[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1930-1951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-378]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 030130026-3323-02; I.D. 121202B]
RIN 0648-AM30


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Halibut 
Fisheries in U.S. Convention Waters Off Alaska; Management Measures to 
Reduce Seabird Incidental Take in the Hook-and-Line Halibut and 
Groundfish Fisheries

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to revise regulations requiring 
seabird avoidance measures in the hook-and-line groundfish fisheries of 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) and Gulf of 
Alaska (GOA) and in the Pacific halibut fishery in U.S. Convention 
waters off Alaska. This action is intended to improve the current 
requirements and further mitigate interactions with the short-tailed 
albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), an endangered species protected under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and with other seabird species in 
hook-and-line fisheries in and off Alaska, and thus further the goals 
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

[[Page 1931]]

Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Northern 
Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act (MBTA), and the ESA.

DATES: Effective February 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for 
this action maybe be obtained from the Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 
21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Durall, or by calling (907) 
586-7228. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirement contained in this 
rule may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska Region, and by email to [email protected], or fax to (202)395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim S. Rivera, (907) 586-7424, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the GOA and 
the BSAI in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are managed by NMFS under 
the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and 
the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering 
Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMPs). The FMPs were prepared by the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and are 
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that 
also pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. 
The Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., authorizes the Council to 
develop, and NMFS to implement, halibut fishery regulations that are in 
addition to, and not in conflict with, regulations adopted by the 
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC).
    This action is intended to reduce the incidental take of seabirds 
in hook-and-line fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act emphasizes the 
importance of reducing bycatch to maintain sustainable fisheries. 
Although seabirds are not included within the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 
``bycatch'' definition, efforts to reduce the incidental take of 
seabirds in fisheries are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 
objective to conserve and manage the marine environment. In addition, 
the NMFS' guidelines for implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 
national standards for fishery conservation and management note that 
other applicable laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 
ESA, and the MBTA, require that Councils consider the impact of 
conservation and management measures on living marine resources other 
than fish; i.e. marine mammals and birds. Additionally, reducing the 
take of migratory birds is addressed in NMFS' National Bycatch Strategy 
(available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ bycatch--images/ 
FINALstrategy.pdf). The 1998 NMFS' report ``Managing the Nation's 
Bycatch'' and the NMFS' National Bycatch Strategy use a working 
definition of ``bycatch'' that is more expansive than the definition in 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and includes the incidental take of seabirds 
as ``bycatch.'' That more expansive definition is used in this 
preamble.

Background

    Awareness of seabird incidental take and incidental mortality in 
commercial fishing operations off Alaska has been heightened in recent 
years. Further information on this issue was provided in the preambles 
to the proposed and final rules implementing seabird avoidance measures 
in the GOA and BSAI hook-and-line groundfish fisheries (62 FR 10016, 
March 5, 1997, and 62 FR 23176, April 29, 1997) and in the Pacific 
halibut fishery off Alaska (62 FR 65635, December 15, 1997, and 63 FR 
11161, March 6, 1998) and the EA/RIR/FRFAs prepared for those actions. 
Additional background information is available in the final report 
prepared and submitted to the Council and NMFS by the Washington Sea 
Grant Program (WSGP), Solutions to Seabird Bycatch in Alaska's Demersal 
Longline Fisheries (available at http://www.wsg.washington.edu/ pubs/ 
seabirds/ seabirdpaper.html). NMFS published the proposed rule for this 
action in the Federal Register on February 7, 2003 (68 FR 6386), which 
described the proposed regulatory amendment and invited comments from 
the public. NMFS received 11 letters containing 50 different comments 
on the proposed rule, which are summarized and responded to in the 
section Response to Public Comments of this document.

Incidental Seabird Mortality off Alaska

    The NMFS North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program office has 
documented incidental take of seabird species in the GOA and BSAI 
groundfish fisheries since 1989. Since 2000, the seabird bycatch 
estimates have been incorporated into the seabird section of the 
Ecosystem Considerations chapter of the Council's annual Stock 
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation reports for the GOA and BSAI 
groundfish fisheries (SAFE). Estimates of the annual seabird incidental 
take for the Alaska groundfish fisheries, based on 1993 to 1999 
observer data, were provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the 
proposed rule. Approximately 15,700 seabirds were killed (taken) 
annually in the combined BSAI and GOA groundfish hook-and-line 
fisheries (14,500 in the BSAI and 1,200 in the GOA) at the average 
rates of 0.10 and 0.03 birds per 1,000 hooks in the BSAI and in the 
GOA, respectively. Approximately 60 percent of the 15,700 seabirds 
taken are northern fulmars (Fulmaris glacialis), the most abundant 
seabird species off Alaska. Based on 2000 to 2002 observer data, the 
average annual estimate of seabirds taken in the combined BSAI and GOA 
groundfish hook-and-line fisheries was 11,180 (10,672 in the BSAI and 
507 in the GOA) at the average rates of 0.05 and 0.014 birds per 1,000 
hooks in the BSAI and in the GOA, respectively. Since 2000 in the BSAI, 
the average annual estimate of the total number of seabirds caught has 
declined from about 18,000 birds to less than 4,000 in 2002 
(corresponding bycatch rates declining from 0.09 birds/1,000 hooks to 
0.018). Since 2000 in the GOA, the average annual estimate of the total 
number of seabirds caught has declined from about 750 birds to less 
than 300 in 2002 (corresponding bycatch rates declining from 0.02 
birds/1,000 hooks to 0.007). With one exception, northern fulmars 
continue to comprise the vast majority of birds taken. The exception is 
that in 2002 in the BSAI, gull species comprised over 60 percent of the 
estimated seabird bycatch. Northern fulmars accounted for the 2nd 
largest species category that year, 18 percent of the total seabird 
bycatch.
    The annual seabird bycatch estimates based on observer data from 
1993 through 2002 exhibit extreme inter-annual variation, as did the 
take numbers and bird attack rates on baits in the WSGP study. The 
bycatch rate in 2002 may have decreased because fishermen are becoming 
more diligent and skilled using seabird avoidance measures, outreach 
efforts are successful, or the 1999-2000 WSGP research program's 
collaborative industry approach may have acted to change fishermen's 
behavior and improve the effective deployment of seabird avoidance 
measures. Many other factors, both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic, 
may affect seabird hooking and entanglement in longline gear. These 
factors may include geographic location of fishing activity; time of 
day; season; type of fishing operation and gear used; bait type; 
condition of the bait; length of time

[[Page 1932]]

baited hooks remain at or near the surface of the water; water and 
weather conditions; availability of food (including bait and offal); 
bird size; bird behavior (feeding and foraging strategies); bird 
abundance and distribution; physical condition of the bird, and the 
quality and correct deployment of seabird avoidance gear.

Council's Final Action

    For a more detailed description of the Council's final action, 
based in part on WSGP research results and recommendations, see the 
preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 6386, February 7, 2003).

Summary of the Revised Final Seabird Avoidance Measures

    For more detailed descriptions of the seabird avoidance 
requirements, see the preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 6386, 
February 7, 2003). Seabird avoidance measures apply to the operators of 
vessels using hook-and-line gear for (1) Pacific halibut in the 
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and Community Development Quota (CDQ) 
management programs (0 to 200 nautical miles (nm)), (2) IFQ sablefish 
in EEZ waters (3 to 200 nm) and waters of the State of Alaska (0 to 3 
nm), except waters of Prince William Sound and areas in which sablefish 
fishing is managed under a State of Alaska limited entry program 
(Clarence Strait, Chatham Strait), and (3) groundfish (except IFQ 
sablefish) with hook-and-line gear in the U.S. EEZ waters off Alaska (3 
to 200 nm).
    Operators of all applicable vessels using hook-and-line gear are 
required to comply with the following bird line requirements (see Table 
20):
    For Applicable Vessels, Using Hook-and-Line Gear Including Snap 
Gear, Operating in Inside Waters (NMFS Area 649, NMFS Area 659, and 
State Waters of Cook Inlet): (1) a minimum of 1 buoy bag line of a 
specified performance standard is required of vessels greater than 26 
ft (7.9 m) length overall (LOA) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 
m) LOA that are without masts, poles, or rigging, (2) a minimum of one 
buoy bag line of a specified performance standard is required of 
vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 32 ft 
(9.8 m) LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging, (3) a minimum of one 
streamer line of a specified performance standard is required of 
vessels greater than 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft 
(16.8 m) LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging, and (4) a minimum of 
one streamer line of a specified performance standard is required of 
vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
    For Applicable Vessels, Using Other than Snap Gear, and Operating 
in the EEZ (not including NMFS Area 659): (1) a minimum of one buoy bag 
line of a specified performance standard and one other specified device 
is required of vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or 
equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA that are without masts, poles, or rigging, 
(2) a minimum of one streamer line of a specified performance standard 
and one other specified device is required of vessels greater than 26 
ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and with 
masts, poles, or rigging, and (3) except for vessels using snap gear, a 
minimum of paired streamer lines of a specified performance standard is 
required of vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
    For Operators of Vessels, Using Hook-and-line Gear Other than Snap 
Gear, Fishing for IFQ Halibut, CDQ Halibut, or IFQ Halibut in Waters 
Shoreward of the EEZ (except for IPHC Area 4E, see below): the same 
requirements included in the preceding paragraph apply.
    For Applicable Vessels Using Snap Gear and Operating in the EEZ 
(not including NMFS Area 659): (1) a minimum of one buoy bag line of a 
specified performance standard and one other specified device is 
required of vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or 
equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and that are without masts, poles, or 
rigging, (2) a minimum of one streamer line of a specified performance 
standard and one other specified device is required of vessels greater 
than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and 
with masts, poles, or rigging, and (3) a minimum of one streamer line 
of a specified performance standard is required of vessels greater than 
or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging.
    Other seabird avoidance devices and methods include weights added 
to groundline, a buoy bag line or streamer line of specified 
performance standards, and strategic offal discharge to distract birds 
away from the setting of baited hooks, that is, discharge fish, fish 
parts (i.e. offal) or spent bait to distract seabirds away from the 
main groundline while setting gear.

Gear Performance and Material Standards

    To enhance the effectiveness and improve the enforcement of seabird 
avoidance measures, this rule specifies the gear performance and 
material standards for larger vessels (vessels greater than or equal to 
55 ft (16.8 m) LOA). Voluntary guidelines for gear performance and 
material standards for smaller vessels (vessels greater than or equal 
to 26 ft (7.9m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA) were provided in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 6386, February 7, 2003). The only 
standard applied to seabird avoidance gear for smaller vessels in this 
rule is discussed in Weather Safety Factor.

Standards for Larger (Greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA) Vessels

    Paired Streamer Standard Larger vessels must deploy a minimum of 
two streamer lines while setting hook-and-line gear. Preferably, both 
streamer lines are deployed prior to the first hook being set. At least 
one streamer line must be deployed before the first hook is set and 
both streamers must be fully deployed within 90 seconds. Further, 
streamer lines must be deployed in such a way that streamers are in the 
air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern for vessels under 
100 ft (30.5 m) and 196.9 ft (60 m) aft of the stern for vessels 100 ft 
(30.5 m) or over. For vessels deploying gear from the stern, the 
streamer lines must be deployed from the stern, one on each side of the 
main groundline. For vessels deploying gear from the side, the streamer 
lines must be deployed from the stern, one over the main groundline and 
the other on one side of the main groundline.
    Materials Standard The following minimum streamer line 
specifications must be met: (1) length of 300 feet (91.4 m), (2) 
spacing of streamers every 16.4 ft (5 m), and (3) streamer material 
that is brightly colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or 3/8 inch 
polyester line or material of an equivalent density. An individual 
streamer must hang attached to the mainline to 0.25 m above the 
waterline in the absence of wind.
    Snap Gear Streamer Standard For vessels using snap gear, a single 
streamer line [147.6 ft (45 m) length] must be deployed in such a way 
that streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and 
within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline 
enters the water.
    Single Streamer Standard A single streamer line must be deployed in 
such a way that streamers are in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 
m) aft of the stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point 
where the main groundline enters the water.
    Materials Standard The single streamer line materials standard is 
the same as the materials standard for paired streamer lines.
    Offal Requirements The offal discharge regulation is amended to 
require that prior to offal discharge,

[[Page 1933]]

embedded hooks are removed from offal.
    Weather Safety Factor In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or 
Beaufort 9 conditions), the deployment of streamer lines (either single 
or paired) or buoy bag lines is discretionary. For vessel operators 
required to use paired streamer lines, in winds exceeding 30 knots, but 
less then or equal to 45 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions), a 
single streamer must instead be deployed from the windward side of the 
vessel.

Exemption for Vessels 32 ft (9.8m) LOA or Less in State Waters of IPHC 
Area 4E

    Operators of vessels less than 32 ft (9.8m) LOA using hook-and-line 
gear and fishing in state waters of IPHC Area 4E are exempt from using 
seabird avoidance measures.

Seabird Reporting Requirements

    Regulations at Sec.  679.5(a)(7)(ix)(C)(3) currently require 
operators of catcher vessels or catcher/processor vessels using 
longline gear to report the bird avoidance gear deployed using gear 
codes at Table 19 to part 679. Because this rule revises the required 
seabird avoidance measures, the seabird avoidance codes at Table 19 to 
part 679 are revised to reflect these changes.

Seabird Avoidance Plan

    A Seabird Avoidance Plan that is written and onboard the vessel 
must contain the following information: (1) Vessel name, (2) master's 
name, (3) type of bird avoidance measures utilized, (4) positions and 
responsibilities of crew for deploying, adjusting, and monitoring 
performance of deployed gear, (5) instructions and/or diagrams 
outlining the sequence of actions required to deploy and retrieve the 
gear to meet specified performance standards, and (5) procedures for 
strategic discharge of offal, if any. The Seabird Avoidance Plan is 
prepared and signed by the vessel operator. The vessel operator's 
signature indicates the operator has read the plan, reviewed it with 
the vessel crew, made it available to the crew, and instructed vessel 
crew to read it. The Seabird Avoidance Plan must be made available for 
inspection upon request by an authorized officer (USCG boarding 
officer, NMFS Enforcement Officer or other designated official) or an 
observer.

Seabird Data Collection by Observers

    Operators of observed vessels are required to collect seabirds from 
the observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear or as 
requested by an observer during non-sampled portions of hauls.

Applicability of Seabird Avoidance Regulations While Fishing for CDQ 
Halibut

    Paragraphs Sec.  679.32(f)(2)(v) and Sec.  679.42(b)(2) require the 
use of seabird avoidance measures on all vessels of a specified length 
that are fishing in U.S. Convention waters off Alaska for Pacific 
halibut, whether the vessels are engaged in IFQ fisheries or CDQ 
fisheries.

Definitions at Sec.  679.2

    Definitions are added at Sec.  679.2 for two previously undefined 
terms: ``snap gear'' (as a type of ``authorized fishing gear'') and 
``seabird.

