Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish…
| Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for the
DATES: Submit comments on or before
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0013, by either of the following methods:
* Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0013, click the "Comment Now!" icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
* Mail: Submit written comments to
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter "N/A" in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Electronic copies of:
* The Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the
* The 2001 Biological Opinion for the Authorization of the
* The 2008 Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan is available from the
* The Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed action may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-5806.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off
NMFS has management responsibility for certain threatened and endangered species, including Steller sea lions, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C.
NMFS listed the WDPS of Steller sea lions as endangered under the ESA in 1997 (62 FR 24345,
Since listing Steller sea lions, NMFS has implemented a number of management measures, commonly known as Steller sea lion protection measures, to protect Steller sea lions from the potential effects of groundfish fishing. Steller sea lion protection measures disperse catch of groundfish prey species in time (temporal dispersion) and space (spatial dispersion) through a variety of harvest limitations and closure areas. Many of these Steller sea lion protection measures apply specifically to
The most recent Steller sea lion protection measures were implemented in 2011 by the 2010 Interim Final Rule (75 FR 77535,
NMFS conducted a consultation as required under section 7 of the ESA to determine whether this proposed action to revise Steller sea lion protection measures is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. NMFS issued a biological opinion on
Background
The following sections of the preamble describe: (1) General management of groundfish fisheries in the BSAI; (2) the areas and vessels affected by this proposed action; (3) management of the
General Management of Groundfish Fisheries in the BSAI
The FMP and its implementing regulations at
The OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for BSAI groundfish are specified through the annual harvest specification process. The Council's
To ensure that OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are not exceeded, NMFS requires that vessel operators participating in groundfish fisheries in the BSAI comply with a range of monitoring requirements and restrictions. NMFS uses area, seasonal, gear, operation type, and sector specific fishery closures to maintain catch within specified OFLs, ABCs, TACs and associated allocations. NMFS prohibits vessels from specifically targeting a species or species group, known as directed fishing, when a TAC is reached. Directed fishing is defined in the regulation at
Areas and Vessels Affected by This Proposed Action
This proposed action would apply to the EEZ of the BSAI and the adjacent
This proposed action would apply to vessels that catch groundfish that is required to be deducted from a TAC under
This proposed action would not apply to vessels fishing in State-managed guideline harvest level (GHL) groundfish fisheries in the BSAI reporting area. Specifically, Federally permitted vessels that participate in the Aleutian Islands District Pacific Cod Management Plan (AI State-managed Pacific cod fishery) authorized by
Management of Atka Mackerel, Pacific Cod, and Pollock Fisheries in the BSAI
The groundfish fisheries in the BSAI target a wide diversity of species. Major fisheries include pollock, Pacific cod, halibut, sablefish,
This proposed action would apply primarily to the
To aid the reader in understanding current management and the effects of this proposed action, the following sections briefly describe relevant management measures for
TACs and Seasons
There is a single BSAI OFL for
NMFS also establishes seasonal allocations of
The Pacific cod TACs in the BSAI is allocated among various sectors as described in the " BSAI Pacific Cod Management" section of the preamble. The TAC allocated to each sector is further apportioned by seasons that vary among the various sectors. There are three seasons--an A, B, and C season--that correspond to the early, middle, and late part of the year. The specific dates established for each season for each sector are defined in regulation (see
NMFS can reallocate a limited portion of unharvested catch of
CDQ Program
The CDQ Program was implemented by NMFS in 1992 (57 FR 46133,
The Magnuson-Stevens Act includes provisions applicable to the CDQ Program and authorizes 65 communities to participate in the CDQ Program. These communities participate in the CDQ Program through six nonprofit corporations called CDQ groups. The CDQ groups receive exclusive harvest privileges of groundfish, known as CDQ allocations. These exclusive harvest privileges allow the CDQ groups to tailor their fishing operations to maximize the catch of their CDQ allocations. This allows CDQ groups to avoid an inefficient "race for fish" among other fishery participants competing to maximize their catch before the overall TAC is reached. Each CDQ group is prohibited from exceeding its CDQ allocation, and NMFS has established specific monitoring and enforcement provisions to accurately track the harvest of CDQ allocations.
NMFS first allocates the TAC to the CDQ Program, and then apportions the remaining TAC among other fishery participants. The process for allocating the TACs to the CDQ Program generally and to CDQ groups specifically is described in a final rule defining the regulation of the CDQ Program (71 FR 51804,
Amendment 80 Program
Amendment 80 to the FMP identified participants using trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI active in groundfish fisheries other than
As noted in the previous section on the CDQ Program and in the American Fisheries Act section that follows, by assigning an exclusive harvest privilege to Amendment 80 cooperatives, these cooperatives can avoid a race for fish and maximize catch within the limits of their cooperative allocations. Each Amendment 80 cooperative is prohibited from exceeding its allocation, and NMFS has established specific monitoring and enforcement provisions to accurately track the harvest of these allocations.
