[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24714-24734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09680]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 150817730-6320-02]
RIN 0648-BF29
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Amendment
111
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 111 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area (FMP). This final rule reduces bycatch limits,
also known as prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, for Pacific
halibut in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) groundfish
fisheries by specific amounts in four groundfish sectors: The Amendment
80 sector (non-pollock trawl catcher/processors); the BSAI trawl
limited access sector (all non-Amendment 80 trawl fishery
participants); the non-trawl sector (primarily hook-and-line catcher/
processors); and the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program
(CDQ Program). This final rule establishes the following halibut PSC
limits: 1,745 mt for the Amendment 80 sector; 745 mt for the BSAI trawl
limited access sector; 710 mt for the BSAI non-trawl sector; and 315 mt
for the CDQ Program. This results in an overall BSAI halibut PSC limit
of 3,515 mt. This action is necessary to minimize halibut bycatch in
the BSAI groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable and to achieve,
on a continuing basis, optimum yield from the BSAI groundfish
fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Effective May 27, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA),
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) prepared for this action, collectively ``the Analysis;'' the
FMP; and the proposed rule are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the
[[Page 24715]]
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Baker or Mary Alice McKeen,
907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) of the BSAI under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) approved, the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other
applicable laws. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part
679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at 50
CFR part 600. NMFS manages fishing for Pacific halibut through
regulations established under the authority of the Northern Pacific
Halibut Act of 1982.
NMFS published the Notice of Availability for Amendment 111 on
October 29, 2015 (80 FR 66486) with comments invited through December
28, 2015. NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 111
on November 16, 2015 (80 FR 71650) with comments invited through
December 16, 2015. The Secretary approved Amendment 111 on January 20,
2016. NMFS received 39 unique comments on the FMP and proposed rule
from 17 different commenters. A summary of these comments and the
responses by NMFS are provided under the heading Response to Comments
below. These comments did not result in any change to the proposed
rule.
A detailed review of the provisions of Amendment 111, the proposed
regulations to implement Amendment 111, and the rationale for these
regulations is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR
71650, November 16, 2015) and is not repeated here (see ADDRESSES). The
preamble to this final rule provides a brief review of the regulatory
changes made by this final rule. In this preamble, unless otherwise
noted, the citations to regulations are to the regulations that will be
in place after the effective date of this final rule.
NMFS manages halibut PSC, also known commonly as halibut bycatch,
in groundfish fisheries under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Under Section 3.6.1 of the FMP, and the implementing regulation at
Sec. 679.21(a)(2), prohibited species are Pacific halibut, Pacific
herring, Pacific salmon and steelhead, king crab, and Tanner crab.
Under the FMP and the regulations, prohibited species must be avoided
while fishing for groundfish and must be returned to the sea with a
minimum of injury except where retention is required or authorized by
law.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, bycatch includes fish that are
discarded for any reason, including discards required by regulation, or
for economic reasons, such as the fact that the fish might be of an
undesirable size, sex, or quality (16 U.S.C. 1802 (3); 16 U.S.C. 1802
(9)). Halibut PSC is one type of bycatch; it is a regulatory discard.
Regulations at Sec. 679.21(a)(2) require the discard of all halibut
that is caught while directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI or the
Gulf of Alaska. A limited exception to this discard requirement is
provided for donations of halibut made under the prohibited species
donation program authorized in regulation at Sec. 679.26. In this
preamble, when NMFS refers to halibut bycatch, NMFS means halibut PSC.
Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) is fully utilized in the
waters off Alaska as a target species in subsistence, personal use,
recreational (sport), and commercial halibut fisheries. Halibut is also
incidentally taken as bycatch in groundfish fisheries. Although
participants in the groundfish fisheries are under an obligation to
avoid halibut, all halibut cannot be avoided. The groundfish fisheries
cannot be prosecuted without some amount of halibut bycatch because
groundfish and halibut occur in the same areas at the same times and
because no fishing gear or technique has been developed that can avoid
all halibut bycatch.
Although halibut is taken as bycatch by vessels using all types of
gear (trawl, hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear), halibut bycatch
primarily occurs in the trawl and hook-and-line groundfish fisheries.
Halibut bycatch occurs in both the Gulf of Alaska and the BSAI. The
greatest portion of halibut bycatch occurs in the BSAI. NMFS manages
halibut bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries by (1) establishing
halibut PSC limits for trawl and non-trawl fisheries; (2) apportioning
those halibut PSC limits to groundfish sectors, fishery categories, and
seasons; and (3) managing groundfish fisheries to prevent halibut PSC
use from exceeding the established limits. The proposed rule contains a
detailed explanation of halibut bycatch management in the BSAI
groundfish fisheries (80 FR 71650, 71654-71660, November 16, 2015).
Consistent with National Standard 1 and National Standard 9 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council and NMFS use halibut PSC limits in
the BSAI groundfish fisheries to minimize bycatch to the extent
practicable as required by National Standard 9, while achieving, on a
continuing basis, optimum yield from the groundfish fisheries as
required by National Standard 1. With one limited exception, groundfish
fishing is prohibited once a halibut PSC limit has been reached for a
particular sector, fishery, or season, depending on the particular
halibut PSC limit. The limited exception is that groundfish fishing in
the pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species'' trawl fishery is not
prohibited if that fishery reaches its halibut PSC limit. (80 FR 71650,
71658, November 16, 2015). Although there is no formal regulatory
constraint, this fishery (pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species'') has
not exceeded its halibut PSC limit in recent years (i.e., 2013, 2014
and 2015).
The use of halibut PSC limits in the groundfish fisheries reduces
halibut bycatch and promotes conservation of the halibut resource.
Halibut bycatch in the groundfish fisheries may affect commercial,
sport, and subsistence halibut fishing opportunities by decreasing the
amount of halibut available for those fisheries. Therefore, the Council
and NMFS establish halibut PSC limits to balance the needs of
fishermen, fishing communities, and U.S. consumers that consume halibut
and groundfish.
Actions Implemented by This Rule
This final rule changes the halibut PSC limits for BSAI groundfish
fisheries. This table shows the current halibut PSC limits and the
halibut PSC limits that will be in effect with this final rule.
[[Page 24716]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut PSC
limit Percentage
Previous established decrease from
BSAI Groundfish fisheries--sectors Description of sector halibut PSC under this the previous
limit (mt) final rule halibut PSC
(mt) limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Amendment 80....................... Non-pollock trawl 2,325 1,745 25
catcher/processors.
2. BSAI trawl limited access.......... All other trawl catcher/ 875 745 15
processors.
3. BSAI non-trawl..................... Primarily hook-and-line 833 710 15
catcher/processors.
4. CDQ Program........................ Vessels fishing for CDQ 393 315 20
groups.
Overall BSAI limit.................... ........................ 4,426 3,515 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC limits are stated in metric tons of halibut mortality.
CDQ Program = Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program.
With one exception, this final rule does not change the complex
process for apportioning halibut PSC limits among sectors, fisheries,
and seasons (see regulations at Sec. 679.21(b)). The exception is that
this final rule makes a single process change to halibut PSC
apportionment for the CDQ Program. Under current regulations, the
allocation of halibut PSC to the CDQ Program is made as a Prohibited
Species Quota Reserve (PSQ Reserve) that is derived partly from the
halibut PSC limit established for the trawl fisheries and partly from
the halibut PSC limit for the non-trawl fisheries. This final rule
establishes a separate halibut PSC limit for the CDQ Program. The
halibut PSC limit for the CDQ Program will be established specifically
in regulation, and will no longer be derived from the halibut PSC limit
established for the trawl and non-trawl fisheries.
For a full description of the apportionment of halibut PSC among
the BSAI groundfish fisheries, see the section in the preamble to the
proposed rule, ``Halibut Bycatch Management in the BSAI Groundfish
Fisheries'' (80 FR 71650, 71655-71656, November 16, 2015).
Summary of Regulatory Changes
This final rule makes the following changes to regulations at 50
CFR part 679:
Moves the general provisions on prohibited species bycatch
management from Sec. 679.21(b) to Sec. 679.21(a).
Moves all the provisions on BSAI halibut bycatch
management in current Sec. 679.21(e) to a new Sec. 679.21(b) and
reorganizes the provisions in the new Sec. 679.21(b) to improve
clarity.
Establishes new BSAI halibut PSC limits in Sec.
679.21(b): 1,745 mt for the Amendment 80 sector; 745 mt for the BSAI
trawl limited access sector; 710 mt for the BSAI non-trawl sector; and
315 mt for the CDQ Program.
Uses the term ``PSC allowance'' rather than ``bycatch
allowance'' in Sec. 679.21(b) and uses the term ``PSC'' rather than
``incidental catch'' in Sec. 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(C).
Changes cross-references from Sec. 679.21(e) to Sec.
679.21(b) where necessary.
Changes the BSAI halibut PSC limits in Table 35 and Table
40 to the new limits.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
This final rule does not change any of the regulations as proposed
in the proposed rule (80 FR 71650, November 16, 2015).
Response to Comments
NMFS received 39 unique comments on the proposed rule or Amendment
111 from 17 commenters. The 17 commenters consisted of six individuals;
three fishing industry groups, one of which represents Amendment 80
participants, one of which represents hook-and-line catcher/processors,
one of which represents predominantly hook-and-line catcher vessels;
three Alaska Native Tribal Organizations; one Alaska Native Village
Corporation; one non-profit corporation engaged in commercial fishing;
one for-profit corporation engaged in wilderness marine tours; one
conservation organization; and one anonymous comment.
Of the 17 commenters, 14 explicitly supported adoption of the
proposed halibut PSC reductions. Most of these commenters (12 out of
14) favored larger halibut PSC limit reductions. The comment from the
corporation engaged in wilderness tours was the only comment that
recommended that the Secretary disapprove Amendment 111. The comment
from the Amendment 80 fishing industry group questioned whether the
proposed halibut PSC limit reductions were practicable but did not
recommend disapproval of Amendment 111 or rejection of the proposed
rule.
In responding to these comments, when NMFS refers to Amendment 111,
unless otherwise noted, NMFS means Amendment 111 and this final rule
implementing Amendment 111. There were no public comments asserting
that the proposed rule is not consistent with Amendment 111, and NMFS
did not make any changes from the proposed to this final rule.
Therefore, NMFS' responses to comments on Amendment 111 also apply to
the proposed and final rules.
Comments Related to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standards
Generally
Comment 1: Amendment 111 should be approved and implemented.
Response: The Secretary, through his designee, the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, approved Amendment 111 on January 20,
2016, and implements Amendment 111 with this final rule. The Secretary
concluded that the PSC limit reductions in Amendment 111 are consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act including the national standards and
other applicable law.
Comment 2: Twelve commenters stated they were in favor of the
Secretary approving Amendment 111 but would have preferred larger
reductions in the PSC limits. Some of these commenters stated that
Amendment 111 was a ``first step,'' was ``a step in the right
direction,'' and was ``a positive action,'' to reducing BSAI halibut
bycatch.
Response: Before the Council recommended Amendment 111 for approval
and implementation by the Secretary, the Council reviewed an extensive
record that included the Analysis, input from Council and NMFS staff,
and extensive public testimony. The Council considered a broad range of
potential halibut PSC limit reductions, and recommended Amendment 111
only after considering halibut PSC limit reductions that ranged from 10
to 50 percent lower than the current halibut PSC limits in each BSAI
groundfish sector. The Council recommended halibut PSC limit reductions
within the range of the alternatives considered.
The Council concluded, and the Secretary agreed, that Amendment 111
is consistent with all national standards,
[[Page 24717]]
and specifically the directive in National Standard 9 to minimize
halibut PSC to the extent practicable while preserving the potential
for the harvest of optimum yield in the BSAI fisheries consistent with
National Standard 1. The Council also concluded, and the Secretary
agreed, that Amendment 111 would take into account the effect of
halibut PSC limit reductions on communities dependent on the groundfish
fisheries and communities dependent on the halibut fishery consistent
with National Standard 8. The Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that
the PSC limits reductions in Amendment 111 met the purpose and need for
this action, namely to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable while
preserving the potential for optimum yield from the groundfish
fisheries. (Section 1.2 of Analysis) The rationale for rejecting larger
PSC reductions in each sector is explained in the proposed rule (80 FR
71650, 71663--71668, November 16, 2015) and is summarized in the
response to Comment 14.
Comment 3: NMFS should adopt the BSAI halibut PSC limits in
Amendment 111 by implementing a final rule with those reductions.
However, NMFS should reject the part of the proposed rule that asserts
that the proposed rule complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Act because
Amendment 111 does not represent a proper balancing of the national
standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: As explained in response to Comments 1 and 2, the
Secretary determined that Amendment 111 is consistent with the national
standards and other applicable law and approved Amendment 111 on
January 20, 2016.
Comment 4: The Secretary should disapprove Amendment 111, withdraw
the proposed rule, and instruct the Council to expedite the preparation
of a new FMP amendment that recommends larger halibut PSC limit
reductions.
Response: As explained in response to Comments 1 and 2, the
Secretary has determined that Amendment 111 is consistent with the
national standards and other applicable law and approved Amendment 111
on January 20, 2016. The Council recommended Amendment 111 after
considering halibut PSC limit reductions that were 10 to 50 percent
lower than the current halibut PSC limits in each BSAI groundfish
sector. The Council concluded that larger reductions are not
practicable and would reduce the net benefit to the nation. The
rationale the Council and NMFS used for concluding that larger
reductions in PSC limits are not practicable is described in the
preamble to the proposed rule. (80 FR 71650, 71663-71668, November 16,
2015). See also responses to Comments 2 and 14.