Redesignation of Paragraphs at Sec.  679.24(e)

    Seabird avoidance requirements currently in Sec.  679.24 (e)(2)(i), 
(ii), and (iii) are redesignated as paragraphs (e)(2)(iv), 
(e)(2)(v)(A), and (e)(2)(vi), respectively.

Changes to the Seabird Avoidance Measures from the Proposed Rule

    The notice of proposed rulemaking specified seabird avoidance 
requirements for operators of vessels fishing with hook-and-line gear 
in NMFS Reporting Areas 649, 659, or state waters of Cook Inlet and 
while fishing in the EEZ [see 68 FR 6394, columns 1 and 2 and Table 20 
at 6398 (February 7, 2003)]. A comment received during the public 
comment period (see Comment 1) noted that it was not clear if the 
proposed regulations applied to vessels fishing in State waters. The 
commenter recalled that the Council's action specified that these 
vessels fishing in State waters for species other than halibut would be 
subject to regulations adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries 
(Board). The commenter is correct and the final rule is clarified to 
indicate that the requirements for operators of vessels fishing in the 
EEZ also apply to vessel operators fishing for IFQ halibut, CDQ 
halibut, and IFQ sablefish in waters shoreward of the EEZ. NMFS 
regulates IFQ and CDQ fishermen participating in each of these three 
fisheries in State waters (0-3 nm), including implementation of seabird 
avoidance requirements. These clarifications are made with a new 
paragraph at Sec.  679.24(e)(4)(iv), minor revisions at Sec.  
679.24(e)(4)(ii) and (iii), revision of the title legend of Table 20, 
and the corresponding text changes to Table 20. Companion 
clarifications are also made for the requirements in IPHC Area 4E.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking specified seabird avoidance 
requirements for operators of vessels fishing with hook-and-line gear, 
other than snap gear, in NMFS Reporting Areas 649 and 659, or state 
waters of Cook Inlet and for operators of vessels that use snap gear 
[see 68 FR 6394, columns 1 and 2 and Table 20 at 6398 (February 7, 
2003)]. A comment received during the public comment period (see 
Comment 2) noted that it was not clear whether the proposed regulation 
for vessels with snap gear and the corresponding language in Table 20 
apply to vessels when fishing only in the EEZ or when fishing in any 
area, including inside state waters (NMFS Areas 649 and 659). The 
commenter noted that the Council's final action was that the 
requirements for inside waters apply to all hook-and-line gear types 
(i.e. including snap gear) and that the specific requirements for 
vessels using snap gear apply only when fishing in the EEZ. The 
commenter is correct. The Council's final action on seabird avoidance 
measures was that the requirements for inside waters would apply also 
to vessels using snap gear. The specific snap gear requirements were 
not intended to apply to vessels fishing in the inside waters. Changes 
from the proposed regulation at Sec.  679.24(e)(4)(i) and (iii) and in 
Table 20 are made in the final rule. Companion clarifications are also 
made for the requirements in IPHC Area 4E.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking revised the bird avoidance codes 
in Table 19 to correspond to the proposed changes in seabird avoidance 
measures. See 68 FR 6396 and 6397, February 7, 2003. A comment 
addressed under Comment 13 noted that the regulations should more 
clearly specify that more than one device, and therefore more than one 
code, can be used at the same time. The commenter is correct that more 
than one device can be used at a time; therefore NMFS makes this 
clarification in the recordkeeping and reporting requirements at Sec.  
679.5(c)(1)(xvii).
    The notice of proposed rulemaking specified that operators of 
vessels required to carry one or more observers must provide assistance 
that would include collecting all seabirds that are incidentally taken 
on the observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear or 
as requested by an observer during non-sampled portions of hauls. See 
68 FR 6395, February 7, 2003. When the notice of proposed rulemaking 
was drafted in 2002, the regulatory responsibilities for vessels 
carrying observers were codified at Sec.  679.50(f)(1). A final rule 
was published on December 6, 2002, 67 FR 75295, that extended the 
effective date of the existing regulations for the interim North 
Pacific Groundfish

[[Page 1934]]

Observer Program (Observer Program) and also amended regulations 
governing the Observer Program. The amended regulations included a 
redesignation of paragraph Sec.  679.50 (f) to paragraph Sec.  
679.50(g). This final rule reflects the correct designation for the 
paragraph in Sec.  679.50 on vessel responsibilities. The new paragraph 
(1)(viii)(F) of this section, which will require operators of vessels 
to provide assistance to observers in the form of collecting all 
seabirds that are incidentally taken on the observer-sampled portions 
of hauls using hook-and-line gear or as requested by an observer during 
non-sampled portions of hauls, will now be codified in paragraph (g) of 
this section.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking specified that seabird avoidance 
measures would be required on all vessels of a specified length that 
are fishing in U.S. Convention waters off Alaska for Pacific halibut, 
whether the vessels are engaged in IFQ fisheries or CDQ fisheries. The 
proposed regulation for the halibut CDQ fisheries was designated at 
Sec.  679.32 (f)(2)(vi). See 68 FR 6395, February 7, 2003. When the 
notice of proposed rulemaking was drafted in 2002, the regulatory 
responsibilities for halibut CDQ vessel operations were codified at 
Sec.  679.32(f). A final rule was published on July 29, 2003, 68 FR 
44473, that revised extensively certain requirements for the IFQ and 
CDQ programs for the Pacific halibut fishery and also amended 
regulations governing these programs. The amended regulations included 
redesignations of some of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph Sec.  679.32 
(f)(2) to Sec.  679.4(e). This seabird final rule reflects the correct 
designation for the paragraph in Sec.  679.32(f) on halibut CDQ. A new 
paragraph (5) will be added to this section, and will require the CDQ 
group, and vessel owner or operator to comply with all of the seabird 
avoidance requirements at Sec.  679.42(b)(2).

Response to Public Comments

    NMFS received 11 letters containing 50 different comments on the 
proposed seabird avoidance measures. The summarized comments and 
responses to them follow:
    Comment 1: In general, the proposed rule reflects the intent of the 
Council's final action. However, clarification is needed to the 
proposed regulation specifying use of seabird avoidance measures in 
State waters. The proposed regulatory language at Part 679.24(e)(4)(i) 
and text in Table 20 implies that vessels fishing in State waters for 
species other than halibut are subject to the federal regulations, in 
essence pre-empting State regulations. The Council's action specified 
that these vessels would be subject to regulations adopted by the 
Alaska Board of Fisheries (Board). For example, if an operator were 
fishing hook-and-line gear for Pacific cod in NMFS Area 649 (Prince 
William Sound), an exact reading of the proposed rule would lead him/
her to believe that compliance with the federal regulations is required 
even if federal regulations conflicted with regulations adopted by the 
Board.
    Response: The final rule will clarify the applicability of these 
seabird avoidance regulations to vessels fishing in State of Alaska 
waters. In particular, the title legend of Table 20 has been revised to 
indicate that the reader must refer to Sec.  679.24(e)(1) for 
applicable fisheries. Section 679.24(e)(1) indicates that the operator 
of a vessel that is longer than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-
and-line gear must comply with the seabird avoidance requirements as 
specified in paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(4) of this section while 
fishing for IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut, IFQ sablefish, and groundfish 
in the EEZ off Alaska. Further a new paragraph Sec.  679.24(e)(4)(iv) 
is added that clearly indicates what seabird avoidance measures must be 
used while fishing for IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in 
waters shoreward of the EEZ. NMFS promulgates fishery regulations, 
including seabird avoidance requirements, for these three fisheries in 
State waters (0-3 nm). The State of Alaska will promulgate seabird 
avoidance regulations applicable to its groundfish fisheries in State 
waters. At its March 2002 meeting, the Board approved a proposal that 
will change state groundfish regulations to parallel these new Federal 
regulations governing seabird avoidance measure requirements for 
operators in hook-and-line fisheries.
    Comment 2: It is unclear if the proposed regulation at Sec.  
679.24(e)(4)(iii) for vessels with snap gear, and the corresponding 
language in Table 20, apply to vessels only when fishing in the EEZ, or 
when fishing in any area, including the inside state waters (NMFS Areas 
649 and 659). The commenter's recollection of the final Council action 
was that the requirements for inside waters apply to all hook-and-line 
gear types (i.e. including snap gear), and the specific requirements 
for vessels using snap gear applies only when fishing in the EEZ. 
Clarification of how these two components interact would be helpful.
    Response: The Council's final action intended that seabird 
avoidance measures would apply to vessels using snap gear in inside 
state waters as well. Consequently, the regulations at Sec.  
679.24(e)(4) were revised from the proposed rule to clarify this point. 
The text in Table 20 has also been changed as a result.
    Comment 3: The commenter believes that insufficient data have been 
collected to justify the extensive regulatory revisions based on 
individual vessel classes and fishing areas. Without adequate research 
to justify these revisions, the rules should impose a conservative 
management plan consistent for all vessels in all the fishing areas.
    Response: The factors potentially affecting seabird hooking and 
entanglement on hook-and-line gear are numerous and complex. The 
solutions to reduce seabird/vessel interactions will reflect this 
complexity as well. Factors may include geographic location of fishing 
activity; time of day; season; type of fishing operation and gear used; 
bait type; condition of the bait; length of time baited hooks remain at 
or near the surface of the water; water and weather conditions; 
availability of food (including bait and offal); bird size; bird 
behavior (feeding and foraging strategies); bird abundance and 
distribution; and physical condition of the bird. When establishing 
effective requirements that reduce the potential for seabird 
interactions with gear and the associated mortality of seabirds, 
considering or accounting for any of these factors, to the extent 
possible and practicable is desirable. Based on information from the 
WSGP study, the Council's Science and Statistical Committee (SSC), 
several U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service (USFWS) marine bird surveys, and 
anecdotal information from the commercial longline fleet off Alaska, 
the seabird avoidance measures required of vessel operators reflect the 
area fished, vessel length, vessel type, and gear type. This base of 
knowledge is sufficient to modify the existing regulations. NMFS agrees 
that additional research may help elucidate the bird/vessel 
interaction, particularly for smaller vessels because most of the work 
thus far has been conducted on larger vessels. In general, research to 
date have focused work on locations of higher bird bycatch rates (BSAI) 
and on vessel types that appear to catch more birds (larger processing 
vessels). In response to the SSC's recommendation for additional 
studies on smaller vessels, WSGP researchers began work in the summer 
of 2002 with vessel owners to evaluate the need for mitigation devices 
as well as performance standards that could be achieved on these 
vessels that operate quite differently from larger vessels.

[[Page 1935]]

 Studies were conducted on vessels from 26 ft (7.9 m) to 55 ft (16.8 m) 
LOA, with and without superstructure (i.e. poles, masts, rigging). 
Results may lead to further revisions to seabird avoidance measures if 
warranted. NMFS believes the final rule implements a conservative 
management plan that accounts for the fleet diversity and differences 
between vessels types and geographic areas in likelihood of hooking and 
entangling seabirds.
    Comment 4: Three commenters suggested that paired streamer lines 
should be used on more vessels than is proposed. One commenter believed 
they should be required on all vessels capable of conducting fishing 
operations with paired streamer lines deployed. This would mean that 
any vessel over 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA with masts or other rigging must 
deploy paired streamer lines. Another commenter suggested that all 
longline vessels over 35 ft (10.7 m) LOA should be required to use 
paired streamer lines while setting gear. If owners of vessels 35 (10.7 
m) to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA can document to a NMFS official that 
deployment of 2 streamer lines from their vessel is not practical, then 
other means, such as a single streamer line, other towed deterrent, and 
weighting the groundline to achieve a sink rate of 0.3 m per second, 
would be acceptable alternatives.
    Response: Based on best available information, NMFS has determined 
that the new requirements will place paired streamer lines on those 
vessels that can safely and practicably use them in an effective manner 
to reduce bycatch of seabirds. Paired streamer lines will be required 
on vessels over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA. In 2000 these vessels accounted for 
98 percent, 67 percent, and 59 percent of the harvest by hook-and-line 
vessels in the BSAI groundfish, GOA groundfish, and halibut fisheries, 
respectively. Of the 1,006 vessels that harvested groundfish in either 
the BSAI or GOA in year 2000, 687 were smaller catcher vessels (26 (7.9 
m) to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA), 275 were vessels over 55 ft LOA and will be 
required to use paired streamer lines, and 44 vessels that also process 
their catch were all over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and will be required to 
use paired streamer lines. In the IFQ halibut fishery, 308 vessels were 
over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and will be required to use paired streamer 
lines. Smaller catcher vessels numbered 1,145 and these vessels will be 
required to use single streamer lines or similar devices. The higher 
bird bycatch rates in the BSAI compared to the GOA (0.05 birds/1,000 
hooks vs 0.014 birds/1,000 hooks; 2000-2002 average annual rate) may 
reflect higher bycatch rates of larger processing vessels as compared 
to smaller vessels that do not process catch. One factor that 
contributes to birds getting hooked on hook-and-line gear is whether 
the vessel processes fish and discharges offal, an attractant to birds. 
Smaller vessels (i.e. the majority of vessels in the GOA and in the 
halibut fishery) often retain whole fish on ice for delivery to 
shoreside plants. In the absence of fish offal discharged around these 
vessels, fewer birds are attracted and thus fewer are vulnerable to 
getting hooked. Additionally, deploying paired streamer lines on 
smaller vessels with narrower beam widths is not practicable. Paired 
lines can become easily tangled and may pose safety hazards to the 
vessel and crew during the deployment of gear. These smaller vessels 
will be required to use single streamer lines in most instances. The 
WSGP study found that single streamer lines effectively reduced seabird 
bycatch by 71 to 96 percent compared to a control of no deterrent. 
Single streamer lines will be an adequate deterrent for use on these 
smaller vessels.
    A system does not currently exist within NMFS to provide for 
individual vessel accountability whereby vessels could demonstrate if 
the deployment of paired streamer lines was practicable. Thus, such a 
system, as suggested by the commenter, is not feasible at this time. 
More importantly, NMFS does not believe such a system is necessary 
given that the final regulations are designed to effectively reduce 
seabird bycatch in the fleet component most responsible for seabird 
bycatch.
    Comment 5: Vessels not required to use paired streamer lines should 
be required to use at least two bird deterrent methods and should 
operate at speeds slow enough to permit longlines to sink at a rapid 
rate and not extend far behind the vessel at or near the surface of the 
water.
    Response: The use of multiple deterrent devices is one effective 
way to reduce gear interactions with seabirds. In those geographic 
areas where seabirds are more likely to be encountered (i.e. in the 
EEZ), NMFS will require vessels not required to use paired streamer 
lines to use a minimum of two methods or devices (single streamer line, 
buoy bag line, adding weights to groundline, or strategic offal 
discharge). NMFS agrees that deploying gear at slower speeds is an 
effective way to allow baited hooks to sink more quickly, thus becoming 
inaccessible to seabirds. Because the vessel speed used by a vessel 
operator will depend upon many other factors, including water and wind 
conditions, NMFS will not include this method as a required option. 
WSGP has produced an educational outreach video that has been widely 
distributed to Alaska fishermen. This video demonstrates that slowing 
the speed of the vessel during gear deployment can successfully sink 
gear more quickly, away from the reach of birds.
    Comment 6: Three commenters suggested mandatory training for vessel 
crews or operators on the proper use and deployment of streamer lines. 
One of the commenters further suggested that the workshops could also 
cover seabird identification, use of other seabird deterrents, and to 
discuss any innovations in seabird avoidance in the industry. These 
workshops would be conducted annually by NMFS and USFWS and could be 
similar to the protected species workshops that have been conducted in 
Hawaii for the longline fleet since 1996.
    Response: Over the past several years, NMFS has conducted or 
collaborated with groups conducting seminars, workshops, and industry 
meetings to provide outreach and training about the effective use and 
deployment of seabird deterrent devices, discuss new innovations in 
seabird avoidance, and cover seabird identification. These sessions 
have been well attended and beneficial to participants. Additionally, 
the WSGP, in collaboration with the USFWS, NMFS, and longline industry 
associations, has produced an informational outreach video that has 
been widely distributed to longline fishermen. Given the very large 
fleet of vessels deploying hook-and-line gear off Alaska (up to 2,000 
vessels), NMFS is not able at this time to provide mandatory training 
workshops for vessel owners and their crew. Such mandatory workshops 
have worked in other areas, such as Hawaii, due to the much smaller 
fleet (several hundred vessels). NMFS is satisfied that the outreach 
and training program in the Alaska fleet is effective and NMFS will 
continue to provide for and be involved in future opportunities for 
outreach and training.
    Comment 7: The manufacture of streamer lines should be strictly 
monitored to assure that only properly designed and constructed 
streamer lines are used by the fishing vessels.
    Response: The vast majority of the streamer lines currently in use 
have been provided by a USFWS ``streamer line give-away program.'' The 
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is responsible for 
constructing and distributing the streamer lines and it consulted with 
WSGP for construction standards. These lines, when properly

