Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish,
[Federal Register: March 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 41)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9451-9474]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02mr07-10]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 070213033-7033-01; I.D. 112706A]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 2007 and 2008 Final Harvest Specifications for Groundfish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; closures.
SUMMARY: NMFS announces 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications and prohibited species catch (PSC) allowances for the groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for groundfish during the 2007 and 2008 fishing years and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the groundfish resources in the BSAI in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
DATES: The 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications and associated apportionment of reserves are effective at 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 2, 2007, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Record of Decision (ROD), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action are available from Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Copies of the 2006 Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report for the groundfish resources of the BSAI, dated November 2006, are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99510- 2252, 907-271-2809, or from its Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228, or e-mail mary.furuness@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 implement the FMP and govern the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP, and NMFS approved it under the MSA. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify the total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species and for the ``other species'' category, the sum must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million metric tons (mt) (see Sec. 679.20(a)(1)(i)). Also specified are apportionments of TACs, and Community Development Quota (CDQ) reserve amounts, PSC allowances, and prohibited species quota (PSQ) reserve amounts. The final harvest specifications listed in Tables 1 through 15 of this action satisfy these requirements. For 2007 and 2008, the sum of TACs for each year is 2 million mt.
Section 679.20(c)(3) further requires NMFS to consider public comment on the proposed annual TACs and apportionments thereof and the proposed PSC allowances, and to publish final harvest specifications in the Federal Register. The 2007 and 2008 proposed harvest specifications and PSC allowances for the groundfish fishery of the BSAI were published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75460). Comments were invited and accepted through January 16, 2007. NMFS received 4 letters with several comments on the proposed harvest specifications. These comments are summarized and responded to in the Response to Comments section of this rule. NMFS consulted with the Council during the December 2006 Council meeting in Anchorage, AK. After considering public comments, as well as biological and economic data that were available at the Council's December meeting, NMFS is implementing the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications as recommended by the Council.
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and TAC Harvest Specifications
The final ABC levels are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. In general, the development of ABCs and overfishing levels (OFLs) involves sophisticated statistical analyses of fish populations and is based on a successive series of six levels, or tiers,
[[Page 9452]]
of reliable information available to fishery scientists. Tier 1 represents the highest level of data quality and tier 6 the lowest level of data quality available.
In December 2006, the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Advisory Panel (AP), and Council reviewed current biological information about the condition of the BSAI groundfish stocks. The Council's Plan Team compiled and presented this information in the 2006 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, dated November 2006. The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the BSAI ecosystem and the economic condition of groundfish fisheries off Alaska. The SAFE report is available for public review (see ADDRESSES). From these data and analyses, the Plan Team estimates an OFL and ABC for each species or species category.
In December 2006 the SSC, AP, and Council reviewed the Plan Team's recommendations. Except for Bering Sea subarea and Aleutian Islands (AI) subarea pollock, yellowfin sole, rock sole, and the ``other species'' category, the SSC, AP, and Council endorsed the Plan Team's ABC recommendations. For 2007 and 2008, the SSC recommended higher pollock OFLs and ABCs than the OFLs and ABCs recommended by the Plan Team. For Bering Sea subarea pollock, the SSC recommended using a procedure that sets the ABCs at the F40[percnt] level which results in ABCs lower than the maximum permissible, but higher than the Plan Teams recommendations. For AI subarea pollock, the SSC recommended using tier 3 management which results in maximum permissible ABCs and OFLs higher than the tier 5 management recommended by the Plan Team. For yellowfin sole and rock sole, the SSC recommended using tier 1 management which results in maximum permissible ABCs and OFLs higher than the tier 3 management recommended by the Plan Team. For ``other species,'' the SSC recommended using tier 6 management for shark and octopus species resulting in lower ABCs than the Plan Team's recommended tier 5 management. The SSC provided 2007 and 2008 ABC and OFL amounts obtained as the sum of the individual species ABCs in the ``other species'' category since the current FMP specifies management at the group level. For all species, the AP endorsed the ABCs recommended by the SSC, and the Council adopted them.
The Plan Team, SSC, AP and Council recommended that total removals of Pacific cod from the BSAI not exceed ABC recommendations. In 2006, the Board of Fisheries for the State of Alaska (State) established a guideline harvest level (GHL) west of 170 degrees west longitude in the AI subarea equal to 3 percent of the Pacific cod ABC in the BSAI. Accordingly, the Council recommended that the 2007 and 2008 TACs be adjusted downward from the ABCs by amounts equal to the 2007 and 2008 GHLs.
The final TAC recommendations were based on the ABCs as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the sum of the TACs within the required OY range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt. The Council adopted the AP's 2007 and 2008 TAC recommendations. None of the Council's recommended TACs for 2007 or 2008 exceeds the final 2007 or 2008 ABC for any species category. The 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) are unchanged from those recommended by the Council and are consistent with the preferred harvest strategy alternative in the EIS. The 2007 and 2008 TACs are less than the maximum permissible ABCs recommended by the Council's plan teams and SSC. NMFS finds that the recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as described in the 2006 SAFE report that was approved by the Council.
Other Rules Affecting the 2007 and 2008 Harvest Specifications
The following paragraphs identify actions that are currently under consideration by the Council and that, if submitted to and approved by the Secretary, could change the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications. The existing 2007 harvest specifications will be updated in early 2007 when final harvest specifications for 2007 and new harvest specifications for 2008 are implemented. The 2008 harvest specifications will be updated in early 2008, when new harvest specifications for 2008 and 2009 are implemented.
In April 2006, the Council adopted Amendment 85 to the FMP. Amendment 85 would revise the BSAI Pacific cod sector allocations. If approved by the Secretary, final regulations implementing Amendment 85 are anticipated to be effective for the 2008 fishing year. The notice of availability of Amendment 85 to the FMP was published December 7, 2006 (71 FR 70943), and the comment period ended February 5, 2007. In June 2006 the Council adopted Amendment 80 to the FMP. Amendment 80 would provide specific groundfish allocations to the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/processor sector and allow the formation of cooperatives. If approved by the Secretary, final regulations implementing Amendment 80 also are anticipated to be effective for the 2008 fishing year. The Council also adopted Amendment 84 that would modify current regulations for managing incidental catch of Chinook and chum salmon and may change the PSC limits. The Council also is considering two proposals. One would allocate the Pacific cod TAC by Bering Sea subarea and AI subarea instead of a combined BSAI TAC. The other would separate some species from the ``other rockfish'' or ``other species'' categories to establish individual OFLs, ABCs, and TACs.
Changes From the 2007 and 2008 Proposed Harvest Specifications in the BSAI
In October 2006 the Council's recommendations for the 2007 and 2008 proposed harvest specifications (71 FR 75460, December 15, 2006) were based largely on information contained in the 2005 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, dated November 2005. The Council recommended that OFLs and ABCs for stocks in tiers 1 through 3 be based on biomass projections as set forth in the 2005 SAFE report and estimates of groundfish harvests through the 2006 fishing year. For stocks in tiers 4 through 6, for which biomass projections could not be made, the Council recommended that OFLs and ABCs be unchanged from 2006 until the 2006 SAFE report could be completed. The 2006 SAFE report (dated November 2006), which was not available when the Council made its recommendations in October 2006, contains the best and most recent scientific information on the condition of the groundfish stocks. In December 2006, the Council considered the 2006 SAFE report in making its recommendations for the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications. Based on the 2006 SAFE report, the sum of the 2007 and 2008 recommended final TACs for the BSAI (2,000,000 mt) is the same as the sum of the 2007 and 2008 proposed TACs. Compared to the 2007 and 2008 proposed harvest specifications, the Council's 2006 final TAC recommendations increase fishing opportunities for fishermen and economic benefits to the nation for species for which the Council had sufficient information to raise TAC levels. These species include BSAI flathead sole, Pacific cod, sablefish,
[[Page 9453]]
yellowfin sole, ``other flatfish,'' Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, ``other rockfish,'' and squid. Conversely, the Council reduced TAC levels to provide greater protection for several species including Bering Sea subarea pollock, rock sole, Greenland turbot, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, and ``other species.'' The changes recommended by the Council were based on the best scientific information available, consistent with National Standard 2 of the MSA, and within a reasonable range of variation from the proposed TAC recommendations so that the affected public was fairly apprised and could make meaningful comments.