Relevant to this proposed action, Amendment 80 cooperatives receive exclusive harvest privileges for a portion of the Area 541/
BSAI Pacific Cod Management
BSAI Pacific cod is harvested by trawl and non-trawl gears, and by vessels operating as catcher/processors and catcher vessels. The non-trawl gears are jig, pot, and hook-and-line. Regulations allocate a portion of the BSAI TAC first to CDQ groups, and then to specific non-CDQ fishery sectors defined by a combination of gear, operation type (i.e., catcher vessel or catcher/processor), and vessel size categories (
Prior to 2014, NMFS established a single BSAI Pacific cod OFL,
Establishing a separate Pacific cod OFL,
American Fisheries Act--Bering Sea Pollock Management
The American Fisheries Act (AFA) was signed into law in
In response to a directive in the AFA, the Council recommended and NMFS established sideboard limits to protect other fisheries from the potential adverse effects arising from the exclusive allocation of
Aleutian Islands Pollock Management
In 1999, NMFS closed the
NMFS allocates a portion of the
When the
Regulations require that 50 percent of the
Pollock occurs primarily inside Steller sea lion critical habitat in the
Amendment 78
Amendment 78 to the FMP established
Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures
Section 3.5.3 of the FMP, approved by the Secretary of Commerce under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, authorizes regulations for fishery management measures to protect marine mammals, without requiring amendment of the FMP itself (see ADDRESSES). Steller sea lion protection measures for the
FMP BiOp
In
In
The FMP BiOp determined that
The FMP BiOp, the supporting science, and its findings are controversial. This controversy reflects differences in opinion on the interpretation of scientific information and on the application of law in fisheries management. NMFS sponsored a review of the FMP BiOp by the
2010 Interim Final Rule
In
Litigation
The State of Alaska, the
EIS and Preferred Alternative
NMFS published a notice of intent to prepare the EIS in the
The Council and NMFS developed the purpose and need for the proposed action in the EIS (see Section 1.3 of the EIS). The proposed action is needed to comply with the ESA requirement that a Federal agency insure that the agency's actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. The purpose of this action is to implement Steller sea lion protection measures for the
The action area considered in the EIS is the In The final EIS describes in detail the six alternatives for the proposed action. These alternatives were developed through a collaborative process with the Council and its Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, and in consideration of public comments received during the scoping process for the EIS and during the public review of the draft EIS. All of the alternatives were developed with the understanding that a preferred alternative could only be selected as the proposed action, and implemented through rule making, if NMFS could insure that the action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Steller sea lions or result in destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat. The Council and NMFS understood that a preferred alternative and any resulting rule must meet the requirements of the ESA before factors that minimize, to the extent practicable, the economic impacts on fishery participants could be considered. NMFS analyzed two broad categories of potential measures under all of the alternatives. First, under each alternative NMFS analyzed a range of Steller sea lion protection measures in the BSAI that varied among the alternatives. Second, under each alternative, NMFS analyzed the effects of potential fishery research that could be conducted in the BSAI that may affect Steller sea lions. The same potential fishery research provisions were considered under each of the alternatives. The decision analyzed in the EIS was whether to maintain the existing suite of Steller sea lion protection measures (Alternative 1, the 2010 Interim Final Rule) or to implement a new suite of Steller sea lion protection measures (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). To provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the alternatives, the EIS compares the six alternatives relative to each other and relative to a baseline period used to assess the environmental conditions affecting Steller sea lions (generally from 2004 through 2010). The alternatives ranged from Alternative 6, an alternative that would restrict fishing more than the status quo alternative (Alternative 1), to Alternative 4, the alternative that would allow the most fishing opportunities. Alternative 4 would reinstate the Steller sea lion protection measures that were in place prior to the 2010 Interim Final Rule, with a few exceptions. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 provided more fishing opportunities and fewer protection measures than Alternative 6, but included more protection measures than Alternative 4. NMFS added Alternative 6 to the final EIS in response to public comments that requested an alternative that restricted fishing more than Alternative 1. Additional description of the alternatives is available in the EIS and not addressed further here (see ADDRESSES). In The Council recommended Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative based on the analysis in the draft EIS, public comments, and the best available scientific information including the findings of the external scientific reviews conducted by the The Council determined that Alternative 5 is necessary to minimize economic impacts on fishery participants. The EIS found that direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternative 5 on the human environment, including Steller sea lions, were similar to those effects under status quo with the exception that Alternative 5 would enhance fishing opportunities and minimize potential economic impacts. The EIS indicates that additional restrictions on fisheries beyond those considered under Alternative 5 (e.g., Alternatives 1 and 6) may result in additional economic harm to participants in the regulated fisheries, and would not meet the secondary objective of the proposed action. 