Comment 5: The proposed rule concluded that the halibut PSC limit
reductions for the Amendment 80 sector would provide the greatest
benefit to the nation. (80 FR 71650, 71664, November 16, 2015) In
reaching this conclusion, NMFS did not consider the high value of the
halibut fishery and resource.
Response: NMFS agrees that halibut has a high socioeconomic value
but disagrees that the Analysis for this action did not take that into
account. The Analysis contains numerous sections that describe the
value of the commercial halibut fishery and summarize the potential
impact of halibut PSC reductions ranging from 10 to 50 percent lower
than the current halibut PSC limits in each sector (see Sections 4, 5
and Appendix D in the Analysis). For each level of halibut PSC limit
reduction analyzed, the Analysis evaluated possible benefits to the
directed halibut fishery by looking at the estimated increase in
wholesale revenues in the directed halibut fishery that would occur
from each level of reduction. The wholesale revenues in the directed
halibut fishery are based on the estimated price per pound for halibut
sold (see, e.g., Table ES-4 and ES-5 in the Analysis).
The Analysis also looked at the socioeconomic value of halibut
among the various communities that participate in the halibut
fisheries. Section 4.5.3 and Appendix C of the Analysis described the
socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives analyzed by the Council
before it selected a preferred alternative. Appendix C looked at
various metrics to measure the value of the directed halibut fisheries
to communities including vessel ownership related to the directed
commercial halibut fishery and employment related to the directed
commercial halibut fishery. Appendix C also evaluated the value of
halibut, and the potential impacts from the action alternatives, on the
subsistence fisheries, and Section 3.1.4.3 assessed the potential
impact of Amendment 111 on sport halibut fisheries.
Comment 6: NMFS should take, or commit to taking, the following
additional actions to reduce halibut bycatch: Additional reductions in
the halibut PSC limits; modifications to the process for annual
groundfish total allowable catch (TAC) allocations to better
incorporate concerns about halibut bycatch; adopting an abundance-based
management for halibut so that PSC limits in some way automatically
decrease when halibut is scarce and automatically increase when halibut
is abundant; adopting a performance standard for halibut PSC management
by the Amendment 80 sector; mandating deck sorting to ensure halibut
are returned to sea as soon as possible to reduce the mortality of
halibut bycatch; limiting the reallocation of halibut PSC from the BSAI
trawl limited access sector to the Amendment 80 sector so that unused
halibut PSC in the BSAI trawl limited access sector is not fully used;
and adopting area closures for the BSAI groundfish fisheries on a
seasonal basis to reduce the potential impacts of groundfish fisheries
on halibut habitat.
Response: The actions suggested by the commenters are outside the
scope of this final rule. NMFS notes that the Council and NMFS, in
conjunction with the IPHC, are considering a range of actions to
improve the management of halibut PSC. Several of the actions suggested
by the commenter are under consideration. A partial list of actions
underway or under consideration follows:
A joint meeting to promote a more collaborative approach
to halibut management in February 2015;
The development of a halibut framework document to further
the objective to balance the needs of directed halibut users and
halibut bycatch users in the BSAI and Gulf of Alaska. This framework
document will be reviewed by the Council in April 2016;
The establishment of a work group comprised of Council,
NMFS, and IPHC staff to evaluate linking halibut PSC limits to a metric
or metrics of halibut abundance in December 2015;
Beginning in December 2015, annual reporting by Amendment
80 cooperatives describing their ongoing efforts to avoid halibut
bycatch to ensure halibut PSC use is below the halibut PSC limits that
would be established for the Amendment 80 cooperatives under this final
rule; and
NMFS' approval of an expedited exempted fishing permit in
2015 to evaluate halibut deck sorting as a means to reduce halibut
bycatch mortalities (Appendix A-7 of the Analysis). NMFS is currently
processing an application for an additional exempted fishing permit to
test halibut deck sorting methods for 2016.
For a more complete description of the range of actions being
considered by the Council, IPHC, and NMFS to address halibut bycatch
management, please see the newsletters on the Council's Web site:
http://www.npfmc.org/npfmc-newsletters/.
[[Page 24718]]
Comments Associated With Specific National Standards
Comment 7: Under National Standard 1, an FMP should prevent
overfishing while achieving, on a sustainable basis, the ``optimum
yield'' from a fishery. The definition of optimum yield in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act states that the optimum yield is the amount of
fish that ``will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,
particularly with respect to food production and recreational
opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine
ecosystems.'' (16 U.S.C. 1802(33)) Halibut bycatch is preventing the
directed halibut fishery from achieving optimum yield.
Response: Halibut does not have an ``optimum yield'' within the
Magnuson-Stevens Act definition because halibut is not managed pursuant
to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Halibut is managed under the Convention
between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the
Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention),
signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol
Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC on March 29, 1979).
The Convention is implemented in the U.S. by the Northern Pacific
Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). Therefore halibut bycatch is not
preventing the achieving of optimum yield in the directed halibut
fishery because halibut does not have an ``optimum yield'' established
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Pursuant to the Convention, the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC) makes stock assessment and catch limit decisions for
halibut. Although the IPHC does not establish an ``optimum yield'' for
halibut, the IPHC harvest policy includes a harvest control rule that
reduces commercial harvest rates linearly if the stock is estimated to
have fallen below established thresholds for female spawning biomass.
These harvest control rules would severely curtail the commercial
halibut fishery during times of particularly poor stock conditions. The
current status of the halibut stock has not triggered the application
of the IPHC's restrictive harvest control rules. (Proposed Rule, 80 FR
71650, 71652, November 16, 2015). Even without any reduction in halibut
PSC limits, the halibut stock is stable or potentially increasing
slightly in overall abundance, as measured by the IPHC stock assessment
of exploitable halibut biomass and female spawning biomass. (Section
3.1.1 of the Analysis; 80 FR 71650, 71651, November 16, 2015).
Amendment 111 does, however, seek to reduce halibut bycatch in the
BSAI groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable as required by
National Standard 9. If halibut bycatch is decreased, there will be
more halibut available for the IPHC to allocate to the directed halibut
fisheries: Commercial, sport and subsistence. NMFS therefore expects
that this action will decrease halibut PSC use and will make more
halibut available for the directed halibut fisheries.
Comment 8: Amendment 111 does not properly balance National
Standard 1 and National Standard 9. NMFS has described the purpose of
the amendment as limiting ``the use of PSC limits to minimize halibut
bycatch in the groundfish fisheries, to the extent practicable, while
achieving, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from the groundfish
fisheries.'' (e.g., Notice of Availability, 80 FR 66486, 66487, October
29, 2015; Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71651, November 16, 2015). These
statements indicate that halibut PSC limit reductions are only
practicable if the reductions allow for optimum yield in the groundfish
fishery. National Standard 1 and National Standard 9, read together,
require that necessary and practicable bycatch reduction measures must
be implemented, even if that results in a downward adjustment in the
optimum yield of the BSAI groundfish fishery.
Response: The preferred alternative that is implemented by this
final rule balances the need to minimize halibut bycatch to the extent
practicable, consistent with National Standard 9, with the requirement
to achieve optimum yield in the groundfish fishery, consistent with
National Standard 1. In developing the preferred alternative, NMFS and
the Council have appropriately balanced obligations under National
Standard 1 and National Standard 9.
Section 1.2 of the Analysis states: ``The purpose of the proposed
action is to minimize halibut PSC in the commercial groundfish
fisheries to the extent practicable, while preserving the potential for
the optimum harvest of the groundfish TACs assigned to the trawl and
non-trawl sectors.'' (emphasis added) The preferred alternative
selected by the Council and implemented by this final rule preserves
the potential for the BSAI groundfish fisheries to achieve optimum
yield by harvesting the TACs assigned to the different BSAI groundfish
fisheries. However, this final rule may result in some BSAI groundfish
fisheries, in some years, harvesting less than their TACs.
The Council and NMFS did not exclude the preferred alternative
implemented by this final rule because it may result in a decrease in
groundfish harvests in some groundfish fisheries in some years. The
Analysis before the Council and NMFS states that the halibut PSC limit
reductions imposed under Amendment 111 may result in decreased harvests
by the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The preamble to the proposed rule
states that Amendment 111 is likely to result in groundfish harvests
below the TACs for several fisheries prosecuted by the Amendment 80
sector. (80 FR 71,650, 71,663, November 16, 2015)
The Analysis estimates that Amendment 111 could result in
groundfish harvest reductions in the Amendment 80 sector between 9,500
mt and 25,700 mt each year during the 10-year period considered (2014
to 2023) in the Analysis, for a total possible reduction of 95,000 mt
to 257,000 mt over this 10-year period. As described in the Analysis,
this could translate to a reduction in wholesale revenues for
groundfish fishery participants between $6.2 million and $18.7 million
for each year during this 10-year period, for a total of $62 million to
$187 million throughout this 10-year period (Table ES-4 of Analysis; 80
FR 71650, 71663, November 16, 2015).
This rule provides the flexibility for participants in the
groundfish fisheries to potentially harvest the TAC assigned to their
fisheries. This rule minimizes bycatch to the extent practicable by
recognizing that different sectors of the groundfish fisheries have
available different tools to minimize halibut bycatch (see also
responses to Comments 14 and 15). The fact that this rule will reduce
halibut PSC limits, and likely result in reductions in groundfish
harvests, supports the conclusion that Amendment 111 reflects a well-
reasoned and articulated balance between National Standards 1 and 9.
Comment 9: Social and economic factors must be considered when
establishing optimum yield under National Standard 1. The proposed rule
does not discuss this requirement.
Response: The commenter is correct that social and economic factors
are considered when establishing the optimum yield for a fishery.
Optimum yield, as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is that amount
of fish which ``will provide the greatest overall benefit to the
Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational
opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine
ecosystems'' and the amount of fish which ``is prescribed as such on
the
[[Page 24719]]
basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by
any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor'' (16 U.S.C.
1802(33)(A); 16 U.S.C. 1802(33)(B)). Amendment 111 and the proposed
rule did not propose to change the optimum yield of the BSAI groundfish
fisheries, which is specified in regulations as a range from 1.4
million to 2.0 million metric tons. (Sec. 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A))
Therefore NMFS did not elaborate on the factors that go into
establishing optimum yield. As noted in the response to Comment 7, the
requirement to establish an optimum yield does not apply to halibut.
Although Amendment 111 does not change the optimum yield
established for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, fishery regulations
require that the total of the TACs for the BSAI groundfish fisheries
must come within the optimum yield range. (Sec. 679.20(a)(2)) As noted
also in the response to Comment 8, the proposed rule acknowledged that
Amendment 111 would likely decrease groundfish harvests below TAC for
the Amendment 80 sector (80 FR 71650, 71663, November 16, 2015). The
Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the likely economic loss from
foregone harvests under this final rule is outweighed by the potential
decrease in halibut bycatch and the potential increase in halibut
available for the directed halibut fisheries.
Comment 10: Amendment 111 is not fair and equitable under National
Standard 4. A fundamental flaw in the proposed rule and the Analysis is
that the Analysis uses the status quo halibut PSC limits as the
baseline for analysis. That is not fair because the directed halibut
fishery has declined 63 percent in Area 4 and 67 percent in Area 4CDE
from 2003 through 2013.
Response: The Analysis does evaluate a ``no action'' or ``Status
Quo'' alternative. When taking action, NMFS is under an obligation to
analyze a ``no action'' alternative in the Environmental Assessment
portion of the Analysis. (Section 5.03b, NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6, May 20, 1999, available at http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/) The
Environmental Assessment would have been deficient if it did not
analyze a ``no action'' or ``Status Quo'' alternative. Whether
Amendment 111 is consistent with National Standard 4 is a separate
question.
The Council and NMFS determined, and the Secretary concluded, that
Amendment 111 is consistent with National Standard 4 (see Section 6.1
of Analysis). National Standard 4 provides that ``conservation and
management measures shall not discriminate between residents of
different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing
privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation shall be A)
fair and equitable to all such fishermen, B) reasonably calculated to
promote conservation, and C) carried out in such a manner that no
particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an
excessive share of such privileges.'' (16 U.S.C. 1851).
Amendment 111 does not discriminate between residents of specific
states. Amendment 111 does not use residency of any fishermen, or group
of fishermen, as a criterion for reduction of a PSC limit in any
sector.
Amendment 111 is fair and equitable to the fishermen affected by
Amendment 111. Amendment 111 reduces the PSC limits for a legitimate
objective. Amendment 111 seeks to minimize halibut PSC to the extent
practicable while maintaining, on a continuing basis, the potential to
achieve optimum yield from the groundfish fishery. Amendment 111
achieves that objective fairly and equitably by decreasing halibut PSC
limits by sector and by establishing the PSC reduction for each sector
based on an evaluation of what is practicable for that sector.
The Council recommended Amendment 111 after analyzing a status quo
alternative (no reductions in the halibut PSC limits for each sector)
and alternatives with reductions ranging from 10 to 50 percent lower
than the current halibut PSC limits in each sector. The Analysis showed
that residents of various states, including Alaska and states of the
Pacific Northwest, participate in the directed groundfish fisheries and
the directed halibut fisheries and may be affected by this final rule.
