 require that the marine mammal species
involved in interactions with each fishery be identified in the LOF.
Under section 114, ``involved'' was interpreted broadly and included
those marine mammals
[[Page 67065]]
known or reported to be harassed by fisheries, and those marine mammals
suspected to be injured, killed, or harassed incidental to commercial
fishing operations. The list of marine mammal species identified in the
final LOF for 1996 includes only those marine mammals that have been
documented as having been injured or killed in observer programs,
logbook reports, strandings data, or by fishers' reports or anecdotal
reports. This list includes only those marine mammals that have been
injured or killed incidental to commercial fisheries since 1989.
Registration Requirements for Vessels Participating in Category I
and II Fisheries
Vessel owners participating in Category I or II fisheries must
register under the MMPA, as required by 50 CFR 229.4. Registration
under the MMPA is conducted on a NMFS Region-specific basis. Thus, how
registration materials are distributed and the cost of registration
differ between Regions. Under 50 CFR 229.4, the granting and
administration of Authorization certificates is to be integrated and
coordinated with existing fishery license, registration, or permit
systems and related programs, whenever possible. Alternative
registration programs have been or are being implemented in the Alaska
Region, Northwest Region, and Southeast Region. Special procedures and
instructions for registration in these Regions appear below.
If the granting and/or administration of authorizations has not
been integrated with state licensing, registration, or permit systems,
vessel owners may obtain registration forms from the NMFS Region in
which their fishery operates. NMFS Regional Offices will endeavor to
send these packets to known participants in Category I or II fisheries.
The registration packet will typically include an MMAP registration
form, a list of those fisheries in each region that require
authorization in order to incidentally kill or injure marine mammals
(Category I and II fisheries), and an explanation of the new management
regime, including instructions on reporting requirements. The
registration packet may also include an explanation of the changes in
the fishery classification criteria, guidance on deterring marine
mammals, and a reminder that intentional lethal takes of marine mammals
are no longer permitted except under certain specific conditions.
Vessel owners must submit the registration form and the $25 fee to
the NMFS Regional Office in which their fishery operates. NMFS will
send the vessel owner an Authorization Certificate, program decals, and
reporting forms within 60 days of receiving the registration form and
application fee.
Procedures for registering in each NMFS region are outlined in the
following section.
Region-Specific Registration Requirements for Category I and II
Fisheries
If the granting and administration of authorizations under 50 CFR
229.4 is not integrated or coordinated with existing fishery licenses,
registrations, or related programs, requests for registration forms and
completed registration forms should be sent to the NMFS Regional
Offices listed in this notice under ADDRESSES.
Alaska Region (AKR) MMAP Registration for 1996
Vessel owners in Category I and II state and Federal fisheries, as
well as all vessel owners with Alaska Department of Fish and Game
commercial vessel licenses, will receive a registration packet. Fishers
may not register with other regions for Alaska fisheries. If a fisher
plans to participate in a Category I or II fishery and does not receive
a registration packet, AKR should be contacted see ADDRESSES.
Northwest Region (NWR) MMAP Registration for 1996
Oregon: Under an agreement developed between NMFS and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), information collected for
licensing purposes by the state of Oregon will be provided to NMFS in
lieu of NMFS requiring a separate MMAP registration. Vessel owners in
Oregon who apply for and obtain a Developmental Fisheries Permit to
harvest and land swordfish using drift gillnet gear (CA/OR thresher
shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery; Category I) or a Developmental
Fisheries Permit to harvest and land swordfish or blue shark using
surface longline gear (OR swordfish/blue shark surface longline
fishery; Category II) will automatically receive an Authorization for
the incidental take of marine mammals at the time of permit issuance.
Vessel owners will receive marine mammal injury and mortality reporting
forms along with their fisheries permit and Authorization.
The number of available Developmental Permits for these fisheries
is limited and the information necessary to fulfill the requirements of
the MMPA is already being collected by ODFW for Developmental Permit
processing. NMFS will provide limited support to ODFW for the issuance
of the Authorizations. Processing costs for ODFW are expected to be
minimal, and hence, MMAP registration fees will not be charged to
Developmental Fishery permitholders in 1996.
Since the Authorization will be issued in combination with the
Developmental Fisheries Permit, it is specific to the permit and will
only authorize the incidental take of marine mammals during fishing
activities conducted under this permit. Fishers who participate in the
CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery under permits to
harvest and land in California must apply for and obtain a MMAP
Authorization Certificate from the NMFS Southwest Region.
ODFW will provide NMFS with the following information:
(1) Name, address, and phone number of the Vessel Owner;
(2) Name, address, and phone number of the Permit Holder;
(3) Vessel name, U.S. Coast Guard documentation number, or state
registration (OR) number (as applicable), and ODFW Developmental
Fishery Permit number for the permitted vessel. NMFS will incorporate
the information into a national data base of registered Category I and
II fishers.
Washington: Under an agreement developed between NMFS and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), information
collected by the State for licensing purposes will be provided to NMFS
in lieu of NMFS requiring a separate MMAP registration. Vessel owners
in Washington who apply for and obtain a Puget Sound Gillnet License to
harvest and land salmon using drift gillnet gear (WA Puget Sound Region
salmon drift gillnet fishery; includes all inland waters south of US-
Canada border and eastward of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line--Treaty Indian
fishing is excluded; Category II) will automatically receive an
Authorization for the incidental take of marine mammals at the time of
license issuance. Fishers will receive marine mammal injury/mortality
reporting forms along with their fisheries license and Marine Mammal
Authorization.
The information necessary to fulfill the requirements of the MMPA
is already being collected by WDFW for Fishing License processing and
NMFS will provide limited support for the issuance of the
Authorization. Processing costs for WDFW are expected to be minimal,
and hence, MMAP registration fees will not be charged to licenseholders
in 1996. Since the
[[Page 67066]]
Authorization will be issued in combination with the Puget Sound
Gillnet License, it is specific to this license and will only authorize
the incidental take of marine mammals during fishing activities
conducted under this state-issued license. Fishers who participate in
other Category I or II fisheries to harvest and land fish in other
States must apply for and obtain an MMAP Authorization Certificate from
the appropriate NMFS regional office to cover that activity (see
procedures for the applicable state/Federal fishing activity).
WDFW will provide NMFS with a copy of the following information:
(1) Name, address, and phone number of the Owner of the Designated
Vessel;
(2) Name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of License Owner,
Primary Operator, and Alternate Operators;
(3) Vessel name, U.S. Coast Guard documentation number, or state
registration (WN) number (as applicable), and WDFW registration number
of the designated vessel. NMFS will incorporate the information into a
national data base of registered Category I and II fishers.
Southwest Region (SWR) MMAP Registration for 1996
SWR is in the process of integrating MMAP registration for Category
I and II fisheries that occur in California with the California
Department of Fish and Game's commercial fishery permit registration
program. However, this integration will not be completed before 1997.
For this reason, Category I and II vessel owners in California will
continue to register with SWR. In December 1995, vessel owners who
engaged in a Category I or II fishery in 1995 will receive a
registration packet in the mail. Any Category I or II vessel owner who
has not received an application package by December 1, 1995, may
request one from NMFS SWR (see ADDRESSES).
Southeast Region (SER) MMAP Registration for 1996
The only state fisheries in Category I or II that are under SER
jurisdiction occur in North Carolina. State fishers in North Carolina
will receive a registration packet in the mail. If a fisher plans to
participate in any state or federal fishery in Category I or II and a
registration packet is not received, fishers should contact SER (see
ADDRESSES).
Northeast Region (NER) MMAP Registration for 1996
NER will distribute registration packets to those fishers on
existing lists of registrants in the MMEP program, fishing vessel
permit holder lists, and lists of state fishers obtained from New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Fishers participating in
Category I or II fisheries should contact NER (see ADDRESSES).
Extension of Effective Period for Current List of Fisheries and
Extension of Current Registrations of Vessel Owners
The preamble to the final regulations implementing section 118
stated that vessel owners holding a valid Exemption Certificate under
section 114 will be deemed by NMFS to have registered under section 118
through December 31, 1995. Because it has taken longer than expected to
publish the MMPA final LOF for 1996, the current MMPA LOF will remain
in effect until March 1, 1996, and vessel owners holding a valid
Exemption Certificate under section 114 will be deemed to have
registered under section 118 until March 1, 1996. This extension will
also allow vessel owners sufficient time to register under section 118
of the MMPA. In general, NMFS recommends that completed registration
forms be submitted as soon as possible in advance of fishing in order
to ensure that a valid Authorization Certificate has been received.
Extension of Interim Permit for the Incidental Taking of Threatened
or Endangered Marine Mammals
On August 31, 1995, NMFS issued a single interim permit, valid
through December 31, 1995, to certain vessel owners currently
registered in Category I and II commercial fisheries for the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammal stocks listed
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (60 FR
45399). Individual permits for 1996, 1997, and 1998 will be issued in
conjunction with the issuance Authorization Certificates under section
118 of the MMPA. Because the current MMPA LOF will remain in effect
until March 1, 1996, and vessel owners holding a valid Exemption
Certificate under section 114 will be deemed to have registered under
section 118 until March 1, 1996, NMFS hereby extends the interim permit
until March 1, 1996.
Reporting Requirements for All Vessels
Vessel owners or operators in Category I, II, or III fisheries must
comply with 50 CFR 229.6 and report all incidental mortality and injury
of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations to
NMFS Headquarters or appropriate NMFS Regional Office. ``Injury'' is
defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition,
any animal that ingests fishing gear, or any animal that is released
with fishing gear entangling, trailing or perforating any part of the
body will be considered injured and must be reported. Instructions for
submission of reports is found in 50 CFR 229.6(a).
Responses to Comments
Many comments were lengthy and raised many points of concern. Key
issues and concerns are summarized and responded to as follows:
Comments on Fisheries in the Alaska Region
Comment 1: Incidental and intentional mortality of marine mammals
appear to be under reported for the Alaska Yakutat salmon set gillnet
fishery, indicating the fishery should be in Category I instead of
Category II. It is strongly recommended that an observer program be
established in Yakutat and Dry Bay, so that more reliable information
on intentional killing of marine mammals might be available.
Response: The intentional lethal take of marine mammals was made
illegal by the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, except in situations where
it is imminently necessary in self defense or to save the life of a
person in immediate danger. Since intentional lethal takes are no
longer authorized, NMFS cannot use rates of this type of take to
categorize fisheries for the section 118 regime. Incidental, but not
intentional, marine mammal serious injury or mortality rates, are used
for categorizing fisheries for this final LOF. With the information
available to NMFS at this time, the incidental serious injury and
mortality rate of marine mammals in the Yakutat set gillnet fishery
places them in Category II. Fishery categories are evaluated each year,
and as more information becomes available, it will be used in these
evaluations.
Comment 2: The report of low injury rates to humpback whales and
Steller sea lions in many fisheries appears to be due to a lack of data
rather than to a solid understanding of the rate of injury.
Response: NMFS agrees that there is a lack of data regarding
serious injury and mortality rates for many fisheries in Alaska. Only
three fisheries are regularly observed for marine mammal interactions,
and only three other fisheries have ever been observed; one for two
seasons and two others for one season each. NMFS is currently
evaluating observer needs in the region and intends to formulate and
implement a long-term plan for observer coverage of Alaska fisheries.
The extent of future
[[Page 67067]]
coverage will depend on the availability of funds.
Comment 3: The Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands trawl fisheries
should be separated for the purpose of setting categories. Many of the
commercial fishing quotas are set separately for the Bering Sea and
Aleutian districts and the ecosystems have somewhat different
characteristics. There is no justification for declaring both areas the
same fishery for purposes of categorization if marine mammal
interactions occur in only one area. To classify all the Bering Sea and
Aleutian trawl fisheries as the same category for marine mammal
interactions that occur in only one target fishery or in only one
portion of the area is arbitrary and capricious and inflicts
unwarranted regulations on a large number of vessels.
Response: Splitting the fishery into smaller statistical areas
would isolate the portions of those fisheries that are responsible for
marine mammal takes. However, because the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands statistical areas are contiguous and most participants fish in
both areas, categorizing the two areas separately would have little
practical value and would make management difficult.
Comment 4: Being classified as a Category I or II fishery imposes
serious reporting requirements on many small business entities.
Response: Since the publication of the final implementing
regulations for section 118 of the MMPA, on August 30, 1995, logbooks
of fishing effort and marine mammal interactions are no longer required
to be kept and turned in annually. The reporting requirements now in
effect have been reduced to submitting a one-page report on a form
supplied by NMFS within 48 hours of returning from the fishing trip (or
from tending non-vessel gear) in which an incidental injury or
mortality to a marine mammal occurred. Thus, the reporting requirements
are limited to occurrences of an injury or mortality to a marine mammal
in the course of fishing operations.
Comment 5: Although commenters supported the use of scientific
evidence to determine the total allowable fishery induced mortality for
a marine mammal stock, serious questions were raised regarding the data
used to classify the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island (BSAI) groundfish trawl
fishery. The take of two killer whales during the period 1990-93
resulted in moving BSAI trawl fisheries from Category III to Category
II. However, the 1995 marine mammal stock assessment for killer whales
indicates that the minimum population estimate is based on a direct
count, with no available correction factors. Commenters also indicated
that no reliable data on the population abundance of killer whale
stocks were available and neither was a reliable estimate of maximum
net productivity rate. Therefore the use of overly conservative
measures in setting the acceptable level of fishing induced mortality
should be discouraged. Better and more relevant data are needed before
reclassifying all BSAI trawl fisheries as Category II.
In the NMFS stock assessment report (SAR) for the Alaska region,
the killer whale chapter is divided into two sections, resident (759
animals) and non-resident (245 animals) populations. The total
population size is 1004 animals. The total killer whale take is two
animals--the population from which each was taken is listed as unknown.
A commenter calculated the PBR level based on the entire population
(1004 x 0.02 x 0.5) which resulted in a PBR level of 10.4 animals.
The annual take as reported in the SAR is 0.8 animals per year. This
number (0.8) divided by 10.4 animals (PBR) results in a take of 7.69
percent of PBR, not 10 percent as stated in the proposed LOF. It should
be noted that the two sections of the killer whale chapter each
calculate PBR level separately, 7.6 for resident killer whales and 2.4
for the non-resident population. The proposed LOF notice does not say
which number was used to move the BSAI trawl fishery into Category II.
Obviously, the killer whale population was not considered as a whole.
Response: NMFS believes that calculating the percentages of the PBR
level separately for the two killer whale stocks is the most risk-
averse approach.
The BSAI groundfish trawl fishery will be classified in Category
III. This fishery was proposed to be classified in Category II in the
proposed LOF based on serious injuries and mortalities of killer
whales. However, because the level of serious injury and mortality to
killer whales in this fishery is low (0.8 to 1.4 animals per year), the
fishery is observed with over 60 percent observer coverage, and the
population estimates for both the resident and transient stocks of
killer whales are direct counts of known individuals and thus
underestimate the total stock size, it is likely that the serious
injury or mortality of approximately one killer whale per year is not
adversely impacting the population. In addition, the final SARs for
resident and transient killer whales notes that these stocks are not
considered to be strategic.
If information becomes available that indicates that this observed
fishery has excessive incidental serious injuries or mortalities from
killer whale stocks or other stocks of marine mammals, it will be
reclassified as necessary.
Comment 6: The August 9, 1994, draft stock assessment shows
``zero'' Pacific coast fishery mortalities of humpback whales. Yet the
current proposed LOF would reclassify the Southeast Alaska salmon purse
seine fishery from Category III to Category II, because ``total known
humpback whale mortality and serious injury level across all fisheries
exceed 10 percent of this stock's PBR, and the known serious injury
level for this fishery is 0.4 animals per year.'' The EA implies that
the take in this fishery was documented through a single voluntary
report, but does not describe the nature of the interaction (i.e.,
mortality, entanglement, etc). According to the proposed LOF, the
Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery also has a known
mortality and serious injury rate of 0.13 animals per year, but the EA
makes no mention of any humpback takes by this fishery.