2014 BiOp On Because the proposed action would modify Steller sea lion protection measures primarily in the Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries, NMFS did a project-level, focused consultation. The 2014 BiOp is the result of that consultation. The 2014 BiOp did not entirely replace the previous FMP BiOp. The analysis contained in the FMP BiOp remains valid and meets NMFS' requirement to consult at the FMP level. <p> New information in the external reviews of the FMP BiOp and the new analyses that NMFS conducted in response to those external reviews were incorporated into the 2014 BiOp to further understand the effects of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. The 2014 BiOp considered whether NMFS has insured that the proposed Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries and their supporting research are not likely to cause jeopardy for Steller sea lions. On The 2014 BiOp found that the implementation of the proposed action described in the EIS (i.e., Alternative 5) was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions and was not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated Steller sea lion critical habitat. The conclusions in the 2014 BiOp were reached after considering the best scientific and commercial information available, including Steller sea lion behavior and fisheries data. The 2014 BiOp concludes that the proposed action would establish Steller sea lion protection measures for the The best available scientific information suggests that the effects of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions may be greatest around rookeries and haulouts due to the overlap of foraging Steller sea lions and harvest of their prey species in the fisheries (see Chapter 5 of the EIS and Section 5.4 of the 2014 BiOp). This proposed action limits fishing to the greatest extent from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries and haulouts, which corresponds with the highest observed at-sea use by as adult female, young-of-the-year, and juvenile Steller sea lions as shown in the Steller sea lion telemetry data described in the 2014 BiOp. The 2014 BiOP identified the importance of maintaining global, or broad scale, limits on the harvest of Proposed Regulatory Provisions This proposed action would implement Alternative 5, the Council's preferred alternative for Steller sea lion protection measures. Many of the provisions in this proposed action are the same as provisions implemented in the 2010 Interim Final Rule (75 FR 77535, The following sections describe the general provisions of this proposed action: (1) Removal of the retention prohibition for Removal of Atka Mackerel and Pacific Cod Retention Prohibitions in Area 543 This proposed action would allow the retention of Pacific cod and By removing the retention prohibition, directed fisheries for The 2014 BiOp considered a range of information to assess the potential effects of allowing retention of Allowing retention for Pacific cod and Atka Mackerel Harvest Limits in Areas 543 and 542 This proposed action would establish two harvest limits for This second limit would allow no more than 60 percent of the annual TAC, evenly apportioned between the A and B seasons, to be harvested in critical habitat west of 178 [degrees] W longitude. This area includes all of Area 543 and the western portion of Area 542. The 2010 Interim Final Rule implemented equally apportioned Atka Mackerel Fisheries Closures in Area 543 This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing with trawl gear for Pacific Cod Harvest Limit in Area 543 This proposed action would establish a harvest limit for Pacific cod based on abundance in Area 543 as determined by the annual stock assessment process. The Council recommends and NMFS proposes this measure to limit catch in the portion of the Pacific Cod Hook-and-Line and Pot Gear Fisheries Closures in Area 543 The proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries and from 0 nm to 10 nm from Pacific Cod Trawl Fisheries Closures in Area 543 This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing with trawl gear for Pacific cod in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries in Area 543. The Council and NMFS recommended this action to protect Steller sea lion prey resources in areas important to adult females, young of the year, and juveniles from the potential effects of trawl fisheries. These closures balance the protection of prey resources within critical habitat with the opportunity to harvest Pacific cod by trawl gear in the limited locations available to trawl gear. Establishing this proposed area closure would result in a spatial closure of 76 percent of critical habitat in Area 543 for Pacific cod trawl gear when considered in the context of the existing AIHCA closures (Figure 2-28 in EIS and Section 5.3.4 in 2014 BiOp). However, NMFS expects that Area 543 Pacific cod harvest amounts under these proposed closures to be not much more than harvest amounts in Area 543 under current regulations established by the 2010 Interim Final Rule because of the change to the Pacific cod TAC explained above under the " BSAI Pacific Cod Management " and anticipated participation in the fishery in that area. Therefore, based on that expectation, the Area 543 Pacific cod fishery is not likely to result in localized depletion of Steller sea lion Pacific cod prey resources (Section 5.4.7 in 2014 BiOp). Pollock Harvest Limit in Area 543 This proposed action would limit the harvest of pollock to no more than 5 percent of the Pollock Fisheries Closures in Area 543 This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for pollock in most critical habitat in Area 543. This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for pollock from 0 nm to 3 nm from Shemya, Alaid, and Chirikof haulouts and from 0 nm to 20 nm at the Agattu rookeries in Area 543, as described in Table 4 to 50 CFR part 679 and shown in Figure 1. This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for pollock from 0 nm to 20 nm in the two remaining rookeries in Area 543. The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these prohibitions to protect important Steller sea lion prey while providing the opportunity for limited pollock fishing in an area where pollock fishing had historically occurred in Area 543 (Figure 3-18 in EIS). The 2014 BiOp found that very little spatial overlap between Steller sea lions and the pollock fishery would be likely because under this proposed management measure, 95 percent of critical habitat in Area 543 would be closed to pollock fishing (Section 5.3.3 in 2014 BiOp). The 2014 BiOp found that there would be a limited degree of overlap between the depth at which the pollock fishery occurs and Steller sea lion dive patterns in Area 543. Therefore, this proposed action would provide a very limited opportunity for