For each groundfish sector in the groundfish fisheries and for the
directed halibut fisheries, the Analysis describes the participants in
each fishery (Section 4.4 and 4.5 of Analysis) and the effects of each
alternative, including the status quo alternative, on the groundfish
fisheries and the directed halibut fisheries (Section 4.7 through 4.14
of Analysis).
In developing Amendment 111, the Council and NMFS recognized that
under the status quo, the directed halibut fisheries have experienced
reductions in catch limits as the halibut stock has declined (Section
4.5. of Analysis). The Analysis sets out the percentage declines cited
in the comment (see text associated with Table 4-85 and Table 4-86 in
Section 4.5.1 of Analysis). The Council and NMFS recognize that the
reductions in halibut PSC limits in Amendment 111 will likely increase
the halibut available for the directed fisheries and, in some years,
may reduce groundfish harvests and therefore revenues for participants
in the directed groundfish fisheries (Table ES-4 of Analysis; 80 FR
71650, 71663, November 16, 2015).
Amendment 111 is reasonably calculated to promote conservation
consistent with National Standard 4. The Council and NMFS do not
anticipate that Amendment 111 will have a significant effect on overall
halibut mortality but do expect it to have a limited conservation
benefit. The IPHC's current measure for a juvenile halibut is a halibut
that is 26 inches and under or ``U26 halibut.'' (Section 3.1.2.1 of
Analysis) In response to this rule, the IPHC may increase the catch
limits for the directed commercial halibut fishery. Even if the IPHC
does that, U26 halibut still may not be retained by any fishery. This
rule is expected to have a limited conservation benefit because
decreasing bycatch overall will decrease bycatch of U26 halibut. Some
of those U26 halibut will mature and, of those, some will reproduce.
The preamble to the proposed rule described the estimated limited
conservation benefit from this action. (80 FR 71650, 71662, November
16, 2015). The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that the reduction
in U26 mortality from this action ranges from 188,000 to 210,000 pounds
annually compared to the status quo. (Section 3.1.5.3 of Analysis) This
conservation benefit is limited because this number of U26 halibut
comprises a small proportion of the total female spawning biomass of
halibut. This number of U26 halibut (188,000 to 210,000 pounds) is
substantially less than 1 percent of the total female spawning biomass
which, in 2015, was estimated to be 215.10 million pounds (Table 3-1 of
Analysis).
Finally, consistent with National Standard 4, Amendment 111 does
not result in any particular individual, corporation, or other entity
acquiring an excessive share of the PSC reductions in Amendment 111.
The reductions in PSC limits are spread across the individuals within
each sector. The reductions in PSC limits do not change the amount of
PSC that each participant in a sector has relative to other
participants in the sector.
Comment 11: National Standard 5 requires that ``conservation and
management measures consider efficiency; except no such measure shall
have economic allocation as its sole purpose.'' (16 U.S.C. 1851) The
guideline in Federal regulation for applying National Standard 5 states
that ``efficiency'' refers to the wise use of all resources involved in
the fishery,
[[Page 24720]]
including ecological resources (50 CFR 600.330(e)). Reducing halibut
bycatch reduces waste and constitutes wise and efficient use of the
resource.
Response: NMFS agrees that reducing halibut bycatch constitutes a
wise and efficient use of the resource, but accepts that some level of
halibut bycatch is inevitable in the prosecution of the BSAI groundfish
fisheries. Halibut bycatch is a function of the overlapping
distribution of groundfish and halibut as well as regulatory
requirements established by NMFS and the IPHC that require the discard
of halibut harvested with trawl gear or in fisheries other than defined
commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries. Therefore, the current
regulatory structure ensures that some degree of halibut bycatch must
occur. The Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that Amendment 111
reduces halibut PSC, or halibut bycatch, by the BSAI groundfish
fisheries to the extent practicable consistent with National Standard
9.
Comment 12: Amendment 111 is not consistent with National Standard
8. The Analysis does not adequately evaluate the cultural and
socioeconomic benefits of the halibut resource to the isolated
communities of the Bering Sea, especially St. Paul and St. George, and
the dozens of coastal communities throughout Alaska and the entire
Pacific Coast that depend on the halibut resource for subsistence,
sport, and commercial fishing and that are negatively affected by
halibut bycatch.
Response: National Standard 8 provides: ``Conservation and
management measures shall, consistent with the conservation
requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and
rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of
fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and
social data that meet the requirements of paragraph (2), in order to
(A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and
(B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on
such communities.'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8)). The reference to paragraph
(2) is to National Standard 2: ``Conservation and management measures
shall be based upon the best scientific information'' (16 U.S.C.
1851(a)(8)).
The Council and NMFS used the best available scientific information
to assess the importance of the directed halibut fishery to various
communities. For example, Appendix C to the Analysis is devoted solely
to the impacts of this action on communities that are dependent on and
engaged in the BSAI groundfish fisheries and communities that are
dependent on and engaged in the directed halibut fisheries. Appendix C
identified 15 halibut-dependent communities in the BSAI based on a
variety of metrics. These communities include St. Paul and St. George
(Table 1-1). Appendix C presented qualitative and quantitative
information to assist the Council and NMFS in assessing the effects of
this action on halibut-dependent communities and other communities by
examining metrics such as the ownership of halibut catcher vessels by
community (Table 2-6a); ex-vessel gross revenues from halibut catcher
vessels by community (Table 2-6b); number of BSAI subsistence halibut
fishermen, halibut caught, and pounds of halibut caught in Area 4
(Table 2-8); and estimated annual halibut crew and halibut crew
payments by community (Table 3-10). In addition to the Analysis, the
Council and NMFS had the benefit of extensive public testimony on the
importance of subsistence and commercial fisheries to the residents of
St. Paul and St. George and other communities engaged in the directed
halibut fisheries.
Amendment 111 minimizes bycatch to the extent practicable as
determined by the Council based on the best available information.
Amendment 111 is expected to provide additional harvest opportunities
to residents of St. George and St. Paul, based on the assumption that
the IPHC will respond to the decreased bycatch resulting from Amendment
111 by increasing the commercial catch limit. Appendix C estimated the
distribution of the expected increase in harvests in the directed
halibut fishery in Area 4 from Amendment 111 among communities in
Northwest Alaska; communities in Bristol Bay, the Aleutians and the
Pribilof Islands (including St. Paul and St. George); communities in
other parts of Alaska; and communities in other states (Table 4-4;
Table 4-5). Appendix C also examined the potential impacts of the PSC
limit reductions in Amendment 111 on BSAI communities engaged in the
halibut subsistence fishery (Section 4.2.4 of Appendix C of Analysis)
and the sport halibut fishery (Section 4.2.5 of Appendix C of
Analysis). The Analysis also discussed the potential long-term impacts
of Amendment 111 on directed halibut fishery participants and
communities reliant on the halibut resource outside of the BSAI
(Section 4.14.1.2 of Analysis).
Appendix C also described the adverse impacts that Amendment 111
would likely have on communities that are substantially engaged in the
directed groundfish fisheries (Table 2-1a through Table 2-5f). In
selecting Amendment 111, the Council weighed the potential benefits to
fishing communities against the potential adverse impacts to fishing
communities that could result under each halibut PSC limit reduction
alternative.
Comment 13: St. Paul and St. George are much more dependent on the
halibut fisheries than Seattle, Washington and Newport, Oregon are
dependent on the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The interests of St. Paul
and St. George are not properly weighed in the Analysis.
Response: Under National Standard 8, conservation and management
measures shall take into account the importance of fishery resources to
``fishing communities.'' The term ``fishing community'' in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act means ``a community which is substantially
dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of
fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes
fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish
processors that are based in such communities'' (16 U.S.C. 1802(17)).
An analysis of conservation and management measures should examine the
effect of a proposed action on communities that are substantially
dependent on the fishery resource in question and on communities that
are substantially engaged with the fishery resource in question (50
CFR. 600.345(c)).
In approving Amendment 111, the Council was aware that communities
such as St. Paul and St. George are substantially dependent on halibut.
Appendix C of the Analysis specifically identified 15 communities that
are considered to be halibut-dependent (Table ES-2 in Appendix C to
Analysis). The Analysis considered the best available data on the
importance of the directed halibut fisheries to halibut-dependent
communities such as St. Paul and St. George. The Council and NMFS
considered this information, in addition to public testimony from
residents of these communities.
The Council and NMFS reviewed the Analysis and considered the
impacts of Amendment 111 on communities engaged in the BSAI groundfish
fishery, including Seattle and Newport. The Analysis notes that Seattle
and Newport are substantially engaged in the BSAI groundfish fisheries
but, because of the size of those communities, the availability of
other employment and other factors, Seattle and Newport were not
substantially dependent on the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The Analysis
noted: ``While community-level
[[Page 24721]]
dependence is not a salient issue for the Seattle MSA, potential
adverse impacts of some of the Alternative 2 options and suboptions
would be profound in terms of potential loss of revenues to individual
operations and sectors and potential loss of income and/or employment
to relatively large numbers of individuals.'' (ES-5 in Appendix C to
Analysis). Seattle MSA stands for Seattle Metropolitan Statistical
Area.
In recommending Amendment 111, the Council weighed the benefits to
halibut-dependent fishing communities from different levels of PSC
reductions against the adverse impacts to communities that are
substantially engaged in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
Comment 14: Amendment 111 does not decrease bycatch to the extent
practicable. Larger PSC reductions are practicable and therefore must
be adopted to be consistent with National Standard 9.
Response: The Council approved Amendment 111 after considering
halibut PSC limit reductions that were 10 to 50 percent lower than the
current halibut PSC limits in each BSAI groundfish sector. The Council
and NMFS considered the practicability of each sector to meet these
revised PSC limits. The preamble to the proposed rule contains a
description of the specific factors considered in the section titled
``Rationale and Impacts of Amendment 111 and the Proposed Rule'' (80 FR
71650, 71661--71668, November 16, 2015).
For each sector, the Council and NMFS considered the relative
amount of halibut PSC for that sector compared to the total amount of
halibut PSC in the BSAI; whether the sector had been able to harvest
groundfish TACs with lower amounts of halibut PSC than the sector's
current PSC limit; what ``tools'' or changes in fishery operations were
available to the sector to adapt to reductions in the halibut PSC limit
for that sector; and the potential socioeconomic impacts of reduced
halibut PSC limits for each sector. As part of the last consideration,
the Council and NMFS considered the potential adverse socioeconomic
impacts of halibut PSC limit reductions from reduced groundfish
harvests on harvesters of BSAI groundfish and on fishing communities
that participate in the groundfish fisheries, as well the potential
benefits to the harvesters of halibut and to fishing communities that
participate in the halibut fishery. (Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71663,
November 16, 2015).
Based on these factors and the information described in the
Analysis and the preamble to the proposed rule, the Council recommended
and NMFS implemented the halibut PSC limits described in this final
rule. A brief summary for each of the sectors follows.
For the Amendment 80 sector, Amendment 111 reduces the PSC limit by
25 percent: from 2,325 to 1,745 mt. The Amendment 80 sector is the
sector that uses the largest amount of halibut PSC. The Amendment 80
sector is responsible for about 60 percent of halibut PSC use, based on
average PSC usage from 2008 through 2014 (Table 1, Proposed Rule, 80 FR
71650, 71660, November 16, 2015). This final rule imposes the largest
halibut PSC limit reduction on the sector which is most able to
decrease bycatch through behavioral changes. The Amendment 80 sector is
prosecuted by Amendment 80 cooperatives. Amendment 80 cooperatives have
the power to coordinate the responses of their members to reduced PSC
limits. Amendment 80 cooperatives are also more able to adopt tools to
decrease bycatch as compared to a sector where individual fishery
participants engage in a ``race for fish'' against other participants
in a sector. The tools to decrease bycatch are behavior changes such as
expanding the use of gear modifications known as excluders to reduce
bycatch; improving communication on the fishing grounds within and
between the Amendment 80 cooperatives; using test hauls to gauge
halibut rates and considering the use of night-time hauls that tend to
have lower halibut PSC. The tools to reduce PSC--those just mentioned
and others--are described in the proposed rule (80 FR 71650, 71664,
November 16, 2015) and in further detail in Section 3.1.3.6 and
Appendix B of the Analysis.
The Council considered, and rejected, alternatives that would have
adopted greater reductions in the PSC limit for the Amendment 80
sector. The proposed rule summarizes the Council and NMFS' reasoning
for concluding that greater reductions were not practicable for the
Amendment 80 sector (80 FR 71650, 71664, November 16, 2015). The
Council and NMFS concluded that alternatives that would have reduced
the halibut PSC limit by 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50 percent in the Amendment
80 sector would have come at significant economic cost to the Amendment
80 sector and fishing communities participating in the Amendment 80
fisheries. Based on the best available information, the Council and
NMFS concluded that it was not clear that the Amendment 80 sector could
make additional changes in fishery operations to accommodate higher PSC
limit reductions other than foregoing substantial harvests and revenue.
The Council and NMFS concluded that greater PSC reductions in the
Amendment 80 sector would have reduced net benefits to the Nation
``because the socioeconomic benefits from the potential increase in
harvest opportunities would be less than the negative socioeconomic
impacts from foregone BSAI groundfish harvests.'' (Proposed Rule, 80 FR
71650, 71664, November 16, 2015).