Response: The reports of humpback whale mortalities in the
Southeast Alaska purse seine fishery were identified after the
publication of the August 9, 1994 draft stock assessments. There were
two mortalities of humpback whales in this fishery, one in 1989 and one
in 1994. In both cases, individual whales became entangled in purse
seine nets being actively fished. One whale was entangled in the bunt
and subsequently in the net. The second whale became entangled in the
lead line and then wrapped in the net as it tried to free itself. The
fishers involved tried to free the whales, but were unsuccessful. Data
on humpback whale entanglements in the Southeast Alaska salmon drift
gillnet fishery came from stranding network data, but, in addition,
there have been several cases where fishers have notified the Coast
Guard or NMFS, and NMFS personnel assisted with freeing the whales.
This kind of cooperation is greatly appreciated by NMFS.
Comment 7: One commenter was disturbed by the weight one
unsubstantiated anecdotal report of a marine mammal take was given in
determining the category status of the Southeast Alaska salmon purse
seine fishery and believed the procedures used to document and
authenticate this report were seriously lacking. The commenter asserted
that while NMFS may be erring on the side of caution because humpback
whales are a strategic stock and because of a low population estimate,
a low estimate does not validate an unconfirmed
[[Page 67068]]
report. Based on the commenter's experience, mortalities and serious
injuries to humpback whales due to interactions with purse seine gear
are extremely rare, and seiners will expend a great deal of effort to
avoid any interaction with whales because of damage to the gear and a
substantial loss of fishing time. The commenter believed that a
Category III listing is more appropriate for this fishery. Even if the
Southeast Alaska salmon purse seine fishery were to remain in Category
III, NMFS could still use alternative monitoring methods to acquire
reliable information on the fishery's humpback interactions.
Response: Fisheries are classified based on the annual number of
incidental serious injuries and mortalities relative to the PBR level
for each marine mammal stock. Thus, a fishery could be placed in
Category I or II as a result of a high mortality level or a low
population abundance estimate, or some combination of the two. The
weight that any number of serious injuries or mortalities in a given
marine mammal stock has on categorization of fisheries is directly
related to the PBR level for that stock. In the case of the central
North Pacific stock of humpback whales, the PBR level is 2.8 animals.
There were three mortalities reported for all fisheries between 1989
and 1994. In a Tier I categorization evaluation, this calculates to a
rate of 0.5 animals per year, or 17.9 percent of the PBR level. Because
this rate is higher than 10 percent of the PBR level, the effects of
individual fisheries must be evaluated. There were two reported
mortalities to humpbacks in the Southeast Alaska purse seine fishery,
one in 1989 and one in 1994. The mortality rate for this fishery
calculates to 0.33 animals per year, or 11.9 percent of the PBR level.
Because this rate is greater than 1 percent, but less than 50 percent
of the PBR level, the fishery is placed in Category II.
NMFS does not consider these Category III reports to be unreliable
and has full confidence in their veracity. These data were reported by
a crew member aboard the vessel(s) that interacted with the whales. The
reports have been given no special treatment or additional weight.
NMFS agrees that the mortality and serious injury rate of humpbacks
in the Southeast Alaska salmon purse seine fishery were low. However,
the annual rate of serious injury and mortality in this fishery does
fit the definition of a Category II fishery. If the categorization
criteria were ignored, and the fishery was placed in Category III, NMFS
would have no mechanism except for voluntary cooperation of Category
III fishers, short of an emergency rule, to monitor the fishery
interactions with humpbacks. Because the incidental serious injury or
mortality of a humpback whale in a purse seine net is a ``no-win''
situation for all parties concerned, NMFS would like to work with the
fishing industry to understand the nature of these interactions and
develop means for fishers to avoid them, as well as effective responses
if an interaction does occur.
Comment 8: Using the PBR level to classify fisheries has
advantages, but it is only as accurate as the data being used. It is
our understanding that the population estimate for humpbacks is 12
years old and is based on a survey done in Hawaii. How often will NMFS
update its population estimates for strategic stocks?
Response: Stock assessment reports (SAR) for strategic stocks are
required by the MMPA to be reviewed annually. Additional data for
population estimates will be gathered according to the greatest need
and subject to the availability of funds.
NMFS acknowledges that the population estimates for the Central
North Pacific stock of humpback whales are problematic, and intends to
address them in the next couple of years through new analyses of recent
data and population surveys.
Comment 9: The Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Island salmon drift
gillnet should be classified in Category III and not in Category II as
proposed. The rationale presented for a Category III categorization is
that the drift gillnet fishery takes 1.8 percent of the PBR level for
Dall's porpoise, although the Alaskan Dall's porpoise stock is one of
the few stocks for which a determination has been made that the optimum
sustainable population level is met. The PBR level is calculated to be
1,537 and the SAR indicates total estimated fishery mortality is 41 per
year, well less than 10 percent of the PBR level. This, by itself,
should result in a Category III classification. Further, using
extrapolated data, the estimated mortality rate for the Alaska
Peninsula drift gillnet fishery is 1.8 percent, just over the Tier 2
threshold of 1 percent of the PBR level for a Category II
classification.
Response: NMFS agrees that classification of commercial fisheries
should be based on reliable information. The most reliable source for
this information are observer programs, which can be employed for
fisheries classified in Category I or II but can only be employed for a
Category III fishery if emergency regulations are in effect. Because of
this statutory limitation, NMFS is uncomfortable with classifying a
fishery as Category III if data exist that suggest the marine mammal
incidental take level may be above the relevant threshold. The Alaska
Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet fishery, like other
salmon drift gillnet fisheries in Alaska, has documented takes of a
variety of marine mammal stocks (Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise,
harbor seals, northern fur seals, walrus and unidentified small
cetaceans). Because of inadequate observer coverage across fisheries in
Alaska, NMFS considers the current information on take levels for many
stocks to be underestimates. Dall's porpoise serious injury and
mortality is documented in the logbooks from six fisheries. Based on
those levels, NMFS believes that if more accurate observer information
were available, the level of Dall's porpoise takes would exceed the 10
percent threshold across all fisheries. In that case, the Alaska
Peninsula drift gillnet fishery, with its Dall's porpoise take level of
1.8 percent the PBR level, would be classified in Category II.
Additional support for placement of this fishery in Category II is
based on low levels of harbor porpoise serious injuries and mortalities
documented in logbook reports submitted in this fishery. Because the
documented annual serious injury and mortality of harbor porpoise in
Alaska is greater than the 10 percent threshold level across all
fisheries, and because logbook reports represent an underestimate of
the total number of serious injuries and mortalities in a fishery, the
total impact to the harbor porpoise population may be above the 1
percent of PBR level that would cause this fishery to be classified as
Category II.
Comment 10: The rationale regarding the proposed Category II
classification of Alaska Peninsula set gillnet fishery is weak. It
states that this fishery takes a substantial number of marine mammals.
The proposed LOF does not discuss what data suggest that levels of
mortality and serious injury may exceed 10 percent of each stock's PBR
level if observer information were available, why it is to be expected
that incidental mortality may exceed certain levels, or why this
fishery would interact with similar species as do set gillnet fisheries
in other areas. In this case, classification is too speculative and
supports classification of the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon
set gillnet fishery in Category III.
Response: Because this fishery has documented mortalities and
serious injuries to marine mammals at an unknown rate, has never been
observed,
[[Page 67069]]
and uses a gear type with the potential to take various species of
marine mammals, NMFS believes that placing this fishery in Category II
is warranted until additional information can be collected. When more
reliable information becomes available, the level of marine mammal
mortality and serious injury in this fishery will be reassessed. (See
response to Comment 9 regarding the level of harbor porpoise serious
injuries and mortalities in this fishery.)
Comment 11: One commenter noted that there is no mention of
humpback whale interactions with the Prince William Sound salmon drift
gillnet or the AK Peninsula/Aleutians salmon drift gillnet fisheries.
The commenter believed that this species may have been inadvertently
omitted from the list of species involved in interactions with these
fisheries.
Response: NMFS has no information regarding any humpback
mortalities or serious injuries in the Prince William Sound or Alaska
Peninsula/Aleutian Islands drift gillnet fisheries.
Comment 12: The proposed LOF states that the classification of the
Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery is based on observer and
strandings data and does not mention logbook data. The stock assessment
for humpback whales mentions that logbook data from salmon and herring
gillnet fisheries indicate that humpbacks are entangled. The commenter
presumed that since the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery
is the only gillnet fishery with humpbacks listed as taken, it is
logbook reports from this fishery that led to the statement in the
SARs. Given that logbooks are known to under report interactions, the
commenter believed that this fishery might be more appropriately
classified as a Category I fishery.
Response: Stranding data is used to document humpback whale
interactions with the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery.
There are no reported humpback mortalities or serious injuries for this
fishery in the logbook data. The currently available data support
placing this fishery in Category II based on humpback whale and harbor
porpoise mortalities. The annual level of harbor porpoise mortality and
serious injury in this fishery based on logbook reports was 3.25 per
year, or 1.3 percent of the PBR level. There were no humpback
mortalities or serious injuries reported in logbooks for drift gillnet
fisheries, but there were Category III reports from fishers indicating
mortalities occurred in 1989 and 1994, not 1993 and 1994 as stated in
the SAR.
Comment 13: Drift and set gillnet fisheries in Cook Inlet, Yakutat,
Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Islands, Kodiak Island and Bristol Bay are
not listed as interacting with humpback whales. Given the information
in the SARs that logbook data from salmon and herring gillnet fisheries
indicate that humpbacks are entangled, these fisheries should be
considered to interact with this species. It also seems likely that
these fisheries all interact with harbor porpoise. The commenter noted
that a NMFS Federal Register notice dealing with harbor porpoise
acknowledged that wherever harbor porpoise and gillnets coincide,
harbor porpoise are caught. Further, in the Federal Register notice (60
FR 45399) that lists fisheries permitted to take endangered and
threatened species under section 101(a)(5)(e) of the MMPA, these set
gillnet fisheries are specifically permitted to take Steller sea lions,
although no Steller sea lions are listed in the LOF as interacting with
these fisheries. Also, the Southeast Alaska salmon purse seine, Alaska
herring roe food/bait purse seine fisheries and salmon troll do not
have humpbacks listed as a species with which it interacts, even though
the SARs indicate they do interact. Finally, there are fisheries with
``none documented'' listed as their interactions, but the commenter
believes that analogy to other fisheries might indicate otherwise.
Response: The list of marine mammals that interact with each
fishery has been revised. Only marine mammal species that have incurred
documented mortalities and injuries in a given fisheries are included
in this list. Analogy is not used to determine which stocks interact
with a particular fishery.
There may be discrepancies between the list of marine mammal
species identified in the LOF published pursuant to section 118 and the
list published pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(E), due to an attempt by
NMFS to issue interim permits to all fisheries that may have
interactions with marine mammal species listed under the Endangered
Species Act, while the section 118 LOF includes only those marine
mammal species or stocks with documented injuries and mortalities
incidental to a particular commercial fishery.
Comment 14a: The Alaska Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue
salmon gillnet fisheries are acknowledged as likely to have occasional
interactions with marine mammals, yet have been placed in Category III
because these interactions are believed to ``result in directed takes
for subsistence purposes.'' Because these fisheries do not have
observer data available, and given that they interact with harbor
porpoise and beluga whales, the commenter believes these fisheries
should be placed in Category II and be subject to observer coverage.
Response: NMFS believes that virtually all takes of marine mammals
related to these fisheries are actually directed takes by Alaska
Natives for subsistence use. Any marine mammals that are taken
incidentally in these fisheries are likewise retained for subsistence
use by Alaskan Natives. NMFS is currently developing co-operative
agreements with Alaska Native organizations for the management of
marine mammals in Alaska used for subsistence purposes. The number of
animals taken in the above fisheries and used for subsistence will be
considered through co-management agreements rather than under section
118.
Comment 14b: The Alaska salmon troll and sablefish longline/set
line fisheries intentionally killed orcas in the past, and it is
optimistic to believe that these intentional killings will cease simply
because they are now illegal. The commenter believes that these
fisheries warrant further monitoring and should be placed in Category
II.
Response: See the response to Comment 1 for explanation of how
intentional lethal takes will be addressed by NMFS. NMFS does not have
data documenting incidental mortalities or serious injuries of killer
whales for these fisheries.
Comments on Fisheries in the Northwest Region
Comment 15: The Columbia River salmon fishery is appropriately
placed in Category III.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Comment 16: The California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA) thresher
shark/swordfish/blue shark drift gillnet fishery should be renamed in
the final LOF to accurately reflect the target species and the current
state licensing practices for the fishery. The Washington portion of
the fishery should be deleted since there is no Washington licensed
swordfish gillnet fishery.
Response: The CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery
has been renamed. The reference to blue shark has been removed because
this species may not be landed in Oregon and is not a target species in
the California fishery. The reference to Washington has been removed
because this fishery does not occur in waters off Washington, nor does
Washington State permit the
[[Page 67070]]
harvest or landing of either thresher shark or swordfish.
Comment 17: NMFS should retain commercial fisheries classified in
Categories I or II under the Interim Exemption on the basis of
intentional lethal take in those categories until it has been
demonstrated that the intentional lethal takes have ceased.
Response: Because intentional lethal takes of marine mammals are
now illegal, except in cases of self defense or in order to save the
life of a person in imminent danger, and because fisheries must be
categorized based on incidental serious injury or mortality, commercial
fisheries will not be classified on the basis of the number of
intentional lethal takes. In addition, NMFS does not believe that
continuing registration requirements for fisheries that have been moved
to Category III based on the available information will have any effect
on the degree of compliance with the intentional lethal take
prohibition. To the extent that reporting requirements are consistent
for all fisheries, regardless of category, NMFS anticipates that
fishers reports will continue to provide qualitative information as an
indicator of incidental take levels. This qualitative information can
be useful in determining the need for more intensive monitoring. NMFS
will continue to investigate illegal takes of marine mammals regardless
of whether vessels are registered.
Comment 18: No information on incidental takes of marine mammals is
available for the Washington/Oregon (WA/OR) herring, smelt, shad,
sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet, perch, rockfish gillnet fishery. A lack
of information does not mean that no serious injuries or mortalities
have occurred. Analogy with other gillnet fisheries could justify
placing this fishery in Category II.
Response: As indicated in the EA, non-salmon gillnet fisheries in
the Northwest, (i.e., WA/OR herring, smelt, shad, sturgeon, bottomfish,
mullet, perch, and rockfish gillnet) are predominantly in-river
fisheries. NMFS is not aware of any information indicating that
incidental takes of marine mammals are occurring in these fisheries.
Comment 19: Because salmon net pen and ranch fisheries, and the
California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA) salmon troll fisheries have
histories of lethal takes of pinnipeds, these fisheries should remain
in Category II until NMFS receives documentation that the lethal takes
have ceased.
Response: The incidence of intentional lethal take was not used for
categorizing fisheries under section 118 of the MMPA. (See response to
Comment 17.)
Comment 20: Serious injuries and mortalities of humpback whales
caused the Southeast Alaska salmon purse seine fishery to be proposed
for Category II. By analogy, the Washington (WA) salmon purse seine
should also be placed in Category II and the humpback whale should be
listed in the LOF as an interacting species.
Response: There are no records of interactions between the
Washington salmon purse seine fishery and humpback whales. Humpback
whales are only rarely sighted in the inland waters of Washington where
the fishery operates.
Comment 21: The humpback whale should be listed in the LOF as an
interacting species for the Washington/Oregon/California (WA/OR/CA)
groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line fishery, and this fishery
should be considered for classification in Category II.
Response: There are no records of humpback whale interactions with
this fishery; thus this fishery is placed in Category III.
Comment 22: Analogy to the intentional lethal takes that occur
during commercial net pen fisheries should be used to place salmon
enhancement rearing pens in Category II.
Response: Because salmon enhancement rearing pens have not been
considered a commercial fishing operation, in the past they have not
been subject to requirements of section 118. If NMFS were to consider
this a commercial fishery, analogy would indicate correct placement of
salmon enhancement rearing pens in Category III, because interactions
would be similar to commercial net pens without any active deterrence
methods. As indicated in the EA, the incidence of mortality or serious
injury resulting from gear interactions with net pens is less than one
percent of the PBR for the stocks that interact with net pen fishery
operations (harbor seals and California sea lions).
Because enhancement rearing pens are typically not considered
commercial fisheries, NMFS will consider proposing to remove this
fishery from the LOF in a future proposed LOF.