Comparison of Final 2007 and 2008 With Proposed 2007 and 2008 Total Allowable Catch in the BSAI
2007 2007 final
2008 2008 final Species
Area
2007 final proposed minus 2008 final proposed minus TAC
TAC
proposed TAC
TAC
proposed
Pollock.................................... BS........................... 1,394,000 1,419,800 -25,800 1,318,000 1,168,700 149,300 AI........................... 19,000 19,000
0 19,000 19,000
0 Bogoslof.....................
10
10
0
10
10
0 Pacific cod................................ BSAI......................... 170,720 144,045 26,675 127,070 118,049
9,021 Sablefish.................................. BS...........................
2,980
2,580
400
2,970
2,240
730 AI...........................
2,810
2,620
190
2,800
2,260
540 Atka mackerel.............................. EAI/BS....................... 23,800 16,782
7,018 17,600 24,481 *-6,881 CAI.......................... 29,600 38,718 -9,118 22,000 27,728 -5,728 WAI..........................
9,600
7,500
2,100 15,300 12,891
2,409 Yellowfin sole............................. BSAI......................... 136,000 117,100 18,900 150,000 106,400 43,600 Rock sole.................................. BSAI......................... 55,000 85,736 -30,736 75,000 111,600 -36,600 Greenland turbot........................... BS...........................
1,680
1,815
-135
1,720
1,815
-95 AI...........................
760
815
-55
770
815
-45 Arrowtooth flounder........................ BSAI......................... 20,000 20,000
0 30,000 144,800 -114,800 Flathead sole.............................. BSAI......................... 30,000 22,000
8,000 45,000 52,200 -7,200 Other flatfish............................. BSAI......................... 10,000
5,000
5,000 21,400 18,100
3,300 Alaska plaice.............................. BSAI......................... 25,000 32,000 -7,000 60,000 129,637 -69,637 Pacific ocean perch........................ BS...........................
2,160
3,020
-860
4,080
3,020
1,060 EAI..........................
4,970
3,322
1,648
4,900
3,322
1,578 CAI..........................
5,050
3,277
1,773
5,000
3,277
1,723 WAI..........................
7,720
5,481
2,239
7,620
5,481
2,139 Northern rockfish.......................... BSAI.........................
8,190
5,000
3,190
8,150
5,000
3,150 Shortraker rockfish........................ BSAI.........................
424
580
-156
424
580
-156 Rougheye rockfish.......................... BSAI.........................
202
224
-22
202
224
-22 Other rockfish............................. BS...........................
414
810
-396
414
810
-396 AI...........................
585
590
-5
585
590
-5 Squid...................................... BSAI.........................
1,970
1,275
695
1,970
1,970
0 Other species.............................. BSAI......................... 37,355 40,900 -3,545 58,015 35,000 23,015
Total.................................. ............................. 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 2,000,000 2,000,000
0
As mentioned in the 2007 and 2008 proposed harvest specifications, NMFS is apportioning the amounts shown in Table 2 from the non- specified reserve to increase the initial TAC (ITAC) of several target species.
NMFS is revising the BSAI species that will be allocated to the CDQ Program to include Bering Sea pollock, AI pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish from both the fixed gear and trawl gear allocations, Atka mackerel, yellowfin sole, rock sole, Bering Sea Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder, flathead sole, and AI Pacific ocean perch. This differs from the suite of species that NMFS proposed to allocate to the CDQ Program, as described in the 2007 and 2008 proposed harvest specifications (71 FR 75460, December 15, 2006). NMFS originally proposed, in addition to the species listed above, allocating AI Greenland turbot, ``other flatfish,'' and Alaska plaice to the CDQ Program. NMFS also proposed to not allocate sablefish from the trawl allocation to the CDQ Program.
Furthermore, NMFS is increasing the 2008 CDQ reserve allocations in Table 1 to 10.7 percent from 7.5 percent, except for pollock and sablefish. The statutory requirements and agency determination for changing the suite of species and percentage allocations made to the CDQ Program are described both in the 2007 and 2008 proposed harvest specifications and in the response to Comment 3 in the Response to Comments section of this action.
Catch in the CDQ fisheries of species in TAC categories that are not allocated to the CDQ Program will be managed under the regulations and fishery status that applies to the TAC category in the non-CDQ groundfish fisheries. Retention of species closed to directed fishing will either be limited to maximum retainable amounts or all catch of the species will be required to be discarded. Notices of closures to directed fishing and retention requirements for these species will apply to the CDQ and non-CDQ sectors. The catch of these species in the CDQ fisheries would not constrain the catch of other CDQ species unless catch by all sectors approached an OFL.
The 2007 and 2008 final TAC recommendations for the BSAI are within the OY range established for the BSAI and do not exceed ABCs for any single species or complex. Table 1 lists the 2007 and 2008 final OFL, ABC, TAC, ITAC, and CDQ reserve amounts of the BSAI groundfish. The apportionment of TAC amounts among fisheries and seasons is discussed below.
[[Page 9454]]
TABLE 1.--2007 and 2008 Overfishing Level (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Initial TAC (ITAC), and CDQ Reserve Allocation of Groundfish in the BSAI \1\ [Amounts are in metric tons]
2007
2008 Species
Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFL
ABC
TAC
ITAC \2\ CDQ \3\
OFL
ABC
TAC
ITAC \2\ CDQ \3\
Pollock \4\.......................... BS\2\.................. 1,640,000 1,394,000 1,394,000 1,254,600 139,400 1,431,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,186,200 131,800 AI \2\................. 54,500 44,500 19,000 17,100
1,900 50,300 41,000 19,000 17,100
1,900 Bogoslof............... 48,000
5,220
10
10
0 48,000
5,220
10
10
0 Pacific cod \5\...................... BSAI................... 207,000 176,000 170,720 145,112 12,804 154,000 131,000 127,070 108,010 13,596 Sablefish \6\........................ BS.....................