[[Page 1936]]

deployed, meet the performance and material standards specified in the 
revised regulations. PSMFC has an ample supply of streamer lines in 
stock at port distribution sites throughout Alaska and in Seattle. This 
stock should be adequate to meet the immediate demand for streamer 
lines when the new requirements become effective. NMFS regulations 
specify the performance and material standards for the streamer lines. 
Streamer lines can be constructed from relatively inexpensive and 
readily available materials, thus increasing the practicability of 
streamer line construction and use by fishermen. NMFS does not regulate 
or control the manufacture of streamer lines, nor is this a necessary 
element for the effective use and deployment of streamer lines by 
fishermen. NMFS can more efficiently convey this type of information 
through its support of outreach materials such as the WSGP video on 
deterrent devices.
    Comment 8: Three commenters have recommended that NMFS should 
require observer coverage on vessels fishing for halibut in order to 
monitor gear interactions with seabirds. One commenter suggested that 
due to concerns that additional gear mitigation studies may not be 
conducted rapidly enough for incorporation into management requirements 
and that the studies will not be adequate to address the entire 
problem, the regulations should also be expanded to cover the observer-
monitoring programs on the smaller vessels and the halibut fishery. The 
other commenter suggested that the coverage in the halibut fishery 
should be at least 80 percent of all vessels over 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA 
and perhaps 15 percent of vessels from over 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA to 60 ft 
(18.3 m) LOA. Currently there is no assessment of seabird bycatch in 
this fishery despite the U.S.'s National Plan of Action for Reducing 
the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (NPOA) which 
requires an assessment of all such fisheries for seabird bycatch to be 
completed by February 2003. Additionally, the Biological Opinion issued 
by USFWS in 1999 included a conservation recommendation that all 
vessels over 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA carry observers for the purposes of 
monitoring seabird bycatch.
    Response: NMFS is exploring additional options to monitor seabird 
mortality in the halibut and small boat fleets. Observer programs are 
subject to serious safety, logistical, funding, service delivery, and 
resource constraints. For example, observer costs range from $355 to 
over $2,000 per day, depending on program structure, size, area of 
operation, and other factors. Issues like these are not easy problems 
to solve, but NMFS has been making progress in two areas. NMFS has 
funded and supported research by the IPHC to evaluate alternative 
monitoring systems that rely on video technology rather than observers. 
NMFS and the IPHC are coordinating to have that report published and 
available in 2004. NMFS will coordinate with the IPHC and the USFWS in 
2004 to discuss report recommendations and other options with regard to 
the Biological Opinion for the halibut fishery. The Council and NMFS 
are interested in expanding monitoring to groundfish vessels less than 
60 ft (18.3 m) LOA for a variety of fishery management goals in 
addition to that of assessing seabird incidental take. Staff are 
coordinating with the Council to address potential options for Observer 
Program redesign that might provide coverage to these smaller vessels. 
These efforts continue as NMFS evaluates the costs and benefits of 
monitoring options and coverage levels, and addresses the constraints 
noted above. This work has not advanced far enough to evaluate the 
coverage levels recommended by the commenter, although the IPHC report 
does evaluate costs of alternate monitoring methods for two coverage 
levels. Any expansion of observer coverage requirements will require 
subsequent regulatory amendments.
    The 1999 USFWS Biological Opinion conservation recommendations are 
discretionary agency activities. While observer coverage has not yet 
been implemented in these fisheries, NMFS did address this conservation 
recommendation as evident from the series of steps described above.
    Comment 9: Three commenters recommended that NMFS report annually 
on seabird bycatch. The catch per unit effort (CPUE) should be listed 
by bird species for each boat with reference to boat size, numbers of 
hooks set, avoidance gear used, and by fishing area. Data when 
observers are aboard should be segregated to determine any variation in 
CPUE when observers are not aboard. One commenter suggested that NMFS 
should be required to report by March of every year on seabird bycatch 
and estimates derived from the bycatch data. The annual report should 
include: observed and estimated number of seabird interactions and 
seabird takes by species, the estimated take by fishing set type and 
rate of take per 1,000 hooks, an analysis of what deterrents are being 
used and their effectiveness in reducing seabird interactions, and 
details of observer coverage and the total number of observed hooks. 
The Biological Opinion issued by USFWS for the Hawaii pelagic longline 
fishery requires such an annual report; this should also be required 
for the Alaska fishery.
    Response: NMFS notes that estimates of seabird bycatch have been 
reported annually for several years, although not at the level of 
detail described by the commenter. Annual seabird bycatch is estimated 
by year, gear type, and region (BSAI and GOA) and can be found in the 
seabird section of the Ecosystem Considerations chapter of the annual 
SAFE Report, found at www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/reem. The initial draft of 
this annual report is usually available to the public in October, with 
the final report usually available in December. Although NMFS agrees 
providing bycatch estimates to the public in a timely manner is 
important, the databases needed for this work are finalized in February 
or later each year, precluding an earlier distribution. While the 
reports to date have not included the level of detail described by the 
commenter, NMFS agrees that improved reporting of seabird bycatch 
estimates is an important goal. Several technical and scientific 
reports that provide estimates of seabird bycatch for more precise 
time/area/fishery cells are being prepared. The authors will consider 
addressing the recommendations made above in these reports.
    Due to various data confidentiality considerations, NMFS does not 
release specific data identified by vessel in a report such as that 
described by the commenter. Specific data may be released on a case-by-
case basis. Some vessel-specific data are available for release, as 
identified at Sec.  679.50(k), but seabird bycatch data are currently 
not included in that category. NMFS is using vessel-specific data to 
identify vessels that have incidental take higher than fleet averages, 
and hopes to work with individual owners and operators to reduce 
seabird bycatch on their vessels. Industry-sponsored programs use 
vessel-specific data and this approach appears to be very effective in 
reducing seabird incidental take. Through broad-scale analysis, vessel-
specific work, and continued coordination with industry, NMFS will be 
able to develop a measure of the effectiveness of the seabird avoidance 
measures. However, precise evaluations require experimental design and 
testing, as was conducted by the WSGP. The commenter also requested an 
analysis of vessel-specific or fleet-wide CPUEs comparing when 
observers are onboard with when they are not. That type of analysis is 
not possible, because NMFS does not have CPUE data

[[Page 1937]]

for vessels when no observer is on board.
    NMFS acknowledges the requirement in the Biological Opinion for the 
Hawaiian longline fishery to provide annual reports of seabird 
incidental take, but notes such a requirement is not necessary for the 
North Pacific groundfish fisheries because these reports have been made 
available annually for several years. NMFS recognizes the importance of 
this information to stakeholders and plans to continue to provide these 
estimates and to produce reports with greater detail.
    Comment 10: For the same reasons stated in comment 8, the commenter 
urges that the regulations be formally reviewed on a yearly basis and 
that the rules be revised as needed to enforce the proper and effective 
use of methodology to reduce bycatch until bird bycatch approaches 
zero.
    Response: As new information becomes available on improvements that 
can be made to existing seabird bycatch reduction efforts, NMFS will 
consider this information and make appropriate recommendations for 
effective management. Seabird bycatch estimates are calculated annually 
and reported within the Council's SAFE reports for the Alaska 
groundfish fisheries. This provides a regular opportunity for the 
evaluation of bycatch estimates in the context of bycatch reduction 
efforts.
    Comment 11: To address the inadequacy of the current state of 
knowledge on this seabird bycatch problem, the commenters urge that 
research to quantify the effectiveness of mitigation gear be continued; 
the research be expanded to determine the optimum gear deployment for 
small- and mid-sized vessels; and that the development of fishing and 
avoidance gear that decreases bycatch but does not (or minimally) 
interfere with fishing efficiency be continued and funded at an 
adequate level to provide meaningful results within the next three 
years.
    Response: Our knowledge and understanding of seabird incidental 
take has improved greatly in recent years. Research to quantify the 
effectiveness of mitigation gear should be continued. NMFS is using 
three general approaches concurrently to quantify mitigation 
effectiveness. First, NMFS will continue monitoring seabird incidental 
take in commercial fisheries. As the seabird avoidance measures are 
used correctly, we expect the total incidental take to be greatly 
reduced. Current data collection procedures will allow for a general 
assessment of that over time. Second, NMFS will assist in the transfer 
of knowledge about effective seabird gear deployment from vessels with 
low or zero bycatch to vessels that experience higher levels of 
bycatch. Finally, NMFS will continue support for dedicated research 
using the collaborative model that has proved so successful. NMFS is 
currently providing partial support to WSGP in its efforts to develop 
new weighted groundlines which sink the gear faster while reducing 
safety issues for crewmembers. NMFS also supports efforts conducted by 
small vessel operators to develop mitigation measures specific to their 
fishery. That work is coordinated through the University of Alaska 
Marine Advisory Program and funded primarily through the USFWS. See 
responses to Comments 19 and 45 for more detailed information about 
these various research initiatives.
    Comment 12: It is imperative that government agencies and research 
institutions work at an accelerated pace to properly quantify the 
problems and the success of bird deterrent gear in all vessel classes 
and in all the fisheries.
    Response: NMFS is coordinating efforts with the USFWS, WSGP, Alaska 
Sea Grant Program, the University of Washington, North Pacific 
Albatross Working Group, Alaska Seabird Working Group, various fishery 
associations, and individual fishermen and researchers to work on 
priority issues and to avoid duplication of projects. We also share and 
exchange information with our partners in the southern oceans, so that 
each can learn from one another's activities. Agency seabird 
specialists are working to identify possible funding sources and 
develop appropriate projects to quantify problems and develop solutions 
where problems are thought to be greatest, and where we can have the 
most positive effect.
    Comment 13: Three commenters suggested that the bird avoidance 
codes that longline fishermen and observers record need to be clarified 
and made consistent with each other. Also, the regulations need to be 
clarified that more than one device, and therefore more than one code, 
can be used at the same time. One commenter suggested that including 
both the ``lining tube'' and the ``line shooter'' in the same code 
category renders those data unusable for examining the efficacy of 
either method.
    Response: The bird avoidance codes used by fishermen for recording 
information in their logbooks are in Table 19 and are revised in this 
final rule to reflect the revised measures. Codes for vessel logbooks 
are established by the NMFS Alaska Region Office and codes used by 
observers are established by the Observer Program. Table 19 has been 
provided to the Observer Program so that of bird code information can 
be recorded consistently. NMFS agrees that multiple bird avoidance 
devices can be used at one time and that the regulations need to be 
clarified that more than one code can be recorded. This final rule 
revises the recordkeeping and reporting requirements accordingly. 
Mitigation methods are most effectively evaluated using rigorous 
scientific protocols in controlled experiments, such as that used in 
the WSGP research study. Data collected by observers on the type of 
mitigation device used will be of limited use in scientific evaluations 
of specific gear alternatives. The numerous other variables in a 
commercial fishing setting that can impact the probability of birds 
being hooked would confound an analysis using observer data on 
mitigation type. Table 19 focuses on seabird avoidance measures that 
are required. The lining tube and line shooter are not represented by 
separate codes because neither is a required measure.
    Comment 14: Three commenters supported the use of the proposed 
Seabird Avoidance Plan. It was thought to be a useful tool for boat 
captains and/or managers to further develop or clarify their vessel's 
bird avoidance plan. It could also serve the purpose of reminding the 
crew about what they need to do. Is this plan submitted just once a 
year? This proposed collection of information is necessary and even 
critical to the goals of the agency to greatly reduce/eliminate seabird 
bycatch.
    Response: The objective of the Seabird Avoidance Plan is to ensure 
that vessel operators are aware of the issue of seabird incidental take 
and have developed an effective plan for using the required measures on 
their vessels to avoid and reduce any seabird incidental take. The 
Seabird Avoidance Plan is kept onboard the vessel and must be made 
available for inspection upon request by an authorized officer or 
observer, thus it is not submitted or mailed to NMFS. The Seabird 
Avoidance Plan is to be current and thus should be revised or updated 
whenever any elements change.
    Comment 15: A commenter expressed concern that increasing seabird 
mortality from longline fisheries is affecting the populations of 
albatross and other seabirds. Further, since the adoption of 
regulations in Alaska longline fisheries in 1997, about 88,000 seabirds 
were estimated to be taken. The commenter believes this is convincing 
information that the current regulations are ineffective.