Comments on Fisheries in the Northeast and Southeast Regions
Comment 23: The mid-water squid fishery defined in the proposed LOF
does not exist. It's a bottom trawl fishery, and not mid-water. It
should not be lumped with other mid-water gear.
Response: Mackerel, butterfish, and squid are fished by trawl in a
similar manner, with minimal modifications to gear. A mid-water squid
trawl fishery does exist, although it is not the preferred fishing
method for this species at this time. NMFS agrees that ``Atlantic mid-
water trawl'' may not be an accurate description of the fishery. In
this final LOF, this fishery is renamed ``Atlantic Squid, Mackerel,
Butterfish Trawl'' with no reference to the depth at which the gear is
fished. This fishery is placed in Category II based on serious injuries
and mortalities of pilot whales recorded in fishers' logbooks. In
addition, and regardless of the trawl method used, a potential for
incidental interactions between this fishery and marine mammals exists,
because squid, mackerel, and butterfish are important prey species for
marine mammals.
Comment 25: The number of marine mammal mortalities and serious
injuries as published in the proposed LOF and the method used to
extrapolate raw data into a total estimated take needs to be explained,
especially with regard to pilot whale mortalities in the longline
fishery. In addition, the source of the data indicating humpback whale
and minke whale interactions with the longline fishery should be cited.
The number of participants listed in Table 2, 830, is a considerable
overestimate of the total number of vessels in the fleet. If this
information were used to extrapolate the observer data, the total
number of takes in the fishery would be greatly overestimated. The
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico swordfish, tuna, and shark
longline fishery should not be listed as a Category I fishery but
should remain in Category II.
Response: NMFS observers recorded one mortality of a pilot whale in
coverage scheduled between late 1992 and 1993. The mortality occurred
in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean. In addition, 24 non-lethal interactions (2
injuries and 22 unspecified interactions) of pilot whales have been
observed in the fishery. It is unknown how many of these animals
eventually died due to injuries resulting from entanglement. Observed
kills of other species include one Risso's dolphin in 1993, which
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
The annual level of serious injury and mortality for this fishery
was not calculated by extrapolating observed serious injuries and
mortalities to the entire fishery using the number of permitted
vessels. Rather, it was calculated by extrapolating observed serious
injury and mortality in the whole fishery using the total number of
sets reported in the mandatory fishing
[[Page 67071]]
vessel logbooks. The pilot whale mortality was not reported as coming
from the long- or short-finned stock; however, the estimated total
mortality of pilot whales exceeds the 50 percent of the PBR threshold
for either long-finned or short-finned pilot whales. Therefore
classification in Category I is warranted.
In addition, section 114 Marine Mammal Exemption Program (MMEP)
logbook data support a Category I classification. Injuries and
mortalities reported in the MMEP from 1990 through 1992 indicate that
an average of nine pilot whales are injured or killed in longline gear
each year. A variety of other marine mammal species, including but not
limited to bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoise, Risso's dolphins, and
unidentified large cetaceans, have also been recorded as injured or
killed. NMFS has also received sighting reports (both at sea and
stranded) of whales carrying gear which may be attributable to the
pelagic longline fishery. Species listed in these reports include
humpback whale, sperm whale, long-finned pilot whale, and minke whale.
Comment 26: The Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts (to Monomoy
Island), and New York Bight (Raritan and Lower New York Bays) inshore
gillnet fishery, Long Island Sound inshore gillnet fishery, Delaware
Bay inshore gillnet fishery, and North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery
are currently, and incorrectly, listed as Category III fisheries. These
fisheries interact on a sufficiently high level with humpback whales,
minke whales, bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoise that they should
be moved to Category II.
Response: These inshore and bay fisheries were divided out from
other mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries, because there were no
observed takes in these areas, and because it is believed that there is
a low probability of interaction. In the last several years, an
interaction problem with small cetaceans has been identified in the
mid-Atlantic based on observations of stranded animals. It is possible
to identify evidence of gillnet interactions from a stranded specimen,
but it is not yet possible to determine conclusively which gillnet
fishery is responsible for the interaction unless the gear is recovered
with the carcass, which is not usually the case. Based on the
geographic distribution of strandings, marine mammal high-use areas,
and concentrations of fishing gear, NMFS believes that the gillnet
interactions in the mid-Atlantic occur largely in areas outside the
``inshore'' fishery division lines. Placement of these inshore
fisheries into Category II is not warranted at this time. However,
recent information (1994-1995) indicates that marine mammal incidental
serious injury and mortality in some of these inshore fisheries may be
higher than originally believed. These fisheries will be re-evaluated
based on an examination of more recent stranding data when developing
the next proposed LOF.
Comment 27: The pair trawl fishery should be renamed, as it occurs
between Cape Hatteras and the Hague Line, and not in the Caribbean
Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, or off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. The
references to sharks should also be deleted from the name of the
fishery, as sharks are not targeted and are, in fact, minimally
represented in the bycatch. In addition, the number of participants in
the fishery needs to be updated, as the number included in the proposed
LOF is incorrect.
Response: NMFS agrees that the fishery should be renamed.
Therefore, the fishery is now listed as ``U.S. Atlantic Large Pelagics
Pair Trawl'' and the number of participants has been updated in the
final LOF.
Comment 28: The average annual serious injury and mortality
(extrapolated from observer data, 1992-93) of marine mammals
incidentally taken in the pair trawl fishery appears to be highly
inflated when compared to actual data, leading constituents to suspect
that the data used to compile this information were not correct. Data
from 1994 should be used in order for the LOF to be based on the best
available information. Members of the fishing community have worked to
change those aspects of the pair trawl fishery to reduce the number of
marine mammal takes that occur incidental to the fishery, and none of
those changes will have any significance in this final LOF. It is
unfair to impose additional regulations on the fishing community
without using every piece of data collected over all the years.
Response: See the response to Comment 25 for an explanation of how
observer data are extrapolated to provide an annual estimate of the
total serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals in a
commercial fishery.
Development of the new fisheries data reporting and analysis
systems for the NMFS pair trawl observer program is ongoing. Observed
serious injuries and mortalities from the pair trawl fishery in 1994
cannot be extrapolated to total kill numbers until the fishing effort
data are available for the calculation. Data from the first half of
1994 were collected but were not available in the form necessary for
the calculations used in developing the proposed LOF and cannot be
finalized in time to allow the final LOF to be published before January
1, 1996. These data will be available for future consideration in
making any necessary revisions for the next proposed LOF. Although
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals incidental to the pair
trawl fishery may have been below average in 1994, preliminary analysis
of serious injury and mortality levels for 1995 suggests a bycatch
increase and indicates an increase in the number of marine mammal
species involved.
Comment 29: Data on marine mammal incidental mortalities and
serious injuries from the 1994 pair trawl fishery have been made
available to NMFS through reports and presentations in public forums.
Because observer coverage was very high in 1994, this data set
represents the most complete information for the pair trawl fishery to
date. This information should be used to classify the pair trawl
fishery.
Response: NMFS agrees that observer coverage was most intensive in
1994. However, incorporation of non-NMFS data presented in the
aforementioned report would not result in reclassifying the pair trawl
fishery as Category II. For example, if the non-NMFS information on the
number of observed mortalities of the offshore stock of bottlenose
dolphin and common dolphins are assumed to approximate the actual
values, averaging these values with NMFS mortality and serious injury
estimates from 1992 and 1993 results in average estimated serious
injuries and mortalities of 53 and 22 animals, respectively. Both
values exceed 50 percent of the PBR level for these stocks. In
addition, the serious injury and mortality levels in 1995 seem to have
increased substantially over the 1994 levels. To date, 25 marine
mammals have been observed seriously injured or killed, including three
dolphin species and long-finned pilot whales. Classifying this fishery
as Category I is warranted.
Comment 30: In order to categorize a particular fishery, it is
imperative that NMFS know how many vessels there are and where they
fish. It is incumbent upon NMFS to make this number reflect reality to
the best of its ability, because the extrapolation will make an
erroneous result that could have extraordinary consequences. For
example, for the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS has used 830 vessels to
extrapolate the estimate of the ``takes'' for the fishery. According to
the NMFS database, there were only 147 vessels that landed more than
one swordfish in each of 5 or more months in 1993.
[[Page 67072]]
Response: NMFS appreciates the information regarding the total
number of participants in the pelagic longline fishery. The numbers in
the ``Estimated number of vessels/persons'' column in the proposed LOF
sometimes represented the total number of permitted vessels/persons,
and sometimes represented the total number of active vessels/persons.
Because the number of active vessels/participants is a more valid
indicator of the total effort in a fishery, this was included in the
proposed LOF when that information was available. If the number of
active participants was not available, the number of, or an estimate
of, the permitted participants was used.
The number of vessels in the longline fishery was originally
estimated based on the number of swordfish permits issued. There were
361 vessels reporting swordfish catch in 1994. (See response to Comment
25 regarding extrapolation of observer data.)
Comment 31: A more appropriate method of calculating effort for the
fishery is the number of hooks used. If the reported number of hooks
were used for calculating this estimate, NMFS must recognize that a
hook in the Gulf of Mexico and a similar hook at the Grand Banks have a
very different likelihood of interacting with a particular marine
mammal species. NMFS should investigate splitting the longline fleet
into different statistical areas, preferably using the five areas used
by the fisheries statisticians.
It would be especially important to separate the fishery into
northern and southern components, as many of the interactions occur in
the northern portion of the fishery. For instance, it would be
unjustified to severely restrict or close the yellowfin tuna fishery in
the Gulf of Mexico if a northern marine mammal stock's PBR is taken.
This approach would be consistent with the approach used for some of
the Northwest Pacific fisheries that catch the same Pacific species
with the same fishing gear but are separately categorized by the bays,
inlets, sounds, etc., where they fish. Despite the effort involved to
consider the variables and complexity of this fishery, NMFS must not
take the ``easy'' way by leaving this wide-ranging fleet vulnerable to
a complete closure that may not be warranted.
Response: NMFS agrees that the pelagic longline data should be
analyzed to determine whether the fishery could be separated into
different statistical areas. The most logical division based on the
demographics of the fishery may be into a U.S. Atlantic component and a
U.S. Gulf of Mexico component. This will be investigated during the
development of the next proposed LOF.
The Take Reduction Teams that will be established pursuant to the
1994 MMPA amendments will consider all fisheries known to interact with
each strategic marine mammal stock. NMFS anticipates that the teams
will make recommendations on whether or not to proceed with a
geographic partitioning of the fishery. In addition, it does not
necessarily follow that the yellowfin tuna fishery in the Gulf of
Mexico would be closed if a northern marine mammal stock's PBR is
taken. Closures designed to protect marine mammals would most likely be
designed to encompass areas where those marine mammals occur. For
example, closures restricting groundfish gillnet effort in the Gulf of
Maine to reduce porpoise bycatch are designed to encompass areas of
high porpoise bycatch, not all areas where gillnetting traditionally
occurs.
Comment 32: The pelagic longline fishery is classified based on the
annual level of serious injury and mortality for pilot whales. The PBR
for pilot whales is based upon conservative calculations using dated
surveys.
Response: The 1995 SARs were prepared using the best available
data. Because NMFS conducted surveys in 1995, this information will be
incorporated in future calculations of PBR for pilot whale stocks. As
both short- and long-finned pilot whales are considered strategic
stocks, the SARs addressing these stocks must be reviewed on an annual
basis, and new information can be incorporated at that time.
Comment 33: Atlantic commercial passenger fishing vessels should be
categorized in the LOF to be consistent with the categorization of the
Pacific commercial passenger fishing vessels.
Response: The 1996 LOF contains a listing of ``Atlantic Commercial
Passenger Vessel'' in Category III. An estimate of 4000 participants is
also given.
Comment 34: Some fishery names in the proposed LOF are vague. For
example, there is a reference to the Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery,
which is proposed to include the ``Mid-Atlantic squid trawl,'' and the
``Mid-Atlantic mackerel trawl.'' There is a small amount of mackerel
caught by mid-water trawl, but the vast majority of squid are caught
using bottom trawl gear.
Response: See response to Comment 23 for a discussion of this
fishery.
Comment 35: The designation of the lobster fishery as Category III
should be revisited, given the interactions of lobster gear with
endangered right whales.
Response: NMFS will consider proposing to reclassify the lobster
fishery as Category II in developing the next proposed LOF.
Entanglement records indicate interactions between lobster pot
fisheries and right whales, humpback whales, finback whales, and minke
whales, but NMFS has no way of extrapolating these reports to the whole
fishery.
Comment 36: The commenter questioned whether the estimated total
take of 1.75 dolphins per year for the Atlantic menhaden fleet
justifies classifying this fishery in Category II. Subjecting a fleet
of vessels to permitting, decal, and observer requirements in these
circumstances appears to be excessive given the size of the interaction
and the fact that this particular fishery has been subject to intensive
bycatch analysis in the past few years by agency scientists.
Response: The bottlenose dolphin takes were incorrectly attributed
to the menhaden purse seine fishery. Because of this error, this
fishery was inappropriately proposed for classification in Category II
in the proposed LOF. This fishery is placed in Category III in this
final LOF.
Comment 37: The classification of the menhaden purse seine fishery
as a Category II fishery is based on a mortality and serious injury
rate of 1.75 Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins per year in the
entire fishery. As stated in the preamble to the proposed LOF, this
species does not occur in the Gulf of Maine and therefore ``it may be
appropriate to separate this fishery into northern and southern
components.'' In view of the absence of bottlenose dolphins from the
Gulf of Maine, the menhaden fishery should be separated into two
components north and south of Cape Cod, and the Gulf of Maine menhaden
purse seine fishery should continue to be classified as a Category III
fishery.
Response: See response to Comment 36 regarding takes of bottlenose
dolphins in the mid-Atlantic component of the menhaden purse seine
fishery. However, because of the geographic ranges of the fisheries,
the differences in marine mammal species likely to be encountered, and
the harvested age-class in the two fisheries, the Gulf of Maine
menhaden purse seine and the mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine are
separate fisheries in the final LOF.
Comment 38: Serious injuries and mortalities of the western North
Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin drive the classification of several
fisheries (mid-
[[Page 67073]]
Atlantic menhaden purse seine, mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery).
How is this population defined? Has it been shown to be reproductively
isolated from the offshore dolphin stock?
Response: The final SAR states that there are ``two hematologically
and morphologically distinct bottlenose dolphin ecotypes that
correspond to a shallow, warm water ecotype and a deep, cold water
ecotype . . . .'' (Blaylock, et al., 1995).
Comment 39: The Gulf of Maine small pelagics surface gillnet
fishery should be removed from Category 1. The EA states (p. 30) that
this fishery no longer operates.
Response: Additional research on the Gulf of Maine small pelagics
surface gillnet fishery indicates that, although there are few vessels
participating, the fishery is still operational. This fishery operates
in areas of high marine mammal concentrations. One report indicated
that a white-sided dolphin was killed incidental to this fishery, and
another report indicated that a humpback whale became entangled
incidental to fishing operations and was later released by divers.
Because there was a report of a mortality in this fishery, and because
information is not available to justify a placement in Category I or
III, the fishery is placed in Category II.
Comment 40: There is a small (5 boats) Gulf of Maine midwater trawl
fishery for herring, separate from the Category II Atlantic midwater
trawl fishery for squid and butterfish (620 boats). It should be listed
as a Category III fishery. These boats also fish for herring in
southern New England in the winter.
Response: In this final LOF, the trawl fishery for Atlantic herring
has been renamed the ``Northeast U.S. Atlantic Herring Trawl.'' This
fishery is separated from fisheries in the Southern North Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico because the Atlantic herring species only ranges as far
south as Cape Hatteras. This fishery is placed in Category III, as no
incidental mortalities or serious injuries have been reported for this
fishery, nor are incidental mortalities or serious injuries expected to
occur incidental to this fishery.
Comment 41: A commenter supports placement of new fisheries in
Category II until observer data or other information can be used to
properly place the fishery, unless information already exists to place
a new fishery in a different category.
Response: NMFS agrees. This approach was included in the final
regulations implementing section 118.
Comment 42: According to the proposed LOF, the U.S. mid-Atlantic
coastal gillnet fishery interacts with humpback whales (PBR level = 1).