3,520
2,980
2,980
2,458
410
3,290
2,970
2,970
1,263
111 AI.....................
3,320
2,810
2,810
2,284
474
3,100
2,800
2,800
596
52 Atka mackerel........................ BSAI................... 86,900 74,000 63,000 53,550
4,725 64,200 54,900 54,900 46,665
5,874 EAI/BS.................
n/a 23,800 23,800 20,230
1,785
n/a 17,600 17,600 14,960
1,883 CAI....................
n/a 29,600 29,600 25,160
2,220
n/a 22,000 22,000 18,700
2,354 WAI....................
n/a 20,600
9,600
8,160
720
n/a 15,300 15,300 13,005
1,637 Yellowfin sole....................... BSAI................... 240,000 225,000 136,000 115,600 10,200 261,000 245,000 150,000 127,500 16,050 Rock sole............................ BSAI................... 200,000 198,000 55,000 46,750
4,125 271,000 268,000 75,000 63,750
8,025 Greenland turbot..................... BSAI................... 15,600
2,440
2,440
2,074
n/a 16,000
2,490
2,490
2,117
n/a BS.....................
n/a
1,680
1,680
1,428
126
n/a
1,720
1,720
1,462
184 AI.....................
n/a
760
760
646
0
n/a
770
770
655
0 Arrowtooth flounder.................. BSAI................... 193,000 158,000 20,000 17,000
1,500 208,000 171,000 30,000 25,500
3,210 Flathead sole........................ BSAI................... 95,300 79,200 30,000 25,500
2,250 92,800 77,200 45,000 38,250
4,815 Other flatfish \7\................... BSAI................... 28,500 21,400 10,000
8,500
0 28,500 21,400 21,400 18,190
0 Alaska plaice........................ BSAI................... 241,000 190,000 25,000 21,250
0 252,000 199,000 60,000 51,000
0 Pacific ocean perch.................. BSAI................... 26,100 21,900 19,900 16,915
n/a 25,600 21,600 21,600 18,360
n/a BS.....................
n/a
4,160
2,160
1,836
0
n/a
4,080
4,080
3,468
0 EAI....................
n/a
4,970
4,970
4,225
373
n/a
4,900
4,900
4,165
524 CAI....................
n/a
5,050
5,050
4,293
379
n/a
5,000
5,000
4,250
535 WAI....................
n/a
7,720
7,720
6,562
579
n/a
7,620
7,620
6,477
815 Northern rockfish.................... BSAI...................
9,750
8,190
8,190
6,962
0
9,700
8,150
8,150
6,928
0 Shortraker rockfish.................. BSAI...................
564
424
424
360
0
564
424
424
360
0 Rougheye rockfish.................... BSAI...................
269
202
202
172
0
269
202
202
172
0 Other rockfish \8\................... BSAI...................
1,330
999
999
849
0
1,330
999
999
849
0 BS.....................
n/a
414
414
352
0
n/a
414
414
352
0 AI.....................
n/a
585
585
497
0
n/a
585
585
497
0 Squid................................ BSAI...................
2,620
1,970
1,970
1,675
0
2,620
1,970
1,970
1,675
0 Other species \9\.................... BSAI................... 91,700 68,800 37,355 31,752
0 91,700 68,800 58,015 49,313
0
Total............................ ....................... 3,188,973 2,676,035 2,000,000 1,770,474 179,245 3,014,973 2,642,125 2,000,000 1,763,808 187,491
\1\ These amounts apply to the entire BSAI management area unless otherwise specified. With the exception of pollock, and for the purpose of these harvest specifications, the Bering Sea (BS) subarea includes the Bogoslof District. \2\ Except for pollock and the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line and pot gear, 15 percent of each TAC is put into a reserve. The ITAC for each species is the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of these reserves. \3\ Except for Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot, ``other flatfish,'' Alaska plaice, Bering Sea Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, ``other rockfish,'' squid, and ``other species,'' 7.5 percent in 2007 and 10.7 percent in 2008 of the TAC is designated as a CDQ reserve for use by CDQ participants (see Sec. Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii), 679.31, and section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the MSA). \4\ Under Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(1), the annual Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC after subtraction for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and the incidental catch allowance (2.8 percent), is further allocated by sector for a directed pollock fishery as follows: inshore--50 percent; catcher/processor--40 percent; and motherships--10 percent. Under Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) and (ii), the annual Aleutian Islands subarea pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second for the incidental catch allowance (1,600 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a directed pollock fishery. \5\ The Pacific cod TAC is reduced by 3 percent from the ABC to account for the State of Alaska's (State) guideline harvest level in State waters of the Aleutian Islands subarea. \6\ Twenty percent of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line gear or pot gear is reserved for use by CDQ participants (see Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(B)). \7\ ``Other flatfish'' includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited species), flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, arrowtooth flounder and Alaska plaice. \8\ ``Other rockfish'' includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, northern, shortraker, and rougheye rockfish. \9\ ``Other species'' includes sculpins, sharks, skates and octopus. Forage fish, as defined at Sec. 679.2, are not included in the ``other species'' category.
[[Page 9455]]
Reserves and the Incidental Catch Allowance (ICA) for Pollock
Section 679.20(b)(1)(i) of the CFR requires the placement of 15 percent of the TAC for each target species or species group, except for pollock and the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation of sablefish, in a non-specified reserve. Section 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(A) of the CFR and section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the MSA further require the allocation of one-half of each TAC amount that is placed in the non- specified reserve (7.5 percent of the TAC) in 2007 and 10.7 percent in 2008 be allocated to the groundfish CDQ reserve with the exception of Bogoslof pollock, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot, ``other flatfish,'' Alaska plaice, Bering Sea Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, ``other rockfish,'' squid, and ``other species,'' as explained above. Section 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(B) requires 20 percent of the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation of sablefish be allocated to the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve. Sections 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i), and 679.31(a) also require the allocation of 10 percent of the BSAI pollock TACs to the pollock CDQ directed fishing allowance (DFA). The entire Bogoslof District pollock TAC is allocated as an ICA (see Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(ii)). With the exception of the hook-and-line and pot gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the regulations do not further apportion the CDQ reserves by gear. Section 679.21(e)(1)(i) requires withholding of 7.5 percent of each PSC limit, with the exception of herring, as a PSQ reserve for the CDQ fisheries. Sections 679.30 and 679.31 set forth regulations governing the management of the CDQ and PSQ reserves.
Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(1), NMFS allocates a pollock ICA of 2.8 percent of the Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC after subtraction of the 10 percent CDQ reserve. This allowance is based on NMFS' examination of the pollock incidental catch, including the incidental catch by CDQ vessels, in target fisheries other than pollock from 1999 through 2006. During this 8-year period, the pollock incidental catch ranged from a low of 2.4 percent in 2006, to a high of 5 percent in 1999, with a 7-year average of 3.5 percent. Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) and (ii), NMFS recommends pollock ICA of 1,600 mt for AI subarea pollock after subtraction of the 10 percent CDQ DFA. This allowance is based on NMFS' examination of the pollock incidental catch, including the incidental catch by CDQ vessels, in target fisheries other than pollock from 2003 through 2006. During this 4-year period, the incidental catch of pollock ranged from a low of 5 percent in 2006 to a high of 10 percent in 2003, with a 4-year average of 7 percent.
The regulations do not designate the remainder of the non-specified reserve by species or species group. Any amount of the reserve may be apportioned to a target species or to the ``other species'' category during the year, providing that such apportionments do not result in overfishing (see Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(ii)). The Regional Administrator has determined that the ITACs specified for the species listed in Table 2 need to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve because U.S. fishing vessels have demonstrated the capacity to catch the full TAC allocations. Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 679.20(b)(3), NMFS is apportioning the amounts shown in Table 2 from the non-specified reserve to increase the ITAC by 7.5 percent of the TAC in 2007. In 2008, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, and Bering Sea ``other rockfish'' are increased by 7.5 percent of TAC and Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, and Pacific cod by 4.3 percent of the TAC.
Table 2.--2007 and 2008 Apportionment of Reserves to ITAC Categories [Amounts are in metric tons]
2007
2008 Species--area or subarea
Reserve 2007 Final Reserve 2008 Final amount
ITAC
amount
ITAC
Atka mackerel--Eastern Aleutian District and Bering Sea
1,785 22,015
757 15,717 subarea.................................................... Atka mackerel--Central Aleutian District....................
2,220 27,380
946 19,646 Atka mackerel--Western Aleutian District....................