pollock harvests to occur in critical habitat within Area 543 while providing protections to Steller sea lion prey resources. To provide the reader with a better understanding of the specific areas open and closed under this proposed provision, see Figure 1 below. BILLING CODE 3510-22-P See Illustration in Original Document. BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Atka Mackerel Critical Habitat Harvest Restrictions in Area 542 This proposed action would make several modifications to Second, as noted earlier, this proposed action would limit the amount and seasonal apportionment of the Third, this proposed action would remove the Amendment 80 and CDQ harvest restrictions and Area 542 TAC limit for Atka Mackerel Fisheries Closures in Area 542 This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for Establishing this proposed area closure would result in a spatial closure of 93 percent of critical habitat in Area 542 for The Council and NMFS recommended these prohibitions based on the best available information from the Alaska Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Interaction Team studies (Chapter 11 in EIS). These studies have shown that Pacific Cod Non-Trawl Fisheries Closures in Area 542 This proposed action would include three revisions to Area 542 protection measures for the Pacific cod non-trawl fisheries. The first revision would change the current 0 nm to 6 nm closures at Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries to 0 nm to 3 nm from Steller sea lion rookeries in Area 542 to hook-and-line and pot gear vessels directed fishing for Pacific cod year round. The second revision would remove the prohibition on directed fishing for Pacific cod with jig gear from 0 nm to 6 nm of Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries as implemented under the 2010 Interim Final Rule in Pot and hook-and-line gear must be deployed in relatively shallow water, and those areas are limited in the Most of the Pacific cod non-trawl fishing in the The third revision in Area 542 would remove the prohibition on vessels 60 feet (18.3 m) or greater in length overall using non-trawl gear from directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters from 6 nm to 20 nm from Steller sea lion rookeries and haulouts in Area 542 from Pacific Cod Trawl Fisheries Closures in Area 542 This proposed action would revise protection measures for the Pacific cod trawl fisheries in Area 542. This proposed action would close waters from 0 nm to 10 nm from Steller sea lion rookeries and from 0 nm to 3 nm from Steller sea lion haulouts in Area 542. This proposed action would remove seasonal closures from 0 nm to 20 nm from all Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries to directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule at Steller sea lion telemetry, Platform of Opportunity, and fisheries location data, show very little spatial overlap occurs between Steller sea lions and the Pacific cod trawl fisheries in Area 542 inside critical habitat (Section 5.3.4 in 2014 BiOp). Providing additional opportunity for Pacific cod trawl harvests under this proposed action would not be likely to reduce the available Pacific cod prey resources for Steller sea lions inside critical habitat. Given the large reduction in the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod harvest due to the specification of a separate Aleutian Islands TAC and the small amount of Pacific cod taken historically in Area 542, the 2014 BiOp concluded that under the proposed action the Pacific cod trawl fisheries would not be likely to locally deplete Pacific cod stocks in Area 542. Pollock Harvest Limit in Area 542 This proposed action would limit harvest of pollock to no more than 15 percent of the Aleutian Islands ABC during the A season in Area 542. This limit would apply to all harvest of pollock. The 15 percent pollock harvest limit for Area 542 would be more restrictive than the harvest limit in Area 541, but less restrictive than the harvest limit in Area 543. The Council recommended and NMFS proposes this action to establish limits on pollock harvest consistent with the FMP BiOp performance standards to provide more protection to Steller sea lions where more decline is evident (Section 8.2.2). The 15 percent pollock harvest limit in Area 542 would balance the protection of Steller sea lion pollock prey resources in the winter when pollock is most important in the Steller sea lion diet (Section 5.3.3. in 2014 BiOp) with an opportunity for limited pollock harvest in Area 542. Pollock Fisheries Closures in Area 542 This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for pollock in waters from 0 nm to 20 nm from rookeries and haulouts west of 178 [degrees] W longitude as described in Table 4 to part 679 with one exception. This proposed rule would create an open area surrounded by closed critical habitat in the Rat Islands Area. The open area would be established by prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for pollock in waters from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries and from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts east of 178 [degrees] W longitude as described in Table 4 to 50 CFR part 679 with an exception at Overall, the critical habitat closures in Area 542 are more restrictive in the western portion of Area 542 where Steller sea lion abundance has experienced more decline, and less restrictive in the eastern portion of Area 542 where Steller sea lion abundance has experienced less decline. These closures are consistent with the performance standards in the FMP BiOp (Section 8.2.2). The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these closures to protect Steller sea lion pollock prey resources while providing a limited area for pollock fishing where pollock harvests have historically occurred in Area 542 (Section 3.4.3 in EIS and Section 5.3.4 in 2014 BiOp). Atka Mackerel Fisheries Closures in Area 541 This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing with trawl gear inside critical habitat in Area 541 as implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule in Table 6 to 50 CFR part 679, except for a portion of critical habitat around This proposed action would open a portion of critical habitat from 12 nm to 20 nm from BILLING CODE 3510-22-P See Illustration in Original Document. BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Pacific Cod Non-Trawl Fisheries Closures in Area 541 This proposed action would close portions of critical habitat to hook-and-line and pot gear directed fishing for