Published data indicate that stranded humpback whales in the mid-
Atlantic may be interacting at a significant rate with these fisheries
(Wiley et al., 1995). This information indicates that this fishery
should be classified as Category I, as it may be responsible for
greater than 1 percent of the annual mortality in this stock of
humpbacks.
Response: The PBR level for this humpback whale stock is currently
set at 10 animals. The stranding records mentioned in Wiley (1995)
demonstrate that stranded humpbacks in the mid-Atlantic have been
entangled in commercial fishing gear. However, none of those humpback
stranding records conclusively identify which fishery is responsible.
One of the fundamental problems with linking a large whale entanglement
to a particular fishery is that the whales are capable of carrying many
kinds of gear great distances from the original point of entanglement.
Reports received usually do not include gear identification information
that would identify the location in which the gear was originally set.
Recent cetacean entanglement records in the mid-Atlantic have been
linked to this fishery. These records suggest that, although the level
of humpback entanglement in coastal gillnets in the mid-Atlantic is
greater than 1 percent of PBR, there is no evidence to suggest that it
is greater than 50 percent of PBR. Therefore, classification of this
fishery as Category I is not warranted at this time.
Comment 43: There is no mention of interactions with northern right
whales in the U.S. South Atlantic shark gillnet fishery. State
officials concluded that a juvenile right whale that was entangled in
netting that likely came from this fishery was subsequently killed by a
large ship in 1994. Right whales should be added as an interacting
stock and this fishery should be classified as a Category I fishery.
Response: A seriously injured juvenile right whale was observed
swimming with its mother off the coast of Georgia. Marks on the animal
closely resembled the types of marks observed on other right whales
that have been entangled in gill nets. The juvenile whale had
apparently also been hit by the propellers of a ship, as its flukes had
been nearly severed. No gear was recovered from this animal and it is
unknown whether the animal actually died, although its demise was
highly likely based upon its injuries. The only gillnet fishery
operating in the vicinity was the Southeast U.S. Atlantic shark gill
net fishery. Because this fishery's interaction with right whales is
suspected but not confirmed, it is appropriate to place this fishery in
Category II.
Comment 44: The North Atlantic bottom trawl fishery was classified
as a Category III fishery despite observer data indicating a take of 62
percent of the PBR for striped dolphins. It is noted that there was
minimal observer coverage (1 percent) and there is, therefore, a high
coefficient of variation of the estimate. It is also possible with this
high coefficient of variance that the mortality estimate is low.
Furthermore, text in the proposed LOF states that the observers were
not assigned to monitor marine mammal mortality but to ``monitor
fishery management related issues.'' Similar observer objectives on the
Gulf of Maine gillnet vessels resulted in an underestimate of marine
mammal bycatch. NMFS should reconsider the category for this fishery.
Response: A justification for categorizing the North Atlantic
bottom trawl fishery in Category III was provided in the proposed LOF.
Although concerns regarding some observer programs that focus on
fishery monitoring have been raised, other observer programs with the
same goals, such as those operating in the BSAI groundfish trawl
fishery and the U.S. Atlantic large pelagics drift gillnet fishery,
have provided important information on the level of marine mammal
incidental serious injury and mortality. NMFS anticipates receiving
additional marine mammal bycatch information on the bottom trawl
fishery from observer programs directed at fish bycatch. This fishery
will be re-evaluated for potential listing in Category II in a future
proposed LOF. The trawl and gillnet fisheries have very different
methods for hauling the gear and removing catch from the gear. It is
much less likely that an observer will miss a marine mammal from a
trawl haul than from a gillnet haul.
Comment 45: It may be premature to place the finfish aquaculture
fishery in Category III based on a presumption that, since intentional
killing is now prohibited, participants will not shoot seals. Media
accounts of fishers shooting hundreds of seals belie the NMFS
contention that the industry is likely to stop killing seals
(justifying reclassification from Category II to Category III). Thus,
the fishery should remain in Category II.
Response: The finfish aquaculture fishery was placed in Category II
in the previous LOF, because intentional lethal takes of harbor seals
and grey seals were
[[Page 67074]]
thought to occur ``occasionally.'' The authority to intentionally kill
the seals was revoked by the 1994 MMPA amendments. A fishery
categorization under section 118 cannot be based on the supposition
that aquaculturists will violate the law. Anyone who intentionally
kills marine mammals to protect fishing gear or catch will be subject
to enforcement actions. This fishery will be re-evaluated in developing
a future proposed LOF based on recent seal entanglement records from
the fishery.
Comment 46: The Gulf of Mexico inshore gillnet fishery has not been
classified correctly. There are over 40 discrete stocks of bottlenose
dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico bay, sound and estuarine stocks, each
with a PBR of between 0 and 3 animals per year. If this fishery were to
be classified based on analogy to U.S. inshore fisheries in the mid-
Atlantic, then it must be supposed that it is likely to interact with
bottlenose dolphins (see Long Island sound inshore gillnet, Delaware
Bay inshore gillnet and North Carolina inshore gillnet). As such, this
fishery should be either a Category I or II fishery, as it would have
to kill 0.03 animals per year or less to be placed in Category III if
it is operating in an area coincident with any of the Gulf bays stocks.
If this fishery is not operating in bays, sounds and estuaries (as
could be the case in an ``inshore'' fishery) and is instead interacting
with coastal stocks, then the PBR for the Western Gulf of Mexico
coastal stock is 29 animals (0.2=1 percent of PBR); the PBR level for
the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal stock is 35 (0.3=1 percent of the
PBR level); and the PBR level for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico coastal
stock is 89 (0.8=1 percent of the PBR level). Thus, the fishery would
have to kill less than one of these animals each year in order to
properly be placed in Category III. This too appears unlikely, given
the propensity of gillnets to interact with bottlenose dolphins. It
would seem that this fishery is totally inappropriate for Category III.
This new fishery should be either Category I or Category II based on
its potential to interact with bottlenose dolphins.
Response: Because NMFS has no documented, direct observations of
serious injury or mortality to marine mammals in this fishery, it has
been classified as category III by analogy with Atlantic inshore
gillnet fisheries. However, as explained under responses to comments on
those fisheries, NMFS believes there is potential for interaction with
marine mammals in this fishery. Several bottlenose dolphins were
incidentally caught in research-related tangle nets set for turtles
between Texas and Louisiana between 1993 and 1995. These nets are
similar to, and used like nets used in the inshore gillnet fishery. In
addition, these nets were fully tended specifically to prevent marine
mammal entanglements from occurring. This information and any
additional information that can be obtained with respect to this
fishery may be considered in developing a future proposed LOF.
Comment 47: The offshore monkfish bottom gillnet fishery, a new
fishery to the proposed LOF for 1996, was placed in Category III based
on an expectation that there will be a remote likelihood of
interactions between bottom gillnet gear and marine mammals. While it
is true that deep-set gear is less likely to kill marine mammals, a
number of stocks (e.g., sperm whales) do use deep water areas, and
gillnets are the gear type most likely to interact with any marine
mammal species in the area. Until such time as it can be ascertained
that interactions are unlikely, this new fishery should be placed in
Category II to allow observer coverage and the gathering of more
reliable information on interactions.
Response: This fishery may have been listed incorrectly as Category
III in the proposed LOF. Because this fishery may have a high potential
to take several cetacean species based on analogy with other shelf-edge
fisheries such as the large pelagic drift gillnet fishery, NMFS will
examine available data during the development of the next proposed LOF
for reclassification of this fishery as Category II.
Since the publication of the proposed LOF, two other components of
the monkfish fishery have been recognized by NMFS. The following
provides a description of each component, and its treatment in this
final LOF:
U.S. Atlantic Monkfish Trawl Fishery, Unknown Number of Participants
The monkfish trawl fishery harvests monkfish in deep waters off the
Atlantic coast. Some participants in this fishery use a modified beam
trawl; most use otter trawls. In addition, some participants in the
scallop dredge fishery target monkfish using dredge gear during off-
days for scallops as well as simultaneously with scallops. Because the
target species, gear type, and geographic range of this fishery is
unique, it is considered a new fishery for the purposes of the LOF.
There are no documented reports of incidental serious injury or
mortality of marine mammals in this fishery, nor are incidental serious
injuries or mortalities expected. Accordingly, this fishery is placed
in Category III in this final LOF.
Monkfish Gillnetting in the Gulf of Maine
Fishers participating in the New England multispecies sink gillnet
fishery have targeted monkfish for several years. When targeting this
species, a large mesh (10-14'' stretched mesh) sink gillnet is used,
and the net is either tied down, or is set upright without floats using
a polyfoam core floatline. Reports indicate that at least some fishers
target monkfish in the Gulf of Maine near Jeffrey's Ledge. This fishery
is an extension of the New England multispecies sink gillnet fishery,
but has not been specifically included in the name of the fishery.
Because of the increasing dominance of monkfish in the groundfish
catch, the name of the New England multispecies sink gillnet fishery
has been changed to the ``New England multispecies sink gillnet fishery
(includes all species as defined in the Multispecies FMP, spiny
dogfish, and monkfish)'' to clarify that sink gillnet fishers targeting
monkfish are included.
Comment 48: The Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic tuna, shark,
swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon fishery is stated to have no documented
interactions with marine mammals. This is incorrect. For example, NMFS
records indicate that, on September 1, 1986 a humpback whale was
reported by the U.S. Coast Guard off Nantucket shoals with tuna floats
trailing; on November 14, 1986, the U.S. Coast Guard reported to NMFS
that a right whale calf was seen with ``a tuna dart with line
attached'' in its body; on July 7, 1989, a humpback whale was reported
by the Cetacean Research Unit in Gloucester, MA, to have a tuna line
from an identified Gloucester-based tuna boat around its left flipper
and flukes, with the float attached. Furthermore, on August 29, 1995, a
humpback whale was observed by both whale watching boats and the U.S.
Coast Guard on Jeffreys Ledge, with a tuna boat anchor, line and float
wrapped around and trailing from its body. While this most recent
sighting may not yet have appeared in the main data base, the three
earlier reports are from NMFS files. This information should be
corrected in the LOF, and this fishery should be considered for
reclassification.
Response: Because NMFS chose to use the most current data
available, entanglement references prior to the Marine Mammal Exemption
Program (MMEP) inception in 1989 were not used in developing the
proposed LOF. This fishery may be considered for re-
[[Page 67075]]
classification in Category II in a future proposed LOF based on recent
entanglement records. A humpback entanglement in tuna hand gear was
conclusively identified in 1995, and the recent references presented in
Comment 47, along with additional records, may be used to support this
re-classification.
Comment 49: NMFS entanglement reports indicate that a number of
animals have been seen entangled in trawl gear from an unspecified
fishery. On February 15, 1983, a right whale calf was reported dead in
an otter trawl, on February 23, 1986, a humpback whale was reported by
the Cetacean Research Unit off Jeffreys Ledge ``caught in otter
trawl,'' and on September 18, 1989, the Marine Mammal Stranding Center
in New Jersey reported a failed attempt to rescue a humpback whale from
trawl net and cable. Either the Gulf of Maine mackerel trawl or the
mid-Atlantic multi-species trawl, or another trawl fishery operating in
the area is apparently having interactions with endangered species.
Thus, it may not be accurate to say that these fisheries have no
documented interactions.
Response: The right whale calf entangled in otter trawl gear in
1983 was determined to have been dead and decomposed prior to this
observation and should therefore not be attributed to the otter trawl
fishery. The February 23, 1986 report of a humpback in an otter trawl
was an incomplete report. The whale was still alive, but it is likely
that the whale was weakened by a previous entanglement, a vessel
collision, or other injury or disease. The carcass was not recovered,
so no conclusions can be drawn from this incident. The September 18,
1989, entanglement of a humpback in trawl gear in New Jersey was not
conclusively linked to the specific trawl type, and there was no
information obtained that would give a location for the original point
of entanglement. Because the fishery that caused the above
entanglements cannot be specifically identified, the information may
not be used to classify fisheries at this time.
Comment 50: It is stated that the Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic
offshore lobster trap/pot fishery has no documented interactions. This
is incorrect. A right whale, which washed up dead this summer (1995) in
Rhode Island, was found with line from off-shore lobster gear wrapped
so tightly around its flippers, that it cut through the bone and likely
contributed to the animal's death. In addition, a NMFS report from
April 25, 1981, states that a minke whale was found entangled in
offshore lobster gear and released on April 28, 1981. Thus, it can be
seen that this fishery does have interactions.
Response: Because NMFS chose to use the most current data
available, entanglement references prior to the MMEP program inception
in 1989 were not used in developing the current proposed LOF. These
records may be considered in developing a future proposed LOF. The
right whale that stranded in Rhode Island in July of 1995 had been
entangled as early as December 1993, although the original point of
entanglement is unknown. Although entanglement experts on-scene
believed that the gear on the whale was probably offshore lobster gear,
this could not be confirmed because no identification unique to this
fishery was recovered. NMFS also anticipates that both inshore and
offshore lobster fisheries may be considered by the Take Reduction Team
that will be established to make recommendations to NMFS on reducing
interactions between fisheries and large cetaceans.
Comment 51: A number of fisheries have had species of marine
mammals listed as interacting species, based on analogy to similar
fisheries that have interactions with marine mammal species known to
occur in the area. The U.S. mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir
fishery should therefore not have its interactions reported as ``none
documented.'' Seines and weirs pose a significant interaction problem
for a number of species of marine mammals. For instance, in 1981 a
humpback whale was reported caught in a cod weir in Long Island and
released by the Okeanos Research Center. In 1988, a weir in Truro, MA,
caught two humpbacks: one on October 16 and one on December 6. Both
animals were released by the Center for Coastal Studies. Furthermore,
there is no justification for assuming that this fishery's interaction
potential is significantly different than that of the Gulf of Maine
herring and Atlantic stop seine/weir fishery, which has humpback, right
whale, minke whale and harbor porpoise interactions. The final LOF
should include these corrections.
Response: The entanglement records mentioned by the commenter were
not considered for the proposed LOF. These records and any records
received since the development of the proposed LOF may be considered
while developing a future proposed LOF. In general, NMFS believes that
potential for serious injury or mortality due to these fisheries is
low.
Comments on Fisheries in the Southwest Region
Comment 52: Reclassify the California (CA) set/drift gillnet
fisheries that use small mesh to Category II based on takes of central
California harbor porpoise.
Response: California gillnet fisheries that use a mesh size of 3.5
inches or less target white croaker, bonito, flying fish, herring,
smelt, shad sturgeon, bottomfish, mullet, perch, and rockfish. There
have been no observed or reported incidental takes of central
California harbor porpoise, or any marine mammal, in these fisheries.
In addition, no mention of central California harbor porpoise
mortalities or serious injuries in the small mesh gillnet fisheries
were made in the final SAR. Due to the small mesh size used in this
fishery, the likelihood of incidental marine mammal mortality and
serious injury is very low. For these reasons, this fishery is placed
in Category III.
Comment 53: Reclassify the CA herring, sardine, and squid purse
seine fisheries into Category II, because the interactions are similar
to those that occur in the CA anchovy, mackerel, and tuna purse seine
fishery.
Response: The CA anchovy, mackerel, and tuna purse seine fishery
has been classified as Category II, because mortality and serious
injury of the offshore bottlenose dolphin stock across all fisheries is
greater than 10 percent of this stock's PBR level, and the estimated
annual average mortality and serious injury of this stock in the CA
anchovy, mackerel, tuna purse seine fishery is 2 percent of this
stock's PBR level. At this time, there are no data indicating that the
herring, sardine, and squid purse seine fisheries have similar
incidental serious injury and mortality rates to the anchovy, mackerel,
and tuna purse seine fishery. For these reasons, the herring, sardine,
and squid purse seine fisheries are placed in Category III.
Comment 54: Hawaii (HI) lobster trap/crab trap fishery should be
considered to interact with humpback whales based on analogy with
interactions between trap fisheries and large cetaceans on the U.S.
Atlantic coast.
Response: There is no evidence to indicate that humpback whales
interact with this fishery in Hawaii. Because there is no evidence of
incidental mortality or serious injury of humpback whales, or other
marine mammals in this fishery, this fishery is placed in Category III.