720
8,880
658 13,663 Pacific ocean perch--Eastern Aleutian District..............
373
4,598
211
4,376 Pacific ocean perch--Central Aleutian District..............
379
4,672
215
4,465 Pacific ocean perch--Western Aleutian District..............
579
7,141
328
6,805 Pacific cod--BSAI........................................... 12,804 157,916
5,464 113,474 Shortraker rockfish--BSAI...................................
32
392
32
392 Rougheye rockfish--BSAI.....................................
15
187
15
187 Northern rockfish--BSAI.....................................
614
7,576
611
7,539 Other rockfish--Bering Sea subarea..........................
31
383
31
383
Total................................................... 19,552 241,140
9,268 186,647
Allocation of Pollock TAC Under the American Fisheries Act (AFA)
Section 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A) requires that the pollock TAC apportioned to the Bering Sea subarea, after subtraction of the 10 percent for the CDQ program and the 2.8 percent for the ICA, be allocated as a DFA as follows: 50 percent to the inshore sector, 40 percent to the catcher/processor sector, and 10 percent to the mothership sector. In the Bering Sea subarea, 40 percent of the DFA is allocated to the A season (January 20-June 10) and 60 percent of the DFA is allocated to the B season (June 10-November 1). In October 2006, the State's Board of Fisheries adopted a proposal for a 3,000 mt pollock fishery in State waters of the AI subarea. However, this action by the State does not require a downward adjustment of the Federal AI subarea pollock TAC because the combined TAC and GHL (22,000 mt) are less than the proposed ABC of 44,500 mt. The AI directed pollock fishery allocation to the Aleut Corporation is the amount of pollock remaining in the AI subarea after subtracting 1,900 mt for the CDQ DFA (10 percent) and 1,600 mt for the ICA. In the AI subarea, 40 percent of the ABC is allocated to the A season and the remainder of the directed pollock fishery is allocated to the B season. Table 3 lists these 2007 and 2008 amounts.
Section 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4) also includes several specific requirements
[[Page 9456]]
regarding pollock allocations. First, 8.5 percent of the pollock allocated to the catcher/processor sector will be available for harvest by AFA catcher vessels with catcher/processor sector endorsements, unless the Regional Administrator receives a cooperative contract that provides for the distribution of harvest among AFA catcher/processors and AFA catcher vessels in a manner agreed to by all members. Second, AFA catcher/processors not listed in the AFA are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the pollock allocated to the catcher/ processor sector. Table 3 lists the 2007 and 2008 allocations of pollock TAC. Tables 10 through 15 list the AFA catcher/processor and catcher vessel harvesting sideboard limits. The tables for the pollock allocations to the Bering Sea subarea inshore pollock cooperatives and open access sector will be posted on the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
Table 3 also lists seasonal apportionments of pollock and harvest limits within the Steller Sea Lion Conservation Area (SCA). The harvest within the SCA, as defined at Sec. 679.22(a)(7)(vii), is limited to 28 percent of the annual DFA until April 1. The remaining 12 percent of the 40 percent of the annual DFA allocated to the A season may be taken outside the SCA before April 1 or inside the SCA after April 1. If less than 28 percent of the annual DFA is taken inside the SCA before April 1, the remainder will be available to be taken inside the SCA after April 1. The A season pollock SCA harvest limit will be apportioned to each sector in proportion to each sector's allocated percentage of the DFA. Table 3 lists by sector these 2007 and 2008 amounts.
Table 3.--2007 and 2008 Allocations of Pollock TACs to the Directed Pollock Fisheries and to the CDQ Directed Fishing Allowances (DFA) \1\ [Amounts are in metric tons]
2007 A season \1\ 2007 B
2008 A season \1\ 2008 B
season \1\
------------------------ season \1\ Area and sector
2007
SCA
2008
SCA
Allocations A season harvest B season Allocations A season harvest B season DFA limit \2\ DFA
DFA limit \2\ DFA
Bering Sea subarea.................................... 1,394,000
n/a
n/a
n/a 1,318,000
n/a
n/a
n/a CDQ DFA............................................. 139,400 55,760 39,032 83,640 131,800 52,720 36,904 79,080 ICA \1\............................................. 35,129
n/a
n/a
n/a 33,214
n/a
n/a
n/a AFA Inshore......................................... 609,736 243,894 170,726 365,841 576,493 230,597 161,418 345,896 AFA Catcher/Processors \3\.......................... 487,788 195,115 136,581 292,673 461,195 184,478 129,134 276,717
Catch by C/Ps..................................... 446,326 178,531
n/a 267,796 421,993 168,797
n/a 253,196
Catch by CVs \3\.................................. 41,462 16,585
n/a 24,877 39,202 15,681
n/a 23,521 Unlisted C/P Limit \4\..........................
2,439
976
n/a 1,463
2,306
922
n/a 1,384 AFA Motherships....................................... 121,947 48,779 34,145 73,168 115,299 46,119 32,284 69,179 Excessive Harvesting Limit \5\........................ 213,407
n/a
n/a
n/a 201,773
n/a
n/a
n/a Excessive Processing Limit \6\........................ 365,841
n/a
n/a
n/a 345,896
n/a
n/a
n/a Total Bering Sea DFA.................................. 1,358,871 543,548 380,484 815,322 1,284,787 513,914 359,740 770,872 Aleutian Islands subarea \1\.......................... 19,000
n/a
n/a
n/a 19,000
n/a
n/a
n/a CDQ DFA.............................................
1,900
760
n/a 1,140
1,900
760
n/a 1,140 ICA.................................................
1,600
800
n/a
800
1,600
800
n/a
800 Aleut Corporation................................... 15,500 15,500
n/a
0 15,500 15,500
n/a
0 Bogoslof District ICA \7\.............................
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
\1\ Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the Bering Sea subarea pollock, after subtraction for the CDQ DFA (10 percent) and the ICA (2.8 percent), is allocated as a DFA as follows: inshore sector--50 percent, catcher/processor sector--40 percent, and mothership sector--10 percent. In the Bering Sea subarea, 40 percent of the DFA is allocated to the A season (January 20-June 10) and 60 percent of the DFA is allocated to the B season (June 10- November 1). Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) and (ii), the annual AI pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second the ICA (1,600 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a directed pollock fishery. In the AI subarea, the A season is allocated 40 percent of the ABC and the B season is allocated the remainder of the directed pollock fishery. \2\ In the Bering Sea subarea, no more than 28 percent of each sector's annual DFA may be taken from the SCA before April 1. The remaining 12 percent of the annual DFA allocated to the A season may be taken outside of SCA before April 1 or inside the SCA after April 1. If less than 28 percent of the annual DFA is taken inside the SCA before April 1, the remainder will be available to be taken inside the SCA after April 1. \3\ Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4), not less than 8.5 percent of the DFA allocated to listed catcher/processors shall be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels delivering to listed catcher/processors. \4\ Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4)(iii), the AFA unlisted catcher/processors are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the catcher/processors sector's allocation of pollock. \5\ Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(6), NMFS establishes an excessive harvesting share limit equal to 17.5 percent of the sum of the pollock DFAs.
\6\ Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(7), NMFS establishes an excessive processing share limit equal to 30.0 percent of the sum of the pollock DFAs.
\7\ The Bogoslof District is closed by the final harvest specifications to directed fishing for pollock. The amounts specified are for ICA only, and are not apportioned by season or sector.