For the BSAI trawl limited access sector, Amendment 111 reduces the
PSC limit by 15 percent: from 875 mt to 745 mt. This sector has used,
on average from 2008 through 2014, 710 mt; in all of those years, it
used less than 745 mt except in 2012, when it used 960 mt of halibut
PSC (Table 1 in Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71660, November 16, 2015;
Table 3-12 of Analysis).
Unlike the Amendment 80 sector, the ``race for fish'' still exists
in large parts of the BSAI trawl limited access sector, specifically in
the Pacific cod and yellowfin sole fisheries (Section 4.9 of Analysis;
Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71666, November 16, 2015.) This affects
what bycatch reduction is practicable for this sector. The Council
recommended, and NMFS proposed, a 15 percent reduction in the halibut
PSC limit for the BSAI trawl limited access sector after considering
the relatively limited amount of halibut PSC in this sector; the more
limited tools available to the sector to reduce its halibut PSC use;
the overall socioeconomic cost to the sector, communities participating
in the sector, and the Nation from larger reductions in the PSC limit
for this sector; and the limited benefits that larger reductions in the
PSC limit for this sector might provide to the halibut fisheries and
communities participating in the halibut fisheries. The Council and
NMFS also determined that the reduced halibut PSC limit in this final
rule is likely to provide incentives for the BSAI trawl limited access
sector to more fully develop and use tools that could improve on the
relatively low PSC use that this sector achieved in 2010 and 2011.
(Table 4-209 of Analysis; Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71666, November
16, 2015)
For the BSAI non-trawl limited access sector, Amendment 111 reduces
the halibut PSC limit by 15 percent: from 833 mt to 710 mt. This sector
has used, on average, 505 mt of halibut PSC from 2008 through 2014
(Table 1 in Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71659, 71660, November 16, 2015). The
Council and NMFS did not consider greater reductions in halibut PSC
limits to be practicable. Therefore, the Council did not recommend, and
[[Page 24722]]
NMFS does not propose, larger reductions in the PSC limit for the non-
trawl sector given this sector's relatively limited use of halibut PSC;
this sector's consistent pattern of halibut PSC use well below its PSC
limit; and the limited benefit that larger PSC reductions would likely
provide to the halibut fishery and communities participating in the
halibut fishery relative to the negative impacts on participants in the
non-trawl sector. (Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71667, November 16,
2015)
For the CDQ Program, Amendment 111 reduces the PSC limit by 20
percent: from 393 mt to 315 mt. The CDQ Program has used, on average,
215 mt of halibut PSC from 2008 through 2014. The Council and NMFS
considered greater reductions in the PSC limit for this sector also but
concluded that greater reductions were not practicable. The Analysis
shows that the halibut PSC limit reductions for the CDQ Program would
have to be extremely high to yield actual reductions. A 50 percent
reduction in the PSC limit for the CDQ Program would reduce the PSC
limit from 393 mt to 197 mt. A PSC limit of 197 mt for the CDQ Program
would yield only 18 mt of halibut savings compared to the CDQ Program's
average use of halibut PSC of 215 mt from 2008 through 2014 (Table 1 in
Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71660, November 16, 2915). A PSC limit of
197 mt for the CDQ Program would yield only 47 mt of halibut savings
relative to the CDQ Program's use of halibut PSC of 244 mt in 2014.
(Table 4-209 of Analysis) Neither the Analysis nor public testimony
suggests that halibut PSC use in the CDQ Program will increase relative
to current use. Therefore, the Council and NMFS determined that it is
impracticable to adopt a PSC limit that would substantially constrain
the vessels participating in the CDQ Program, given the limited amount
of PSC by the CDQ Program and the limited potential harvest opportunity
for the commercial halibut fishery that a more restrictive halibut PSC
limit for the CDQ Program would provide. (Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650,
71667, November 16, 2015)
Comment 15: Amendment 111 does not minimize bycatch to the extent
practicable as required under National Standard 9 because the BSAI
groundfish fisheries do not use the maximum amount of their halibut PSC
limits every year. Other management approaches should be tried.
Response: The commenter is correct that most sectors in the BSAI
groundfish fisheries have been using less halibut PSC than their
current PSC limit (Table 1 in Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71660,
November 16, 2015). However, the halibut PSC limits established by this
final rule are expected to limit halibut PSC use for the Amendment 80
sector relative to current use. The halibut PSC limit established for
the Amendment 80 sector in this final rule is 1,745 mt. From 2008
through 2014, the Amendment 80 sector used more than 1,745 mt of
halibut PSC every year. In 2015, for the first time, the Amendment 80
sector used 1,636 mt of halibut PSC, which is less than the new PSC
limit of 1,745 mt. In establishing the new halibut PSC limit for the
Amendment 80 sector, the Council and NMFS took into account the
sector's history of PSC use and information that the Amendment 80
sector could make behavioral changes to decrease PSC levels below its
PSC levels from 2008 through 2014 (Section 3.1.3.6 of Analysis; Section
14.4.2.2 of Analysis; Appendix B of Analysis; Proposed Rule, 80 FR
71650, 71664, November 16, 2015).
For the BSAI trawl limited access, BSAI non-trawl, and CDQ sectors,
the Council and NMFS were aware that these sectors generally used less
halibut PSC than their PSC limit (Table 1 to Proposed Rule, 80 FR
71650, 71660, November 16, 2015). The response to Comment 14 explains
why the Council and NMFS concluded that greater reductions than
implemented in this final rule are not practicable.
Other management approaches to manage halibut bycatch are outside
of the scope of this proposed rule. NMFS lists some of the suggestions
it has received for alternative halibut bycatch management measures in
Comment 6 and describes some actions that are underway or under
consideration in the response to Comment 6.
Comment 16: The halibut PSC limit reductions mandated in Amendment
111 will be very difficult for the Amendment 80 sector to achieve. The
halibut PSC limits imposed on the Amendment 80 sector strain, and
probably exceed, the limits of practicability under National Standard
9.
Response: The Council determined that the PSC limit reductions in
Amendment 111 were practicable and were consistent with National
Standard 9 by considering the factors summarized in the response to
Comment 14 and detailed in the Analysis and the preamble to the
proposed rule. NMFS notes that the use of halibut PSC in the Amendment
80 sector during 2015 supports the conclusion that the halibut PSC
limit established by this final rule is practicable. In 2015, the
Amendment 80 sector used 1,636 mt of halibut PSC. That amount of
halibut PSC is less than the new halibut PSC limit in this rule of
1,745 mt. The Amendment 80 sector achieved this even though no
regulatory provisions were in place during 2015 requiring such a
substantial reduction in halibut PSC use relative to the recent average
use of halibut PSC of 2,047 mt. from 2008 through 2014.
Comment 17: Technologies exist that can further decrease halibut
bycatch in the Amendment 80 fleet. These include 1) the use of wide
mesh nets to allow juvenile halibut to escape; 2) an underwater camera
system that allows vessel operators to detect and release net-loads
containing disproportionately high amounts of halibut bycatch
underwater; and 3) other gear modifications to reduce halibut bycatch.
Response: The ability of the Amendment 80 fleet to develop and use
new technologies to decrease halibut bycatch was one of the reasons
that the Council and NMFS concluded that the PSC reductions in
Amendment 111 were practicable. Amendment 111 establishes an incentive
for the Amendment 80 fleet to experiment with, and use, technologies
such as the ones described by the commenter.
Comment 18: Mandatory deck sorting of halibut (returning halibut to
sea as quickly as possible after the harvest comes onboard) should be
required so that halibut to be returned swiftly to the water. This
would decrease the mortality of halibut bycatch.
Response: Mandatory deck sorting of halibut bycatch is outside of
the scope of Amendment 111and is not allowed under current regulations.
To conduct deck sorting, a vessel operator must have an exemption from
current regulations that prevent deck sorting. In 2015, NMFS granted an
exempted fishing permit for vessels in the Amendment 80 sector to test
the conditions necessary to effectively conduct deck sorting and
evaluate whether deck sorting decreased mortality of halibut bycatch
(Appendix A-7 of the Analysis). The results from this exempted fishing
permit, and other research, indicates that deck sorting can reduce the
discard mortality of halibut under some conditions. In 2016, NMFS
received an application for another exempted fishing permit for deck
sorting, including participants in the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI
trawl limited access sector (Notice, 81 FR 4018, January 25, 2016).
After reviewing the results from these exempted fishing permits and
other research, the Council and NMFS may choose to begin the analytic
process necessary to consider changing
[[Page 24723]]
regulations to allow or require halibut deck sorting.
Comment 19: Hook-and-line catcher/processors have successfully
decreased their halibut bycatch mortality. From 1994 to 2014, hook-and-
line catcher/processors reduced their use of halibut PSC by 58 percent;
reduced their halibut discard mortality rate by 47 percent; and reduced
the encounter rate of halibut bycatch by 41 percent. It is possible to
decrease halibut mortality through voluntary efforts rather than
through regulations that implement lower halibut PSC limits.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that hook-and-line catcher/processors
have taken a number of steps to reduce halibut PSC use during the
period described by the commenter. Table 3-14 of the Analysis provides
a description of the use of halibut PSC by hook-and-line catcher/
processors from 2008 through 2014.
Comment 20: Amendment 111 does not adequately take into account the
effect of halibut bycatch on the recreational (sport) halibut fishery.
Response: Under the current IPHC policy, for those IPHC management
areas that occur in the BSAI (Areas 4A, 4B, and 4CDE), the IPHC deducts
bycatch, sport, and subsistence halibut removals before establishing
the commercial catch limit (Section 3.1.2.1 of Analysis). The IPHC does
not deduct halibut used as bycatch from the amount that would otherwise
be available for harvest in the Area 4 sport fishery. Therefore, unlike
the case for the commercial halibut fishery, a reduction in halibut PSC
limits would not directly affect the Area 4 sport fishery by making
more halibut directly available for allocation to the sport fishery
(Section 4.5.2 to Appendix C of Analysis). The response to Comment 21
describes how this final rule may provide a limited but long-term
benefit to the sport fishery in Area 4 as well as sport fisheries in
other IPHC areas.
Comment 21: Amendment 111 will not only benefit the directed
commercial halibut fishery. It will also benefit sport and subsistence
fisheries.
Response: The primary benefit of Amendment 111 will be to reduce
the total amount of halibut bycatch removals in the BSAI (Area 4)
before commercial catch limits are established, thereby increasing the
amount of halibut available for commercial fishery harvests in Area 4.
NMFS agrees with the commenter that Amendment 111 has the potential to
provide a modest benefit to recreational and subsistence halibut
fisheries as well as commercial halibut fisheries. This final rule
would be expected to provide a modest long-term benefit to sport and
subsistence fisheries by decreasing the bycatch of U26 halibut (the
IPHC's current measure for juvenile halibut). U26 halibut are expected
to grow over time and become available for harvest in sport and
subsistence fisheries. (Table 3-1 in Section 3.1.1 of Analysis; 80 FR
71650, 71662, November 16, 2015). NMFS stated in the proposed rule that
the specific long-term impacts of reduced U26 bycatch on potential
long-term commercial, personal use, sport or subsistence harvests of
halibut in specific IPHC areas ``cannot be predicted with certainty
given the available information.'' (80 FR 71650, 71662, November 16,
2015)
Comments Associated With Halibut Biology and Conservation
Comment 22: Amendment 111 does not adhere to a precautionary
approach of management by protecting the halibut resource from the
effects of halibut PSC use in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
Response: This final rule follows the precautionary principle by
implementing conservation measures to reduce overall halibut PSC in the
groundfish fisheries even though there is limited data and information
to determine the impact of halibut PSC on halibut stocks. Although the
effects of halibut PSC in the groundfish fishery on the halibut fishery
are uncertain, this action reduces the overall potential impacts by
reducing existing halibut PSC limits in the groundfish fisheries. The
halibut PSC limit reductions in the groundfish fisheries minimize
bycatch to the extent practicable given the tools currently available
to the sectors, the prosecution of the fishery, the uncertainty about
the overall adverse effects of bycatch on the halibut stocks, and the
need to ensure that the trawl and hook-and-line fisheries contribute to
the achievement of optimum yield in the groundfish fisheries.
The preamble to the proposed rule and Section 3.1.1 of the Analysis
presents a summary of the current condition of the Pacific halibut
stock. (80 FR 71650, 71651-71652, November 16, 2015) The preamble to
the proposed rule concludes that, based on the best available
information, the current status of exploitable halibut biomass and
female halibut spawning biomass is ``that the halibut stock is stable
or potentially increasing slightly in overall abundance.'' (80 FR
71650, 71651, November 16, 2015) The preamble to the proposed rule also
notes that ``even under the greatest PSC limit reduction alternatives
considered, this reduction would represent less than 1 percent of the
2015 coastwide female spawning halibut biomass (see Table 3-2 in
Section 3.1.1 of the Analysis).'' (80 FR 71650, 71662, November 16,
2015). The halibut PSC limits established by this final rule are
appropriately precautionary given the status of the halibut resource.
Comment 23: Amendment 111 does not protect juvenile halibut.
Response: By reducing halibut bycatch, Amendment 111 will decrease
the amount of halibut taken by the groundfish fisheries; this reduces
bycatch of juvenile halibut. The best available information shows that
the halibut PSC limit reductions established in Amendment 111 will
decrease U26 halibut bycatch (a size of halibut considered by the IPHC
to represent juvenile halibut) by 188,000 to 210,000 pounds annually
relative to recent halibut PSC use. (Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71662,
November 16, 2015)
Comment 24: The Closed Area in the Bering Sea was established by
the IPHC to protect juvenile halibut. The Closed Area was formerly
closed to both the directed halibut fisheries and the BSAI groundfish
fisheries. The reopening of the Closed Area to trawl fisheries removed
a significant protection to juvenile halibut.