[[Page 1938]]

    Response: Seabird bycatch in demersal groundfish fisheries off 
Alaska has declined 78.4 percent between 2000 and 2002. That decline 
could be due to numerous factors (see response to comment 3), including 
the voluntary implementation of the seabird avoidance measures 
described in this regulation by some fishery components beginning in 
2001. These final regulations apply to demersal groundfish and halibut 
longline fisheries off Alaska. The measures delineated here are 
designed to reduce seabird bycatch in these fisheries. Additional 
research may provide the means to virtually eliminate seabird 
incidental take by these fisheries and greatly reduce or eliminate any 
seabird population decline that these fisheries may cause. Determining 
how current mortality levels may affect populations is difficult, given 
the lack of assessments for many of these species. NMFS is currently 
awaiting the results of a population status assessment being undertaken 
by USFWS for Laysan and black-footed albatross. The relatively low take 
levels of these two species in the Alaska hook-and-line fisheries is 
not likely impacting these species at the population level. The 
population of the endangered short-tailed albatross is currently 
increasing at an annual rate of 7 to 8 percent, despite incidental 
takes which may occur.
    The cumulative effects of all longline mortality on seabird 
populations in the North Pacific are not well understood. The fishery-
specific seabird bycatch estimates for fisheries operating in 
international waters and those of several nations' EEZs are not 
available. While we may greatly reduce the incidental take of albatross 
by implementing these measures in Alaskan demersal groundfish 
fisheries, efforts need to continue at the national and international 
levels as well. A recent paper published on potential cumulative 
effects of North Pacific pelagic longline fisheries on albatross 
populations illustrates the need for such cooperation (R.L. Lewison 
&L.B. Crowder, 2003, Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a 
vulnerable seabird population. Ecological Applications 13:743-753). 
NMFS has played a role in these efforts and will continue to do so.
    Although seabird mortalities in demersal groundfish fisheries have 
not been eliminated, NMFS actions to reduce seabird bycatch off Alaska 
have reduced seabird mortality and brought this issue to the attention 
of all vessel owners, operators, and crew. The regulatory climate 
supported a truly collaborative approach among the fishing industry, 
academia and agencies and allowed vessel operators some flexibility to 
test a variety of measures on their own. Operators were able to provide 
guidance to WSGP to choose those measures for testing that were the 
most likely to be effective while also preserving the safety of the 
crew and maintaining catch levels of target species. The current 
regulatory revisions resulted from that process.
    Comment 16: The NMFS seabird bycatch estimates are very 
conservative as many birds fall off the lines after drowning and are 
not counted. One study estimated that mortality can be underestimated 
by 30 percent to 95 percent. A recent report from a Hawaiian longline 
project documents at least 30 percent more mortality from albatross 
hooked but never retrieved.
    Response: NMFS agrees that if hooked or entangled birds fall or 
drop off the hooks (referred to as ``drop-offs'') prior to the gear 
being retrieved onboard, then the estimates of seabird mortalities from 
pelagic or demersal longline gear would be conservative. However, the 
examples used to suggest the degree to which this might occur for 
demersal longline gear are inappropriate. Drop-offs may occur while the 
gear is being deployed, while the gear is fishing, or during gear 
retrieval. While the degree to which drop-offs occur at any of these 
stages is unknown, drop-offs are most likely to occur when the gear has 
reached the surface and is being pulled out of the water. At that point 
the seabird carcass becomes heavy (no longer positive or neutrally 
buoyant) and is most likely, relative to other drop-off conditions, to 
tear off of the hook before being brought onboard. Using studies from 
other areas, fisheries, or gear types to develop an estimator for drop-
offs in the North Pacific demersal longline fishery is inappropriate 
given differences in gear, monitoring protocol, predatory species, and/
or seabird species. We are aware of one study from the southern oceans, 
that reported birds were under-sampled by onboard observers by up to 95 
percent due to drop-offs (R. Gales, N. Brothers, and T. Reid, 1998. 
Seabird mortality in the Japanese tuna longline fishery around 
Australia, 1988-1995. Biological Conservation 86:37-56). However, these 
drop-offs occurred at the surface alongside the vessel. Because of the 
way observers were tasked in that particular fishery, they only counted 
those seabirds that were brought onboard the vessel. North Pacific 
groundfish observers spend sampling time directly monitoring the gear 
as it is being retrieved, and count all catch and bycatch regardless of 
whether it drops off the gear near the surface, is removed from the 
gear by the crew outboard of the vessel, or is brought onboard. Thus, 
the report of underestimated mortality from the report noted above 
cannot be extrapolated to the groundfish longline fishery. As noted 
earlier, assuming that the conditions causing drop-offs in a pelagic 
longline fishery for tuna off Hawaii are the same as those that may 
operate in a demersal longline fishery for groundfish off Alaska is not 
appropriate. NMFS is interested in accounting for unmonitored drop-off 
on demersal gear and is exploring the feasibility and options for 
conducting field research to explore this issue. Meanwhile, annual 
seabird bycatch estimates, viewed over several years, are an important 
index of bycatch levels and the effectiveness of seabird avoidance 
measures.
    Comment 17: Under the current regulations, seabird mortality is up 
considerably in Alaska. During the 3-year period (1993-1996) before any 
regulations, an average of 14,527 seabirds were killed. From 1997-2001, 
an average 17,513 seabirds were killed in the Alaska groundfish 
fisheries.
    Response: Many factors, both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic, 
may affect seabird hooking and entanglement in longline gear. These 
factors may include geographic location of fishing activity; time of 
day; season; type of fishing operation and gear used; bait type; 
condition of the bait; length of time baited hooks remain at or near 
the surface of the water; water and weather conditions; availability of 
food (including bait and offal); bird size; bird behavior (feeding and 
foraging strategies); bird abundance and distribution; physical 
condition of the bird, and then of course the quality and correct 
deployment of seabird avoidance gear. These various factors are complex 
and very likely contribute to the extreme interannual variation in 
seabird bycatch estimates. Since 2000 in the BSAI, the average annual 
estimate of the total number of seabirds caught has declined from about 
18,000 to less than 4,000 (78 percent reduction). Since 1998 in the 
GOA, the average annual estimate of the total number of seabirds caught 
has declined from about 1,500 to less than 300 (80 percent reduction). 
Although changes in bycatch from one year to the next are not 
necessarily a reflection of the successes or failures of the longline 
fleet to reduce bycatch, addressing the quality and performance 
standards of seabird avoidance gear is one direct method to affect 
change in the bycatch levels and rates.
    Comment 18: Despite the conclusiveness of the WSGP study on the 
effectiveness of paired streamer

[[Page 1939]]

lines, the Council delayed its final action in October 2001 to 
accommodate fishermen that objected to the use of paired lines on their 
smaller vessels. The Council then adopted a proposal, approved by NMFS, 
that would exempt over 95 percent of all Alaska longline vessels from 
required use of paired streamer lines.
    Response: The Council infrequently takes both initial and final 
action at a single meeting, particularly on an item which generates 
public comment and testimony. WSGP presented the results of its study 
to the Advisory Panel (AP), SSC, and the Council in October, public 
testimony on both the study and the draft EA/RIR/IRFA occurred in 
October, and the Council then commented on the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and 
took its initial action. Final action by the Council occurred at its 
next meeting in December. See the response to Comment 4. Paired 
streamer lines will be required on vessels over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA and 
in 2000 these vessels accounted for 98 percent, 67 percent, and 58 
percent of the harvest by hook-and-line vessels in the BSAI groundfish, 
GOA groundfish, and halibut fisheries, respectively. The BSAI 
groundfish fishery accounts for 85 percent of the combined BSAI and GOA 
hook effort (228 million hooks estimated). The remaining vessels that 
are over 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and up to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, will be 
required to use single streamer lines in most instances. The WSGP study 
found that single streamer lines effectively reduced seabird bycatch by 
71 to 96 percent compared to a control of no deterrent. Single streamer 
lines will be an adequate deterrent for use on these smaller vessels.
    Comment 19: NMFS contends that since the WSGP study was conducted 
on vessels over 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA that its findings may not be 
applicable to smaller vessels. No evidence exists that paired streamer 
lines should not be applicable to vessels from 35 ft (10.7 m) to 60 ft 
(18.3 m) LOA. The USFWS has been funding and distributing free paired 
streamer lines to Alaska longliners and 42 percent of the free lines 
have been given to vessel owners with vessels under 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
    Response: In the summer of 2002, the WSGP conducted a series of 
workshops at Alaska ports (Kodiak, Sitka, Cordova, Petersburg) on 
seabird avoidance for commercial longliners. WSGP staff who conducted 
the two-year study on larger longliners conducted these workshops and 
interviewed vessel skippers to ascertain what seabird avoidance 
measures could be deployed effectively and safely from these smaller 
vessels. Onboard trials were conducted in Sitka, Cordova, and 
Petersburg. Paired streamer lines could not be effectively deployed 
from these narrow-beamed vessels. Many did not have the superstructure 
or rigging from which to suspend the paired streamer lines. Vessel 
skippers reported that the paired lines tangled. Techniques for 
deploying single streamer lines are illustrated in the WSGP educational 
video that has been distributed to Alaska hook-and-line fishermen. 
Evidence from these WSGP port workshops as well as from vessel skippers 
indicates that these smaller vessels cannot effectively and safely 
deploy paired streamer lines. In addition to these port workshops, the 
WSGP, in collaboration with USFWS, has initiated a multi-year study to 
collect data on seabird abundance in proximity to fishing vessels, 
particularly in inside and nearshore waters. With the assistance of 
IPHC, the Alaska Department of Fish &Game (ADF&G), and NMFS, the WSGP 
is collecting these data from existing vessel platforms, the annual 
stock assessment longline surveys. Bird distribution and abundance 
information from these surveys may provide a clearer picture of the 
probability of vessels interacting with birds while fishing in these 
nearshore and inside waters. Preliminary information from both of these 
efforts by WSGP, the port workshops and bird surveys, will be available 
in 2004.
    In 2000, the USFWS initiated a program to fund and distribute free 
streamer lines to Alaska longline fishermen. Each fisherman who applies 
receives 2 buckets, each containing a streamer line that meets the 
material standards being set forth in these final regulations. When 
skippers from smaller vessels were asked about their use of these 
paired streamer lines, they all indicated that they only deployed a 
single line and kept the second one onboard as a spare in the event of 
breakage or tangling.
    Comment 20: The commenter believes that there should be a strong 
focus on many more vessels using paired streamer lines, including 
vessels fishing in the GOA, since they take many of the albatross 
killed. The GOA longline fishery accounts for on average (1993-1999) 93 
percent of the black-footed albatross killed and 36 percent of the 
Laysan albatross killed. In 2000 and 2001, 20 black-footed albatross 
were taken and 160 Laysan albatross were taken in the GOA. That equates 
to 93 percent of all black-footed albatross killed in 2000-2001 being 
killed in the GOA where virtually no vessels would be required to use 
paired streamer lines under the proposed regulations.
    Response: See responses to Comments 4 and 18. A very strong focus 
does exist on the required use of paired streamer lines on those 
vessels accounting for the vast majority of the harvest, i.e. the 
larger vessels. Considering all available bycatch data, the GOA 
longline fishery accounted for 90 percent of the black-footed albatross 
takes from 1993 to 2002 and 19 percent of the Laysan albatross takes 
during the same time period. This is a function of the distributional 
ranges of these respective species. Satellite telemetry data indicate 
that black-footed albatross travel in a more easterly direction from 
their breeding colonies in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, not 
typically foraging northward in the Bering Sea and western Aleutian 
Islands. The Laysan albatross travel in a more northerly direction from 
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, frequenting the Bering Sea and the 
Aleutian Islands. In 2001 and 2002, 105 black-footed albatross and 67 
Laysan albatross were estimated taken in the GOA; for the same years, 4 
black-footed albatross and 473 Laysan albatross were estimated taken in 
the BSAI. The commenter incorrectly suggests that little protection 
would be afforded these albatross in the GOA. Vessels accounting for 
about two-thirds of the GOA groundfish harvest would be required to use 
paired streamer lines (approximately 28 percent of the vessels that 
fished in 2000).
    Comment 21: The commenter could find no documentation of the 
effectiveness of towed buoy bag lines, although most Alaskan longline 
vessels will be allowed to use these as their main deterrent device. 
The commenter urges NMFS to publish data indicating that a towed buoy 
bag is an effective deterrent to prevent seabird bycatch, specifically 
of albatross, before permitting their use in lieu of paired streamer 
lines. Additionally, the commenter notes that the WSGP study found that 
when single streamer lines were used, Laysan albatross attack rates 
were five times that when paired streamer lines were deployed. Despite 
these findings, the proposed regulations will either exempt all vessels 
under 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA or allow them to use either a single streamer 
line or a towed buoy bag. If the regulations are designed to avoid the 
killing of the endangered short-tailed albatross and other seabirds, 
why would the vast majority of longline vessels in Alaska be either 
exempt from mitigation measures or allowed to use a single streamer 
line or a towed buoy bag line?
    Response: See section 4.1.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for documentation of 
the effectiveness of towed buoy bag lines.

[[Page 1940]]