Allocation of the Atka Mackerel ITAC
Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(i), up to 2 percent of the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea Atka mackerel ITAC may be allocated to jig gear. The amount of this allocation is determined annually by the Council based on several criteria, including the anticipated harvest capacity of the jig gear fleet. The Council recommended, and NMFS approved, a 1 percent allocation of the Atka mackerel ITAC in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea to the jig gear in 2007 and 2008. Based on the 2007 ITAC of 22,015 mt, the jig gear allocation would be 220 mt for 2007. Based on the 2008 ITAC of 15,717 mt, the jig gear allocation would be 157 mt for 2008.
Section Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) apportions the Atka mackerel ITAC into two equal seasonal allowances. After subtraction of the jig gear allocation, the first seasonal allowance is made available for directed fishing from January 1 (January 20 for trawl gear) to
[[Page 9457]]
April 15 (A season), and the second seasonal allowance is made available from September 1 to November 1 (B season; Table 4).
Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1), the Regional Administrator will establish a harvest limit area (HLA) limit of no more than 60 percent of the seasonal TAC for the Western and Central Aleutian Districts. A lottery system is used for the HLA Atka mackerel directed fisheries to reduce the amount of daily catch in the HLA by about half and to disperse the fishery over two districts (see Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(iii)).
Table 4.--2007 and 2008 Seasonal and Spatial Allowances, Gear Shares, and CDQ Reserve of the BSAI ATKA Mackerel TAC\1\ [Amounts are in metric tons]
2007 Seasonal allowances \3\ 2007 CDQ
------------------------------------------- 2007 CDQ reserve
A season \4\
B season \4\ Subarea and component
2007 TAC reserve \2\ HLA limit 2007 ITAC ------------------------------------------- \5\
HLA limit
HLA limit Total \5\ Total \5\
Western AI District......................................... 9,600
720
432 8,880 4,440 2,664 4,440 2,664 Central AI District......................................... 29,600
2,220
1,332 27,380 13,690 8,214 13,690 8,214 EAI/BS subarea \6\.......................................... 23,800
1,785
n/a 22,015
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Jig (1%) \7\............................................
n/a
n/a
n/a
220
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Other gear (99%)........................................
n/a
n/a
n/a 21,795 10,897
n/a 10,897
n/a
Total............................................... 63,000
n/a
n/a
n/a 29,027
n/a 29,027
n/a
2008 Seasonal allowances \3\ 2008 CDQ
------------------------------------------- 2008 CDQ reserve
A season \4\
B season \4\ Subarea and component
2008 TAC reserve \2\ HLA limit 2008 ITAC ------------------------------------------- \5\
HLA limit
HLA limit Total \5\ Total \5\
Western AI District......................................... 15,300
1,637
982 13,663 6,831 4,099 6,831 4,099 Central AI District......................................... 22,000
2,354
1,412 19,646 9,823 5,894 9,823 5,894 EAI/BS subarea \6\.......................................... 17,600
1,883
n/a 15,717
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Jig (1%) \7\............................................
n/a
n/a
n/a
157
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Other gear (99%)........................................
n/a
n/a
n/a 15,560 7,780
n/a 7,780
n/a
Total............................................... 54,900
n/a
n/a
n/a 24,434
n/a 24,434
n/a
\1\ Regulations at Sec. Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(ii) and 679.22(a) establish temporal and spatial limitations for the Atka mackerel fishery. \2\ The CDQ reserve is 7.5 percent in 2007 and 10.7 percent in 2008 of the TAC for use by CDQ participants (see Sec. Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii), 679.31, and section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the MSA). \3\ The seasonal allowances of Atka mackerel are 50 percent in the A season and 50 percent in the B season. \4\ The A season is January 1 (January 20 for trawl gear) to April 15 and the B season is September 1 to November 1. \5\ Harvest Limit Area (HLA) limit refers to the amount of each seasonal allowance that is available for fishing inside the HLA (see Sec. 679.2). In 2007 and 2008, 60 percent of each seasonal allowance is available for fishing inside the HLA in the Western and Central Aleutian Districts. \6\ Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea. \7\ Regulations at Sec. 679.20 (a)(8)(i) require that up to 2 percent of the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea ITAC be allocated to jig gear. The amount of this allocation is 1 percent. The jig gear allocation is not apportioned by season.
Allocation of the Pacific cod ITAC
Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(i)(A), 2 percent of the Pacific cod ITAC is allocated to vessels using jig gear, 51 percent to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear, and 47 percent to vessels using trawl gear. Section 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) further allocates the portion of the Pacific cod ITAC allocated to trawl gear as 50 percent to catcher vessels and 50 percent to catcher/processors. Section 679.20(a)(7)(i)(C)(1) sets aside a portion of the Pacific cod ITAC allocated to hook-and-line or pot gear as an ICA of Pacific cod in directed fisheries for groundfish using these gear types. The Regional Administrator specifies an ICA of 500 mt for 2007 and 2008 based on anticipated incidental catch in these fisheries. The remainder of Pacific cod ITAC is further allocated to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear as the following DFAs: 80 percent to hook-and-line catcher/ processors, 0.3 percent to hook-and-line catcher vessels, 3.3 percent to pot catcher/processors, 15 percent to pot catcher vessels, and 1.4 percent to catcher vessels under 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear.
Due to concerns about the potential impact of the Pacific cod fishery on Steller sea lions and their critical habitat, the Pacific cod ITAC is apportioned into seasonal allowances to disperse the Pacific cod fisheries over the fishing year (see Sec. Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A) and 679.23(e)(5)). For pot and most hook-and-line gear, the first seasonal allowance of 60 percent of the ITAC is made available for directed fishing from January 1 to June 10, and the second seasonal allowance of 40 percent of the ITAC is made available from June 10 (September 1 for pot gear) to December 31. No seasonal harvest constraints are imposed for the Pacific cod fishery by catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. For trawl gear, the first season is January 20 to April 1 and is allocated 60 percent of the ITAC. The second season, April 1 to June 10, and the third season, June 10 to November 1, are each allocated 20 percent of the ITAC. The trawl catcher vessel allocation is further allocated as 70 percent in the first season, 10 percent in the second season and 20 percent in the third season. The trawl catcher/processor allocation is allocated 50 percent in the first season, 30 percent in
[[Page 9458]]
the second season, and 20 percent in the third season. For jig gear, the first season and third seasons are each allocated 40 percent of the ITAC and the second season is allocated 20 percent of the ITAC. Table 5 lists the 2007 and 2008 allocations and seasonal apportionments of the Pacific cod ITAC. In accordance with Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(D) and (a)(7)(iii)(B), any unused portion of a seasonal Pacific cod allowance will become available at the beginning of the next seasonal allowance.
Table 5.--2007 and 2008 Gear Shares and Seasonal Allowances of the BSAI Pacific Cod ITAC [Amounts are in metric tons]
2007
2007 2007 2007 seasonal apportionment \1\ 2008
2008 2008 2008 seasonal apportionment \1\ share of subtotal share of -------------------------------------- share of subtotal share of ------------------------------------- Gear sector
Percent gear percentages gear
gear percentages gear sector for gear sector
Date
Amount sector for gear sector
Date
Amount total sectors total
total sectors total
Total hook-and-line/pot gear............
51 80,537
n/a
n/a n/a....................... n/a 57,872
n/a
n/a n/a....................... n/a Hook-and-line/pot ICA................... n/a n/a
n/a
500 n/a....................... n/a n/a
n/a
500 n/a....................... n/a Hook-and-line/pot sub-total............. n/a 80,037
n/a
n/a n/a....................... n/a 57,372
n/a
n/a n/a....................... n/a Hook-and-line C/P....................... n/a n/a
80 64,030 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 38,419 n/a
80 45,897 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 27,538 ........ ........ ........... ........ Jun 10-Dec 31............. 25,611 ........ ........... ........ Jun 10-Dec 31............. 18,359 Hook-and-line CV........................ n/a n/a
0.3
240 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 144 n/a
0.3
172 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 103 ........ ........ ........... ........ Jun 10-Dec 31.............