Changes from the Proposed LOF
The following is a list of other changes that have not been
discussed in
[[Page 67076]]
the preamble or response to comments section, or that were made for
editorial consistency:
Marine mammal species list. According to statute, the LOF must
include a description of the marine mammal stocks that interact with
each commercial fishery. The proposed LOF included marine mammals that
are known, reported, or strongly suspected to be injured, killed,
entangled, or harassed in a particular commercial fishery. All marine
mammals listed as interacting with a particular commercial fishery in
the 1994 LOF were also included. In this final LOF, the list of marine
mammals specified as interacting with commercial fisheries is limited
to those that have had documented incidental injuries or mortalities in
commercial fisheries between 1989 and 1995. Information from observer
programs, logbook data, stranding reports, and anecdotal reports were
used to develop the species list. In addition, the names of the marine
mammal species/stock involved are listed instead of a code.
Alaskan Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl fishery.
This fishery was proposed to move from Category III to Category II in
the proposed LOF based on the serious injury and mortality of killer
whales that is over 50 percent of the PBR. However, because the
population estimates of both the resident and transient stocks of
killer whales are known to be biased low, and because NMFS has good
estimates of the level of mortality and serious injury in this observed
fishery, this fishery will be placed in Category III.
AK southern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Western Gulf of
Alaska sablefish longline/set line (federally regulated waters). This
fishery was placed in Category II in the 1994 LOF and was proposed to
remain in Category II in the proposed LOF. The proposed classification
was based on an annual level of serious injury and mortality of both
the resident and transient stocks of killer whales that is greater than
10 percent of the PBR level for all fisheries, and greater than 1
percent of the PBR level for this fishery. However, because the
population estimates of both the resident and transient stocks of
killer whales are known to be biased low, this fishery is placed in
Category III.
Mid-Atlantic Menhaden Purse Seine. This fishery was erroneously
proposed to be placed in Category II in the proposed LOF, because
incidental takes of bottlenose dolphins that occurred in the Gulf of
Mexico menhaden purse seine were attributed to the Mid-Atlantic
menhaden purse seine. This error has been corrected, and the Mid-
Atlantic menhaden purse seine is placed in Category III in this final
LOF.
Gulf of Maine small pelagics surface gillnet. This fishery was
identified in Category I in the 1994 LOF, and was proposed to remain in
Category I in the proposed LOF, based on a lack of available
information that could be used to place the fishery in a different
category. Because only two reports of serious injury and mortality of
marine mammals incidental to this fishery have been reported, Category
I is not warranted. Thus, this fishery has been placed in Category II.
Occasional anecdotal reports of mortalities and injuries of marine
mammals incidental to this fishery have been reported. Because there
have been reports of mortalities in this fishery, it will be placed in
Category II.
Atlantic squid, mackerel, butterfish trawl. The name of this
fishery was the ``Atlantic mid-water trawl'' in the proposed LOF. In
the proposed LOF, this fishery was defined as including those mid-water
trawlers that target fish managed by the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Because both mid- and bottom-
trawl gear are used to harvest squid, the name of this fishery has been
changed to reflect the target species in lieu of the technique. Thus,
this fishery is now called the ``Atlantic squid, mackerel, butterfish
trawl'' in the final LOF.
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics drift gillnet
fishery. The name of this fishery was the ``Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean,
Gulf of Mexico swordfish, tuna, shark drift gillnet'' in the proposed
LOF. The name of this fishery has been changed in the final LOF because
the species targeted in this fishery have changed in the past and may
change in the future.
U.S. Atlantic large pelagics pair trawl. The name of this fishery
was proposed as the ``Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico
Swordfish, Tuna, Shark Pair trawl'' in the proposed LOF. The name has
been changed in the final LOF to encompass all large pelagic species
targeted using this gear.
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline.
The name of this fishery was proposed as the ``Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico tuna, shark, swordfish longline'' in the
proposed LOF. The name has been changed in the final LOF to encompass
all large pelagic species targeted using this gear.
To remain consistent throughout the United States, the Atlantic
Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean commercial passenger fishing
vessel fishery has been added to the LOF. This fishery is placed in
Category III, because there are no documented or suspected serious
injuries or mortalities of marine mammals incidental to this fishery.
Number of participants in commercial fisheries. The LOF tables
include estimates of the number of participants in each commercial
fishery. Comments were received updating the number of participants in
certain commercial fisheries, and these updates are reflected in Tables
1 and 2. The number of participants was updated for the following
fisheries: Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine, Florida west coast
purse seine, Southeast U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico snapper-grouper
and other reef fish bottom longline/hook&line, and the Southeast U.S.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean spiny lobster trap/pot.
All occurrences of ``South Atlantic'' in the fishery names in the
LOF have been changed to ``Southeast U.S. Atlantic'' to more
appropriately designate the geographic location of the commercial
fisheries as occurring in southern U.S. waters and not south of the
equator.
``Weakfish, mullet, spot, croaker'' were added to the list of
target species in the ``Gulf of Mexico inshore gillnet'' fishery to
better reflect the nature of the fishery.
The name of the Gulf of Maine, South Atlantic coastal shad,
sturgeon gillnet has been changed to ``Gulf of Maine, Southeast U.S.
Atlantic coastal shad, sturgeon gillnet fishery'' to better reflect the
geographical range of this fishery, and to specifically include the
waters of North Carolina.
The Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Atlantic coastal gillnet
(includes mullet gillnet fishery in Louisiana and Mississippi) fishery
has been separated into a Gulf of Mexico component and a Southeast U.S.
Atlantic coastal gillnet, because the marine mammal stocks with which
the fisheries interact are different.
The Florida mullet gillnet fishery has been removed from the LOF.
This fishery no longer operates due to the net ban in Florida state
waters. Some participants in this fishery have moved their operations
to Louisiana and Mississippi; thus, the phrase ``includes mullet
gillnet fishing in LA and MS'' has been added to the name of the
Southeast U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico coastal gillnet fishery.
[[Page 67077]]
Responses to Comments
Justification for the Categorization of Commercial Fisheries
The following are justifications for the final categorization of
commercial fisheries into Category I, II, or III based on the
classification scheme defined in the final rule implementing section
118 (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995). Justifications are presented for
only those fisheries placed in Category I and II, or those fisheries
placed in Category III for which observer, logbook, stranding or other
information exist. The evaluation of each fishery at both the Tier 1
(total, species-specific marine mammal serious injuries and mortalities
across all fisheries) and the Tier 2 (fishery-specific incidental
marine mammal serious injury and mortality) levels is provided.
Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean
Category I
CA Angel Shark/Halibut and Other Species Using Large Mesh (>3.5 inches)
Set Gillnet Fishery
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on observer data and fishing effort during
1991-93 (Barlow et al., 1994, NMFS 1995), annual mortality and serious
injury of the central California harbor porpoise across all fisheries,
including the California angel shark/halibut large-mesh set gillnet
fishery, exceeds 10 percent of this stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: The CA angel shark/halibut large-mesh set
gillnet fishery is responsible for an estimated annual removal level of
50 percent or more of the Central California harbor porpoise's PBR
level. CA/OR Thresher Shark/Swordfish Drift Gillnet Fishery
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on observer data and fishing effort during
1991-93 (Barlow et al., 1994, NMFS 1995), total annual mortality and
serious injury of sperm whales across all fisheries, including the CA/
OR drift gillnet fishery, exceeds 10 percent of this stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: The CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet
fishery is responsible for an estimated annual removal level of 50
percent or more of the CA/OR/WA sperm whale stock's PBR level.
Category II
AK Prince William Sound Salmon Drift Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor porpoise mortality and
serious injury levels across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of the
stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known harbor porpoise mortality and serious
injury in this fishery exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR.
AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands Salmon Drift Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor porpoise mortality and
serious injury levels across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of the
stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known harbor porpoise mortality and serious
injury in this fishery exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR level.
AK Peninsula/Aleutian Island Salmon Set Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known marine mammal mortality and serious
injury levels across all fisheries does not exceed 10 percent of each
stock's PBR level based on the current information. Low levels of
observer coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and
serious injury levels for these stocks across all fisheries, and
available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may
exceed 10 percent of some stocks' PBR levels if observer information
were available, especially for harbor porpoise and Steller sea lions.
Tier 2 evaluation: Low levels of marine mammal mortalities and
serious injuries have been documented for this fishery. This fishery
has not been observed, and because levels of marine mammal mortalities
and serious injuries in this fishery are expected to be similar to
levels of other set gillnet fisheries that interact with similar marine
mammal species, especially for harbor porpoise, this fishery is placed
in Category II.
Southeast Alaska Salmon Drift Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor porpoise and humpback whale
mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries exceed 10
percent of each stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known harbor porpoise and humpback whale
mortality and serious injury levels in this fishery exceed 1 percent of
each stock's PBR level.
AK Cook Inlet Drift Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known marine mammal mortality and serious
injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of the PBR
of each stock taken by this fishery with currently available
information. Low levels of observer coverage have been inadequate to
determine mortality and serious injury levels for these stocks across
all fisheries, and available data suggest that levels of mortality and
serious injury may exceed 10 percent of some stocks' PBRs if observer
information were available.
Tier 2 evaluation: Low levels of marine mammal mortalities and
serious injuries have been documented for this fishery. Low levels of
observer coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and
serious injury levels for these stocks, and available data suggest that
levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 1 percent of some
stocks' PBR levels if observer information were available. Levels of
marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries in this fishery are
expected to be similar to levels of other drift gillnet fisheries that
interact with similar marine mammal species.
AK Cook Inlet Salmon Set Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known marine mammal mortality and serious
injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of each
stock's PBR level with the current information. Low levels of observer
coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious injury
levels for these stocks across all fisheries, and available data
suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 10
percent of some stocks' PBR levels if observer information were
available, especially for harbor porpoise.
Tier 2 evaluation: Low levels of marine mammal mortalities and
serious injuries have been documented for this fishery. Low levels of
observer coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and
serious injury levels for these stocks, and available data suggest that
levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 1 percent of some
stocks' PBR levels if observer information were available. Levels of
marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries in this fishery are
expected to be similar to levels of other set gillnet fisheries that
interact with similar marine mammal species, especially for harbor
porpoise.
AK Yakutat Salmon Set Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor seal mortality and serious
injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of the
stock's PBR level with the current information. Low levels of observer
coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious injury
levels for these stocks across all fisheries, and available data
suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 10
percent of some stocks' PBR levels if observer information were
available.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known harbor seal mortality and serious injury
levels
[[Page 67078]]
exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR level.
AK Kodiak Salmon Set Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor porpoise mortality and
serious injury levels across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of the
stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known harbor porpoise mortality and serious
injury levels in this fishery exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR
level.
AK Bristol Bay Drift Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor seal and beluga whale
mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed
10 percent of each stock's PBR level with the current information. Low
levels of observer coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality
and serious injury levels for these stocks across all fisheries, and
available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may
exceed 10 percent of some stocks' PBR levels if observer information
were available.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known harbor seal and beluga whale mortality and
serious injury levels exceed 1 percent of each stock's PBR level.
AK Bristol Bay Set Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known marine mammal mortality and serious
injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of each
stock's PBR level with the current information. Low levels of observer
coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious injury
levels for these stocks across all fisheries, and available data
suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 10
percent of some stocks' PBR levels if observer information were
available, especially for harbor porpoise, harbor seals and Steller sea
lions.
Tier 2 evaluation: Low levels of marine mammal mortalities and
serious injuries have been documented for this fishery. Low levels of
observer coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and
serious injury levels for these stocks, and available data suggest that
levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 1 percent of some
stocks' PBR levels if observer information were available. Levels of
marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries in this fishery are
expected to be similar to levels of other set gillnet fisheries that
interact with similar marine mammal species, especially for harbor
porpoise, harbor seals and Steller sea lions.
AK Metlakatla/Annette Island Salmon Drift Gillnet
This fishery is separated from the Southeast drift gillnet fishery
only for purposes of registration. It is a tribal fishery and is thus
exempt from the registration fee. For categorization purposes, it is
considered the same as the Southeast drift gillnet fishery.
WA Puget Sound Region Salmon Drift Gillnet (Includes All Inland Waters
South of the US-Canada Border and Eastward of the Bonilla-Tatoosh
Line--Treaty Indian Fishing is Excluded)
Tier 1 evaluation: As reported in the final SAR, the estimated
total fishery-related mortality for the inland Washington stock of
harbor porpoise (16), exceeds 10 percent of the calculated PBR level
(2.7) and, therefore, can not be considered insignificant.
Tier 2 evaluation: The reported incidental take estimate of 15
harbor porpoise per year was calculated from observed take in the
sockeye salmon fishery. However, that estimate includes Treaty Indian
fishing effort, which constitutes about one half of the effort in Puget
Sound. Therefore, the estimated take of harbor porpoise for the non-
tribal salmon drift gillnet fishery would be about one half of the
total estimated take (7.5), which is greater than 1 percent but less
than 50 percent of the calculated PBR level for this stock.
CA Anchovy, Mackerel, Tuna Purse Seine
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on observer data and fishing effort during
1991-93 and logbook data (1990-92) (Barlow et al., 1995, NMFS 1995),
the average annual mortality and serious injury of the offshore
bottlenose dolphin across all fisheries, including the CA anchovy,
mackerel, tuna purse seine fishery, exceeds 10 percent of this stock's
PBR levels.
Tier 2 evaluation: The mortality and serious injury of the offshore
bottlenose dolphin in the CA mackerel, anchovy, tuna purse seine
fishery is two percent of this stock's PBR level.
AK Southeast Salmon Purse Seine
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known humpback whale mortalities and
serious injuries across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of the stock's
PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known humpback whale mortalities and serious
injuries in this fishery exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR level.
AK pair trawl
This is a new fishery in Alaskan waters and is therefore
categorized by analogy with pair trawl fisheries in the U.S. North
Atlantic. The U.S. North Atlantic large pelagics pair trawl fishery has
demonstrated high levels of mortalities and serious injury for some
marine mammal species. The Alaska pair trawl fishery is classified as
Category II pending additional information on the level of marine
mammal serious injuries and mortalities in the fishery.
OR Swordfish/Blue Shark Surface Longline
Categorization of this fishery is based on analogy with observed
pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean. Based on observer
data, the Atlantic Ocean pelagic longline fishery for swordfish and
tuna has at least an occasional incidental serious injury and mortality
of marine mammals. Accordingly, this fishery is placed in Category II.
Category III
AK Prince William Sound Set Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor seal and Steller sea lion
mortality and serious injury levels across all fisheries do not exceed
10 percent of each stock's PBR level with the current information. Low
levels of observer coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality
and serious injury levels for these stocks across all fisheries, and
available data suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may
exceed 10 percent of these stocks' PBR levels if observer information
were available.
Tier 2 evaluation: Marine mammal mortality and serious injury
levels approaching 1 percent are not expected for any stock by this
fishery.
AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue Salmon Gillnet
Interactions in these fisheries usually result in directed takes of
marine mammals for subsistence purposes.
AK Roe Herring and Food/Bait Herring Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: No marine mammal serious injuries or mortalities
have been documented incidental to this fishery.
Tier 2 evaluation: Although marine mammal mortalities and serious
injuries have been documented for other gillnet fisheries, the roe
herring gillnet fishery openers are of such short duration, marine
mammal mortality and serious injury levels approaching 1 percent are
not expected for any stock for this fishery.
[[Page 67079]]
WA Willapa Bay Drift Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: The estimated total fishery related mortality
and serious injury for the Oregon and Washington coastal stock of
harbor seals is greater than 10 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: No harbor seal mortalities were observed
incidental to fishing effort in 1991. However, harbor seals did
interact with the fishery. Two incidents of entanglement were observed
in which the seals were released alive and uninjured. Based on observer
data, incidental mortality was estimated to be a rare event which would
not exceed 1 percent of the calculated PBR level for this stock.
WA Gray's Harbor Salmon Drift Gillnet (Excluding Treaty Tribal Fishing)
Tier 1 evaluation: As reported in the final SAR, the estimated
total fishery related mortality and serious injury for the Oregon &
Washington coastal stock of harbor seals (233) is greater than 10
percent of the PBR level (170).
Tier 2 evaluation: The reported estimate of annual mortality and
serious injury of harbor seals in this fishery (10), based on observer
data, is less than 1 percent of the calculated PBR level for the stock
(17).