Response: NMFS responds in two ways. First, the commenter is
correct in that the Closed Area was established by the IPHC in 1967 to
protect juvenile halibut in response to severe declines in halibut
abundance. Whether the Closed Area should be open to the directed
halibut fishery is a matter for the IPHC to decide and is outside the
scope of this rule. The IPHC assessed the impact of the Closed Area
recently. An IPHC staff report prepared in 2012 concluded that ``from a
halibut assessment and management perspective, there was no continued
purpose in maintaining the current Closed Area to the commercial
halibut fishery in the eastern Bering Sea'' (Section 3.1.2.4 of
Analysis). Second, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule
and section 3.1.1 of the Analysis, the current status of the halibut
stock as measured by exploitable biomass and female spawning biomass is
stable or potentially increasing slightly in abundance. (80 FR 71650,
71651-71652, November 16, 2015) The fact that the Closed Area is open
to the directed groundfish fisheries does not appear to have had a
deleterious effect on the halibut stock. In any event, a prohibition on
fishing for groundfish in the Closed Area is outside the scope of this
action.
Comment 25: The IPHC's assumption that natural mortality is the
same for all age classes of halibut is not realistic and
[[Page 24724]]
overestimates the future contribution of smaller age classes to the
halibut stock.
Response: The IPHC makes assumptions about several variables in its
annual assessment of the halibut stock. Section 3.1.5.1 of the Analysis
describes areas of uncertainty in the IPHC's stock assessment process,
including uncertainties about the natural mortality rates for halibut
for various age classes. Regardless of the effect of the IPHC's
assumptions about halibut natural mortality, National Standard 9
requires conservation and management measures to minimize halibut
bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable.
Comments Associated With Fisheries Management
Comment 26: The current management of halibut PSC is not abundance-
based. The current management system allows the proportion of halibut
removals taken as halibut bycatch to increase as halibut abundance
decreases. NMFS should set halibut PSC limits based on the abundance of
halibut. An abundance-based PSC limit would protect the Bering Sea
ecosystem.
Response: The commenter is correct that the current management of
halibut PSC is not abundance-based. Halibut PSC limits are established
in regulation as specific amounts of halibut mortality. These halibut
PSC limits are not scaled to changes in halibut abundance. The change
from fixed halibut PSC limits to halibut PSC limits that change with
the abundance of the halibut resource is outside of the scope of this
rule. The Council, in conjunction with NMFS and the IPHC, is evaluating
whether it would be feasible to establish halibut PSC limits that vary
with abundance (see response to comment 6).
Comment 27: The preamble to the proposed rule states that the IPHC
can adopt harvest control rules to protect the halibut stock during
times of low abundance and that these harvest control rules have not
been triggered even during the most recent years of low exploitable
halibut biomass (80 FR 71650, 71652 (November 16, 2015). This ignores
the fact that the IPHC cannot curtail the PSC take of halibut bycatch
in the groundfish fisheries and does not excuse inaction by the Council
and NMFS.
Response: The statement cited by the commenter was in a section of
the preamble to the proposed rule titled ``The Status of the Halibut
Stock.'' The conclusion in that section of the preamble was that
``[t]he best available data indicate that at current levels of
removals, the halibut biomass would be expected to be stable, and well
above the thresholds established by the IPHC'' for imposing the harvest
control rules. (80 FR 71650, 71652, November 16, 2015). The Council and
NMFS used this information, and other information, to understand the
status of the halibut resource and the potential impact of this final
rule on the halibut resource.
NMFS agrees that the IPHC does not manage the use of halibut PSC in
the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The Council and NMFS have the authority
to manage halibut PSC in the groundfish fisheries. NMFS agrees that the
current status of the halibut resource does not preclude action by the
Council or NMFS, and it has not precluded the action taken in this
final rule, to reduce halibut PSC.
Comment 28: The IPHC has consistently overestimated halibut biomass
and therefore has set commercial catch limits too high in the recent
past. The decline in commercial catch limits from 2013 through 2015 is
due in part to more accurate information about the status of halibut
biomass.
Response: The commenter is correct that in 2012, IPHC staff
reported that the IPHC had consistently overestimated halibut biomass
and underestimated halibut harvest rates due to a retrospective bias in
the IPHC's stock assessments (Section 3.1.1.1 of Analysis). The
commenter is also correct that the IPHC's efforts to correct this bias
is one reason that commercial catch limits declined from 2013 through
2015 compared to prior years. Although these factors have contributed
to recent declines in commercial catch limits, these factors do not
preclude NMFS from reviewing and undertaking actions, such as this
final rule, to minimize halibut bycatch to the extent practicable
consistent with National Standard 9.
Comments Associated With the Analysis (Not Discussed Under Other
Comments)
Comment 29: The Analysis states that larger halibut PSC limit
reductions would not significantly conserve the halibut resource by
protecting more juvenile halibut. This conclusion strains reason and
credibility.
Response: The conclusion of the Analysis is credible and reasonable
and is based on the best available information. The IPHC's current
measure for a juvenile halibut is a halibut that is 26 inches and under
or ``U26 halibut.'' (Section 3.1.2.1 of Analysis) The best available
information is that approximately 36 percent of halibut PSC mortality
in the BSAI is U26 halibut. (Table 4-210 in Section 4.14.1.4 of
Analysis; Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71662, November 16, 2015)
Ultimately, reductions in U26 bycatch could provide an opportunity for
additional halibut to grow, reproduce, and eventually recruit to the
halibut fishery (i.e., be available for harvest). The extent to which a
decrease in U26 halibut PSC may affect the coastwide female spawning
biomass is not well-known based on the best available information.
(Section 3.1.1.2 of the Analysis) However, the best available
information suggests that reductions in U26 halibut PSC under this rule
are unlikely to impact the long-term abundance of the halibut stock.
Even with a 50 percent reduction in PSC limits, the largest PSC
reduction considered by the Council and NMFS, the reduction in the
amount of U26 halibut PSC used relative to current use would likely
range from 690,000 pounds to 740,000 pounds. (Proposed Rule, 80 FR
71650, 71662, November 16, 2015) This amount would represent less than
1 percent of the 2015 coastwide female spawning biomass, which was
215.1 million pounds in 2015 (Table 3-1 of Analysis). Under the halibut
PSC limit reductions established in this final rule, the reduction in
U26 halibut PSC use is expected to range from 188,000 to 210,000
pounds. (Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71662, November 16, 2015) This
amount represents substantially less than 1 percent of the 2015
coastwide female spawning biomass of 215.1 million pounds.
Comment 30: The Analysis focused on the economic costs of reducing
halibut PSC limits on the BSAI groundfish fisheries without discussing
the practicability for the groundfish fleet to make greater reductions.
The Iterative Multi-year Simulation Model (IMS) in the Analysis
presented two scenarios to describe potential economic impacts. Under
one of those scenarios, the IMS predicted that bycatch could not be
reduced without closing groundfish fisheries, an assumption that the
SSC identified as unrealistic in its June 2015 Report to the Council
meeting (at http://www.npfmc.org/bsai-halibut-bycatch/).
Response: The commenter is referring to a simulation model that was
used, along with other information, to provide a quantitative estimate
of the economic impacts of different levels of PSC reductions on the
BSAI groundfish fisheries. Section 4.6 of the Analysis describes the
simulation model.
The commenter is correct that the SSC identified that a deficiency
in the model was the assumption that halibut PSC mortality could not be
reduced without some decrease in groundfish harvests. This assumption
is explicitly identified as Assumption 34 of the simulation model.
Assumption 34 states that there
[[Page 24725]]
are no ``cost-free behavioral changes'' by which vessels in the BSAI
groundfish fisheries could decrease halibut PSC mortality. (Section
4.6.3 of Analysis)
However, the Analysis did not limit its discussion of potential
economic impacts on the BSAI groundfish fisheries to the quantitative
results of the model. The Analysis describes behavioral and operational
changes that are being made, or that could be expanded or improved, in
response to a decrease in PSC limits. Section 3.1.3.6 of the Analysis
describes ``PSC reduction tools'' in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
Section 4.14.2.2 describes the ``Response to PSC limit reductions.''
Appendix B of the Analysis describes ``Mitigation of PSC Reduction
Impacts.''
Finally, despite this and some other limitations in the model noted
by the SSC, the SSC concluded the estimates of foregone revenues
provided by the analytic model ``likely provides an upper bound'' of
impacts on the groundfish fleet ``as harvesters can mitigate their
foregone revenue by fishing in other fisheries, in cleaner areas, or
changing gear deployment of fishing practices'' (June 2015 SSC Report:
http://www.npfmc.org/bsai-halibut-bycatch/ at page 10).
The Council received the SSC Report and considered it, along with
all the information in the record, when it approved Amendment 111.
Neither the Council nor NMFS limited review or consideration of the
potential social or economic impacts of Amendment 111 on the BSAI
groundfish fisheries to this specific assumption in the IMS.
Comment 31: The Analysis does not describe the directed halibut
fisheries and the BSAI groundfish fisheries equitably, as noted by the
SSC in its June 2015 SSC Report: ``The uneven treatment between sectors
(e.g., income plurality only for halibut permit holders and
demographics of employment only for trawl CPs) further confounds the
ability to evaluate impacts.''
Response: NMFS assumes that the commenter is referring to
demographic data on employment of minority employees that was used in
the environmental justice discussion. This data is provided in
Attachment 4 to Appendix C of the Analysis. Appendix C in the Analysis
reviewed by the SSC did not use employment as a measure of community
engagement for trawl catcher/processors. Section 2.2 examined data such
as trawl catcher/processors by community of vessel owner; first
wholesale gross revenue by community of vessel owner; an estimate of
first wholesale gross revenue diversification by community of vessel
owner (what percentage of the catcher/processor's revenues came from
BSAI groundfish trawl fisheries) (Table 2-2a, 2-2b, 2-2c to Appendix C
in the Council Draft Analysis, May 2015, available at Archive of
Council Meetings, June 2015, www.npfmc.org/council-meeting-archive/).
In response to the SSC comment, Appendix C in the Analysis was
expanded to include estimated crew employment and payments for the
directed halibut fishery for the BSAI halibut-dependent communities.
This new data is shown in Tables 3-3, 3-7, 3-10, and 3-13.
The Council and NMFS used the best available information consistent
with National Standard 2 in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to evaluate the
impacts of this action on all the communities affected by this action.
The SSC found that the Analysis provided scientific support for two
general statements ``around which the Council can frame a policy
decision,'' namely, that the Analysis provided an upper bound for
adverse impacts on the groundfish fisheries and that the Analysis
showed that the economic and cultural footprint of the directed halibut
fishery is larger than that of the groundfish fishery in many small
communities (June 2015 SSC Report: http://www.npfmc.org/bsai-halibut-bycatch/ at page 10).
Comment 32: The commenter asserts that the SSC Report in June 2015
stated that the Analysis has flaws in the ``upper bound'' estimate on
impacts on groundfish sectors provided in the IMS.
Response: The June 2015 SSC Report stated that the upper bound
estimate of potential economic impacts of Amendment 111 on the BSAI
groundfish fisheries was one of the general statements ``around which
the Council can frame a policy decision.'' The ``upper bound'' estimate
is the same as the ``high impact scenario'' (Scenario B) used in IMS,
the results of which are described in the Analysis and summarized in
Table ES-4 of the Analysis. The simulation model reported the results
of two scenarios: A low impact scenario (Scenario A) and a high impact
scenario (Scenario B). In the low impact scenario, fishery participants
are assumed to be able to coordinate harvesting activities with other
participants in the sector to achieve almost optimal efficiency in
avoiding halibut PSC. In the high impact scenario, fishery participants
are assumed to act individually to decrease their own PSC but not
cooperatively with other participants in the sector and do not achieve
optimal efficiency in avoiding halibut PSC.
The Council and NMFS considered both of these scenarios. Based on
the Analysis and extensive public testimony before the Council, NMFS
determined that the BSAI groundfish sectors have varying abilities to
optimize efficient use of halibut PSC and ``it is likely that the
actual economic impacts of the proposed rule will fall within the range
between the low impact and high impact scenarios presented in the
Analysis.'' (Proposed Rule, 80 FR 71650, 71661, November 16, 2015)
Comment 33: The Council's Draft Analysis states that the revisions
in the IMS described in the Analysis are based on ``discussions with
industry.'' This is not the best available science as required by
National Standard 2.
Response: The reference to ``discussions with industry'' is in note
51 in section 4.8 of the Council's Draft Analysis of May 2015, which
states: ``In the initial draft of the analysis, the IMS did, in fact,
make assumptions about which vessels operations would be cut under the
PSC limit reductions. After further discussions with industry, there
was not a clear consensus among managers on how they might proceed.
Much would depend on vessels' specific operating characteristics and
the demands of the market.'' (available at Archive of Council Meetings,
June 2015, www.npfmc.org/council-meeting-archive).