 Preliminary results from an experiment conducted by L kkeborg 
(Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway) on a Norwegian longline 
vessel indicate that towed floats (i.e. buoy bag) reduced significantly 
the number of seabirds caught on baited hooks compared to when no 
seabird avoidance device was used. Appendix 5 to the EA/RIR/IRFA is an 
IPHC report on experiments with a bird avoidance device during IPHC 
longline surveys. IPHC conducted preliminary experiments in summer 1998 
to evaluate the effectiveness of buoy bags in reducing the potential 
for seabird incidental take. The number of bait attacks by seabirds 
(i.e. attempts by seabirds to take baited hooks) was observed for sets 
when a buoy bag was towed compared to sets when no deterrent device was 
used (control). These observations were made for both sets using 
sablefish gear and sets using halibut gear. Bait attacks with the buoy 
bag deployed averaged 3.2 per skate for sablefish gear and 1.9 for 
halibut gear. Bait attacks with no deterrent device in use averaged 6.5 
and 3.6 per skate for sablefish and halibut gear, respectively. The 
number of bait attacks with the buoy bag was about half the number with 
no device. Sablefish gear experienced about twice the number of attacks 
per skate as did the halibut gear, both with and without the bird bag, 
even though the sablefish gear had 4 times as many hooks. Thus, fewer 
bait attacks by seabirds occurred when a buoy bag was used compared to 
when no deterrent device was used. No comparisons were made with 
streamer lines.
    The regulations are designed to avoid the killing of the short-
tailed albatross and other seabirds and paired streamer lines are 
required on the vessels accounting for the vast majority of fish 
harvest. A more appropriate indicator of fishing and thus the 
possibility of bird/fishery interactions is amount of harvest rather 
than number of vessels. The amount of fish harvested by a single vessel 
varies greatly, depending upon numerous factors such as vessel size, 
hold capacity, length of fishing trip, and processing capability. 
Whereas the WSGP study found that paired streamer lines were more 
effective than single streamer lines (88 to 100 percent bycatch 
reduction compared to 71 to 96 percent for single lines), there are 
scenarios when single streamer lines are appropriate and can 
effectively reduce bycatch. The final regulations require paired 
streamer lines, the most effective and stringent of the devices 
evaluated, in those situations when more birds are more likely to be 
encountered fishing in the EEZ by larger vessels (and these are often 
the processing vessels that are more likely to attract birds due to the 
discharge of offal and processing waste). Single streamer lines (and in 
some instances buoy bags) are required of vessels fishing in inside 
waters where they are less likely to encounter albatross and other 
seabirds.
    Comment 22: The proposed regulations are not consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS's own policies of minimizing bycatch, the 
ESA, or the MBTA. In 2001, the Department of Interior's (DOI) Solicitor 
issued a final opinion on the applicability of the MBTA. He determined 
that the MBTA applies to the EEZ which means that it is illegal for 
U.S. citizens to kill seabirds. Over 17,000 seabirds on average are 
being killed annually in the Alaskan groundfish fisheries. The MBTA 
prohibits the take of any bird without a permit, accidentally or 
otherwise. The bycatch of seabirds in the Alaskan longline fishery is 
an illegal take and the regulations should propose to eliminate such 
illegal activity.
    Response: The final regulations are consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, NMFS's bycatch policies, the ESA, and the MBTA. The U.S. 
Government has never applied the MBTA outside U.S. territorial waters. 
The Department of the Interior has advised that the opinion to which 
the commenter refers has never been put into effect and remains under 
review within the Department of the Interior, and is therefore not 
relevant to this rulemaking.
    Comment 23: Two commenters urge that all vessels at or over 100 ft 
(30.5 m) LOA should deploy, in addition to the paired streamer lines, 
another mitigation measure at all times. This measure would be: (1) 
additional line weights or a weighted groundline sufficient to sink the 
baited hooks at a rate of 0.3 meters per second, or (2) an underwater 
lining tube sufficient to deploy the lines at least 2 meters underwater 
at line setting and to assure that the lines sink the baited hooks 
below 10 meters when 100 meters aft of the stern.
    Response: Given the proven effectiveness of avoidance gear that 
these vessels will be required to use (88-100 percent seabird bycatch 
reduction), the use of additional measures will remain at the 
discretion of the vessel operator. The WSGP study concluded that 
although adding weight to groundlines will sink gear faster, 
differences in vessel speed or setting logistics could reduce or 
eliminate the advantage of using weighted groundlines. Further, for the 
weighting to be practical and effective at reducing seabird bycatch, 
the weight must be integrated into the line itself rather than added at 
each deployment. Prototype integrated weight (IW) groundlines are 
currently being evaluated for efficacy and practicability in reducing 
seabird bycatch. Once the study is completed and results available, 
NMFS can evaluate the need for IW groundlines in the Alaska fisheries.
    The WSGP study also evaluated the efficacy of the lining tube at 
reducing seabird bycatch. Given some operational limitations to its 
performance, as well as its cost (approximately $40,000 per unit), the 
mandatory use of a lining tube is not warranted. Operational 
limitations include depth below the surface at which the tube delivered 
gear changed with sea conditions, vessel loading causes variation in 
tube's effectiveness, propeller turbulence may cause the groundline to 
resurface, occasionally the groundline jumps out of the slot that runs 
along the side of the tube, and the lining tube can only be fitted to 
vessels that set gear from their lower decks.
    Comment 24: Two commenters urge that NMFS should prohibit the 
discharge of offal during the deployment of longline gear or the 
presence of offal on the water within 300 ft (91.4 m) of the vessel 
during line setting. NMFS should also require that fish hooks be 
removed from discarded bait.
    Response: NMFS agrees that regulating the discharge of offal from 
longline vessels can increase the range of effective options used to 
reduce seabird bycatch. The final regulations will require that if 
offal is discharged while gear is being set or hauled, it must be done 
in a manner that distracts seabirds from baited hooks to the extent 
practicable. The discharge site on board a vessel must be either aft of 
the hauling station or on the opposite side of the vessel from the 
hauling station. Additionally, hooks must be removed from any offal 
that is discharged. Lastly, operators of vessels discharging offal 
while gear is being set must eliminate directed discharge through 
chutes or pipes of residual bait or offal from the stern of the vessel. 
This would not include baits falling off the hook or offal discharges 
from other locations that parallel the gear and subsequently drift into 
the wake zone well aft of the vessel. For vessels not deploying gear 
from the stern, the directed discharge of residual bait or offal over 
sinking hook-and-line gear while gear is being deployed must be 
eliminated.

[[Page 1941]]

    Comment 25: Two commenters urge that NMFS should require that 
longlines be set in such a way that if weights are added to the 
groundline, they do not cause the line to become taut.
    Response: NMFS regulations essentially address this point when they 
require that the operators of applicable vessels must use hooks that 
when baited, sink as soon as they are put in the water. See response to 
Comment 23. Once new scientific information becomes available about IW 
groundlines, NMFS could consider if changes to the regulations are 
necessary regarding the weighting of groundlines.
    Comment 26: NMFS should require the collection of seabird bycatch 
data (such as the number and species of seabirds hooked per thousand 
hooks) and should evaluate the effectiveness of paired streamer lines 
and other mitigation measures. Such data could be collected by 
observers or vessel operators. NMFS should compile these data annually 
and share this information at annual workshops attended by longline 
fishermen.
    Response: NMFS requires the collection of seabird bycatch data in 
the Alaska groundfish fisheries. These data are collected by observers 
and analyzed annually to calculate seabird bycatch estimates for the 
BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. The estimates are included in the 
Council's annual SAFE report in the seabird section of the Ecosystem 
Considerations chapter. Seabird bycatch estimates are available back to 
1993. This information is publicly available and can be found at the 
NMFS Alaska Region's seabird website http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 
protectedresources/ seabirds/ actionplans.htm
    In the Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Total Allowable 
Catch (TAC) -Setting Process for the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fisheries to the Endangered Short-tailed 
Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) and Threatened Steller's Eider 
(Polysticta stelleri) (TAC BiOp) issued by the USFWS in September 2003, 
NMFS is directed to collect information on the deployment and use of 
seabird avoidance measures for the largest possible sample of hook-and-
line gear sets. Data shall be collected by observers, or other non-
self-reporting means, and shall begin no later than January 1, 2004. 
These data will be summarized and reported to USFWS by September 30 of 
the calendar year following the report year. In response to this 
requirement, NMFS's Observer Program has established protocols for 
groundfish observers on longline vessels to collect this information 
beginning in 2004. Information about seabird bycatch estimates and the 
effectiveness of required seabird avoidance measures can be conveyed to 
the longline fishermen using these measures as well as other members of 
the interested public. However, some caution must be used when 
evaluating changes in annual levels of seabird bycatch. Seabird bycatch 
estimates display extreme inter-annual variation and seabird bycatch 
can be influenced by a complex myriad of factors, not just the use of 
seabird avoidance measures (see response to Comment 17). One cannot 
assume that increases in bycatch levels are solely attributable to lack 
of use of seabird avoidance measures by fishermen, or conversely that 
reductions in seabird bycatch levels are entirely due to the successful 
use of seabird avoidance gear.
    Comment 27: NMFS should require all vessels with observers to 
participate in a computerized reporting system of seabird bycatch that 
protects their privacy but serves as part of a peer review report card. 
This is currently done voluntarily by 38 freezer-longliners in the BSAI 
through a private consultant. The WSGP study supported such a peer 
review system. NMFS should require all vessels with observers to 
participate, including the GOA longliners with observers.
    Response: The peer-reviewed report card initiated by industry and 
shared among 38 freezer-longliners is a very effective program in which 
participants appear to have realized tremendous reductions in seabird 
bycatch on their vessels. NMFS plays a key role in supporting this 
program through the inseason data reporting system and web-based data 
access. Participants choose to share data among themselves and work 
through a private consultant who has appropriate data-sharing 
agreements and data access permissions. Because the program was 
voluntary and all participants provided documentation allowing the 
consultant access to their confidential data, it was a relatively easy 
program to support. However, concerns of data confidentiality would 
make it much more difficult to require such a program for all demersal 
longline vessels that carry observers. Development and implementation 
of such a program is outside the scope of this rulemaking. NMFS is 
pursuing an alternative and complementary approach to develop staff 
expertise on seabird avoidance measures, to internally identify vessels 
that have higher than average seabird incidental take, and then to 
offer these gear experts to vessels to assist with proper deployment of 
seabird avoidance measures. Meanwhile, NMFS will continue to support 
voluntary programs that adopt the model used by the freezer-longliners.
    Comment 28: Before vessels are exempt from using paired streamer 
lines in winds measured at 30 knots or greater, another effective 
deterrent measure such as an underwater lining tube or weighted line 
should be used. The commenter noted that at 3 different NOAA weather 
buoy locations, winds exceeded 30 knots on 71, 90, and 23 days 
respectively for time periods ranging from about 330, 365, and 330 
days, respectively. If it is unsafe to set paired streamer lines in 
high winds, how can the crew set miles of lines with baited hooks and 
haul them in and take fish from them in the same winds?
    Response: The final regulations allow vessels normally required to 
use paired streamer lines, to deploy a single streamer line from the 
windward side of the vessel in winds exceeding 30 knots. This 
relaxation of the requirement for paired streamer lines is to address 
safety concerns. The windward side deployment of a single line is 
designed to prevent approaching seabirds from accessing the baited 
hooks. As discussed previously, single streamer lines have a proven 
effectiveness of 71 percent to 96 percent reduction in seabird bycatch; 
thus it is not necessary to require measures such as a lining tube or 
weighted groundlines as an alternative. Also, one of the operational 
limitations of the lining tube noted by WSGP researchers and others is 
that in rough sea conditions (e.g. high winds), the exit end of the 
lining tube periodically reaches the water's surface, thwarting the 
intent of sub-surface gear deployment. Information from NOAA's National 
Data Buoy Center indicates that the average wind speed at the 3 buoys 
noted by the commenter never exceeded an average wind speed of 30 knots 
(460066, south Aleutians; 46035, Bering Sea, north of Adak Island; and 
46001, GOA, south of Kodiak). Safety concerns in commercial fisheries 
are a priority for NMFS and the U.S. Coast Guard. National Standard 10 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the conservation and 
management measures that implement fishery management plans shall, to 
the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea. Thus, 
allowing the deployment of a single rather than paired streamer lines 
in winds exceeding 30 knots is consistent with National Standard 10 and 
the overall objective of reducing seabird bycatch.
    Comment 29: Two commenters urge that performance standards should 
be required for seabird avoidance measures

[[Page 1942]]

used on vessels between 26 ft (7.9m) LOA and 55 ft (16.8m) LOA. The 
proposed regulations weaken seabird protections by exempting these 
vessels from critical performance standards. Performance standards are 
only being suggested for these smaller vessels. The extremely slow pace 
that NMFS moves in adopting regulatory changes may thwart efforts for 
years to come to assure that seabird mortality is eliminated or greatly 
reduced from these vessels unless these vessels are covered by 
performance standards.
    Response: See NMFS's response to Comment 19. The performance 
standards required for seabird gear for vessels over 55 ft (16.8m) LOA 
are based on a WSGP scientific study conducted on vessels over 55 ft 
(16.8m) LOA. The ``small boat'' longline fleet off Alaska is comprised 
of over 1,000 vessels and is extremely diverse. Vessels range from 
skiffs, trollers, bowpickers, and schooners and are often used in other 
fisheries. A WSGP study was initiated in 2002 to study seabird 
avoidance gear requirements on smaller longline vessels. Once new 
information becomes available suggesting revised standards for smaller 
vessels, then these revised standards could be considered as regulatory 
requirements.
    Comment 30: NMFS regulations should include a specified line-
weighting regime for longline vessels. Adding weights to the groundline 
is known internationally to be the most effective way of getting hooks 
to sink and the most effective seabird deterrent when combined with a 
streamer line. The WSGP study did not rigorously investigate the 
combined use of weighted groundline with streamer lines. At minimum, 
the NMFS regulations should include a requirement that when weights are 
applied to the groundline, they should be spread out along the line. 
This would at least provide a temporary measure until more safe methods 
are developed for adding weights to the groundline.
    Response: See NMFS's response to comments 23 and 25. Because of 
limitations with the application of weights at the time of gear 
deployment, researchers are exploring the feasibility and effectiveness 
of using groundlines with an integrated weight to achieve rapid sinking 
of baited hooks. IW lines are being tested in Alaska, New Zealand, and 
Australia. NMFS will consider new information about IW lines and 
results from these international studies prior to considering 
regulatory requirements for weighted groundlines.
    Comment 31: NMFS should not allow exceptions from the use of paired 
or single streamer lines due to high knot winds. There is a higher 
activity level of seabirds in Alaska during the winter months, when the 
winds are normally highest, and during a time when the proposed seabird 
mitigation measures will be minimal. Also, in high winds the hooks tend 
to stay at the surface longer due to turbulence, increasing the 
exposure time of hooks to seabirds. Combined with a high activity of 
stressed breeding albatross during the winter months, this regulation 
could possibly increase seabird bycatch and especially albatross 
bycatch.
    Response: NMFS has no data either to support or refute the 
presumptions that the activity level of seabirds is higher in Alaska 
during winter months, or that high wind conditions tend to keep hooks 
at the surface longer. We suspect that seabird activity may actually be 
lower in Alaska during winter months as opposed to other seasons, such 
as the breeding season, when reproductive activities (egg-laying, 
incubation, chick rearing) are underway. NMFS will maintain the gear 
and performance requirements relative to wind conditions as provided in 
the proposed rule. This exception is necessary to protect the crew. 
Deploying gear consistent with these measures from the open deck 
typically found on longline vessels that operate in these conditions 
would unnecessarily put crewmen at risk. NMFS is concerned about the 
issue, however, and additional research into integrated weight 
groundlines may best resolve this issue. NMFS will continue to evaluate 
and report on these issues.
    Comment 32: The NMFS Observer Program should collect sufficient 
information to identify causes of seabird bycatch, including weather 
conditions. Because these data are not currently collected, the extent 
of seabird bycatch in Alaska during adverse weather condition remains 
unknown. NMFS should also be monitoring the life expectancy of the 
streamer lines and other measures, as this is important in developing 
design improvements.
    Response: NMFS agrees that collecting information that identifies 
causes of seabird bycatch is important. NMFS has recently dedicated 
additional staff resources to work on seabird/fishery interaction 
issues, and expects to coordinate these investigations within NMFS and 
with collaborators. Some activities may be best conducted by observers. 
NMFS will work on this issue through a variety of means, including 
dockside visits, participation in skipper meetings, reviewing data 
already collected, and possibly deploying agency staff and observers 
aboard vessels at sea. However, just as it becomes a safety factor for 
crew to deploy seabird avoidance measures in high wind conditions, it 
also becomes unsafe for observers in some situations to conduct 
longline sampling. Observers are directed to stop sampling when heavy 
weather makes it unsafe to monitor longline gear retrieval.
    NMFS does not plan to directly monitor the life expectancy of the 
streamer lines. Due to the required performance standards, the crew 
must maintain the gear in working order. It is the responsibility of 
the vessel operator to replace seabird avoidance gear that is no longer 
functioning properly. We expect that industry will notify NMFS and the 
manufacturer if it perceives a problem with longevity of the streamer 
lines.
    Comment 33: NMFS should provide an annually updated detailed 
analysis of NMFS observer seabird bycatch data, including information 
by species, month, statistical area, gear, target fishery, vessel type 
and time of set, as well as seabird deterrent in use. NMFS should 
coordinate with USFWS to provide the Council and the public with these 
annual reports.
    Response: NMFS currently collaborates with USFWS to provide annual 
reports on seabird incidental take to the Council as part of the annual 
SAFE report (see response to comment 9). These reports are available to 
the public. Currently, these reports are not at the level of detail 
noted by the commenter. NMFS has dedicated additional staff resources 
to work on seabird/fishery interaction issues and one goal is to 
improve bycatch reporting to the public. Annual summary reports will 
continue, and more detailed reports will be available periodically.
    Comment 34: Whenever a management measure is introduced, the 
observer program should collect pertinent data to monitor the efficacy 
of the measure. Night setting was implemented in 1997 as a seabird 
avoidance measure option, even though no supporting data existed from 
the observer program. It wasn't until 2000 that observers began 
collecting data on time of set. The WSGP study revealed that night 
setting might actually increase bycatch of some species. Night setting 
may very well be detrimental to seabirds but we will not know until 
these data are released.
    Response: It is probably not feasible for the Observer Program to 
collect pertinent data on every management measure implemented, given 
the critical importance of other core duties that observers carry out 
in support of fisheries management activities. See the