WA, OR Lower Columbia River (Includes Tributaries) Drift Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: The estimated total fishery related mortality
and serious injury for the Oregon and Washington coastal stock of
harbor seals (233) is not less than 10 percent of the PBR level (170).
Tier 2 evaluation: Based on observations in 1991-92, the estimated
annual mortality and serious injury of harbor seals in this fishery is
213. However, during the observation period, all but one of the
observed mortalities occurred during the winter season. The
extrapolated annual mortality of harbor seals in this fishery from 1991
to 1993 was 233 seals in 1991 (all during the winter season), 192 seals
in 1992 (180 in the winter season and 12 in the fall), and 11 seals in
1993 (all during the winter season). Although the estimated annual
mortalities of harbor seals in 1991 and 1992 could justify placing this
fishery in Category II, reduced fishing seasons and or season closures
(due to restrictions on the fishery to minimize impacts on Snake River
chinook salmon, which are listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)) are unlikely to result in the levels of harbor seal mortality
observed in 1991 and 1992. The winter season of 1993, when an estimated
11 harbor seals were taken, was restricted due to ESA considerations.
The winter season was closed in 1994. The estimated annual harbor seal
mortality for the fall fishery, 4 (0+11+0/3=3.66) is less than 1
percent of the calculated PBR level for this stock (17).
CA Set and Drift Gillnet Fisheries That Use a Stretched Mesh Size of
3.5 Inches or Less
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on logbook data (1991-1994) (NMFS 1995,
Joe Cordaro, pers. com., SWO, NMFS), no annual mortality and serious
injury of marine mammals has been reported in the CA set and drift
gillnet fishery with small mesh.
AK Miscellaneous Finfish Set Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: No marine mammal serious injuries or mortalities
have been documented incidental to this fishery.
Tier 2 evaluation: Marine mammal mortality and serious injury
levels approaching 1 percent are not expected for any stock by this
fishery.
HI Gillnet
Tier 1 evaluation: One bottlenose dolphin was reported entangled in
a gill net in 1991 (Nitta and Henderson 1993); however, bottlenose
dolphins are rarely reported as entangled in set gillnets in Hawaii.
There are records of spinner dolphins being taken in nets or net
fragments in Hawaiian waters, and one eyewitness account in 1990. There
has been one reported incidental mortality of a Hawaiian monk seal in
an inshore gillnet in 1976 (Barlow et al., 1995). Due to the rarity of
these interactions, this fishery is placed in Category III.
CA Herring Purse Seine
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on logbook data (1990-94) (Joe Cordaro,
pers. comm.) the total mortality and serious injury of the CA coastal
bottlenose dolphins across all fisheries, including the CA herring
purse seine fishery, is less than 10 percent of this stock's PBR level
(Barlow et al., 1995).
CA Sardine Purse Seine
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on logbook data (1990-1992), no mortality
or serious injury has been reported in this fishery.
CA Squid Purse Seine
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on logbook data (1990-92), the total
annual average mortality and serious injury of California sea lions
across all fisheries, including the squid purse seine fishery, exceeds
10 percent of this stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: The total annual average mortality and serious
injury of California sea lions in the CA squid purse seine fishery is
less than one percent of this stock's PBR level.
CA Squid Dip Net
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on logbook data (1990-1992), no mortality
or serious injury has been reported in the CA squid dip net fishery.
WA, OR Salmon Net Pens
Tier 1 evaluation: As reported in the final SAR, the total
estimated fishery related mortality and serious injury of the U.S.
stock of California sea lions (2,446) based on observer data collected
from 1991 to 1993 exceeds 10 percent of the calculated PBR level for
this stock (505). However, preliminary estimates for the first three
quarters of 1994 indicate that a large reduction in the mortality rate
has taken place and that mortality may be less than 10 percent of the
calculated PBR for 1994.
Tier 2 evaluation: Based on logbook data the incidental take of
marine mammals is infrequent and California sea lion mortality and
serious injuries are at a level less than 1 percent of the calculated
PBR level.
OR Salmon Ranch
Tier 1 evaluation: No incidental, but not intentional, mortalities
or serious injuries of marine mammals have been reported for this
fishery.
AK Salmon Troll
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known Steller sea lion mortalities and
serious injuries across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of the
stock's PBR level with the current information. Low levels of observer
coverage have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious injury
levels for these stocks across all fisheries, and available data
suggest that levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 10
percent of some stocks' PBR levels if observer information were
available.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known Steller sea lion mortalities and serous
injuries for this fishery do not exceed 1 percent of the stock's PBR
level and current information does not indicate that this level would
exceed 1 percent with observer coverage for this fishery.
CA/OR/WA Salmon Troll
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on logbook data (1990-92), the mortality
and serious injury of California sea lions across all fisheries,
including the CA/OR/WA salmon troll fishery, exceeds 10 percent of this
stock's PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: A review of logbook data (1990-1992) indicated
that the majority of fishers reported intentional
[[Page 67080]]
lethal takes for deterrence in both the deterrence columns and the gear
columns, owing to ambiguities in the reporting instructions. However,
based on an earlier study (Miller et al., 1983) it is known that
incidental mortalities in this fishery are the result of intentional
deterrence efforts which are now illegal. Once the duplicate reports
are removed, the annual average mortality and serious injury of
California sea lions is below one percent.
AK State Waters Sablefish Longline/Set Line
Tier 1 evaluation: No marine mammal serious injuries or mortalities
have been documented incidental to this fishery.
HI Swordfish, Tuna, Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, Oceanic Sharks
Longline/Set Line
Tier 1 evaluation: Evidence of interactions between the Hawaii
pelagic longline fishery and Hawaiian monk seals began to accumulate in
1990, including 5 hooked seals and 13 unusual seal wounds that some
believe were the result of interactions with the longline gear (Barlow
et al. 1995). In October 1991, a permanent protected species zone was
established around the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, which precludes
longline fishing. One Risso's dolphin was observed ``hooked'' and was
released alive in 1993 (pers. comm., Gene Nitta, Southwest Region,
NMFS). Preliminary analysis of observer data from the swordfish
longline fishery indicates that two Risso's dolphins were incidentally
taken during 85 observed longline trips between February 1994 and
October 1995 (NMFS unpublished data). One animal had ingested a hook
and another appeared to be hooked in the caudal peduncle region. Both
animals were released alive and swam away. Also, one bottlenose dolphin
had ingested a hook and was also released alive. In 1994, a pygmy
killer whale was hooked and released from longline gear. Furthermore,
in 1991, a humpback whale was observed entangled in longline gear in
Hawaii. Although the estimated PBR level for the central North Pacific
humpback whale is 2.8 animals, no estimates of annual average humpback
whale mortality and serious injury in the Hawaii longline fishery are
available at this time. Thus, it is not possible to compare annual
mortality and serious injury of humpback whales with its estimated PBR
level. Estimates of PBR levels and annual mortality and serious injury
for the other marine mammal species that have been documented
interacting with the Hawaiian longline fishery are currently not
available. For these reasons, this fishery is placed in Category III.
AK Southern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Western Gulf of Alaska
Sablefish Longline/Set Line (Federally Regulated Waters)
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known mortalities or serious injuries of
killer whales across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of the PBR level
for transient, resident and transient and resident stocks together.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known killer whale mortalities or serious
injuries in this fishery exceed 1 percent of the PBR level for
transient, resident and transient and resident stocks together.
The majority of the serious injuries and mortalities of killer
whales incidental to commercial fisheries occurred in the BSAI
groundfish trawl. Because this trawl fishery has a high level of
observer coverage, good mortality estimates for killer whales are
available from this fishery. However, because the population estimates
for killer whales are known to be underestimated and the low level of
serious injury and mortality that occurs incidental to the trawl and
longline fisheries are not likely to have a significant effect on the
population, and because neither fishery has significant interactions
with other species of marine mammals both fisheries are placed in
Category III.
AK Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Trawl
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known Steller sea lion, harbor seal,
northern elephant seal and Dall's porpoise mortalities or serious
injuries across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of each stock's
PBR level with the current information. Low levels of observer coverage
have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious injury levels
for these stocks across all fisheries, and available data suggest that
levels of mortality and serious injury would exceed 10 percent of some
stocks' PBR levels if observer information were available.
Tier 2 evaluation: Marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries
levels approaching 1 percent are not expected for any stock by this
fishery.
AK BSAI Groundfish Trawl
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known mortalities or serious injuries of
killer whales across all fisheries exceed 10 percent of the PBR level
for transient, resident, and transient and resident stocks combined.
Tier 2 evaluation: Known killer whale mortalities or serious
injuries in this fishery exceed 1 percent of the PBR level for
transient, resident and transient and resident stocks combined.
Killer whales are seriously injured and killed incidental to two
fisheries: The AK southern BSAI, and Western Gulf of Alaska sablefish
longline/set line (federally regulated waters) fishery and the AK BSAI
groundfish trawl fishery. However, the majority of the serious injuries
and mortalities of killer whales incidental to commercial fisheries
occurred in the BSAI groundfish trawl. Because this trawl fishery has a
high level of observer coverage, good mortality estimates for killer
whales are available from this fishery. However, because the population
estimates for killer whales are known to be underestimated, and the low
level of serious injury and mortality that occurs incidental to the
trawl and longline fisheries are not likely to have a significant
effect on the population, both fisheries are placed in Category III.
AK Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Finfish Pot
Tier 1 evaluation: Total known harbor seal mortalities or serious
injuries across all fisheries do not exceed 10 percent of each stock's
PBR level with the current information. Low levels of observer coverage
have been inadequate to determine mortality and serious injury levels
for these stocks across all fisheries, and available data suggest that
levels of mortality and serious injury may exceed 10 percent of some
stocks' PBR levels if observer information were available.
Tier 2 evaluation: Marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries
levels approaching 1 percent are not expected for any stock by this
fishery.
CA Lobster, Prawn, Shrimp, Rock Crab, Fish Pot
Tier 1 evaluation. Although the California Marine Mammal Stranding
Network, NMFS, receives reports of gray whales entangled in lobster pot
gear, these entanglements, while technically ``injuries'', do not
appear to result in mortalities. No other reports of marine mammal
incidental takes have been reported from these fisheries. For these
reasons, this fishery is placed in Category III.
Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of
Mexico
Category I
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico Large Pelagics Pair Trawl
Tier 1 evaluation: Annual incidental mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for all stocks known to interact
[[Page 67081]]
with this fishery is greater than 10 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Extrapolation of observer data results in an
estimated total incidental serious injury and mortality of 79 offshore
bottlenose dolphins and 33 common dolphins per year from 1992-93. These
take levels represent an annual incidental mortality and serious injury
that is greater than 50 percent of the PBR levels for both species.
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico Large Pelagics Drift Gillnet
Fishery
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental annual mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for all stocks (with known PBR levels) interacting
with this fishery is greater than 10 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Extrapolation of observer data results in an
annual estimated total serious injuries and mortalities of 59 Risso's
dolphins, 424 common dolphins, 61 pilot whales, and 53 offshore
bottlenose dolphins per year from 1989-1993. These serious injury and
mortality levels represent an annual incidental mortality and serious
injury that is greater than 50 percent of the PBR levels for these
species.
The serious injury of a right whale in 1993 was reported by the
observer program. It was not an observed mortality; therefore it was
not reported as an ``observed kill.'' NMFS believes, however, that this
whale probably died from injuries sustained in this incident. One
serious injury or mortality of a right whale is greater than 50 percent
of the PBR level for this species. Therefore, this fishery would also
fall into Category I based on interactions with right whales. New
England multispecies sink gillnet (including species as defined in the
Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan and spiny dogfish and monkfish)
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental annual mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for all stocks interacting with this fishery--with
the exception of grey seals--is greater than 10 percent of the PBR
level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Extrapolation of observer data results in an
estimated total serious injury and mortality of 102 Atlantic white-
sided dolphins and 1,875 harbor porpoise per year from 1990-93. These
serious injury and mortality levels represent an annual incidental
mortality and serious injury that is greater than 50 percent of the PBR
levels for these species.
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico Large Pelagics Longline
Fishery
This fishery was listed as Category II in the previous LOF and is
moved to Category I in this LOF and re-named ``Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico Large Pelagics Longline.''
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental annual mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for pilot whale stock(s) interacting with this
fishery is greater than 10 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Extrapolation of observer data results in an
estimated total incidental mortality and serious injury of 26 pilot
whales per year from 1992-93. This represents an annual incidental
mortality and serious injury that is greater than 50 percent of the PBR
level for either long-finned or short-finned pilot whales. Therefore,
this fishery is moved from Category II to Category I.
This reclassification is supported by MMEP logbook data, which
includes reports of injury or mortality of an average of nine pilot
whales (stock unspecified) per year for the years 1990 to 1992. NMFS
has also received sighting reports (both at sea and stranded) of whales
carrying gear that may be attributable to the pelagic longline fishery.
Category II
U.S. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Gillnet Fishery
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental mortality and serious injury across
all fisheries for harbor porpoise, coastal bottlenose dolphins, and
humpback whales, which are known to interact with this fishery, is
greater than 10 percent of the PBR levels for these stocks. Therefore
this fishery is subject to Tier 2 analysis.
Tier 2 evaluation: Little observer coverage occurred in this
fishery between 1989 and 1993. No serious injuries and mortalities were
observed during those years. Therefore, no annual incidental mortality
and serious injury from this fishery can be reported from observer data
for these years. Based on observer coverage in 1994, entanglements of
humpback whales and dolphins observed by NMFS and the public (not the
observer program) and evidence of gillnet entanglement observed in
stranded harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphins, and humpback whales,
NMFS believes that annual serious injury and mortality for these
species due to this fishery is greater than 1 percent but less than 50
percent of the PBR levels for these stocks. Therefore this fishery is
placed in Category II. For clarification of how the stranding data were
used in this analysis, see the proposed LOF (60 FR 31680, June 16,
1995).
Gulf of Maine Small Pelagics Surface Gillnet
Occasional anecdotal reports of mortalities and injuries of marine
mammals incidental to this fishery have been reported. Because there
have been reports of mortalities in this fishery, it is placed in
Category II.
Southeast U.S. Atlantic Shark Gillnet Fishery
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental annual mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for the western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose
dolphin stock interacting with this fishery are greater than 10 percent
of the PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: Observer data for this fishery indicate that
mortality to the western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin
stock due to this fishery is 4 percent; thus, the fishery belongs in
Category II.
In addition, a young right whale calf was observed off the northern
coast of Florida, which had wounds indicative of interaction with
gillnet gear in February 1994. The animal also exhibited propeller
wounds believed by researchers investigating the incident to have been
inflicted by the fishery vessel responsible for the net wounds. It was
concluded that the shark gillnet fishery was the only large mesh
gillnet fishery operating in that area at the time. The animal has not
been sighted since, and is presumed to be dead. Another suspected
interaction between this fishery and a right whale cow was also
reported in this same year, although it is believed that this
particular interaction was not fatal.
Atlantic Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Trawl
This fishery was proposed to combine ``Mid-Atlantic Squid Trawl''
and ``Mid-Atlantic Mackerel Trawl'' from the 1994 LOF. The proposed LOF
called this fishery the ``Atlantic mid-water trawl.'' In the final LOF,
the fishery is renamed ``Atlantic Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Trawl''
with no reference to whether fishermen are using bottom or mid-water
gear.
Tier 1 evaluation: Based on MMEP logbook reports from the squid and
mackerel trawl fisheries, incidental annual mortality and serious
injury across all fisheries for all stocks reported to interact with
this fishery are greater than 10 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2 evaluation: MMEP logbook data averaged over 1990-92 result
in reported serious injuries and mortalities of five pilot whales per
year. This represents a minimum serious injury and mortality level of
greater than 1
[[Page 67082]]
percent but less than 50 percent of the PBR level for either long-
finned or short-finned pilot whales. Therefore, this fishery is placed
in Category II.
North Carolina Haul Seine
Representatives of the North Carolina marine mammal stranding
network have noted interactions between this gear and western North
Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins. Three dolphins were observed as
they were released live from this gear; on another occasion, one
dolphin was recovered dead from an interaction with a haul seine. These
observations support the decision to place this new fishery in Category
II until NMFS has more data with which to support this or another
classification.