Pacific cod in Area 541. This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line and pot gear in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm around rookeries west of 172.59 [degrees] W longitude and in critical habitat from 0 nm to 20 nm east of 172.59 [degrees] W longitude, as described in Table 5 to 50 CFR part 679. Closing all critical habitat east of 172.59 [degrees] W longitude in Area 541 to directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line and pot gear would prevent expansion of the use of hook-and-line and pot gear into a portion of Steller sea lion critical habitat that has not been fished historically (Section 3.3 in EIS). This proposed action would remove all jig gear closures outside of 3 nm from rookeries in Area 541, except the closure of the Seguam Foraging Area, as implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule in Table 5 to 50 CFR part 679, footnote 16. Jig vessels harvest a very small portion of the Pacific cod TAC in Area 541 and at a slow rate. Jig vessels are not likely to cause localized depletion of Steller sea lion Pacific cod prey resources in critical habitat (Section 2.1.1.3 in EIS). This proposed action would also remove the The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these non-trawl gear closures in Area 541 because they would provide vessels using non-trawl gear access to the limited area within Area 541 that can be effectively fished. These closures would prevent fishing in critical habitat that is used more frequently by foraging Steller sea lions, based on telemetry data (Section 5.3.4 in 2014 BiOp). Prohibiting the use of hook-and-line and pot gear in these closed areas allows for consistent management of hook-and-line and pot gear and avoids incentives to use alternative fishing gear to avoid Steller sea lion protection measures (Section 3.3.3 in EIS). Pacific Cod Trawl Fisheries Closures in Area 541 This proposed action would close portions of critical habitat in Area 541 to directed fishing by Federally permitted vessels for Pacific cod with trawl gear. This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries in Area 541, except this proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear in waters from 0 nm to 20 nm from This proposed action would remove the trawl closures as implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule in Table 5 to 50 CFR part 679, footnote 14 that prohibited directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear in waters from 0 nm to 10 nm from Steller sea lion sites in Area 541 year round and prohibited directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear within 10 nm to 20 nm from Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries in Area 541 from Pollock Harvest Limit in Area 541 This proposed action would limit harvest of pollock to no more than 30 percent of the Aleutian Islands ABC during the A season in Area 541. This limit would apply to all harvest of pollock. The harvest limit would ensure the harvest of pollock is constrained in the winter when pollock harvests are most likely to occur and when pollock appears to be an important part of the Steller sea lion diet (Section 5.3.3 in 2014 BiOp). The harvest limit in Area 541 is higher than in Area 542. This is consistent with the FMP BiOp standards to provide more protection to Steller sea lions where more decline is evident (Section 8.2.2). The Council recommended and NMFS proposes this pollock harvest limit to balance the protection of Steller sea lion prey resources with providing the opportunity for a pollock fishery in Area 541. Pollock Fisheries Closures in Area 541 This proposed action would prohibit directed fishing for pollock in critical habitat from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries and from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts in Area 541 as described in Table 4 to 50 CFR part 679. Area 541 pollock closures are the least limiting relative to Areas 542 and 543. This is consistent with the performance standards in the FMP BiOp to provide more protection to Steller sea lion prey where more decline is evident (Section 8.2.2 in FMP BiOp). The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these closures to protect prey availability around important Steller sea lion sites while providing the opportunity to directed fish for pollock in Area 541 in locations where pollock fisheries occurred historically (Section 3.4 in EIS). The impact of the proposed pollock and Pacific cod fisheries combined in Area 541 are expected to be similar to the impact of the Pacific cod fishery alone in Area 541 prior to 2014. Steller sea lion pup and non-pups increased at a non-significant rate from 2004 through 2010 in Area 541 despite temporally compressed Pacific cod and minimal pollock fishing. Thus, NMFS does not expect the proposed Area 541 pollock fishery in combination with the limited harvests in the Pacific cod fishery to reduce the survival or recovery of the central Revisions to the Calculation of Maximum Retainable Amount of Atka Mackerel for Amendment 80 and CDQ Vessels in the Bering Sea Subarea This proposed action includes a revision to the method for calculating the maximum retainable amount (MRA) of Removal of the Atka Mackerel Harvest Limit Area (HLA) Fishery As implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule, this proposed action would maintain the removal of the The Council and NMFS recommended retaining the elimination of the HLA fishery because it does not disperse fishing temporally and spatially as well as fishing practices observed under the Amendment 80 Program. Since the implementation of the Amendment 80 Program in 2007 (72 FR 52668, Regulations implementing the HLA fishery required Modified Atka Mackerel Trawl Gear Season Dates and CDQ Seasonal Apportions This proposed action would largely maintain the modified season dates for the Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl fishery and This proposed action would revise The 2010 Interim Final Rule added a provision at Prohibit the Harvest of Atka Mackerel Seasonal Rollover Inside Critical Habitat This proposed action would prohibit the reallocation, commonly known as a rollover, of Pacific Cod Trawl Seasons This proposed action would extend the Pacific cod trawl C season to Pacific cod harvests by other trawl fishery sectors (i.e., non-Amendment 80 Program and non-CDQ Program participants) are not uniformly managed under a catch share program; therefore, these sectors may not temporally disperse their harvests. Therefore, no additional C season extension