[[Page 1943]]

response to Comment 13 for a discussion on some of the limitations of 
using observer data to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation 
measures. The initial 1997 regulations were based on the model of 
seabird avoidance requirements for vessels fishing in southern ocean 
areas regulated by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic 
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR measures require night-setting 
as a method to avoid hooking birds. Based on the WSGP study which 
demonstrated an increased bycatch of fulmars during night sets, the 
regulation has been revised and no longer allows night-setting as an 
alternative method of reducing seabird incidental take.
    Comment 35: NMFS should require that vessel operators cooperate 
with the observer in providing freezer/ice hold space for the retention 
of seabird carcasses if the observed is required to collect such 
carcasses. Negotiation for use of freezer space to hold seabird 
carcasses should not fall on the observer but should be a requirement 
of vessels carrying observers.
    Response: Current regulations found at Sec.  679.50(g)(1)(v) 
require vessel operators to provide the observer with access to storage 
areas and freezer holds, and at Sec.  679.50(g)(1)(viii) to ``provide * 
* * reasonable assistance to enable observers to carry out their duties 
* * * .'' The Observer Program is conducting one special project 
requiring observers to collect certain seabird carcasses. Vessel 
operators have complied with regulatory requirements and have 
cooperated with observers in providing sufficient freezer space for the 
storage of these special project specimens. If in the future NMFS 
requires additional collection of carcasses by observers, then 
appropriate steps will be taken to assure that adequate freezer storage 
space is made available on the vessel. The Observer Program has 
effectively used the pre-cruise briefing as one way of assuring 
appropriate vessel arrangements. Pre-cruise briefings allow for the 
identification of respective roles and responsibilities prior to 
departure. These vessel-specific arrangements between the observer and 
vessel skipper can also be made onboard. If an observer encounters non-
compliance with vessel responsibility requirements, the observer can 
notify the Observer Program and document the incident. Given the 
decreasing numbers of seabirds taken, the retention of carcasses for a 
special project is not likely to be a burden on either the observer or 
the vessel operator.
    Comment 36: Since the impetus for these regulations is the 
conservation of the short-tailed albatross, it is important to also 
consider the overall world population declines of both the Laysan and 
black-footed albatross. Because black-footed albatross have a 
relatively small world population, the declines are disturbing, 
especially in light of the high bycatch of black-footed albatross in 
the GOA where most of the fleet remains unmonitored.
    Response: One objective of the regulations is conservation of an 
endangered species. Since NMFS and the Council first addressed these 
seabird avoidance requirements in 1996, it was acknowledged that 
conservation of other non-endangered species was also important. NMFS 
agrees that possible population declines of Laysan and black-footed 
albatross are important considerations. NMFS supports the albatross 
population status assessments currently being undertaken by the USFWS. 
Such assessments are consistent with the NPOA and necessary to 
determine the effects of longline mortality from the Alaska demersal 
groundfish and other longline fisheries throughout the North Pacific 
Ocean on these albatross populations. The amount of incidental take in 
the GOA seems unlikely to have contributed directly to a population 
decline of black-footed albatross. The average incidental take between 
1993 and 2002 (176 birds) is only about 0.09 percent of the most recent 
population estimate of 200,000 albatross. Further, between 2000 and 
2002 black-footed albatross incidental take declined by about 78 
percent in the GOA. Many factors could contribute to the decline in 
incidental take (see comment 3), including both serious declines in the 
population itself and increased use of adequate seabird avoidance 
measures by vessel operators. NMFS remains concerned about potential 
declines of this species and continues to collaborate with partners to 
assess the direct and/or cumulative impacts of fishing mortality. While 
many of the vessels in the GOA are unobserved, the bycatch estimation 
procedures account for their fishing effort in determining an overall 
black-footed albatross incidental take estimate for that region. 
Because analysts assume that take rates are similar between observed 
and unobserved vessels, these estimates could be biased either upward 
or downward. The validity of this assumption is worth exploring.
    Comment 37: We are pleased that NMFS is finally taking action to 
implement the improved regulations adopted by the Council. The Council 
took final action on these measures in December 2001. We were promised 
by NMFS staff that the regulations would be in place by August 2002. 
Why has it taken so long for the proposed rule to be published?
    Response: Addressing seabird bycatch in longline fisheries is a 
NMFS priority. It is sometimes difficult to project staff workloads and 
allow for responsiveness to unscheduled activities and other priorities 
that require staff resources. NMFS proceeded as quickly as possible to 
promulgate final regulations.
    Comment 38: Two commenters requested that more recent seabird 
bycatch data (from years 2000 to 2002) be used in the preamble to the 
rule and in the EA that accompanies the rule. The preamble to the 
proposed rule and the EA make repeated references to the seabird 
bycatch levels from 1993 to 1999 which do not reflect take levels since 
the implementation of seabird avoidance regulations. Since 1998, the 
first full year the regulations were in effect, the freezer-longliner 
fleet (which takes the bulk of the seabirds in the longline fisheries 
off Alaska) has reduced its incidental take by 85 percent. The 1993-
1999 data may offer historical perspective, but it should be balanced 
by reference to recent performance under the seabird avoidance 
regulations. While we may expect interannual fluctuations in incidental 
take due to unpredictable biotic and abiotic factors, it is apparent 
that the regulations and industry efforts are having a highly positive 
effect, which should be reflected in the documentation.
    Response: Since 2000, the seabird bycatch estimates have been 
incorporated into the seabird section of the Ecosystem Considerations 
chapter of the Council's SAFE reports. The seabird sections of the 
Ecosystem Considerations chapter are available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ protectedresources/ seabirds/ actionplans.htm. See 
the preamble of this final rule for information on the 2000-2002 
seabird bycatch estimates and take rates.
    Comment 39: After extensive testimony from longline fishermen on 
the dangers inherent in deploying seabird avoidance gear under adverse 
conditions, at its December 2001 meeting the Council adopted a 
'statement of intent' regarding the implementation and enforcement of 
the proposed seabird avoidance regulations and the specific performance 
standards. The Council's statement highlighted that NMFS needs to 
account for the context and setting of fishing operations on the vessel 
when considering the enforcement of performance standards required for 
streamer lines. Three commenters have requested that the

[[Page 1944]]

Council's statement of intent be included in the preamble to the final 
rule. One commenter additionally requested that the Council's statement 
of intent be inserted in observer handbooks and in materials used by 
enforcement agents. The commenter noted that the longline industry 
support for the revised regulations relied to a significant degree on 
this guarantee against unreasonable enforcement.
    Response: The Statement of Council Intent on Seabird Avoidance 
Regulations and Performance Standards was included in the EA/RIR/IRFA 
(December 2002) prepared for the proposed rule and thus is not repeated 
here. The Council's statement was also summarized in its December 2001 
newsletter. NMFS will provide this Statement of Intent to the Observer 
Program and the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement Alaska Region. NMFS 
agrees that it is very important to consider the context and setting of 
fishing operations in each and every alleged regulatory violation. On a 
case-by-case basis, NMFS considers the nature, circumstance, extent and 
gravity of any alleged violation when making enforcement decisions and 
the preparation of an appropriate enforcement response.
    Enforcement of many of the regulations for the Alaska groundfish 
and IFQ fisheries are addressed through summary settlement schedules. 
These schedules reflect a progressive enforcement response, dependent 
on the severity of the violation and considered on a case-by-case 
basis. Such schedules provide information to assist persons required to 
comply with the regulations. NMFS is preparing a summary settlement 
schedule for the seabird avoidance regulations and upon completion the 
schedule will be made available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ regs/ 
summary.htm.
    Comment 40: NMFS has proposed a regulation at 50 CFR 
679.50(f)(1)(viii)(F) that would require that all seabirds from the 
observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear would be 
kept until sampled by the observer or as requested by an observer 
during non-sampled portions of hauls. This requirement conflicts with 
the provision proposed at 50 CFR Sec.  679.24(e)(1)(vi) which calls for 
the safe release of seabirds that are brought on board alive. Current 
information suggests that, particularly for the short-tailed albatross, 
a live bird should be released as soon as possible. Our vessel 
association distributed copies of the booklet ``Longline Fishing, 
Dollars and Sense'' that contained textual and graphic descriptions of 
methods to release living seabirds without jeopardizing their lives. 
Perhaps the noted regulation at Sec.  679.50 should specify that the 
requirement for retention pertains to dead seabirds.
    Response: Nothing in this regulation is intended to conflict with 
the safe release of birds that are brought on board alive. Information 
from observers, vessel skippers and crew, and research scientists has 
indicated that live birds are rarely, if ever, hooked at the time of 
gear retrieval in demersal longline operations but rather are hooked or 
entangled at the time the gear is deployed and are subsequently pulled 
underwater. Thus, the regulation should not cause concern or endanger 
the lives of birds. In addition to the industry initiative to 
distribute information on safe-release and safe-handling procedures for 
live birds, the procedures are trained to observers and are available 
on the NMFS Alaska Region seabird website.
    Comment 41: Although Sec.  679.24(e)(3) of the proposed rule 
includes the general components and requirements for the Seabird 
Avoidance Plan, it would be helpful to have a proposed sample form that 
illustrates what would satisfy the requirements of the regulation.
    Response: NMFS has prepared the form, Seabird Avoidance Plan, and 
it has received approval from OMB. The form will be made available to 
Alaska longline fishermen via mail, NMFS Alaska Region's seabird 
website http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ protectedresources/ seabirds.html, 
industry associations, and NMFS Enforcement offices, plus other 
appropriate locations as identified.
    Comment 42: One commenter suggested that several corrections be 
made to text and figures in the EA that accompanied the proposed rule. 
The corrections related to: 1) the average seabird bycatch rate of 
vessels setting hook-and-line gear from the side (Figure 12), 2) a 
vessel 25 ft (7.6 m) LOA or less fishing offshore in the Fairweather 
Grounds (Figure 1), and 3) a short-tailed albatross sighting in 
interior Canada (Figures 1-4).
    Response: NMFS has determined that the changes are not substantive 
and do not alter conclusions from the analysis of environmental 
effects. The USFWS maintains the database for short-tailed albatross 
sightings and provided the sightings data for Figures 1-4. NMFS has 
relayed this comment to the USFWS.
    Comment 43: Two commenters suggest that the regulations should 
establish the goal of eliminating seabird bycatch and that the take of 
short-tailed albatross could be eliminated with the proper deployment 
of paired streamer lines, weighted lines, and offal discharge control 
during line setting.
    Response: Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of `bycatch' 
does not include seabirds, the incidental take of seabirds is addressed 
as an issue in NMFS's National Bycatch Strategy and the guidelines for 
National Standard 9. The National Bycatch Strategy addresses regional 
efforts to enhance compliance with the take prohibitions of the ESA and 
to reduce takes of migratory birds. National Standard 9 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for NMFS to minimize `bycatch' to the extent 
practicable and for fishery management councils to consider the impact 
of conservation and management measures on birds. Thus, neither of 
these directives call for the elimination of bycatch. Although 
elimination of seabird bycatch through the use of effective seabird 
avoidance measures is a laudable goal, it is not currently practicable 
to specify it as such in regulatory language. The final seabird gear 
requirements are designed to reduce seabird bycatch. Fishermen do not 
intend to catch birds, but some are likely to be taken. As noted in the 
response to comment 17, both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic 
factors may affect seabirds becoming hooked or entangled in longline 
gear. The new seabird gear requirements, when used correctly, will 
greatly reduce seabird takes of both the endangered short-tailed 
albatross and other more common species in longline fisheries.
    Comment 44: The USFWS, the federal trust resource agency for 
migratory birds, appreciates that NMFS' efforts and regulations are 
intended to reduce the incidental take of all seabirds and not just 
those listed under the ESA.
    Response: Since 1996 when NMFS and the Council first regulated 
seabird bycatch in longline fisheries, it was important that efforts 
address both endangered and non-endangered species. The vast majority 
of seabirds incidentally taken in the Alaska groundfish fisheries are 
northern fulmars, a very common species with a world population of 2 to 
3 million. As an element of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska 
ecosystem, it is important that the take of fulmars and other bird 
species is reduced.
    Comment 45: The Council's SSC and representatives from the longline 
industry identified the need for education and outreach to fishermen 
and for further research on methods and performance standards, 
particularly for small [less than 55 ft (16.8m) LOA] vessels. The 
proposed rule notes that this would improve the effectiveness of