North Carolina Roe Mullet Stop Net
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental annual mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for the coastal bottlenose dolphin stock
interacting with this fishery is greater than 10 percent of PBR.
Tier 2 evaluation: Evidence of mortality due to stop net
entanglement observed in stranded western North Atlantic coastal
bottlenose dolphins indicate that annual serious injury and mortality
related to this fishery for this stock is greater than 1 percent but
less than 50 percent of PBR. Therefore, this fishery is placed in
Category II.
Category III
Rhode Island, Southern Massachusetts (to Monomoy Island), and New York
Bight (Raritan and Lower New York Bays) Inshore Gillnet
At this time there is no information available to suggest that
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occur incidental to this
fishery. Based on patterns of marine mammal distribution, likelihood of
encounters with cetaceans is low, but encounters with seals may occur.
This fishery was separated from other Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries to
account for differences in cetacean distribution. A closer examination
of more recent stranding and entanglement records may provide
information to support re-classification of this fishery in the future.
Long Island Sound Inshore Gillnet
At this time there is no available information to suggest that
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occur incidental to this
fishery. Based on patterns of marine mammal distribution, likelihood of
encounters with cetaceans is low, but encounters with seals may occur.
This fishery was separated from other Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries to
account for differences in cetacean distribution. A closer examination
of more recent stranding and entanglement records may provide
information to support re-classification of this fishery in the future.
Delaware Bay Inshore Gillnet
At this time, there is no available information to suggest that
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occur incidental to this
fishery. Based on patterns of marine mammal distribution, likelihood of
encounters is low. This fishery was separated from other Mid-Atlantic
gillnet fisheries to account for differences in marine mammal
distribution. A closer examination of more recent stranding and
entanglement records may provide information to support re-
classification of this fishery in the future.
Chesapeake Bay Inshore Gillnet
This fishery was listed as a Category III in the previous LOF and
remains in Category III in this LOF. This listing was inadvertently
omitted from the proposed LOF.
At this time, there is no available information to suggest that
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occur incidental to this
fishery. Based on patterns of marine mammal distribution, likelihood of
encounters is low. This fishery was separated from other Mid-Atlantic
gillnet fisheries to account for differences in marine mammal
distribution. A closer examination of more recent stranding and
entanglement records may provide information to support re-
classification of this fishery in the future.
North Carolina Inshore Gillnet
No marine mammal serious injuries or mortalities have been
documented incidental to this fishery. All marine mammal strandings
exhibiting evidence of gillnet fishery interactions recovered by the
North Carolina marine mammal stranding network since at least 1992 have
been from offshore locations. However, as marine mammals stranded in
the marshes are difficult to detect, stranding data will reflect this
bias. NMFS agrees that there is potential for interaction and will
continue to collect stranding and other information on this fishery.
Gulf of Mexico Inshore Gillnet (black drum, sheepshead, weakfish,
mullet, spot, croaker)
Inshore gillnet fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico have been
classified by analogy with similar inshore fisheries in the mid-
Atlantic. The PBR levels for stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf
of Mexico bays, sounds, and estuaries are low, because dolphin numbers
and densities in many of these areas are low. These low densities also
decrease the likelihood of a fishery interacting with dolphins in these
areas. Net bans and restrictions in states such as Texas, Florida, and
Louisiana, further decrease chances of gillnet fisheries interactions
with marine mammals in inshore waters of Gulf states. However,
researchers have noted that dolphin densities in some Gulf bays/sounds
may be higher than that commonly observed in similar Atlantic bays.
Also, detection of stranded animals is much less likely along marshy
coastlines than on coastal beaches; thus, stranding data will reflect
this bias. NMFS agrees that there is potential for interaction between
marine mammals and this fishery.
Offshore Monkfish Bottom Gillnet
This is a new fishery to the LOF and may have been listed
incorrectly as Category III in the proposed LOF. Because this fishery
may have a high potential to take many cetacean species based on
analogy with other shelf-edge fisheries, such as the large pelagic
drift net fishery, NMFS will examine available data during the
development of the next proposed LOF for possible re-classification of
this fishery as Category II.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico Coastal Gillnet
Although coastal gillnet fisheries have been banned in Florida
State waters, and only shark and shad/sturgeon may be fished using
gillnet in South Carolina and Georgia State waters, the ``Southeastern
U.S. Atlantic'' component of this fishery will be retained in this
final LOF. If there are no participants in this component of the
coastal gillnet fishery when the next proposed LOF is developed, NMFS
will consider proposing to remove this fishery from the LOF. Any
strandings that can be determined to have occurred incidental to
gillnet operations in Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina, would have
to be attributed to the other gillnet operations that occur in these
areas (i.e., shark gillnet or shad/sturgeon gillnet fisheries).
Stranding data from the Gulf of Mexico indicate that gillnet
interactions with coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphins may warrant
classification of this fishery in Category II. This may be examined
during preparation of a future proposed LOF.
Florida Mullet Gillnet
This fishery has been removed from LOF due to the Florida net ban.
Some
[[Page 67083]]
fishers that previously fished in Florida waters may be working in
Louisiana waters; what remains of this fishery is combined with the
other Gulf of Mexico gillnet fisheries.
North Atlantic Bottom Trawl
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental annual mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for all marine mammal stocks interacting with this
fishery is greater than 10 percent of the PBR levels.
Tier 2 evaluation: Annual incidental mortality and serious injury
from this fishery reported by the observer program (averaged over 1989-
93) is greater than 50 percent of the PBR level for striped dolphins,
coastal bottlenose dolphins, and pilot whales. Therefore, this fishery
would have been placed in Category I. However, because the observer
coverage in this fishery is low, the estimated serious injury and
mortality levels are statistically weak. Thus, NMFS believes this
fishery should remain in Category III at this time. The proposed LOF
included further justification for this decision (60 FR 31680-31681,
June 16, 1995). NMFS anticipates having additional information from
other observer programs that may result in a reclassification of this
fishery in a future proposed LOF.
Mid-Atlantic, U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Trawl
Tier 1 evaluation: Incidental annual mortality and serious injury
across all fisheries for all marine mammal stocks interacting with this
fishery is less than 10 percent of the PBR level.
Over 10,000 hours of observer effort in this fishery have been
logged in the Atlantic, and over 17,000 have been logged in the Gulf.
No takes of any marine mammal species have been observed. However, a
Category III report submitted from a shrimp trawl fisher off Key West
indicated a dolphin mortality occurred due to entanglement with the
lazy line. This incident took place offshore, on the Gulf side of Key
West, and thus likely involved the eastern coastal Gulf of Mexico stock
of bottlenose dolphins.
Gulf of Maine Menhaden Purse Seine
This fishery was grouped with the Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine
fishery in the proposed LOF. In this final LOF, the fishery is divided
into ``Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine'' and ``Mid-Atlantic menhaden
purse seine'' because serious injuries and mortalities of bottlenose
dolphins in the Gulf of Maine portion of this fishery are unlikely.
The Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine fishery is placed in
Category III based on a low probability of marine mammal encounters
resulting in serious injury or mortality. This fishery may interact
with harbor seals, minke whales, and humpback whales. However, NMFS
believes that these interactions would not represent a serious injury
or mortality level above 1 percent of PBR levels for these species and
that the Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine fishery is appropriately
placed in Category III.
Mid-Atlantic Menhaden Purse Seine
This fishery was grouped with the Gulf of Maine menhaden purse
seine fishery in the proposed LOF. In this final LOF, the fishery is
divided into ``Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine,'' and ``Mid-Atlantic
menhaden purse seine'' because serious injuries and mortalities of
bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Maine portion of this fishery are
unlikely.
This fishery was erroneously proposed to be placed in Category II
in the proposed LOF, because incidental takes of bottlenose dolphins
that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine were
attributed to the Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine. This error has
been corrected, and the Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine is placed in
Category III in this final LOF.
Gulf of Mexico Menhaden Purse Seine
Information on bycatch studies in this fishery, recently made
available to the NMFS Southeast Region, indicate that mortalities of
bottlenose dolphin of the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal stock have
been observed in this fishery (two observed mortalities in 1992, two
caught live and released in 1994, and one mortality to date in 1995).
Additionally, category III reports indicate that three dolphins were
taken in 1993. Complete effort data for the bycatch study is not yet
available; however, the available information indicates that
reclassification of this fishery may be proposed in a future LOF. NMFS
will continue to investigate available information as well as monitor
future results of the bycatch study to determine whether
reclassification is justified for this fishery.
Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Mixed Species Trap/Pot
U.S. Mid-Atlantic Black Sea Bass Trap/Pot
Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Inshore Lobster Pot
Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic Offshore Lobster Trap/Pot
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico Blue Crab Trap/Pot
U.S. South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Spiny Lobster Trap/Pot
Entanglements of cetacean stocks in pot and/or trap fisheries have
been well documented. The degree to which marine mammals become
entangled in pot and/or trap fisheries and whether a reclassification
of some or all pot and/or trap fisheries is warranted, may be
investigated in a future proposed LOF. Gulf of Maine Herring and
Atlantic Mackerel Stop Seine/Weir
No new information has been received which would change or confirm
the placement of this fishery in Category III. NMFS believes that if
interactions of this fishery with harbor porpoise occur, there would
not be a serious injury or mortality level that would represent greater
than 1 percent of the PBR level for harbor porpoise.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic Mixed Species Stop Seine/Weir (Except the North
Carolina Roe Mullet Stop Net)
This fishery includes the pound net fishery. The EA states that
there is one report of a bottlenose dolphin mortality in the observed
Chesapeake Bay pound net fishery. However, data indicates that more
than one stranded dolphin has been found wrapped in pound net gear. In
addition, a Kogia was recovered from pound net gear in North Carolina,
in 1993. Classification of this fishery will be re-evaluated in a
future proposed LOF.
List of Fisheries
The following two tables list the commercial fisheries of the
United States according to their MMPA section 118 categories. The
estimated number of vessels is expressed in terms of the number of
active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information
is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed
for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is
available on the number of participants in a fishery, the number from
the 1994 LOF is used.
The information on which marine mammal species/stocks are involved
in interactions with the fishery is based on observer data, logbook
data, stranding reports, and fishers' reports. Only those species or
stocks known to incur injury or mortality incidental to specific
fisheries are listed. An asterisk (*) indicates that the stock is a
strategic stock; a plus (+) indicates that the stock is listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA.
[[Page 67084]]
Table 1.--List of Fisheries--Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
No. of Marine mammal species/stocks incidentally injured/
Fishery description vessels/ killed
persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I:
Gillnet fisheries:
CA angel shark/halibut and other 80 Harbor porpoise, central CA; Common dolphin, short-
species large mesh (>3.5in) set beaked, CA/OR/WA; Common dolphin, long-beaked, CA;
gillnet fishery. California sea lion, U.S.; Harbor seal, CA; Northern
elephant seal, CA breeding.
CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish 150 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.*+; Sperm whale, CA to
drift gillnet fishery. WA*+; Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA; Pacific white sided
dolphin, CA/OR/WA; Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA;
Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore Common dolphin,
short-beaked, CA/OR/WA; Common dolphin, long-beaked,
CA; Northern right whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA; Short-
finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA*; Baird's beaked whale,
CA/OR/WA; Mesoplodont beaked whales, CA to WA*;
Cuvier's beaked whale, CA/OR/WA; Pygmy sperm whale,
CA/OR/WA*; California sea lion, U.S.; Harbor seal,
CA; Northern elephant seal, CA breeding; Harbor
porpoise, OR/WA coastal; Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA-
Mexico.
Category II:
Gillnet fisheries:
AK Prince William Sound salmon 509 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Northern fur seal,
drift gillnet. North Pacific*; Harbor seal, GOA; Pacific white-sided
dolphin, central North Pacific; Harbor porpoise, AK;
Dall's porpoise, AK.
AK Peninsula/Aleutians salmon drift 107 Northern fur seal, North Pacific; Harbor seal, GOA;
gillnet fishery. Harbor seal, Bering Sea; Harbor porpoise, AK; Dall's
porpoise, AK; Northern (Alaska) sea otter, Pacific.
AK Peninsula/Aleutian Island salmon 120 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Harbor porpoise, AK.
set gillnet.
Southeast Alaska salmon drift 443 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.*+; Harbor seal,
gillnet fishery. Southeast AK; Pacific white-sided dolphin, central
North Pacific; Harbor porpoise, AK; Dall's porpoise,
AK; Humpback whale, central North Pacific*+.
AK Cook Inlet drift gillnet........ 554 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Harbor seal, GOA;
Harbor porpoise, AK; Dall's porpoise, AK.
AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet... 633 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Harbor seal, GOA;
Harbor porpoise, AK; Beluga, Cook Inlet.
AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet...... 152 Harbor seal, Southeast AK.
AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet....... 162 Harbor seal, GOA; Harbor porpoise, AK.
AK Bristol Bay drift gillnet....... 1,741 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Northern fur seal,
North Pacific*; Harbor seal, Bering Sea; Beluga,
Bristol Bay; Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific.
AK Bristol Bay set gillnet......... 888 Harbor seal, Bering Sea; Beluga, Bristol Bay; Gray
whale, Eastern North Pacific.
AK Metlakatla/Annette Island salmon 60 None documented.
drift gillnet.
WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift 1,044 Harbor porpoise, inland WA; Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA;
gillnet fishery (includes all Harbor seal, WA inland.
inland waters south of US-Canada
border and eastward of the Bonilla-
Tatoosh line--Treaty Indian
fishing is excluded).
Purse seine fisheries:
CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna purse 150 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore; California sea
seine. lion, U.S.; Harbor seal, CA.
AK Southeast salmon purse seine.... 443 Humpback whale, central North Pacific*+.
Trawl fisheries:
AK pair trawl...................... 2 None documented.
Longline fisheries:
OR swordfish/blue shark surface 30 None documented.
longline fishery.
Category III:
Gillnet fisheries:
AK Prince William Sound set gillnet 29 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Harbor seal, GOA.
AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, 1,651 None documented.
Kotzebue salmon gillnet.
AK roe herring and food/bait 162 None documented.
herring gillnet.
WA, OR herring, smelt, shad, 913 None documented.
sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet,
perch, rockfish gillnet.
WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet....... 82 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast; Northern elephant seal, CA
breeding.
WA Grays Harbor salmon drift 24 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
gillnet (excluding treaty Tribal
fishing).
WA, OR lower Columbia River 40 California sea lion, U.S.; Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
(includes tributaries) drift
gillnet.
[[Page 67085]]
CA set and drift gillnet fisheries 341 None documented.
that use a stretched mesh size of
3.5 in or less.
AK miscellaneous finfish set 9 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+.
gillnet.
Hawaii gillnet..................... 115 Bottlenose dolphin, Hawaiian; Spinner dolphin,
Hawaiian.
Purse seine, beach seine, round haul
and throw net fisheries:
AK salmon purse seine (except 1,053 Harbor seal, GOA.
Southeast Alaska, which is in
Category II).
AK salmon beach seine.............. 34 None documented.
AK roe herring and food/bait 866 None documented.
herring purse seine.
AK roe herring and food/bait 14 None documented.
herring beach seine.
AK Metlakatla purse seine.......... 3 None documented.
AK octopus/squid purse seine....... 3 None documented.
CA herring purse seine............. 100 Bottlenose dolphin, CA coastal; California sea lion,
U.S.; Harbor seal, CA.
CA sardine purse seine............. 120 None documented.
CA squid purse seine............... 145 California sea lion, U.S.
AK miscellaneous finfish purse 6 None documented.
seine.
AK miscellaneous finfish beach 4 None documented.
seine.
WA salmon purse seine.............. 440 None documented.
WA salmon reef net................. 53 None documented.
WA, OR herring, smelt, squid purse 130 None documented.
seine or lampara.
WA (all species) beach seine or 235 None documented.
drag seine.
HI purse seine..................... 18 None documented.
HI opelu/akule net................. 16 None documented.
HI throw net, cast net............. 47 None documented.
Dip net fisheries:
WA, OR smelt, herring dip net...... 119 None documented.
CA squid dip net................... 115 None documented.
Marine aquaculture fisheries:
WA, OR salmon net pens............. 21 California sea lion, U.S.
CA salmon enhancement rearing pen.. >1 None documented.