96 ........ ........... ........ Jun 10-Dec 31.............
69 Pot C/P................................. n/a n/a
3.3 2,641 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 1,586 n/a
3.3 1,893 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 1,136 ........ ........ ........... ........ Sept 1-Dec 31............. 1,055 ........ ........... ........ Sept 1-Dec 31............. 757 Pot CV.................................. n/a n/a
15 12,006 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 7,203 n/a
15 8,606 Jan 1-Jun 10.............. 5,163 ........ ........ ........... ........ Sept 1-Dec 31............. 4,803 ........ ........... ........ Sept 1-Dec 31............. 3,443 CV 40[percnt]policy ignores effects on the ecosystem and simply assumes that individual target species can be fished to the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) without significant consequences to other species in the food web.
Response: The harvest strategy incorporates a key principle of ecosystem-based fisheries management by preserving individual stocks and preventing overfishing of those stocks. This is important for protecting ecosystem components that depend on these individual stocks. The effects of the groundfish fisheries and fishing rates are analyzed in the EIS and the annual SAFE reports.
The tier system in the FMP and the harvest specifications process lead to TACs associated with fishing rates that are less than FMSY. FOFLis never greater than FMSY, or an appropriate FMSYproxy. Average multi-year fishery harvest rates fall below FMSYbecause the tier system treats FOFLas a limit rather than a target. The fishing rates associated with maximum permissible ABC, actual ABC, and the TAC, all fall below the FOFL, providing a margin between the actual F and the FMSY. Moreover, as discussed in response to Comment 5, other management measures often constrain actual catches and fishing rates below the TACs or the fishing rates associated with the TACs.
With current levels of information, we cannot precisely specify the margin or threshold between FOFLand actual harvest rate that provides the appropriate level of protection for various ecosystem properties. The AFSC continues to develop and improve scientific information in the Ecosystems Considerations section of the SAFE report. New information added in 2006 included the relationship with Bering Sea subarea pelagic forage species, the relationship between predation/production and fishing/production, a metric proposed to evaluate the management implications of potential exploitation of forage species, and a metric proposed to evaluate the ``footprint'' of individual fisheries.
The AFSC also continues to develop and improve several multispecies and ecosystem models to predict the possible effects of fishing and/or climate on ecosystem processes. Ecosystem modeling is extremely complex, and the incorporation of ecosystem considerations into the harvest specifications process is an evolving process. The AFSC is advancing this process through the development of multispecies fish stock assessment models that include predation, ecosystem mass-balance and simulation models, and single-species stock assessment models that include predation. The AFSC briefed the Groundfish Plan Teams on the results of these analyses to help them in their deliberations in the harvest specifications process.
Comment 7: Selective removals of species and large differences in catch rates for managed stocks may be responsible for significant and lasting changes in the structure of groundfish assemblages and food webs in the North Pacific, as seen in other ecosystems. Selective extraction of a relatively few high-value species may provide a competitive opportunity for ``under-utilized'' species such as arrowtooth flounder, which appear to have increased dramatically since the 1970s. NMFS consistently attributes regional stock declines and broader system changes to the weather (``regime shifts''), a transparent stratagem that serves to justify the status quo and absolve the agency of responsibility for fishery-related systemic changes.
Response: NMFS analyzes and considers the interactions among fish species in its evaluations of the impacts of groundfish fishing. The nature of competitive interactions among species is an area of ongoing research by the AFSC. These issues are discussed in the ecosystem sections of individual species SAFE reports and by the Plan Teams as they formulate their ABC recommendations.
Species interactions are complex and imperfectly understood in the North Pacific. The AFSC is collaborating to develop a detailed, age- structured, multispecies statistical model to study this complex interaction of pollock and arrowtooth flounder. This ``cultivation/ depensation'' model is expected to be completed in the near future. In December 2006, the BSAI Groundfish Plan Team leader briefed the Council and its SSC and AP on the complex interactions between pollock and arrowtooth flounder and on the potential application of this model whereby a species such as pollock ``cultivates'' its young by preying on species that would eat its young.
Regime shifts remain an important consideration. Regime shifts are well documented; these changes in climate are believed to have affected relative abundance of species in the past, and are expected to do so in the future.
Comment 8: NMFS fails to analyze the cumulative and synergistic effects of selective exploitation, benthic habitat modification, and serial depletion of targeted stocks in the North Pacific. The ``Ecosystem Considerations'' chapter in the annual SAFE reports does not consider the effects of large-scale fisheries off Alaska on long- term restructuring of food web dynamics and on composition of species assemblages. An evaluation of this phenomenon, and consideration of alternatives to address it, is also missing from the EIS and the harvest specification process. Additionally, the proposed harvest specifications do not mitigate the effects of selective exploitation and disproportionate exploitation rates.
Response: NMFS takes a conservative approach to management in response to uncertainties. Conservative elements in the harvest strategies and groundfish fisheries management are listed in the responses to Comments 4, 5, 15, and 16. The EIS analyzed alternative harvest strategies that met the scope of this action, as determined by the statement of purpose and need.
The EIS analyzes the effects of the alternative harvest strategies on target stocks and habitat in a comprehensive way that looks at both the individual species impacts and the overall ecosystem function impacts. NMFS agrees that uncertainty exists in assessing the ecosystem effects of alternative harvest strategies. One of the functions of an EIS is to identify these uncertainties. The EIS and the Ecosystem Considerations chapter of the SAFE reports examine trends in the trophic level of catch and species diversity. As noted in the response to Comment 10, competitive interactions between fisheries are an active area of AFSC research, and are discussed, as
[[Page 9471]]
appropriate, in the ecosystem discussions in the species-specific sections of the SAFE reports.
Comment 9: Neither the EIS nor its alternatives address the issues of setting exploitation levels on single stocks with no explicit consideration of the impacts of dependent, competing species in the food web or other impacts on associated species that flow from the exploitation of a relative few commercially desirable species.
Response: The EIS directly examines the impacts of the alternative harvest strategies on non-target species, including food web interactions. The EIS examines the impacts of groundfish fishing on forage fish availability in Chapter 6, and the trophic level of catches in Chapter 11. The EIS includes detailed analyses of the impacts on prey and habitat for key species and species groupings of marine mammals and seabirds in Chapters 8 and 9.
Comment 10: The uncertainties of ecosystem mechanics underscore the need for a much more precautionary approach to fisheries management in the context of food web and habitat conservation, and illustrate why the agency's determinations of non-significance for fishery impacts on prey availability and spatial/temporal concentration of fisheries are arbitrary and capricious. NMFS cannot demonstrate that the current and proposed levels of fishing permitted in protected species' habitats are ``safe'' or ``insignificant.'' Rather, NMFS assumes that the impact is insignificant in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the environment to show harm. This is opposite of precautionary and the opposite of an ecosystem-based approach.
Response: NMFS did not make a determination of non-significance in the EIS. The EIS fully discloses known impacts, areas of uncertainty, and presents the information in comparative form to aid in decision- making. NMFS agrees that uncertainty exists in assessing the ecosystem effects of alternative harvest strategies. Identifying these uncertainties is one of the functions of an EIS. The EIS identifies potential adverse impacts of the alternatives on the ecosystem and the uncertainty of those impacts. NMFS is actively taking steps to reduce uncertainty and better understand the environment through ongoing scientific research. Many elements built into the harvest specifications process, and into the groundfish fisheries management regime, described in the responses to Comments 4, 5, 15, and 16, contribute to conservative management.