[[Page 1945]]

seabird avoidance measures and guide future regulatory changes to the 
standards guidelines for small vessels, which currently are voluntary. 
Additionally, the regulations for small vessels in certain inside 
waters may be revised, pending development of more information on the 
interactions between seabirds and fishing gear in those sectors of the 
fishery. The USFWS believes this is a prudent approach and highlights 
the needs for NMFS and USFWS to continue to promote and assist the 
research necessary to address these issues in the coming years.
    Response: See the response to Comment 19. The Alaska longline fleet 
is very diverse. Seabird avoidance measures that successfully avoid 
birds on one type of vessel may not work the same way (or at all) on a 
different type of vessel. The WSGP study and the resulting performance 
and material standards for streamer lines focused on the larger vessel 
[greater than 55 ft (16.8m) LOA]. Vessels can differ not only in length 
but also area fished and proximity to shore, type of gear and bait 
used, number and experience of crew, vessel speed at gear deployment, 
number of days fished annually, hold capacity, and ability to process 
fish onboard (and thus amount of offal discharged). All of these 
elements affect the likelihood of encountering birds and the potential 
for interacting with them. In the summer of 2002, WSGP initiated 
several projects to explore the seabird bycatch issue on small vessels 
fishing in inside or nearshore waters. Workshops were conducted in 
Sitka, Petersburg, and Cordova port towns in Southeast Alaska. WSGP 
scientists shared outreach information with local fishermen and worked 
with skippers and crew onboard their vessels to deploy streamer lines 
and buoy bag lines. In addition to these port workshops, the WSGP, in 
collaboration with USFWS, has initiated a multi-year study to collect 
data on seabird abundance in proximity to fishing vessels, particularly 
in inside and nearshore waters. Bird distribution and abundance 
information from the WSGP study may provide a clearer picture of the 
probability of vessels interacting with birds while fishing in these 
nearshore and inside waters. Preliminary information from both of these 
efforts by WSGP, the port workshops and bird surveys, will be available 
in 2004. Results from these projects will contribute to efforts to best 
manage this seabird/fishery interaction for this portion of the fleet.
    NMFS agrees that research efforts are important to provide the best 
available scientific information on which to base fishery management 
decisions. NMFS has collaborated with USFWS for the past 3 years on 
various research efforts to address management needs. USFWS has 
received a total of approximately $1.5 million in Congressional 
appropriations to address Alaska seabird bycatch initiatives. Many of 
the research projects mentioned have been funded by this initiative. 
Other funded projects include: testing of IW longline gear, seeking 
innovative solutions to seabird bycatch on small longline vessels, 
observer training materials, continued distribution of free streamer 
lines, and production of an educational video. USFWS collaborators 
include WSGP, NMFS, ADF&G, the Alaska Marine Advisory Program, and 
numerous industry associations.
    Comment 46: The SSC suggested that less stringent regulations were 
needed for inside waters of Southeast Alaska, because short-tailed 
albatross do not frequent those waters. The USFWS comments that this is 
probably true today, but historical records suggest that this 
``coastal'' albatross might have used these waters in the past. This 
may become an issue in the future as the population grows. The USFWS 
agrees with the SSC recommendation that additional study is needed on 
seabird abundance and interactions with fisheries in inside waters.
    Response: The term ``coastal'' albatross was used at a time when 
the short-tailed albatross population may have numbered in the 
millions, prior to the time the population was decimated by feather 
hunters around the turn of the century. Pre-exploitation worldwide 
population estimates of short-tailed albatross are not known; the total 
number of birds harvested may provide some indication, since the 
harvest drove the species nearly to extinction. Between approximately 
1885 and 1903, an estimated 5 million short-tailed albatross were 
harvested from the breeding colony on Torishima. The current worldwide 
population estimate is 1,800. It is probable that the total foraging 
range of the species has contracted during the post-exploitation period 
and the species may not be found in all of its former locations. As the 
USFWS notes in its Biological Opinion on the effects of the BSAI and 
GOA FMPs on the short-tailed albatross, some of the `coastal' nature of 
the species' distribution could have been simply related to its more 
extensive marine range. Additionally, the historical middens were 
located in the Aleutian Islands, a habitat and area quite distinct from 
Southeast Alaska. Historical evidence does not provide information 
about the occurrence of short-tailed albatross in Southeast Alaska.
    NMFS concurs that additional study is needed on seabird abundance 
and interactions with fisheries in inside waters. See the response to 
comment 19 for a description of work that was initiated in 2002 to 
address this. As the short-tailed albatross population grows and 
expands into its former range, we would expect that the potential for 
interactions with fishing vessels in those same areas would increase. 
NMFS and other agencies are collaborating with USFWS to promote the 
reporting of short-tailed albatross from existing platforms of 
opportunity such as commercial fishing vessels, agency survey vessels, 
and cruise and ferry ships. To date, the USFWS database includes 990 
observation records of short-tailed albatross. Between 1975 and 1991, 
only 56 sightings of short-tailed albatross were reported, with the 
majority reported since 1991. These records do not necessarily 
represent 990 unique short-tailed albatross and may reflect vessel 
distribution rather than albatross abundance and distribution. The 
recent satellite telemetry collaboration project undertaken by the 
United States (USFWS) and Japan will greatly enhance our knowledge of 
the at-sea distribution of this endangered species.
    Comment 47: The Council recommended studies to determine if 
performance standards should be modified or eliminated for vessels less 
than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA when fishing at night from November to April. 
Given that the WSGP study found more gear interactions with Laysan 
albatross and northern fulmars during night sets, USFWS emphasizes that 
this issue of allowing night setting should be more fully addressed 
prior to making future regulatory changes.
    Response: Prior to any modifications to these final seabird 
avoidance requirements and the issue of night-setting in particular as 
a method to avoid seabird take, an investigation would be necessary. 
Although some seabird avoidance methods are effective for most 
seabirds, some species exhibit characteristics (e.g. daily activity 
cycle, diving depth) which may make them more prone to interactions 
with fishing vessels and the deployment of gear.
    Comment 48: In addition to the proposed requirement that all 
seabirds from observer-sampled hauls be kept by the fishing crew until 
the observer can process them, the USFWS also recommends that all 
seabird carcasses be retained for transport to laboratories for 
complete processing. This would allow for the collection of all 
possible

[[Page 1946]]

information on birds taken as bycatch in this fishery, as is done in 
some international fisheries. The more that is known about the 
demographics of the birds taken in fisheries, the better resource 
agencies can assess potential population effects and effectiveness of 
mitigation methods. The need for retaining and analyzing bird carcasses 
has been identified as an important issue by the North Pacific 
Albatross Working Group.
    Response: Bird carcasses should be retained, returned with the 
observer to a field station, and then transported to laboratories for 
complete processing. This activity was done during the High Seas 
Driftnet Program, 1990-1992, where NMFS and the USFWS coordinated 
closely on seabird incidental take in those fisheries and shared duties 
to recover seabird carcasses. In that program, NMFS assigned observers 
to retain carcasses, provided the proper gear and forms to observers, 
and arranged for observers to return the carcasses to port. The USFWS 
trained observers on seabird topics and collection procedures, 
coordinated closely with NMFS to manage the transport of seabird and 
marine mammal specimens from these ports to Seattle, and established a 
recipient laboratory to handle and process the seabird specimens. 
Beginning in 1993, and several times since, NMFS staff have requested 
that the USFWS again collaborate together on a seabird carcass 
collection program for groundfish observers that paralleled that of the 
High Seas Driftnet Program. Unfortunately, the USFWS has, with one 
exception (see below), been unable to retain a laboratory to handle a 
comprehensive carcass collection program. With no end-user for 
carcasses, it was inappropriate to assign this task to observers and 
require fishermen to make freezer space available. The USFWS did select 
a vendor to receive some specimens beginning in 2001, and NMFS 
responded quickly by tasking specific observers to retain specimens in 
a special collection project. In 2002, NMFS staff participating in the 
North Pacific Albatross Working Group volunteered to take on a lead 
role in developing a carcass collection program. No funding source to 
support this project has as yet been identified, but a team that 
includes staff from federal (including the USFWS) and state agencies 
and other individuals are working on identifying agency funds, or 
preparing proposals to other funding sources, in the hopes of starting 
such a program.
    Comment 49: The USFWS concurs with the Council's suggestion to 
develop an ``industry-generated seabird avoidance incident reporting 
form.'' This form would allow vessel operators to report on the 
effectiveness of methods or operational issues that occur during the 
deployment of seabird avoidance gear. This form would allow industry to 
directly contribute to a format that would be readily accessible and 
available for analysis by our agencies.
    Response: The industry might benefit if it created an ``industry-
generated seabird avoidance incident reporting form'' for vessel 
operators. Accordingly, NMFS asked those operators to maintain the 
forms on the vessel and forward copies to their home offices and/or 
fishery associations. Industry input and cooperation have been critical 
to developing seabird avoidance measures, and these forms may provide 
an excellent means of furthering the collaboration of government and 
industry. The effectiveness of streamer lines and other measures will 
vary among vessels, and each operator will likely need to adapt the 
seabird avoidance measures for their vessel. These forms could help 
identify operational difficulties and the actions that were taken to 
resolve those difficulties. If that information is shared between 
operators on a single vessel, and among operators within a fleet, it 
would support a best-practices approach for seabird avoidance measures.
    Comment 50: Maintaining healthy seabird populations provides 
multiple human and ecological benefits. Due to their status as top 
predators in the food web, seabirds are particularly important in 
providing key information regarding the general health of the marine 
environment. The proposed enhancements to the current seabird measures 
will mitigate interactions with the endangered short-tailed albatross 
and other seabirds in hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska. The commenter 
supports the enhancements and congratulates the government for taking 
this important action to effect such regulatory revisions.
    Response: NMFS agrees.

Classification

    The Council recommended this action to the Secretary for adoption 
pursuant to its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 
applicable laws. NMFS prepared an EA/RIR/IRFA for the proposed 
revisions to the seabird avoidance measures in the hook-and-line 
groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA and in the Pacific halibut 
fishery in U.S. Convention waters off Alaska that describes the 
management background, the purpose and need for action, the management 
alternatives, and the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives.
    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), 
has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation 
and management of the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA and the 
Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska. The Regional Administrator also has 
determined that this final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable laws. No relevant Federal 
rules exist that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
    NMFS also prepared a FRFA describing the impact of this action on 
small entities. Copies of this FRFA are available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES). A description of the final action, the reason the action is 
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at 
the beginning of this preamble. The FRFA incorporates the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and its findings. No comments on 
the IRFA were received during the public comment period on the proposed 
rule. Thus, no new data were incorporated into the analysis during the 
comment period that would result in findings that differ from those 
previously described. A description of the impacts of this action on 
small entities was summarized in the proposed rule (68 FR 6386, 
February 7, 2003). The entities that would be directly regulated by the 
final regulations are fishing operations using vessels longer than 26 
ft (7.9 m) LOA, using hook-and-line gear while fishing for IFQ or CDQ 
halibut, IFQ sablefish, or groundfish in the EEZ off of Alaska, except 
for operations using vessels less than or equal to 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA 
using hook-and-line gear in IPHC area 4E in waters shoreward of the 
EEZ. In 2000, an estimated 962 small groundfish hook-and-line catcher 
vessels, 18 small groundfish catcher-processors, and 1,043 small 
halibut vessels would have been directly regulated by this action. 
There is believed to be overlap between the counts of groundfish 
vessels and halibut vessels, since some vessels would have been used in 
both fisheries. To the extent that any of these vessels are partners 
with CDQ groups, the alternatives addressed in this analysis could 
indirectly impact the six CDQ groups representing the 65 western Alaska 
communities that are eligible for the CDQ Program. The CDQ groups and 
the communities they represent all are small entities under the RFA.
    Under the final rule, the measures required of all applicable 
vessels over

[[Page 1947]]

26 ft (7.9 m) LOA will be expected to be of minimal cost. A bird 
streamer line is estimated to cost $50 to $250 and line weights 
represent a variable cost depending upon the necessary amount of 
weights to sink the baited hooks. Procedural or operational changes may 
be required in fishing operations.
    The incidental take limit for short-tailed albatross could be 
exceeded during longline fishing operations. If the regulatory 
revisions under the final rule improve and strengthen the current 
seabird avoidance measures, then the likelihood of encountering and 
taking a short-tailed albatross would be reduced. Therefore, the 
likelihood of a fishery closure and its ensuing economic impacts would 
be reduced. If the anticipated take of short-tailed albatross was 
exceeded in either the groundfish fishery or the halibut fishery, the 
actual economic impacts resulting from a modification of the reasonable 
and prudent measures established to minimize take of short-tailed 
albatross would depend upon the revised measures, which could range 
from measures required in this rule to closures. The economic impact of 
fishery closures would depend upon the length of time of the closed 
period and the extent of the closure. The 1999 exvessel value of the 
Pacific cod fishery for hook-and-line gear was estimated at 
approximately $72 million, approximately $71 million for the sablefish 
fishery, and totaled approximately $150 million for all groundfish 
species caught with hook-and-line gear. The 2000 exvessel value of the 
Pacific halibut fishery was estimated at $67 million. Such economic 
impacts on small entities could result in a substantial reduction in 
annual gross revenues and could, therefore, potentially have a 
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Data are currently not available upon which to draw net 
revenue conclusions about these probable effects.
    The Council considered recommending performance standards for 
seabird avoidance measures used on vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) 
LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA. Until further 
information becomes available, performance standards for these smaller 
vessels are suggested only as guidelines.
    Three alternatives to the required seabird avoidance measures in 
this final rule were also considered. The status quo alternative, while 
posing no additional burden on small entities, would not alter the 
operations of the hook-and-line fisheries in ways that would 
significantly reduce the potential for the incidental take of seabirds. 
It is associated with a heightened chance of fishery closure due to 
incidental harvest of the endangered short-tailed albatross. Premature 
fishery closure could be very burdensome for small entities. Although 
fishery closures were not an alternative to this action considered by 
the Council, closures could be considered under the Biological Opinion 
issued under ESA if the incidental take limit is exceeded. The second 
alternative considered, revisions to existing regulations based on the 
Council's final action in April 1999, did not specifically address 
performance and material standards for bird streamer lines. The correct 
design and deployment of bird scaring lines are known to improve the 
effectiveness of these seabird avoidance devices. The exemption for 
vessels under 35 ft (10.7 m) LOA may increase the likelihood of short-
tailed albatross takes and consequent fishery closure. Closure could 
have a substantial adverse impact on small entities. The third 
alternative considered, revisions to existing regulations based on 
recommendations from a two-year scientific research study conducted by 
the WSGP on the effectiveness of seabird avoidance measures used in 
hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska, would have substantially reduced 
the likelihood of seabird takes, including takes of the endangered 
short-tailed albatross, and reduce the potential for fisheries 
closures. But, it does not mitigate the direct impacts of the 
regulations on small entities.
    The preferred alternative, which is implemented by this final rule, 
should substantially reduce the likelihood of seabird takes, including 
takes of short-tailed albatross and reduce the potential for fisheries 
closures. It does substantially mitigate the direct impacts of the 
regulations on small entities. The FRFA describes several steps taken 
in the preferred alternative to minimize the impacts on small entities. 
As described in Table 2 of the FRFA, ``Several modifications reduce the 
requirements on some classes of small entities: (1) vessels under 26 
feet are exempt, (2) performance and material standards are guidelines 
for vessels between 26 and 55 feet, (3) vessels 32 feet or less fishing 
halibut in IPHC area 4E are exempt. The improvements made to the 
seabird avoidance measures with this final rule are expected to be much 
greater than with any of the other alternatives that were considered 
and evaluated.
    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires 
agencies to publish one or more Small Entity Compliance Guides for each 
rule or group of related rules for which the agency prepares a FRFA. 
The Small Entity Compliance Guide is to be written in plain language 
and explain the actions a small entity must take to comply with the 
rule or group of rules. NMFS has prepared a Small Entity Compliance 
Guide for this action and it is available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 
protectedresources/seabirds/guide.htm.
    The Seabird Avoidance Plan will also serve to aid small entities in 
that it is written in plain language, contains illustrations of the 
required seabird avoidance measures, and describes most of the 
requirements that must be taken to comply with this rule.
    This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB 
under control number 0648-0474. Public reporting burden for the Seabird 
Avoidance Plan is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: December 31, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended 
as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  679.2 under ``Authorized fishing gear,'' a new paragraph 
for the definition

[[Page 1948]]

of ``snap gear'' is added in numerical order, and the definition for 
``Seabird'' is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Authorized fishing gear * * *
* * * * *
    (17) Snap gear means a type of hook-and-line gear where the hook 
and gangion are attached to the groundline using a mechanical fastener 
or snap.
* * * * *
    Seabird means those bird species that habitually obtain their food 
from the sea below the low water mark.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  679.5, paragraph (c)(1)(xvii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.5  Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (xvii) The bird avoidance gear code(s);
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  679.24, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.24  Gear limitations.