The Council's Draft Analysis in section 4.6.2.3 at pages 253-254
describes these discussions in detail. These discussions were with
``industry and fishery managers,'' and were not limited to industry
participants. These discussions were used to help define which of the
four BSAI groundfish sectors should be described as catch share
fisheries (and therefore more likely to be subject to economic impacts
described under the low impact scenario) and which fisheries should be
described as ``race for fish'' fisheries (and therefore more likely to
be subject to economic impacts described under the high impact
scenario). The final Analysis repeats the description of these
discussions from the Council Draft Analysis and repeats in two places
the footnote cited by the commenter (Section 4.6.2.3; Section 4.8 at
note 48; Section 4.13.2.1 at note 55).
The result of the discussions was noted in the description of
Assumption 42b in Section 4.6.3 of the Analysis. Assumption 42b
describes the assumptions used in the model about how participants in
catch share sectors (the Amendment 80 and the BSAI non-trawl sector)
would respond to decreases in PSC limits. Based on these discussions,
Assumption 42b was changed so that the model ``[did] not make any
assumptions regarding the de-
[[Page 24726]]
activation of individual vessels'' in response to reductions in PSC
limits. Previously, ``[i]n the initial draft of the analysis, the IMS
model did in fact make assumptions about which vessel's operations
would be cut under the PSC limits reductions'' (Section 4.6.3 of
Analysis at note 45).
Thus, the discussions with industry [1] were not just with industry
but also with fishery managers, [2] resulted in a change of one
assumption in the model, not a new model, [3] were an appropriate
subject for gathering information from industry, namely how a company
with a number of vessels would react to PSC limit reductions, and [4]
resulted in a valid change in the model. This is an example of the use
of best available information consistent with National Standard 2.
Comment 34: Halibut is primarily consumed domestically while
groundfish with its high halibut bycatch rates is primarily exported.
These values are not adequately evaluated in the Analysis.
Response: The Analysis describes the range of ex-vessel and
wholesale values of halibut and groundfish fisheries. Although halibut
and many groundfish species may have different markets, the impact of
domestic and foreign markets is reflected in the ex-vessel and
wholesale values of the fisheries described in the Analysis.
Comment 35: The Analysis overlooks the fact that the number of
halibut caught, not the poundage, is the key to evaluating the
population effects on the halibut stock of halibut bycatch.
Response: This action reduces the BSAI halibut PSC limits which are
set as a limit on the total weight of halibut mortality that may be
taken as bycatch. The Analysis appropriately assessed the impacts of
the management alternatives based on the regulatory mechanism used to
establish halibut PSC limits. Changing halibut PSC limits so that these
limits restrict the number of halibut caught as bycatch is beyond the
scope of Amendment 111. As noted in response to Comment 6, the Council,
NMFS, and the IPHC are considering the potential for establishing
halibut PSC limits based on the number of halibut. Any evaluation about
the potential impacts of this alternative management approach would
have to be considered under a separate action.
Other Issues
Comment 36: Worldwide, the rate at which fish are being taken from
the oceans is unsustainable. Amendment 111 represents a scratch on the
surface of what we need to do worldwide.
Response: It is beyond the scope of this final rule, and the
Analysis prepared for this rule, to evaluate the worldwide management
of fisheries. NMFS appreciates that the commenter believes that
Amendment 111 is a step in furtherance of sustainable fisheries.
Comment 37: Establishing a separate PSC limit for CDQ groups is a
good idea. The commenter criticized CDQ groups concerning their non-
profit status and other aspects of their fishing operations.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the commenter's support for the part of
this rule that establishes a separate BSAI halibut PSC limit for CDQ
Program. Comments on other aspects of the CDQ Program are beyond the
scope of this final rule.
Comment 38: As federally recognized tribal communities, protection
of fishing rights in St. Paul and St. George is a shared role of both
NOAA and the Department of the Interior. One commenter stated that
halibut PSC limit reductions of 40 percent are necessary to protect the
federally recognized fishing rights of these tribes. One tribal
government passed a resolution supporting a 50 percent reduction in all
halibut PSC limits in BSAI, but also requested implementation of
Amendment 111.
Response: The Council recommended, and NMFS implements, Amendment
111 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 111
reduces halibut PSC limits in a manner that could provide additional
halibut harvest opportunities for residents of St. George and St. Paul
and for the tribal governments of St. George and St. Paul. The three
tribal governments that submitted comments, including the tribal
government that passed a resolution supporting a 50 percent reduction
in BSAI halibut PSC limits, supported adoption and implementation of
Amendment 111.
Comment 39: The commenter requested a description of the standard
for determining conflicts of interest for the IPHC.
Response: This rule deals with conservation and management measures
developed by the Council and approved and implemented by the Secretary
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The provisions for U.S. Commissioners
to participate in issues before the IPHC are beyond the scope of this
rule.
Additional Action Accompanying This Rule
With this rule, NMFS also publishes revised Groundfish Harvest
Specification tables with revised apportionments of BSAI halibut PSC
limits. At its December 2015 Council meeting, the Council approved two
sets of tables that apportion the BSAI halibut PSC limits for the 2016
and 2017 annual harvest specifications: One apportionment based on the
PSC limits in effect before this final rule and one apportionment based
on the PSC limits that would be in effect if this final rule were
approved. (http://www.npfmc.org/council-meeting-archive/). The Council
approved both sets of apportionments of the BSAI halibut PSC limits so
that the apportionments based on the new PSC limits would go into
effect when this final rule establishing the new PSC limits went into
effect. Therefore, with this final rule, NMFS publishes revised Tables
14, 16, 17, and 18 for the BSAI Groundfish Harvest Specification
tables. These tables supersede the prior tables of the same number that
were published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2016 (80 FR 14773,
14787-14788). The revised Tables 14, 16, 17, and 18 are printed below.
Table 14--Final 2016 and 2017 Apportionment of Prohibited Species Catch Allowances to Non-Trawl Gear, the CDQ Program, Amendment 80, and the BSAI Trawl
Limited Access Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-trawl PSC Trawl PSC
remaining Total trawl remaining CDQ PSQ Amendment 80 BSAI trawl
PSC species and area \1\ after CDQ PSQ PSC after CDQ PSQ reserve \2\ sector \3\ limited access
\2\ \2\ fishery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut mortality (mt) BSAI............................. 710 2,805 n/a 315 1,745 745
Herring (mt) BSAI....................................... n/a 2,631 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Red king crab (animals) Zone 1.......................... n/a 97,000 86,621 10,379 43,293 26,489
C. opilio (animals) COBLZ............................... n/a 4,708,314 4,204,524 503,790 2,066,524 1,351,334
C. bairdi crab (animals) Zone 1......................... n/a 830,000 741,190 88,810 312,115 348,285
[[Page 24727]]
C. bairdi crab (animals) Zone 2......................... n/a 2,520,000 2,250,360 269,640 532,660 1,053,394
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refer to Sec. 679.2 for definitions of zones.
\2\ Section 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A)(2) allocates 326 mt of the trawl halibut mortality limit and Sec. 679.21(e)(4)(i)(A) allocates 7.5 percent, or 67 mt,
of the non-trawl halibut mortality limit as the PSQ reserve for use by the groundfish CDQ program. The PSQ reserve for crab species is 10.7 percent of
each crab PSC limit.
\3\ The Amendment 80 program reduced apportionment of the trawl PSC limits by 150 mt for halibut mortality and 20 percent for crab. These reductions are
not apportioned to other gear types or sectors.
Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
Table 16--Final 2016 and 2017 Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowances for the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited species and area \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI trawl limited access Halibut Red king crab C. opilio C. bairdi (animals)
fisheries mortality (mt) (animals) Zone (animals) -------------------------------
BSAI 1 COBLZ Zone 1 Zone 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowfin sole.................. 150 23,338 1,273,886 293,234 1,005,879
Rock sole/flathead sole/other 0 0 0 0 0
flatfish \2\...................
Greenland turbot/arrowtooth 0 0 0 0 0
flounder/Kamchatka flounder/
sablefish......................
Rockfish April 15-December 31... 4 0 2,104 0 849
Pacific cod..................... 391 2,954 54,298 50,816 42,424
Pollock/Atka mackerel/other 200 197 21,046 4,235 4,242
species \3\....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total BSAI trawl limited 745 26,489 1,351,334 348,285 1,053,394
access PSC.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refer to Sec. 679.2 for definitions of areas.
\2\ ``Other flatfish'' for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited
species), flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, Kamchatka flounder, and arrowtooth
flounder.
\3\ ``Other species'' for PSC monitoring includes skates, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses.
Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
Table 17--Final 2016 and 2017 Halibut Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowances for Non-Trawl Fisheries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut mortality (mt) BSAI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catcher/
Non-trawl fisheries Seasons processor Catcher vessel All non-trawl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific cod..................... Total Pacific cod.. 648 13 n/a.
January 1-June 10.. 388 9 n/a.
June 10-August 15.. 162 2 n/a.
August 15-December 98 2 n/a.
31.
Non-Pacific cod non-trawl-Total. May 1-December 31.. n/a n/a 49.
Groundfish pot and jig.......... n/a................ n/a n/a Exempt.
Sablefish hook-and-line......... n/a................ n/a n/a Exempt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for all non-trawl PSC. n/a................ n/a n/a 710
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
Table 18--Final 2016 Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowance for the BSAI Amendment 80 Cooperatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited species and zones \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative Halibut Red king crab C. opilio C. bairdi (animals)
mortality (mt) (animals) Zone (animals) -------------------------------
BSAI 1 COBLZ Zone 1 Zone 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Groundfish Cooperative... 474 12,459 650,551 82,136 137,369
Alaska Seafood Cooperative...... 1,271 30,834 1,415,973 229,979 395,291
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refer to Sec. 679.2 for definitions of zones.
Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
[[Page 24728]]
Classification
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that Amendment 111
to the FMP and this rule are necessary for the conservation and
management of the groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small
entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such
publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The preambles to
the proposed rule and this final rule serve as the small entity
compliance guide. This action does not require any additional
compliance from small entities that is not described in the preambles.
Copies of the proposed rule and this final rule are available from the
NMFS Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) incorporates the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the
significant issues raised by the public comments, NMFS' responses to
those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the
action. NMFS published the proposed rule on November 16, 2015 (80 FR
71650), with comments invited through December 16, 2015. An IRFA was
prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble
to the proposed rule. The FRFA describes the impacts on small entities,
which are defined in the IRFA for this action and not repeated here.
Analytical requirements for the FRFA are described in Regulatory
Flexibility Act, section 304(a)(1) through (5), and summarized below.
The FRFA must contain:
1. A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule;
2. A summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a summary of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule as a result of such comments;
3. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to
which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is
available;
4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record; and
5. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
The ``universe'' of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally
includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to
be directly regulated by the action. If the effects of the rule fall
primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion thereof
(e.g., user group, gear type, geographic area), that segment would be
considered the universe for purposes of this analysis.
In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or
numerical description of the effects of a rule (and alternatives to the
rule), or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not
practicable or reliable.
Need for and Objectives of This Final Rule
The objective of this final rule is to decrease BSAI halibut PSC to
the extent practicable by the BSAI groundfish fisheries while
achieving, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from the BSAI
groundfish fisheries. This rule achieves that objective by reducing the
BSAI halibut PSC limits in four sectors of the BSAI groundfish
fisheries and adopting the following new BSAI halibut PSC limits: 1,745
mt for the Amendment 80 sector; 745 mt for the BSAI trawl limited
access sector; 710 mt for the BSAI non-trawl sector; and 315 mt for the
CDQ Program. These new limits result in an overall BSAI halibut PSC
limit of 3,515 mt. By reducing halibut PSC, this final rule may
increase harvest opportunities for the directed halibut fisheries if
the IPHC responds to this final rule by increasing catch limits for the
directed halibut fisheries.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment
No comments were received that raised significant issues in
response to the IRFA specifically; therefore, no changes were made to
the rule as a result of comments on the IRFA. However, several comments
were received on the economic impacts of Amendment 111 on different
sectors of the groundfish and halibut fisheries and on fishing
communities. For a summary of the comments received and the agency's
responses, refer to the section above titled ``Response to Comments,''
particularly the sections titled ``Comments Associated with Specific
National Standards'' and ``Comments Associated with the Analysis.''
Number and Description of Directly Regulated Small Entities
This action directly regulates those entities that participate in
harvesting groundfish from the Federal or parallel groundfish fisheries
of the BSAI subject to a halibut PSC limit. The Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities that
could be regulated by this action: (1) small businesses, (2) small non-
profit organizations, and (3) small government jurisdictions. This
action directly regulates small businesses that participate in the
harvesting of groundfish, and small non-profit organizations.
In this FRFA, NMFS estimates the number of directly regulated small
entities based on size criteria established for industry sectors
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). According to the
SBA criteria, the groundfish fishery is defined as a finfish harvesting
sector. An entity primarily involved in finfish harvesting is a small
entity if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in
its field of operation (including its affiliates), and if it has
combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all
its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on the best available and
most recent data from 2014, a maximum of up to 178 vessels could be
directly regulated by this action. This FRFA assumes that each vessel
is a unique entity. Because of that, this FRFA likely overestimates the
total number of directly regulated entities because some vessels are
likely affiliated through common ownership. However, these potential
affiliations are not known with the best available data and cannot be
predicted.
Only 19 of these directly regulated entities are estimated to be
small entities based on the best available data
[[Page 24729]]
on the gross receipts from these entities and their known affiliates.
Seventeen of these small entities are hook-and-line catcher vessels
that participate in the non-trawl sector, and two are trawl catcher
vessels that participate in the BSAI trawl limited access sector,
specifically the Pacific cod target fishery.