Comment 11: Major habitat impacts of fishing on the EFH of FMP- managed species and foraging habitats of ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)-protected species are not addressed in the EIS or mitigated in the proposed harvest specifications.
Response: NMFS has examined in the EIS the impacts of fishing on EFH of FMP-managed species, and on the foraging habitats of ESA- and MMPA-protected species. Chapter 8 examines the impacts of alternative groundfish harvest strategies on ESA- and MMPA-listed marine mammals. Chapter 9 provides a similar examination for ESA-listed seabirds. Chapter 10 examines the impacts of the harvest strategies on EFH and incorporates by reference the analysis in the Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Statement (EFH EIS, see ADDRESSES) that examines the impact of fishing on benthic habitat.
Habitat impacts of fishing on the EFH of FMP-managed species and foraging habitats of ESA- and MMPA-protected species are mitigated by the extensive habitat protection measures enacted in the BSAI. These are described in the response to Comment 15.
Comment 12: The EIS fails to evaluate the impacts of pelagic trawl gear on habitat and the impact of the spatial concentration of pollock and Pacific cod catches on stock size, in a meaningful fashion, and fails to consider an alternative to address these impacts. There is little scientific evidence that fishing on spawning stocks of Alaskan groundfish has had adverse impacts on recruitment success. The status quo practice of targeting groundfish on spawning grounds, when the fish are most vulnerable to fishing gear, is a habitat impact of particular significance that must be addressed. The dismal abundance trends of several regional pollock stocks and large uncertainties in stock structure among many groundfish populations cry out for explicit protection of spawning grounds.
Response: The impacts of pelagic trawling on habitat are evaluated in the EFH EIS. Chapter 10 of the EIS provides an EFH Assessment that incorporates by reference the EFH EIS analysis of the impacts of the groundfish fisheries on EFH. Fisheries management measures, other than harvest strategies, are outside the scope of the action analyzed in the EIS. Pollock and Pacific cod catches are apportioned seasonally under existing measures adopted to protect Steller sea lions. Further seasonal apportionments of catch would require regulatory changes that were outside the scope of this action, as defined by the purpose and need.
Comment 13: The MSA's EFH provisions should require the adoption of marine reserves to protect vulnerable reproductive habitats that are targeted by the fisheries.
Response: This is not a comment on the content of the groundfish harvest specifications or on the accompanying EIS, and deals with issues that are beyond the scope of both.
Comment 14: The proposed harvest specifications and accompanying EIS fail to address major groundfish fishery impacts on king crab EFH in the most heavily trawled area of the Bering Sea, the Unimak-Port Moller area.
Response: These impacts were fully analyzed in the EFH EIS. The analysis in the EFH EIS has been incorporated into the EIS by reference to eliminate repetitive discussion in Chapter 10.
Comment 15: NMFS' assertions that the status quo EFH measures provide adequate protection or that the spatial/temporal concentration of the fisheries has insignificant impacts on EFH are not supported by evidence. The EIS fails to evaluate this information and consider alternatives that would address these impacts on fish habitat, and the proposed harvest specifications provide no adequate mitigation measures to address these impacts. NMFS cannot demonstrate that the current and proposed levels of fishing permitted in managed species' habitats are insignificant or compliant with the spirit and letter of the MSA's EFH provisions. Rather, NMFS assumes that the impact is insignificant in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the environment and the managed species to show harm. This is opposite of a precautionary approach to EFH conservation.
Response: In this EIS NMFS fully discloses known impacts, identifies uncertainties, and presents information in comparative form to aid in decision-making. Detailed information of the effects of fishing on EFH contained in the 2005 EFH EIS was incorporated by reference in this EIS. As discussed in Chapter 2 of the EIS, fisheries management measures, other than harvest strategies, are outside the scope of this action, as defined by the statement of purpose and need.
The discussion of habitat impacts in the EIS incorporated by reference the science and analysis in the EFH EIS. The analyses in Section 4.3 and Appendix B of the EFH EIS indicated that groundfish fishing has long-term effects on benthic habitat features off Alaska and acknowledged that considerable scientific uncertainty remains regarding the consequences of
[[Page 9472]]
such habitat changes for the sustained productivity of managed species. Nevertheless, the EFH EIS concluded that the effects on EFH are minimal because the analysis found no indication that continued fishing activities at the current rate and intensity would alter the capacity of EFH to support healthy populations of managed species over the long term. Therefore, the EFH EIS determined that new protection measures for the fisheries to reduce the adverse effects on EFH were not required. Nevertheless, the Council recommended a suite of new conservative measures to reduce potential adverse effects to EFH and HAPCs from fishing activities. These actions continue the Council's policy of implementing conservative conservation measures for the Alaska fisheries, as described in the management policies and objectives added to the groundfish FMPs from the PSEIS policy statement. NMFS implemented the Council's recommendations in 2006 (71 FR 36694; June 28, 2006).
The Council and NMFS have taken a conservative approach to habitat protection by enacting substantial restrictions on fishing that minimize potential adverse effects on EFH. In the Bering Sea subarea, bottom trawl closures encompass about 30,000 square nautical miles to reduce bycatch and protect seafloor habitats. Measures to protect Steller sea lions have fully or partially closed about 58,000 square nautical miles to fishing in the AI subarea and GOA. More recently, the Council and NMFS adopted a suite of new measures to reduce the effects of fishing on EFH in the AI subarea and GOA, protecting nearly 300,000 square nautical miles of habitat. The largest of these areas, the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area, prohibits bottom trawling over 279,000 square nautical miles to protect corals and other sensitive habitat features. The Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone north of Adak is closed to all mobile bottom-contact gear. The Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas are closed to all bottom-contact fishing gear and anchoring, protecting six especially sensitive ``coral gardens.'' The Council is presently undertaking an analysis of additional habitat conservation measures for the Bering Sea subarea, which considers both area closures and gear restrictions to further limit the potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH.
The Council and NMFS have taken many other measures to protect habitat. These include the trawl standards for pelagic trawl gear in the BSAI to reduce bottom contact, and a wide range of protection measures, including the nearshore Bristol Bay trawl closure area, the Red King crab savings area, the Statistical area 516 seasonal closure, and the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation area. These actions reflect a conservative management strategy.
Comment 16: The lack of spatial-temporal management of groundfish stocks has potentially profound adverse consequences for ESA-listed Steller sea lions and MMPA-listed northern fur seals. The apportionment of ABCs according to broad management subareas does not address the impacts of fishing at local scales relevant to foraging sea lions, fur seals, and other species. NMFS fails to address localized effects adequately in any alternative considered in the EIS or the proposed harvest specifications. NMFS cannot demonstrate that the current and proposed levels of fishing permitted in protected marine mammal species' habitats are insignificant. Existing uncertainties underscore the need for a highly precautionary approach to habitat conservation, and illustrate why the agency's claims that spatial/temporal concentration of the fisheries under the status quo have insignificant impacts on marine mammal foraging habitats and prey are not supported by evidence. As in other instances, the burden of proof is on the environment to show harm. This is opposite of a precautionary approach.