OR salmon ranch.................... 1 None documented.
Troll fisheries:
AK salmon troll.................... 1,450 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.*+.
CA/OR/WA salmon troll.............. 4,300 None documented.
AK north Pacific halibut, AK bottom 1,354 None documented.
fish, WA, OR, CA albacore,
groundfish, bottom fish, CA
halibut non-salmonid troll
fisheries.
HI trolling, rod and reel.......... 1,795 None documented.
Guam tuna troll.................... 50 None documented.
Commonwealth of the Northern 50 None documented.
Mariana Islands tuna troll.
American Samoa tuna troll.......... <50 None documented.
HI net unclassified................ 106 None documented.
Longline/set line fisheries:
AK state waters sablefish long line/ 240 None documented.
set line.
Miscellaneous finfish/groundfish 838 Harbor seal, GOA; Harbor seal, Bering Sea; Northern
longline/set line. elephant seal, CA breeding.
HI swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi 140 Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+; Humpback whale, Central
mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks North Pacific*+; Risso's dolphin, Hawaiian;
longline/set line. Bottlenose dolphin, Hawaiian.
WA, OR North Pacific halibut 350 None documented.
longline/set line.
AK southern Bering Sea, Aleutian 226 Northern elephant seal, CA breeding; Killer whale,
Islands, and Western Gulf of resident; Killer whale, transient.
Alaska sablefish longline/set line
(federally regulated waters).
[[Page 67086]]
AK halibut longline/set line (state 213 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+.
and Federal waters).
WA, OR, CA groundfish, bottomfish 367 None documented.
longline/set line.
AK octopus/squid longline.......... 1 None documented.
CA shark/bonito longline/set line.. 10 None documented.
Trawl fisheries:
WA, OR, CA shrimp trawl............ 300 None documented.
AK shrimp otter trawl and beam 48 None documented.
trawl (statewide and Cook Inlet).
AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish trawl. 490 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Northern fur seal,
North Pacific*; Harbor seal, GOA; Dall's porpoise,
AK; Northern elephant seal, CA breeding.
AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 490 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Northern fur seal,
groundfish trawl. North Pacific*; Killer whale, resident; Killer whale,
transient; Pacific white-sided dolphin, central North
Pacific; Harbor porpoise, AK; Harbor seal, Bering
Sea; Harbor seal, GOA; Bearded seal, AK; Ringed seal,
AK; Dall's porpoise, AK; Spotted seal, AK; Ribbon
seal, AK; Northern elephant seal, CA breeding;
Northern (Alaska) sea otter, Pacific; Walrus,
Pacific.
AK state-managed waters of Cook 8 None documented.
Inlet, Kachemak Bay, Prince
William Sound, Southeast AK
groundfish trawl.
AK miscellaneous finfish otter or 324 None documented.
beam trawl.
AK food/bait herring trawl......... 2 None documented.
WA, OR, CA groundfish trawl........ 585 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+; Northern fur seal,
North Pacific*; Pacific white-sided dolphin, central
North Pacific; Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA; California
sea lion, U.S.; Harbor seal, OR/WA coast.
Pot, ring net, and trap fisheries:
AK crustacean pot.................. 1,951 None documented.
AK Bering Sea, GOA finfish pot..... 226 Harbor seal, GOA; Northern (AK) sea otter, Pacific.
WA, OR, CA sablefish pot........... 176 None documented.
WA, OR, CA crab pot................ 1,478 None documented.
WA, OR shrimp pot and trap......... 254 None documented.
CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock 608 None documented.
crab, fish pot.
OR, CA hagfish pot or trap......... 25 None documented.
HI lobster trap.................... 15 Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+.
HI crab trap....................... 22 None documented.
HI fish trap....................... 19 None documented.
HI shrimp trap..................... 5 None documented.
Handline and jig fisheries:
AK North Pacific halibut handline 84 None documented.
and mechanical jig.
AK other finfish handline and 474 None documented.
mechanical jig.
AK octopus/squid handline.......... 2 None documented.
WA groundfish, bottomfish jig...... 679 None documented.
HI aku boat, pole and line......... 54 None documented.
HI inshore handline................ 650 Bottlenose dolphin, HI.
HI deep sea bottomfish............. 434 Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+.
HI tuna............................ 144 Rough-toothed dolphin, HI; Bottlenose dolphin, HI;
Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+.
Guam bottomfish.................... <50 None documented.
Commonwealth of the Northern <50 None documented.
Mariana Islands bottomfish.
American Samoa bottomfish.......... <50 None documented.
Harpoon fisheries:
CA swordfish harpoon............... 228 None documented.
Pound net/weir fisheries:
AK Southeast Alaska herring food/ 7 None documented.
bait pound net.
WA herring brush weir.............. 1 None documented.
Bait pens:
WA/OR/CA bait pens................. 13 None documented.
Dredge fisheries:
Coastwide scallop dredge........... 106 None documented.
Dive, hand/mechanical collection
fisheries:
AK abalone......................... 177 None documented.
AK dungeness crab.................. 1 None documented.
[[Page 67087]]
AK herring spawn-on-kelp........... 306 None documented.
AK urchin and other fish/shellfish. 127 None documented.
AK clam hand shovel................ 125 None documented.
AK clam mechanical/hydraulic 3 None documented.
fishery.
WA herring spawn-on-kelp........... 4 None documented.
WA/OR sea urchin, other clam, 637 None documented.
octopus, oyster, sea cucumber,
scallop, ghost shrimp hand, dive,
or mechanical collection.
CA abalone......................... 111 None documented.
CA sea urchin...................... 583 None documented.
HI squiding, spear................. 267 None documented.
HI lobster diving.................. 6 None documented.
HI coral diving.................... 2 None documented.
HI handpick........................ 135 None documented.
WA shellfish aquaculture........... 684 None documented.
WA, CA kelp........................ 4 None documented.
HI fish pond....................... 10 None documented.
Commercial passenger fishing vessel
(charter boat) fisheries:
AK, WA, OR, CA commercial passenger 1,243 None documented.
fishing vessel.
AK octopus/squid ``other''......... 19 None documented.
HI ``other''....................... 114 None documented.
Live finfish/shellfish fisheries:
CA finfish and shellfish live trap/ 93 None documented.
hook-and-line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--List of Fisheries--Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
No. of Marine mammal species/stocks incidentally injured/
Description of fishery vessels/ killed
persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I:
Pair trawl fisheries:
U.S. Atlantic large pelagics pair 7 Risso's dolphin, WNA; Long-finned pilot whale, WNA*;
trawl. Common dolphin, WNA*; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA
offshore*.
Gillnet fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of 75 North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+; Humpback whale,
Mexico large pelagics drift WNA*+; Sperm whale, WNA*+; Dwarf sperm whale, WNA*;
gillnet. Pygmy sperm whale, WNA*; Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA*;
True's beaked whale, WNA*; Gervais' beaked whale,
WNA*; Blainville's beaked whale, WNA*; Risso's
dolphin, WNA; Long-finned pilot whale, WNA*; Short-
finned pilot whale, WNA*; White-sided dolphin, WNA*;
Common dolphin, WNA*; Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA*;
Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA*; Striped dolphin,
WNA; Spinner dolphin, WNA; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA
offshore*; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*.
New England multispecies sink 341 North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+; Humpback whale,
gillnet (including species as WNA*+; Minke whale, Canadian east coast; Killer
defined in the Multispecies whale, WNA; White-sided dolphin, WNA*; Striped
Fisheries Management Plan and dolphin, WNA; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore;
spiny dogfish and monkfish). Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*; Harbor seal, WNA; Gray
seal, Northwest North Atlantic; Common dolphin; Fin
whale; Spotted dolphin; False killer whale; Harp
seal.
Longline fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of 361 Humpback whale, WNA*+; Minke whale, Canadian east
Mexico large pelagics longline. coast; Risso's dolphin, WNA; Long-finned pilot whale,
WNA*; Short-finned pilot whale, WNA*; Common dolphin,
WNA*; Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA*; Pantropical
spotted dolphin, WNA; Striped dolphin, WNA;
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore*; Bottlenose
dolphin, GMX Outer Continental Shelf; Bottlenose
dolphin, GMX Continental Shelf Edge and Slope;
Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX; Pantropical
spotted dolphin, Northern GMX; Risso's dolphin,
Northern GMX; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*.
Category II:
Gillnet fisheries:
U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet >655 Humpback whale, WNA*+; Minke whale, Canadian east
fishery. coast; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore*; Bottlenose
dolphin, WNA coastal*+; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*.
Gulf of Maine small pelagics 133 Humpback whale, WNA*+; White-sided dolphin, WNA;
surface gillnet. Harbor seal, WNA.
[[Page 67088]]
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark 10 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*; North Atlantic right
gillnet fishery. whale, WNA*+.
Trawl fisheries:
Atlantic squid, mackerel, 620 Common dolphin, WNA*; Risso's dolphin, WNA*; Long-
butterfish trawl. finned pilot whale, WNA*; Short-finned pilot whale,
WNA*; White-sided dolphin, WNA*.
Haul seine fisheries:
North Carolina haul seine.......... unknown Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*; Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF*.
Stop net fisheries:
North Carolina roe mullet stop net. 13 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*.
Category III:
Gillnet fisheries:
Rhode Island, southern 32 Humpback whale, WNA*+; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA
Massachusetts (to Monomoy Island), coastal*+; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*.
and New York Bight (Raritan and
Lower New York Bays) inshore
gillnet.
Long Island Sound inshore gillnet.. 20 Humpback whale, WNA*+; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA
coastal*+; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*.
Delaware Bay inshore gillnet....... 60 Humpback whale, WNA*+; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA
coastal*+; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*.
Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet..... 45 None documented.
North Carolina inshore gillnet..... 94 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico inshore gillnet
(black drum, sheepshead, weakfish,
mullet, spot, croaker)unknownNone
documented..
Offshore monkfish bottom gillnet... <50 None documented.
Gulf of Maine, Southeast U.S. 1,285 Minke whale, Canadian east coast; Harbor porpoise, GME/
Atlantic coastal shad, sturgeon BF*; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+.
gillnet (includes waters of North
Carolina).
Gulf of Mexico coastal gillnet ........... Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal; Bottlenose
(includes mullet gillnet fishery dolphin, Northern GMX coastal; Bottlenose dolphin,
in LA and MS). Eastern GMX coastal; Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay,
Sound, & Estuarine*.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal 0.00 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+.
gillnet.
Florida east coast, Gulf of Mexico 271 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal; Bottlenose
pelagics king and Spanish mackerel dolphin, Northern GMX coastal; Bottlenose dolphin,
gillnet. Eastern GMX coastal; Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay,
Sound, & Estuarine*.
Trawl fisheries:
North Atlantic bottom trawl........ 1,052 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA*; Short-finned pilot
whale, WNA*; White-sided dolphin, WNA*; Striped
dolphin, WNA; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore*.
Mid-Atlantic, Southeastern U.S. >18,000 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp
trawl.
Gulf of Maine northern shrimp trawl 320 None documented.
Gulf of Maine mackerel trawl....... 30 None documented.
Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic sea 215 None documented.
scallop trawl.
Gulf of Maine, Southern North 5 None documented.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico coastal
herring trawl.
Mid-Atlantic mixed species trawl... >1,000 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico butterfish trawl.... 2 Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX; Pantropical
spotted dolphin, Northern GMX.
Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland 25 None documented.
whelk trawl.
Calico scallops trawl.............. 200 None documented.
Bluefish, croaker, flounder trawl.. 550 None documented.
Crab trawl......................... 400 None documented.
U.S. Atlantic monkfish trawl....... unknown None documented.
Marine aquaculture fisheries:
Finfish aquaculture................ 48 None documented.
Shellfish aquaculture.............. unknown None documented.
Purse seine fisheries:
Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring 30 Harbor porpoise, GME/BF*; Harbor seal, WNA; Gray seal,
purse seine. Northwest North Atlantic.
[[Page 67089]]
Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine.. 22 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+.
Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine. 10 None documented.
Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 50 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal.
Florida west coast sardine purse 10 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal.
seine.
U.S. mid-Atlantic hand seine....... >250 None documented.
Longline/hook-and-line fisheries:
Gulf of Maine tub trawl groundfish 46 Harbor seal, WNA; Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic.
bottom longline/ hook-and-line.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of 3,800 None documented.
Mexico snapper-grouper and other
reef fish bottom longline/hook-and-
line.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of 124 None documented.
Mexico shark bottom longline/hook-
and-line.
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic 26,223 None documented.
tuna, shark swordfish hook-and-
line/harpoon.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of 1,446 None documented.
Mexico & U.S. mid-Atlantic pelagic
hook-and-line/harpoon.
Trap/pot fisheries--lobster and crab:
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic 100 North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+; Humpback whale,
mixed species trap/pot. WNA*+; Minke whale, Canadian east coast; Harbor
porpoise, GME/BF*; Harbor seal, WNA; Gray seal,
Northwest North Atlantic.
U.S. mid-Atlantic and Southeast 30 None documented.
U.S. Atlantic black sea bass trap/
pot.
U.S. mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot..... >700 None documented.
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic 10,613 North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+; Humpback whale,
inshore lobster trap/pot. WNA*+; Fin whale, WNA*; Minke whale, Canadian east
coast; White-sided dolphin, Western North Atlantic;
Harbor seal, WNA.
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic 2,902 North Atlantic right whale, WNA*; Humpback whale,
offshore lobster trap/pot. WNA*+; Fin whale, WNA*; Minke whale, Canadian east
coast; White-sided dolphin, WNA; Harbor seal, WNA.
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico blue 20,500 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*; Bottlenose dolphin,
crab trap/pot. Western GMX coastal; Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX
coastal; Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal;
Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, & Estuarine*;
Florida manatee, FL*+.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of 750 Florida manatee, FL*+.
Mexico, Caribbean spiny lobster
trap/pot.
Stop seine/weir/pound fisheries:
Gulf of Maine herring and Atlantic 50 North Atlantic right whale, WNA*; Humpback whale,
mackerel stop seine/weir. WNA*+; Minke whale, Canadian east coast; Harbor
porpoise, GME/BF*; Harbor seal, WNA; Gray seal,
Northwest North Atlantic.
U.S. mid-Atlantic mixed species 500 None documented.
stop/seine/weir (except the North
Carolina roe mullet stop net).
U.S. mid-Atlantic crab stop seine/ 2,600 None documented.
weir.
Dredge fisheries:
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic 233 None documented.
sea scallop dredge.
U.S. mid-Atlantic offshore surfclam 100 None documented.
and quahog dredge.
Gulf of Maine mussel............... >50 None documented.
U.S. mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico 7,000 None documented.
oyster.
Haul seine fisheries:
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 150 None documented.
Caribbean haul seine.
Beach seine fisheries:
Caribbean beach seine.............. 15 Florida manatee, FL+.
[[Page 67090]]
Dive, hand/mechanical collection
fisheries:
Gulf of Maine urchin dive, hand/ >50 None documented.
mechanical collection.
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, 20,000 None documented.
Caribbean shellfish dive, hand/
mechanical collection.
Commercial passenger fishing vessel
(charter boat) fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, 4,000 None documented.
Caribbean commercial passenger
fishing vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Marine Mammal stock is strategic.
+Stock is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or as depleted under the MMPA.
List of Abbreviations Used in Table 2:
FL--Florida.
GA--Georgia.
GME/BF--Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy.
GMX--Gulf of Mexico.
NC--North Carolina.
SC--South Carolina
TX--Texas.
WNA--Western North Atlantic.
Classification
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Small Business Administration
that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule will require certain
fishers to pay a fee to obtain an Authorization Certificate that will
allow the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing
operations.
Approximately 20,000 fishers were required to register under the
old section 114 regime and pay a $30 fee. The fee under the new section
118 regime is reduced to $25. This fee with respect to expected
revenues is not significant.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism
assessment under E.O. 12612.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This final LOF determines which vessel owners must register under
the MMPA, and which commercial fishers must report marine mammal
mortalities and injuries within 48 hours of returning to port, as
required by the section 118 implementing regulations. The collections
associated with these registration and reporting requirements have been
approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0648-0224 and 0648-0225.
Dated: December 19, 1995.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-31252 Filed 12-20-95; 4:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W