This final rule directly regulates all six of the CDQ groups: the
Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, the Bristol
Bay Economic Development Corporation, the Central Bering Sea
Fishermen's Association, the Coastal Villages Region Fund, the Norton
Sound Economic Development Corporation, and the Yukon Delta Fisheries
Development Association. Each of the six CDQ groups receives an
exclusive allocation of halibut PSC that will be reduced (i.e.,
regulated) under this action. The six CDQ groups are non-profit
organizations and none is dominant in its field; consequently each is
defined as a small entity under the RFA.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
This action does not modify recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.
Description of Significant Alternatives Considered
The Council considered an extensive series of alternatives,
options, and suboptions to reduce halibut PSC limits in the BSAI,
including the ``no action'' alternative. The RIR presents the complete
set of alternatives (see ADDRESSES). Alternative 1 is the status quo/no
action alternative, which would retain the current BSAI halibut PSC
limits in the FMP and in regulations. Alternative 2 would have amended
the FMP and regulations to reduce BSAI halibut PSC limits for six
groundfish sectors. Alternative 2 includes six options. Each of the
options under Alternative 2 contained seven suboptions analyzing
halibut PSC limit reductions ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent for
each sector. Option 1 would have reduced halibut PSC limits for the
Amendment 80 sector. The reductions ranged from 232 mt to 1,162 mt.
Option 2 would have reduced halibut PSC limits for the BSAI trawl
limited access sector. The reductions ranged from 87 mt to 437 mt.
Option 3 would have reduced halibut PSC limits for the Pacific cod
hook-and-line catcher/processor sector. The reductions ranged from 76
mt to 380 mt. Option 4 would have reduced halibut PSC limits for hook-
and-line vessels participating in target fisheries other than Pacific
cod or sablefish. The reductions ranged from 6 mt to 29 mt. Option 5
would have reduced halibut PSC limits for the Pacific cod hook-and-line
catcher vessel sector. The reductions ranged from 1 mt to 7 mt. Option
6 would have reduced halibut PSC limits for the CDQ Program. The
reductions ranged from 39 mt to 196 mt. The variety of options and
suboptions under Alternative 2 provided dozens of different
combinations of halibut PSC limit reductions and allowed the Council
and NMFS to consider a broad range of potential alternative actions.
After carefully considering these alternatives, the Council
concluded that the preferred alternative represented the proper balance
between achieving optimum yield by the groundfish fisheries and
reducing bycatch by the groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable,
taking into account the importance of the groundfish fisheries and the
halibut fisheries to fishing communities. The other alternatives would
have decreased bycatch by the groundfish fisheries either too much
(going beyond what was practicable) or too little (falling short of
what was practicable).
Section 2.5 of the Analysis describes other significant
alternatives to the rule that the Council considered but did not
advance for further analysis: (1) Apportioning the halibut PSC limit
for the BSAI trawl limited access sector between American Fisheries Act
(AFA) trawl catcher vessels and non-AFA trawl catcher vessels based on
the halibut PSC by these vessel categories from 2009 through 2013; (2)
implementing permanent measures in the Amendment 80 sector for deck
sorting of halibut; and (3) establishing a seasonal apportionment of
the halibut PSC limit for the BSAI trawl limited access sector. Each of
these alternatives would have changed the current management structure
for regulating halibut PSC limits in BSAI. The Council's preferred
alternative is a straightforward reduction in halibut PSC limits by
sector. The Council's preferred alternative leaves the current
management structure intact and most expeditiously achieves the
Council's objective of reducing halibut PSC limit to the extent
practicable in accord with National Standard 9 and other national
standards. The alternatives that were not advanced for further analysis
would have taken substantially longer to develop and implement than the
preferred alternative.
Based on the best available scientific data and information, none
of the alternatives except the preferred alternative appear to have the
potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and other applicable statutes (as reflected in this action), while
minimizing any significant adverse economic impact on small entities
beyond those achieved under this action. This action will minimize
bycatch to the extent practicable with existing management tools. Thus,
this action will minimize the impacts on small entities in the BSAI
groundfish fisheries and promote more efficient use of the available
halibut PSC limits.
Tribal Consultation
Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450
note), the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note),
the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of
Commerce (March 30, 1995), and the Department of Commerce Tribal
Consultation and Coordination policy (78 FR 33331, June 4, 2013)
outline the responsibilities of NMFS for Federal policies that have
tribal implications. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452),
as amended by section 518 of Public Law 109-447 (118 Stat. 3267),
extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native
corporations. Under the E.O. and agency policies, NMFS must ensure
meaningful and timely input by tribal officials and representatives of
Alaska Native corporations in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.
Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 requires NMFS to prepare a
``tribal summary impact statement'' for any regulation that has tribal
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments, and is not required by statute. The tribal
summary impact statement must contain (1) a description of the extent
of the agency's prior consultation with tribal officials, (2) a summary
of the nature of their concerns, (3) the agency's position supporting
the need to issue the regulation, and (4) a statement of the extent to
which the concerns of tribal officials have been met.
NMFS provided a copy of the Notice of Availability (80 FR 66486,
October 29, 2015) and the proposed rule (80 FR 71650, November 16,
2015) to all federally recognized tribal governments and Alaska Native
corporations to notify them of the opportunity to comment or request a
consultation on this action. NMFS received no requests for
consultation.
NMFS received comment on this action from three federally
recognized
[[Page 24730]]
tribes in Alaska and one Alaska Native corporation. All four entities
supported adoption of Amendment 111. Three of the four entities favored
larger PSC reductions than contained in Amendment 111. The preference
for these commenters and other commenters for larger PSC reductions is
addressed in the response to Comment 2. Even though three of these
commenters favored larger PSC reductions, if the Secretary disapproved
this action, there would be no reductions in the PSC limit for 2016 and
no reductions in the PSC limit unless, and until, the Council and NMFS
proposed a new rule adopting different PSC reductions. This would be
against the interests of these four commenters, as they described those
interests, in their comments because they supported adoption of the PSC
reductions in Amendment 111.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 20, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out 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.; 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
0
2. In Sec. 679.2, revise the definitions for paragraph (5) of
``Directed fishing'', ``Herring Savings Area'', ``PSQ reserve'', and
``Sablefish (black cod)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Directed fishing means:
* * * * *
(5) With respect to the harvest of flatfish in the Bering Sea
subarea, for purposes of nonpelagic trawl restrictions under Sec.
679.22(a) and modified nonpelagic trawl gear requirements under
Sec. Sec. 679.7(c)(5) and 679.24(f), fishing with nonpelagic trawl
gear during any fishing trip that results in a retained aggregate
amount of yellowfin sole, rock sole, Greenland turbot, arrowtooth
flounder, flathead sole, Alaska plaice, and other flatfish that is
greater than the retained amount of any other fishery category defined
under Sec. 679.21(b)(1)(ii) or of sablefish.
* * * * *
Herring Savings Area means any of three areas in the BSAI presented
in Figure 4 to this part (see also Sec. 679.21(b)(4) for additional
closure information).
* * * * *
PSQ reserve means the amount of a prohibited species catch limit
established under Sec. 679.21 that has been allocated to the CDQ
Program under Sec. 679.21.
* * * * *
Sablefish (black cod) means Anoplopoma fimbria. (See also IFQ
sablefish; sablefish as a prohibited species at Sec. 679.21(a)(5); and
sablefish as a prohibited species at Sec. 679.24(c)(2)(ii)).
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 679.7, revise paragraphs (a)(12), (k)(1)(v), and
(k)(4)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(12) Prohibited species donation program. Retain or possess
prohibited species, defined at Sec. 679.21(a)(1), except as permitted
to do so under the PSD program as provided by Sec. 679.26, or as
authorized by other applicable law.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Directed fishing after a sideboard closure. Use a listed AFA
catcher/processor or a catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA
catcher/processor permit to engage in directed fishing for a groundfish
species or species group in the BSAI after the Regional Administrator
has issued an AFA catcher/processor sideboard directed fishing closure
for that groundfish species or species group under Sec. Sec.
679.20(d)(1)(iv), 679.21(b)(4)(iii), or 679.21(e)(3)(v).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Groundfish sideboard closures. Use an AFA catcher vessel to
engage in directed fishing for a groundfish species or species group in
the BSAI or GOA after the Regional Administrator has issued an AFA
catcher vessel sideboard directed fishing closure for that groundfish
species or species group under Sec. Sec. 679.20(d)(1)(iv),
679.21(b)(4)(iii), or 679.21(e)(3)(iv), if the vessel's AFA permit does
not contain a sideboard exemption for that groundfish species or
species group.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 679.21,
0
a. Redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (a);
0
b. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (a)(4);
0
c. Add a new paragraph (b);
0
d. Revise paragraph (e) heading;
0
e. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(1)(iv), (e)(2), and
(e)(3)(i)(A)(2);
0
f. Revise paragraph (e)(3)(ii) heading, paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) and
(C), (e)(3)(iv) introductory text, paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(B)(2) heading,
(e)(3)(v), and (e)(3)(vi)(A) and (B);
0
g. Remove and reserve paragraph (e)(4);
0
h. Remove paragraph (e)(5)(iv);
0
i. Revise paragraphs (e)(6)(i) and (ii), and (e)(7)(i);
0
j. Remove and reserve paragraph (e)(7)(v); and
0
k. Remove paragraph (e)(8).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management.
(a) * * *
(4) Prohibited species taken seaward of the EEZ off Alaska. No
vessel fishing for groundfish in the GOA or BSAI may have on board any
species listed in this paragraph (a) that was taken in waters seaward
of these management areas, regardless of whether retention of such
species was authorized by other applicable laws.
* * * * *
(b) BSAI halibut PSC limits--(1) Establishment of BSAI halibut PSC
limits. Subject to the provisions in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv)
of this section, the following four BSAI halibut PSC limits are
established, which total 3,515 mt: Amendment 80 sector--1,745 mt; BSAI
trawl limited access sector--745 mt; BSAI non-trawl sector--710 mt; and
CDQ Program--315 mt (established as a PSQ reserve).
(i) Amendment 80 sector. The PSC limit of halibut caught while
conducting any fishery in the Amendment 80 sector is an amount of
halibut equivalent to 1,745 mt of halibut mortality. Halibut PSC limits
within the Amendment 80 sector will be established for Amendment 80
cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery according to
the procedure and formulae in Sec. 679.91(d) and (f). If halibut PSC
is assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, it will be
apportioned into PSC allowances for trawl fishery categories according
to the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) and (3) of this
section.
(ii) BSAI trawl limited access sector--(A) General. (1) The PSC
limit of halibut
[[Page 24731]]
caught while conducting any fishery in the BSAI trawl limited access
sector is an amount of halibut equivalent to 745 mt of halibut
mortality.
(2) NMFS, after consultation with the Council, will apportion the
PSC limit set forth under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(1) of this section
into PSC allowances for the trawl fishery categories defined in
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of this section.
(3) Apportionment of the trawl halibut PSC limit set forth under
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(1) of this section among the trawl fishery
categories will be based on each category's proportional share of the
anticipated halibut PSC during a fishing year and the need to optimize
the amount of total groundfish harvested under the halibut PSC limit
for this sector.
(4) The sum of all PSC allowances for this sector will equal the
PSC limit set forth under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(1) of this section.
(B) Trawl fishery categories. For purposes of apportioning the
trawl PSC limit set forth under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(1) of this
section among trawl fisheries, the following fishery categories are
specified and defined in terms of round-weight equivalents of those
groundfish species or species groups for which a TAC has been specified
under Sec. 679.20.
(1) Midwater pollock fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any
weekly reporting period that results in a catch of pollock that is 95
percent or more of the total amount of groundfish caught during the
week.
(2) Flatfish fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any weekly
reporting period that results in a retained aggregate amount of rock
sole, ``other flatfish,'' and yellowfin sole that is greater than the
retained amount of any other fishery category defined under this
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B).
(i) Yellowfin sole fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any
weekly reporting period that is defined as a flatfish fishery under
this paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) and results in a retained amount of
yellowfin sole that is 70 percent or more of the retained aggregate
amount of rock sole, ``other flatfish,'' and yellowfin sole.
(ii) Rock sole/flathead sole/Alaska plaice/``other flatfish''
fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any weekly reporting period
that is defined as a flatfish fishery under this paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) and is not a yellowfin sole fishery as defined under
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/Kamchatka flounder/
sablefish fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any weekly reporting
period that results in a retained aggregate amount of Greenland turbot,
arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, and sablefish that is greater
than the retained amount of any other fishery category defined under
this paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B).
(4) Rockfish fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any weekly
reporting period that results in a retained aggregate amount of
rockfish species that is greater than the retained amount of any other
fishery category defined under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B).
(5) Pacific cod fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any weekly
reporting period that results in a retained aggregate amount of Pacific
cod that is greater than the retained amount of any other groundfish
fishery category defined under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B).
(6) Pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species.'' Fishing with trawl
gear during any weekly reporting period that results in a retained
aggregate amount of pollock other than pollock harvested in the
midwater pollock fishery defined under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B)(1) of
this section, Atka mackerel, and ``other species'' that is greater than
the retained amount of any other fishery category defined under this
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B).
(C) Halibut PSC in midwater pollock fishery. Any amount of halibut
that is incidentally taken in the midwater pollock fishery, as defined
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, will be counted against
the halibut PSC allowance specified for the pollock/Atka mackerel/
``other species'' category, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B)(6) of
this section.