* * * * *
    (e) Seabird avoidance program for vessels fishing with hook-and-
line gear.--(1) Applicability. The operator of a vessel that is longer 
than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-and-line gear must comply with 
the seabird avoidance requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) 
through (e)(4) of this section while fishing for:
    (i) IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut,
    (ii) IFQ sablefish, and
    (iii) Groundfish in the EEZ off Alaska.
    (2) Seabird Avoidance Requirements. The operator of a vessel 
described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must:
    (i) Gear onboard. Have onboard the vessel the seabird avoidance 
gear as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section;
    (ii) Gear inspection. Upon request by an authorized officer or 
observer, make the seabird avoidance gear available for inspection;
    (iii) Gear use. Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section that meets performance and material 
standards as specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, while hook-
and-line gear is being deployed.
    (iv) Sink baited hooks. Use hooks that when baited, sink as soon as 
they are put in the water.
    (v) Offal discharge. (A) If offal is discharged while gear is being 
set or hauled, discharge offal in a manner that distracts seabirds from 
baited hooks, to the extent practicable. The discharge site on board a 
vessel must be either aft of the hauling station or on the opposite 
side of the vessel from the hauling station.
    (B) Remove hooks from any offal that is discharged.
    (C) Eliminate directed discharge through chutes or pipes of 
residual bait or offal from the stern of the vessel while setting gear. 
This does not include baits falling off the hook or offal discharges 
from other locations that parallel the gear and subsequently drift into 
the wake zone well aft of the vessel.
    (D) For vessels not deploying gear from the stern, eliminate 
directed discharge of residual bait or offal over sinking hook-and-line 
gear while gear is being deployed.
    (vi) Safe release of seabirds. Make every reasonable effort to 
ensure birds brought on board alive are released alive and that, 
wherever possible, hooks are removed without jeopardizing the life of 
the birds.
    (3) Seabird Avoidance Plan. A Seabird Avoidance Plan must:
    (i) Be written, current, and onboard the vessel.
    (ii) Contain the following information:
    (A) Vessel name.
    (B) Master's name.
    (C) Type of bird avoidance measures utilized.
    (D) Positions and responsibilities of crew for deploying, 
adjusting, and monitoring performance of deployed gear.
    (E) Instructions and/or diagrams outlining the sequence of actions 
required to deploy and retrieve the gear to meet specified performance 
standards.
    (F) Procedures for strategic discharge of offal, if any.
    (G) The NMFS ``Seabird Avoidance Plan'' form, completed and signed 
by vessel operator. Vessel operator's signature shall indicate the 
operator has read the plan, reviewed it with the vessel crew, made it 
available to the crew, and has instructed the vessel crew to read it.
    (iii) Be made available for inspection upon request by an 
authorized officer or observer.
    (4) Seabird avoidance gear requirements. (See also Table 20 to this 
part.) The operator of a vessel identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section must comply with the following requirements:
    (i) While fishing with hook-and-line gear, including snap gear, in 
NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), 659 (Eastern GOA 
Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), or state waters of Cook 
Inlet:
    (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft 
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, 
poles, or rigging.
    (B) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft 
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA with masts, 
poles, or rigging.
    (C) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(ii)(B) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 32 
ft (9.8 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, 
poles, or rigging.
    (D) A minimum of a single streamer line of a standard as specified 
in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section must be used by vessels greater 
than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
    (ii) While fishing with hook-and-line gear other than snap gear in 
Federal waters (EEZ) not including NMFS Area 659, or in state waters 
not specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i):
    (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(i) of this section and one other device as specified in 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without 
masts, poles, or rigging.
    (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(ii)(B) of this section and one other device as specified in 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with 
masts, poles, or rigging.
    (C) A minimum of paired streamer lines of a standard as specified 
in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) of this section must be used by vessels 
greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
    (iii) While fishing with snap gear in the EEZ (not including Area 
659) or state waters not specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i):
    (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(i) of this section and one other device as specified in 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without 
masts, poles, or rigging.
    (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(iv)(B) of this section and one other device as specified in 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 
26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with 
masts, poles, or rigging.

[[Page 1949]]

    (C) A minimum of a single streamer line of a standard as specified 
in paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section and one other device as 
specified in paragraph (e)(6) of this section must be used by vessels 
greater 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging.
    (iv) While fishing with hook-and-line gear other than snap gear for 
IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish, in waters shoreward of the 
EEZ, requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and (e)(8) must 
be used.
    (5) Seabird avoidance gear performance and material standards:
    (i) Buoy bag line weather exception. In winds exceeding 45 knots 
(storm or Beaufort 9 conditions), the use of a buoy bag line is 
discretionary.
    (ii) Single streamer standard. (A) A single streamer line must:
    (1) Be a minimum of 300 feet (91.4 m) in length;
    (2) Have streamers spaced every 16.4 ft (5 m);
    (3) Be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that 
streamers are in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the 
stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main 
groundline enters the water.
    (4) Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to 
9.8 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind.
    (5) Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly 
colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or 3/8 inch polyester line or 
material of an equivalent density.
    (B) Weather exception: In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or 
Beaufort 9 conditions), the use of a single streamer line is 
discretionary.
    (iii) Paired streamer standard: (A) At least one streamer line must 
be deployed before the first hook is set and two streamer lines must be 
fully deployed within 90 seconds.
    (B) Weather exceptions: In conditions of wind speeds exceeding 30 
knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions), but less than or equal to 
45 knots, a single streamer must be deployed from the windward side of 
the vessel. In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or Beaufort 9 
conditions), the use of streamer lines is discretionary.
    (C) Streamer lines must:
    (1) Be deployed in such a way that streamers are in the air for a 
minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern for vessels under 100 ft 
(30.5 m) and 196.9 ft (60 m) aft of the stern for vessels 100 ft (30.5 
m) or over;
    (2) Be a minimum of 300 feet (91.4 m) in length;
    (3) Have streamers spaced every 16.4 ft (5 m);
    (4) For vessels deploying hook-and-line gear from the stern, the 
streamer lines must be deployed from the stern, one on each side of the 
main groundline.
    (5) For vessels deploying gear from the side, the streamer lines 
must be deployed from the stern, one over the main groundline and the 
other on one side of the main groundline.
    (6) Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to 
9.8 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind.
    (7) Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly 
colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or 3/8 inch polyester line or 
material of an equivalent density.
    (iv) Snap gear streamer standard: (A) For vessels using snap gear, 
a single streamer line must:
    (1) Be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that 
streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within 
6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters 
the water.
    (2) Have a minimum length of 147.6 ft (45 m).
    (B) Weather exception: In winds exceeding 45 knots (storm or 
Beaufort 9 conditions), the use of a single streamer line is 
discretionary.
    (6) Other seabird avoidance devices and methods. As required at 
paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) and (e)(4)(iii) of this section, 
include the following:
    (i) Add weights to groundline.
    (ii) Use a buoy bag line or single streamer line, of standards as 
appropriate and as specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
    (iii) To distract birds away from the setting of baited hooks, 
discharge fish, fish parts (i.e. offal) or spent bait.
    (7) Other methods. The following measures or methods must be 
accompanied by the applicable seabird avoidance gear requirements as 
specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section:
    (i) Night-setting,
    (ii) Line shooter, or
    (iii) Lining tube.
    (8) Seabird avoidance exemption.
    Nothwithstanding any other paragraph in this part, operators of 
vessels 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA or less using hook-and-line gear in IPHC Area 
4E in waters shoreward of the EEZ are exempt from seabird avoidance 
regulations.

0
5. In Sec.  679.32, new paragraph (f)(5) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.32  Groundfish and halibut CDQ catch monitoring.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (5) Seabird avoidance requirements. The CDQ group, and vessel owner 
or operator must comply with all of the seabird avoidance requirements 
at Sec.  679.42(b)(2).

0
6. In Sec.  679.42, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.42  Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Seabird avoidance gear and methods. The operator of a vessel 
using gear authorized at Sec.  679.2 while fishing for IFQ halibut, CDQ 
halibut, or hook-and-line gear while fishing for IFQ sablefish must 
comply with requirements for seabird avoidance gear and methods set 
forth at Sec.  679.24(e).
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  679.50, paragraph (g)(1)(viii)(F) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.50  Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 
31, 2007.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (F) Collecting all seabirds that are incidentally taken on the 
observer-sampled portions of hauls using hook-and-line gear or as 
requested by an observer during non-sampled portions of hauls.
* * * * *

0
8. In part 679, Table 19 is revised and Table 20 to part 679 is added 
to read as follows:

           Table 19 to Part 679. Seabird Avoidance Gear Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             VESSEL LOGBOOK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             SEABIRD AVOIDANCE GEAR OR
                   CODE                                METHOD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                          Paired Streamer Lines: Used
                                            during deployment of hook-
                                            and-line gear to prevent
                                            birds from taking hooks. Two
                                            streamer lines used, one on
                                            each side of the main
                                            groundline. Each streamer
                                            line consists of three
                                            components: a length of
                                            line, streamers attached
                                            along a portion of the
                                            length and one or more float
                                            devices at the terminal end.
                                            See performance and material
                                            standards at Sec.
                                            679.24(e)(5)(iii).

[[Page 1950]]

 
2                                          Single Streamer Line: Used
                                            during deployment of hook-
                                            and-line gear to prevent
                                            birds from taking hooks. The
                                            streamer line consists of
                                            three components: a length
                                            of line, streamers attached
                                            along a portion of the
                                            length and one or more float
                                            devices at the terminal end.
                                            See performance and material
                                            standards at Sec.
                                            679.24(e)(5)(ii).
3                                          Single Streamer Line, used
                                            with Snap Gear: Used during
                                            the deployment of snap gear
                                            to prevent birds from taking
                                            hooks. The streamer line
                                            consists of three
                                            components: a length of
                                            line, streamers attached
                                            along a portion of the
                                            length and one or more float
                                            devices at the terminal end.
                                            See performance and material
                                            standards at Sec.
                                            679.24(e)(5)(iv).
4                                          Buoy Bag Line: Used during
                                            the deployment of hook-and-
                                            line gear to prevent birds
                                            from taking hooks. A buoy
                                            bag line consists of two
                                            components: a length of line
                                            (without streamers attached)
                                            and one or more float
                                            devices at the terminal end.
                                            See performance and material
                                            standards at Sec.
                                            679.24(e)(5)(i).
 Other Device used in conjunction with Single Streamer Line or Buoy Bag
                                 Line.
5                                          Add weights to groundline:
                                            Applying weights to the
                                            groundline for the purpose
                                            of sinking the hook-and-line
                                            gear more quickly and
                                            preventing seabirds from
                                            accessing the baited hooks.
6                                          Additional Buoy Bag Line or
                                            Single Streamer Line: Using
                                            a second buoy bag line or
                                            streamer line for the
                                            purpose of enhancing the
                                            effectiveness of these
                                            deterrent devices at
                                            preventing seabirds from
                                            accessing baited hooks.
7                                          Strategic Offal Discharge:
                                            Discharging fish, fish parts
                                            (i.e. offal) or spent bait
                                            for the purpose of
                                            distracting seabirds away
                                            from the main groundline
                                            while setting gear.
                         Additional Device Used
8                                          Night Fishing: Setting hook-
                                            and-line gear during dark
                                            hours.
                                           Line Shooter: A hydraulic
                                            device designed to deploy
                                            hook-and-line gear at a
                                            speed slightly faster than
                                            the vessel's speed during
                                            setting.
                                           Lining Tube: A device used to
                                            deploy hook-and-line gear
                                            through an underwater-
                                            setting device.
                                           Other (Describe)
9                                          No Deterrent Used Due to
                                            Weather. [See weather
                                            exceptions at Sec.
                                            679.24(e)(5)(i)(B),
                                            (e)(5)(ii)(B),
                                            (e)(5)(iii)(B),
                                            (e)(5)(iv)(B).]
0                                          No Deterrent Used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 20 to Part 679. Seabird Avoidance Gear Requirements for Vessels,
based on Area, Gear, and Vessel Type. (See Sec.   679.24(e) for complete
 seabird avoidance program requirements; see 679.24(e)(1) for applicable
                               fisheries)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-
 and-line gear, including snap gear, in
  inside waters [``NMFS Reporting Area    Then you must use this seabird
    649 (Prince William Sound), 659       avoidance gear in conjunction
(Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast     with requirements at Sec.
 Inside District) or in state waters of            679.24(e)...
  Cook Inlet''], and your vessel is...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ft to 32 ft LOA            minimum of one buoy bag line
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and does   minimum of one buoy bag line
 not have masts, poles, or rigging
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and has    minimum of a single streamer
 masts, poles, or rigging                 line
55 ft LOA                     minimum of a single streamer
                                          line of a standard specified
                                          at Sec.   679.24(e)(5)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-
and-line gear, other than snap gear, in   Then you must use this seabird
   the EEZ, not including any inside      avoidance gear in conjunction
  waters listed above, and your vessel      with requirements at Sec.
                 is...                             679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and does   minimum of one buoy bag line
 not have masts, poles, or rigging        and one other device1
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and has    minimum of a single streamer
 masts, poles, or rigging                 line and one other device1
55 ft LOA                     minimum of paired streamer
                                          lines of a standard specified
                                          at Sec.   679.24(e)(5)(iii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-
     and-line gear, in the EEZ, not       Then you must use this seabird
   including any inside waters listed     avoidance gear in conjunction
  above, and it is snap gear, and your      with requirements at Sec.
              vessel is...                         679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and does   minimum of one buoy bag line
 not have masts, poles, or rigging        and one other device1
26 ft to 55 ft LOA and has    minimum of a single streamer
 masts, poles, or rigging                 line and one other device1
55 ft LOA                     minimum of a single streamer
                                          line of a standard specified
                                          at Sec.   679.24(e)(5)(iv) and
                                          one other device\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-   Then you must use this seabird
 and-line gear other than snap gear, in   avoidance gear in conjunction
 state waters of IPHC Area 4E, and your     with requirements at Sec.
              vessel is...                         679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and does   minimum of one buoy bag line
 not have masts, poles, or rigging        and one other device1
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and has    minimum of a single streamer
 masts, poles, or rigging                 line and one other device\1\

[[Page 1951]]

 
55 ft LOA                     minimum of paired streamer
                                          lines of a standard specified
                                          at Sec.   679.24(e)(5)(iii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-   Then you must use this seabird
 and-line gear, in state waters of IPHC   avoidance gear in conjunction
 Area 4E, and it is snap gear, and your     with requirements at Sec.
              vessel is...                         679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and does   minimum of one buoy bag line
 not have masts, poles, or rigging        and one other device1
32 ft to 55 ft LOA and has    minimum of a single streamer
 masts, poles, or rigging                 line and one other device1
55 ft LOA                     minimum of a single streamer
                                          line of a standard specified
                                          at Sec.   679.24(e)(5)(iv) and
                                          one other device\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\other device = weights added to groundline, another buoy bag line or
  single streamer line, or strategic offal discharge [see Sec.
  679.24(e)(6) for more details]

[FR Doc. 04-378 Filed 1-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S