is proposed for these other trawl fishery sectors. This proposed season change for Amendment 80 and CDQ Program trawl vessels would balance the recognition that these sectors can spread out their harvests temporally, while considering the importance of providing Pacific cod prey resources to Steller sea lions in winter. This proposed action would provide greater overall temporal dispersion of Pacific cod harvests and would not be expected to impact Steller sea lion prey resource availability. Pacific Cod Non-Trawl Seasons This proposed action would remove the prohibition on directed fishing for Pacific cod with non-trawl gear (jig, pot, and hook-and-line) from This proposed action would maintain the protection measures implemented under the 2010 Interim Final Rule that close directed fishing for groundfish by Federally permitted vessels in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from the The Council recommended and NMFS proposes maintaining this closure to protect animals using this location as a rookery from potential disturbance by fishing vessels and to protect near shore Steller sea lion prey resources. Very little groundfish catch has historically occurred in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from this site. According to the FMP BiOp, this site is important to Steller sea lions because it is one of the few locations in the Bering Sea Subarea Atka Mackerel Directed Fishing Closure This proposed action would maintain the closure of the This proposed action would maintain the closure to directed fishing for Including State Waters in Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures Closure Areas This proposed action would clarify regulations at Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Transmission This proposed action would require that vessel operators with an The current transmission rate, commonly known as the polling rate, of 2 times per hour could allow vessels to fish in significant portions of these closed areas without detection (Section 8.17.2 in EIS). The increased polling rate would limit the ability of a vessel to operate inside or through a closed area undetected. As described in Section 2.1 of the EIS, vessels using trawl gear have the capability of fishing through a closed area without detection if the polling rate of the transmission is less than 10 times per hour. The proposed increased polling rate would apply only to vessels that harvest groundfish with trawl gear because this proposed action does not establish the same suite of complex closures for non-trawl gear. Under this proposed action the operator of the vessel would be required to set their VMS unit to transmit at least 10 times per hour. NMFS notes that some existing VMS units may not meet the necessary operating standards to provide reliable transmissions to NMFS at least 10 times per hour. NMFS notes that the vessel operator may need to obtain a VMS unit with the capabilities necessary to ensure compliance with the proposed requirements. Specific Regulatory Amendments This proposed action would implement the following specific regulatory amendments. Table 1 lists the regulatory amendments from the 2010 Interim Final Rule that this proposed action would retain and those that would be removed or revised. The public is invited to submit comments on these regulations for NMFS' consideration. GOES Removal of Expired Regulations The 2010 Interim Final Rule removed SUBSEC 679.22(b)(6), 679.23(e)(4)(iv), and 679.23(e)(4)(v) because these regulations had expired. Section 679.22(b)(6) closed the Chiniak Gully Research Area during research on the effects of the pollock fishery on local pollock prey abundance. This research has ended and the closure is no longer needed to support research (71 FR 31105, Prohibitions This proposed action would remove SUBSEC 679.7 (a)(19), (a)(23), and (a)(25) and redesignate This proposed action would remove This proposed action would remove This proposed action would remove The prohibition on General Limitations This proposed action would revise This proposed action would add pollock harvest limitations during the A season in Areas 541, 542, and 543. This proposed action would add This proposed rule would add subparagraphs (a)(7)(v) and (a)(7)(vi) to correct an error that removed these regulations. Regulations implementing the Amendment 80 Program inserted regulatory text to implement the allocation and seasonal apportionments of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector in This proposed action would add This proposed action would revise This proposed action would add a subparagraph (D) to This proposed action would add Closures This proposed action would revise Seasons This proposed action would extend the Equipment and Operational Requirements This proposed action would add Tables This proposed action would revise Tables 4, 5, and 6 to 50 CFR part 679. All references to subareas in these tables would be changed to areas. This change would ensure closures would apply to State and Federal waters as appropriate and would be implemented as stated in the 2003 Final Rule for Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures off The designation of " Because this proposed action would allow retention of In Table 4 to 50 CFR part 679, column 7 and the footnotes would be revised to reflect the closures for the pollock directed fishery in the In Table 5 to 50 CFR part 679, columns 7, 8, and 9 and the footnotes would be revised to reflect the closures for the directed Pacific cod fishery by gear type in the In Table 6 to 50 CFR part 679, column 7 and the footnotes would be revised to reflect the closures for the directed Classification Pursuant to sections 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further considerations received during the public comment period. This proposed action has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA was completed for this proposed action. On NMFS prepared a final environmental impact statement for this proposed action; a notice of availability was published on Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, NMFS mailed letters to approximately 660 Alaska tribal governments, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations, and related organizations providing information about the EIS and soliciting consultation and coordination with interested tribal governments and ANCSA corporations. NMFS received no comments from tribal government and ANCSA corporation representatives. Section 1.7 of the EIS provides more detail on NMFS' outreach with An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this action, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). An IRFA is required to include (a) a description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered; (b) s succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; (c) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (d) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; (e) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule; (f) a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the remainder of the IRFA follows. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The entities directly regulated by this action include: (1) Business firms operating trawl catcher/processors and catcher vessels, and non-trawl catcher/processors and catcher vessels, fishing for Of the 51 vessels identified as having been active in directed Through the CDQ Program, NMFS allocates a portion of the BSAI groundfish TACs, and apportions prohibited species catch limits for Pacific halibut, Pacific salmon, and several crab species, to 65 eligible As previously noted, the Some vessels with incidental catch of An IRFA requires a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed action(s) that accomplish the stated objectives, are consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed action on small entities. Chapter 9 of the EIS compares the proposed action (Alternative 5) to the other alternatives. A main difference among Alternatives 1 and 6 and Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 is that the retention prohibitions under Alternatives 1 and 6 are not included in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. In contrast to Alternatives 1 and 6, where no retention is allowed in portions or all of the The alternatives for pollock ranged from Alternative 6, an alternative that would restrict fishing more than the status quo alternative (Alternative 1), to Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 that allow for more pollock fishing outside and inside critical habitat than the other alternatives. Additional description of the alternatives is available in the EIS and not addressed further here (see ADDRESSES). For pollock, Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 would have greater adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small entities relative to Alternative 5. The protection measures under Alternative 5 are similar to those under Alternatives 3 and 4, which are identical, and would be less restrictive on small entities than other alternatives (Section 8.7 in RIR). Alternative 5 only differs from Alternatives 3 and 4 in that it includes management area specific A-season harvest limits, and increases critical habitat closures in Area 542. The A-season harvest limits are 5 percent of the As discussed in Section 7 of the RIR (see ADDRESSES), NMFS is unable to estimate the potential production, or the location of production, under the different alternatives, and so is unable to determine whether or not the area constraints for pollock fishing would be binding. However, these area constraints are not present in Alternatives 3 and 4. Those alternatives may be somewhat less burdensome for small entities than Alternative 5. Management area limits were introduced to provide control over potential harvests in a new pollock fishery of unknown potential, providing more protection for Steller sea lion prey. The restrictions are more stringent in the western areas, where Steller sea lion abundance is declining (consistent with the FMP BiOp performance standards in Section 8.2.2). The extension of the 542 closure areas for Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries located west of 178[degrees] W longitude to 20 nm (Table 2-22 in EIS) under Alternative 5, may also contribute to making this alternative more restrictive than Alternatives 3 and 4. The extension also was included in Alternative 5 to provide more protection to the Steller sea lion rookeries and haulouts that have experienced relatively greater declines in Steller sea lion abundance compared to sites located farther east. The alternatives for As discussed in Section 8 of the RIR, Alternative 4 is a less restrictive alternative to directly regulated small entities participating in The alternatives for Pacific cod ranged from Alternative 6, an alternative that would restrict fishing more than the status quo alternative (Alternative 1), to Alternative 4, the alternative that would allow the most fishing opportunities. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 provided more fishing opportunities and fewer protection measures than Alternative 6, but included more protection measures than Alternative 4. Additional description of the alternatives is available in the EIS and not addressed further here (see ADDRESSES). For Pacific cod, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6 would have greater adverse economic impact on directly regulated small entities relative to Alternative 5. Alternative 5 is most closely comparable with Alternative 4. However, Alternative 4 may be less restrictive to small entities because Alternative 5 (Table 2-18 in EIS) adds a harvest limit for Pacific cod in Area 543 in proportion to the annual stock assessment. Alternative 4 was not selected as the preferred alternative because it may provide less protection for Steller sea lion prey than Alternative 5, increasing the potential of adverse effects on Steller sea lion prey resources in Area 543. An IRFA should include "a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed action, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record." NMFS proposes a regulatory amendment requiring an increase in VMS polling rates. Polling rates would be increased from 2 per hour to 10 per hour for all trawl vessels holding a Federal Fisheries Permit and fishing for groundfish that is required to be deducted from a Federal groundfish TAC in the No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules has been identified. Collection-of-Information Requirements This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement for the Alaska Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Program which is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been submitted to the Estimates of burden include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES above, and email to OIRA [email protected], or fax to 202-395-5806. Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES above, and email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html. Comment Period for the Proposed Action NMFS normally provides 30 days for public review and comments on proposed actions. Due to the scope and controversy of this proposed action, NMFS is providing a 45-day comment period. NMFS anticipates that a 45-day comment period should provide adequate opportunity for public review and comment while providing NMFS sufficient time to complete rulemaking for the revised Steller sea lion protection measures to meet the court-ordered deadline of List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 2. In a. Remove paragraphs (a)(19), (a)(23), and (a)(25); b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(24) as paragraph (a)(19); and c. Revise the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(19). The revisions read as follows: (a) * * * (19) * * * * * 3. In a. Add paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(B)( 6), (a)(7)(v), (a)(7)(vi), (a)(7)(vii); b. Revise paragraph (a)(8)(ii)(C); and c. Add paragraphs (a)(8)(ii)(D), and (e)(3)(v). The additions and revisions read as follows: (a) * * * (5) * * * (iii) * * * (B) * * * ( 6) Pollock harvest limitations. Pollock harvests during the A season as defined at ( i) No more than 5 percent of the ( ii) No more than 15 percent of the ( iii) No more than 30 percent of the * * * * * (7) * * * (v) (A) Use of seasonal apportionments by Amendment 80 cooperatives. (1) The amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ permit that is assigned for use in the A season may be used in the B or C season. ( 2) The amount of Pacific cod that is listed on a CQ permit that is assigned for use in the B season may not be used in the A season. ( 3) The amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ permit that is assigned for use in the C season may not be used in the A or B seasons. (B) Harvest of seasonal apportionments in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. (1) Pacific cod ( 2) Pacific cod ( 3) Pacific cod (vi) (vii) Pacific cod harvest limitations. During the annual harvest specifications process, the Regional Administrator will establish an Area 543 Pacific cod harvest limit based on Pacific cod abundance in Area 543 as determined by the annual stock assessment process. After subtraction of the State GHL Pacific cod amount from the AI Pacific cod (8) * * * (ii) * * * (C) ( i) Limited to no more than 60 percent of the annual TACs in Areas 542 and 543; and ( ii) Equally divided between the A and B seasons as defined at ( 2) The annual TAC in Area 543 will be no more than 65 percent of the (D) Any unharvested * * * * * (e) * * * (3) * * * (v) For all vessels not listed in subpart F of this section, the maximum retainable amount for * * * * * 4. In (a) * * * (7) Steller sea lion protection areas, * * * * * (vi) * * * * * (8) Steller sea lion protection areas, * * * * * (iv) Pacific cod closures. Directed fishing for Pacific cod required to be deducted from the Federal TAC specified at * * * * * 5. In * * * * * (e) * * * (3) * * * (ii) B season. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., * * * * * (5) * * * (ii) * * * (C) C season -- (1) Catcher vessels and AFA catcher/processors. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., ( 2) Amendment 80 and CDQ. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., * * * * * 6. In * * * * * (f) * * * (3) * * * (i) Obtain a NMFS-approved VMS transmitter with transmission capabilities required for the areas of vessel operation and have it installed onboard your vessel in accordance with the instructions provided by NMFS. You may get a copy of the VMS installation and operation instructions from the Regional Administrator upon request. * * * * * (7) What additional requirements does an operator have if trawling in the * * * * * 7. Revise Table 4 to Part 679 to read as follows: BILLING CODE 3510-22-P See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. 8. Revise Table 5 to Part 679 to read as follows: See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. 9. Revise Table 6 to Part 679 to read as follows: See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. See Illustration in Original Document. [FR Doc. 2014-14972 Filed 6-30-14; BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Table 1--Comparison of Regulatory Amendments From the 2010 Interim Final Rule and the Proposed Action Regulatory amendments from the 2010 Regulatory amendments from the 2010 Interim Final Rule that would be Interim Final Rule that would be retained in the proposed action removed or revised by the proposed action S. 679.2. Remove two definitions for S. 679.7. Remove paragraphs (a)(19), the Harvest Limit Area (HLA)
Copyright:
(c) 2014 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc.
Wordcount:
22590
New KnowBe4 Survey Shows IT Pros Concern Over Ransomware Skyrocketing
Advisor News
- Majority of Americans anticipate improved economy in 2025
- Social Security Fairness Act increases need for financial advice
- It’s a new year: How will you reinvigorate your client service?
- Trump should impose China tariffs, prioritize renewing tax cuts and immigration reform
- Fewer report having retirement savings than a year ago
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- Delaware Life Announces Suite of Innovative Fixed Index Annuities
- Allianz Life moves to strengthen annuity operations with own reinsurer
- Global Atlantic Announces New Registered Index-Linked Annuity
- AM Best Affirms Credit Ratings of Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated and Subsidiaries
- Life insurance and annuity sales: What’s ahead for 2025?
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
- ‘We could analyze this forever’: Regulators defend LTC rate review process
- Baltimore City school system sues drug companies over allegedly inflated price of insulin
- Connecticut Big Y pharmacies dropped from Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield network
- Health care in US flawed by design
Health care in US flawed by design
- University of California Reports Findings in COVID-19 (Receipt of respiratory vaccines among patients with heart failure in a multicenter health system registry): Coronavirus – COVID-19
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News
- Douglas County Past: Yellowjackets remember lost teammate; cattle saved from fire
- The Standard Insurance Company of Portland, Ore. sues Securian Financial over $50 million in disputed bonus payments
- Majority of Americans anticipate improved economy in 2025
- Majority of Americans Anticipate Improved Economy in 2025
- Delaware Life Announces Suite of Innovative Fixed Index Annuities
More Life Insurance News