(iii) BSAI Non-trawl Sector--(A) General. (1) The PSC limit of
halibut caught while conducting any fishery in the BSAI non-trawl
sector is an amount of halibut equivalent to 710 mt of halibut
mortality.
(2) NMFS, after consultation with the Council, will apportion the
PSC limit set forth under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(1) into PSC
allowances for the non-trawl fishery categories defined under paragraph
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(3) Apportionment of the non-trawl halibut PSC limit of 710 mt
among the non-trawl fishery categories will be based on each category's
proportional share of the anticipated halibut PSC during a fishing year
and the need to optimize the amount of total groundfish harvested under
the halibut PSC limit for this sector.
(4) The sum of all PSC allowances for this sector will equal the
PSC limit set forth under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(1) of this section.
(B) Non-trawl fishery categories. For purposes of apportioning the
non-trawl halibut PSC limit among fisheries, the following fishery
categories are specified and defined in terms of round-weight
equivalents of those BSAI groundfish species for which a TAC has been
specified under Sec. 679.20.
(1) Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher vessel fishery. Catcher
vessels fishing with hook-and-line gear during any weekly reporting
period that results in a retained catch of Pacific cod that is greater
than the retained amount of any other groundfish species.
(2) Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher/processor fishery. Catcher/
processors fishing with hook-and-line gear during any weekly reporting
period that results in a retained catch of Pacific cod that is greater
than the retained amount of any other groundfish species.
(3) Sablefish hook-and-line fishery. Fishing with hook-and-line
gear during any weekly reporting period that results in a retained
catch of sablefish that is greater than the retained amount of any
other groundfish species.
(4) Groundfish jig gear fishery. Fishing with jig gear during any
weekly reporting period that results in a retained catch of groundfish.
(5) Groundfish pot gear fishery. Fishing with pot gear under
restrictions set forth in Sec. 679.24(b) during any weekly reporting
period that results in a retained catch of groundfish.
(6) Other non-trawl fisheries. Fishing for groundfish with non-
trawl gear during any weekly reporting period that results in a
retained catch of groundfish and does not qualify as a Pacific cod
hook-and-line catcher vessel fishery, a Pacific cod hook-and-line
catcher/processor fishery, a sablefish hook-and-line fishery, a jig
gear fishery, or a groundfish pot gear fishery as defined under
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) through (5) of this section.
(iv) CDQ Program. The PSC limit of halibut caught while conducting
any fishery in the CDQ Program is an amount of halibut equivalent to
315 mt of halibut mortality. The PSC limit to the CDQ Program will be
treated as a Prohibited Species Quota (PSQ) reserve to the CDQ Program
for all purposes under 50 CFR part 679 including Sec. Sec. 679.31 and
679.7(d)(3). The PSQ limit is not apportioned by gear, fishery, or
season.
(2) Seasonal apportionments of BSAI halibut PSC allowances--(i)
General. NMFS, after consultation with the Council, may apportion a
halibut PSC allowance on a seasonal basis.
[[Page 24732]]
(ii) Factors to be considered. NMFS will base any seasonal
apportionment of a PSC allowance on the following types of information:
(A) Seasonal distribution of prohibited species;
(B) Seasonal distribution of target groundfish species relative to
prohibited species distribution;
(C) Expected PSC needs on a seasonal basis relevant to change in
prohibited species biomass and expected catches of target groundfish
species;
(D) Expected variations in PSC rates throughout the fishing year;
(E) Expected changes in directed groundfish fishing seasons;
(F) Expected start of fishing effort; or
(G) Economic effects of establishing seasonal prohibited species
apportionments on segments of the target groundfish industry.
(iii) Seasonal trawl fishery PSC allowances--(A) Unused seasonal
apportionments. Unused seasonal apportionments of trawl fishery PSC
allowances made under paragraph (b)(2) of this section will be added to
its respective fishery PSC allowance for the next season during a
current fishing year.
(B) Seasonal apportionment exceeded. If a seasonal apportionment of
a trawl fishery PSC allowance made under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section is exceeded, the amount by which the seasonal apportionment is
exceeded will be deducted from its respective apportionment for the
next season during a current fishing year.
(iv) Seasonal non-trawl fishery PSC allowances--(A) Unused seasonal
apportionments. Any unused portion of a seasonal non-trawl fishery PSC
allowance made under paragraph (b)(2) of this section will be
reapportioned to the fishery's remaining seasonal PSC allowances during
a current fishing year in a manner determined by NMFS, after
consultation with the Council, based on the types of information listed
under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(B) Seasonal apportionment exceeded. If a seasonal apportionment of
a non-trawl fishery PSC allowance made under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section is exceeded, the amount by which the seasonal apportionment is
exceeded will be deducted from the fishery's remaining seasonal PSC
allowances during a current fishing year in a manner determined by
NMFS, after consultation with the Council, based on the types of
information listed under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(3) Notification of allowances--(i) General. NMFS will publish in
the Federal Register, for up to two fishing years, the proposed and
final BSAI halibut PSC allowances, the seasonal apportionments thereof,
and the manner in which seasonal apportionments of non-trawl fishery
PSC allowances will be managed.
(ii) Public comment. Public comment will be accepted by NMFS on the
proposed PSC allowances seasonal apportionments thereof, and the manner
in which seasonal apportionments of non-trawl fishery PSC allowances
will be managed, for a period specified in the notice of proposed
specifications published in the Federal Register.
(4) Management of BSAI halibut PSC allowances--(i) Trawl sector--
Amendment 80 limited access fishery and BSAI trawl limited access
sector: closures--(A) Exception. When a PSC allowance, or seasonal
apportionment thereof, specified for the pollock/Atka mackerel/``other
species'' fishery category, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B)(6) of
this section is reached, only directed fishing for pollock is closed to
trawl vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear.
(B) Closures. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) of this
section, if, during the fishing year, the Regional Administrator
determines that U.S. fishing vessels participating in any of the trawl
fishery categories listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) through (6) of
this section will catch the halibut PSC allowance, or seasonal
apportionment thereof, specified for that fishery category under
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section, NMFS will publish in
the Federal Register the closure of the entire BSAI to directed fishing
for each species and/or species group in that fishery category for the
remainder of the year or for the remainder of the season.
(ii) BSAI non-trawl sector: closures. If, during the fishing year,
the Regional Administrator determines that U.S. fishing vessels
participating in any of the non-trawl fishery categories listed under
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section will catch the halibut PSC
allowance, or seasonal apportionment thereof, specified for that
fishery category under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, NMFS will
publish in the Federal Register the closure of the entire BSAI to
directed fishing with the relevant gear type for each species and/or
species group in that fishery category.
(iii) AFA PSC sideboard limits. Halibut PSC limits for the AFA
catcher/processor sector and the AFA trawl catcher vessel sector will
be established pursuant to Sec. 679.64(a) and (b) and managed through
directed fishing closures for the AFA catcher/processor sector and the
AFA trawl catcher vessel sector in the groundfish fisheries for which
the PSC limit applies.
* * * * *
(e) BSAI PSC limits for crab, salmon, herring--
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Red king crab, C. bairdi, and C. opilio--(A) General. For
vessels engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI, other
than vessels fishing under a CQ permit assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative, the PSC limits for red king crab, C. bairdi, and C. opilio
will be apportioned to the trawl fishery categories defined in
paragraphs (e)(3)(iv)(B) through (F) of this section.
* * * * *
(C) Incidental catch in midwater pollock fishery. Any amount of red
king crab, C. bairdi, or C. opilio that is incidentally taken in the
midwater pollock fishery as defined in paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(A) of this
section will be counted against the bycatch allowances specified for
the pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species'' category defined in
paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(F) of this section.
* * * * *
(iv) Trawl fishery categories. For purposes of apportioning trawl
PSC limits for crab and herring among fisheries, other than crab PSC CQ
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, the following fishery
categories are specified and defined in terms of round-weight
equivalents of those groundfish species or species groups for which a
TAC has been specified under Sec. 679.20.
* * * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Rock sole/flathead sole/Alaska plaice/``other flatfish''
fishery. * * *
* * * * *
(v) AFA prohibited species catch limitations. Crab PSC limits for
the AFA catcher/processor sector and the AFA trawl catcher vessel
sector will be established according to the procedures and formulas set
out in Sec. 679.64(a) and (b) and managed through directed fishing
closures for the AFA catcher/processor sector and the AFA trawl catcher
vessel sector in the groundfish fisheries for which the PSC limit
applies.
(vi) * * *
(A) Crab PSC limits for the Amendment 80 sector in the BSAI will be
established according to the procedure and formulae set out in Sec.
679.91(d) through (f); and
(B) Crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery
will be managed through directed fishing closures for Amendment 80
[[Page 24733]]
vessels to which the crab bycatch limits apply.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) General. NMFS will publish in the Federal Register, for up to
two fishing years, the annual red king crab PSC limit, and, if
applicable, the amount of this PSC limit specified for the RKCSS, the
annual C. bairdi PSC limit, the annual C. opilio PSC limit, the
proposed and final PSQ reserve amounts, the proposed and final bycatch
allowances, and the seasonal apportionments thereof, as required by
paragraph (e) of this section.
(ii) Public comment. Public comment will be accepted by NMFS on the
proposed annual red king crab PSC limit and, if applicable, the amount
of this PSC limit specified for the RKCSS, the annual C. bairdi PSC
limit, the annual C. opilio PSC limit, the proposed and final bycatch
allowances, seasonal apportionments thereof, and the manner in which
seasonal apportionments of non-trawl fishery bycatch allowances will be
managed, for a period specified in the notice of proposed
specifications published in the Federal Register.
(7) * * *
(i) Exception. When a bycatch allowance, or seasonal apportionment
thereof, specified for the pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species''
fishery category is reached, only directed fishing for pollock is
closed to trawl vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 679.31, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.31 CDQ and PSQ reserves, allocations, and transfers.
(a) * * *
(4) PSQ reserve. (See Sec. 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A) and (b)(1)(iv))
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 679.64, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in other fisheries.
(a) * * *
(3) How will AFA catcher/processor sideboard limits be managed? The
Regional Administrator will manage groundfish harvest limits and PSC
bycatch limits for AFA catcher/processors through directed fishing
closures in fisheries established under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section in accordance with the procedures set out in Sec. Sec.
679.20(d)(1)(iv) and 679.21(b)(4)(iii).
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 679.91, revise paragraphs (d)(1) and (3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual harvester privileges.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC for the Amendment 80 sector.
The amount of halibut PSC limit for the Amendment 80 sector for each
calendar year is specified in Table 35 to this part. That halibut PSC
is then assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80
limited access fishery pursuant to paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this
section. If one or more Amendment 80 vessels participate in the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery, the halibut PSC limit assigned to
the Amendment 80 sector will be reduced pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of
this section.
* * * * *
(3) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery. The amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is equal to the amount of
halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector, as specified in Table
35 to this part, subtracting the amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC
assigned as CQ to all Amendment 80 cooperatives as determined in
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section, multiplied by 80 percent.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 679.20, 679.23, 679.24, 679.25, and 679.26 [Amended]
0
8. At each of the locations shown in the ``Location'' column, remove
the phrase indicated in the ``Remove'' column and replace it with the
phrase indicated in the ``Add'' column for the number of times
indicated in the ``Frequency'' column.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Remove Add Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 679.20(d)(2)..................... Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.23(f)........................ Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.23(g)(3)..................... Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.24(c)(2)(ii)(A).............. Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.24(c)(2)(ii)(B).............. Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.24(c)(3)..................... Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.24(c)(4)..................... Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.25(a)(2)(ii)(A).............. Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
Sec. 679.26(d)(2)..................... Sec. 679.21(b).......... Sec. 679.21(a).......... 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
9. Revise table 35 to part 679 to read as follows:
Table 35 to Part 679--Apportionment of Crab PSC and Halibut PSC Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited
Access Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut PSC Zone 1 Red king C. opilio crab Zone 1 C. Zone 2 C.
Fishery limit in the crab PSC limit PSC limit bairdi crab PSC bairdi crab PSC
BSAI (mt) . . . (COBLZ) . . . limit . . . limit . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit after allocation
as PSQ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 80 sector......... 1,745 49.98.......... 49.15.......... 42.11.......... 23.67
BSAI trawl limited access... 745 30.58.......... 32.14.......... 46.99.......... 46.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24734]]
0
10. Revise table 40 to part 679 to read as follows:
Table 40 to Part 679--BSAI Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits for AFA Catcher/
Processors and AFA Catcher Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFA The AFA
catcher/ catcher
processor vessel
In the following target species halibut PSC halibut PSC
categories as defined in Sec. sideboard sideboard
679.21(b)(1)(iii) and (e)(3)(iv) . . . limit in limit in
metric tons metric tons
is . . . is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All target species categories........... 286 N/A
Pacific cod trawl....................... N/A 887
Pacific cod hook-and-line or pot........ N/A 2
Yellowfin sole.......................... N/A 101
Rock sole/flathead sole/``other N/A 228
flatfish'' \1\.........................
Turbot/Arrowtooth/Sablefish............. N/A 0
Rockfish \2\............................ N/A 2
Pollock/Atka mackerel/``other species''. N/A 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Other flatfish'' for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species,
except for halibut (a prohibited species), Greenland turbot, rock
sole, flathead sole, yellowfin sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
\2\ Applicable from July 1 through December 31.
[FR Doc. 2016-09680 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P