Response: NMFS did not make a determinations of non-significance in the EIS. The EIS fully discloses known impacts, areas of uncertainty, and presents the information in comparative form to aid in decision- making. The EIS describes localized impacts of fishing activity on marine mammals. Chapter 8 in the EIS evaluates the impacts of this action on marine mammals, with particular attention to impacts on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. The chapter describes what is known about the spatial and temporal overlap between groundfish fishing activity and marine mammal foraging habitat. The EIS summarizes the available information on the impacts of fishing activity on marine mammals and their habitat. While information on the spatial and temporal impact of groundfish fishing on other species is relatively limited, the EIS provides a review of the information available and indicates where information is lacking.
Endangered Steller sea lions have been protected by a suite of measures. Groundfish fisheries conducted in accordance with the Steller sea lion protection measures adopted in 2002 have been determined not to jeopardize Steller sea lions or adversely modify their critical habitat. The protection measures involve seasonal apportionments of annual TACs, limits on the proportion of catch within habitat important for Steller sea lion foraging, limits on fishing activity within areas adjacent to haulouts and rookeries, and closure of directed fishing when biomass falls to low levels. The protection measures and the conclusions of no jeopardy or adverse modification of habitat were arrived at after careful evaluation in 2001. Since that time, NMFS has continued to investigate the determinants of Steller sea lion declines. These measures are currently being reevaluated in a new biological opinion and revised recovery plan.
Comment 17: The proposed harvest specifications and the accompanying EIS fail in substantive ways to comply with the intent of the MSA, NEPA, the ESA, and the MMPA.
Response: Prior to approval, the Secretary ensures that this action and all actions it takes are in compliance with the MSA, NEPA, the ESA, and the MMPA.
Comment 18: Given the current uncertainties and lack of scientific information, it is essential to adopt a highly precautionary approach to exploitation of these ecosystems, in order to avoid the wholesale system reorganization and impoverishment that has been linked to fishing in other marine ecosystems.
Response: The Council recommended and NMFS approves the use of a cautionary approach.
Comment 19: There is no ``balance'' between the interests of fisheries and other public interests in the North Pacific region: the scales are tilted entirely to the advantage of the industrial fisheries whose interests are placed above all other public interests. The tradeoffs between often contrary FMP objectives are made by a decision- making body that is not representative of the broader public interest and that is biased heavily in favor of commercial utilization of the public resource for its own benefit. This state of affairs cries out for basic reforms of the kind outlined by the Pew Oceans Commission (2003) and the U.S. Oceans Policy Commission (2004) so that other public interests and societal goals are fairly represented, in order to achieve a real ``balance between competing uses'' of the ocean commons.
Response: This is not a comment on the content of the groundfish harvest specifications or on the accompanying EIS, and deals with issues that are beyond the scope of both.
[[Page 9473]]
Small Entity Compliance Guide
The following information is a plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this final rule as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule's primary management measures are to announce 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications and prohibited species bycatch allowances for the groundfish fishery of the BSAI. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and associated management measures for groundfish during the 2007 and 2008 fishing years and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the FMP. This action affects all fishermen who participate in the BSAI fishery. The specific amounts of OFL, ABC, TAC, and PSC amounts are provided in tabular form to assist the reader. NMFS will announce closures of directed fishing in the Federal Register and in information bulletins released by the Alaska Region. Affected fishermen should keep themselves informed of such closures.
Classification
NMFS determined that the FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
This action is authorized under Sec. 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a Draft EIS for this action and made it available to the public for comment (71 FR 53093, September 8, 2006). NMFS prepared the Final EIS and made it available to the public on January 12, 2007 (72 FR 1512). On February 13, 2007, NMFS issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final EIS. Copies of the Final EIS and ROD for this action are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared to evaluate the impacts on small entities of alternative harvest strategies for the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off of Alaska on small entities. This FRFA meets the statutory requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). A summary of the FRFA follows.
The action under consideration is adoption of a harvest strategy to govern the harvest of groundfish in the BSAI. The preferred alternative is the status quo harvest strategy in which TACs fall within the range of ABCs recommended through the Council's harvest specification process and TACs recommended by the Council. This action is taken in accordance with the FMP and adopted by the Council pursuant to the MSA.
The proposed harvest specifications were published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75460). An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for the proposed harvest specifications and was described in the classification section of that preamble. Copies of the IRFA prepared for this action are available from NMFS, Alaska Region (see ADDRESSES). The public comment period ended on January 16, 2007. No comments were received regarding the economic impacts of this action.
The need for and objectives of this rule are described in the preamble and not repeated here.
Significant issues raised by public comment are addressed in the preamble and not repeated here.
The directly regulated small entities include approximately 747 small catcher vessels, less than 17 small catcher-processors, and six Community Development Quota (CDQ) Groups. The entities directly regulated by this action are those that harvest groundfish in the EEZ of the BSAI, and in parallel fisheries within State of Alaska waters. These include entities operating catcher vessels and catcher-processor vessels within the action area, and entities receiving direct allocations of groundfish. Catcher vessels and catcher processors were considered to be small entities if they had annual gross receipts, from all of their economic activities, and including the revenue of their affiliated operations, less than or equal to $4 million per year. Data from 2005 was used because it was the most recent available. CDQ groups receive direct allocations of groundfish, and these were considered to be small entities because they are non-profit entities. The Aleut Corporation is not a small entity because it is a holding company which does not meet the SBA $6 million threshold for holding companies (13 CFR 121.201).
Estimates of first wholesale gross revenues for the BSAI non-CDQ and CDQ sectors were used as indices of the potential impacts of the alternative harvest strategies on small entities. Revenues were projected to decline from 2006 levels in 2007 and 2008 under the preferred alternative due to declines in ABCs for key species.
The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) was compared to four other alternatives. These included Alternative 1, which would set TACs so as to generate fishing rates equal to the maximum permissible ABC (if the full TAC were harvested), unless the sum of TACs would exceed the regional OY, in which case harvests would be limited to the OY. Alternative 3 would set TACs to produce fishing rates equal to the most recent five year average of fishing rates. Alternative 4 would set TACs to equal the lower bound of the regional OY range. Alternative 5 would set TACs equal to zero.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 produced smaller first wholesale revenues for each of the three groupings, than Alternative 2. Thus, Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 had greater adverse impacts on small entities. Alternative 1 sets the TACs equal to the maximum permissible ABC unless the sum of these TACs exceed the OY. In 2007 and 2008 the sum of the maximum permissible ABCs exceeded the OY. Therefore, the TACs under Alternative 1 were set equal to the OY. Also, Alternative 2 TACs are constrained by the ABCs the Plan Team and SSC recommend to the Council on the basis of a full consideration of biological issues. These ABCs are often less than Alternative 1 maximum permissible ABCs. Therefore higher TACs under Alternative 1 may not be consistent with prudent biological management of the resource. For these reasons, Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative. in the BSAI (for both non-CDQ and CDQ groups). For these reasons, Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative.
This action does not modify any recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency can waive the 30 day delay in effectiveness of a rule for good cause. These final harvest specifications were developed as quickly as possible, Plan Team review in November 2006, Council consideration and recommendations in December 2006, and NOAA Fisheries review and development in January-February 2007. For all fisheries not currently closed because the TACs established under the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications (71 FR 10894, March 3, 2006) were reached, the likely possibility exists for their closures prior to the expiration of a 30-day delayed effectiveness period because their TACs could be reached. Certain fisheries, such as those for pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel are intensive fast-paced fisheries. Other fisheries, such as those for flatfish, rockfish and ``other species,'' are critical as directed fisheries and as incidental catch in other
[[Page 9474]]
fisheries. U.S. fishing vessels have demonstrated the capacity to catch the TAC allocations in all these fisheries. Any delay in allocating the final TAC in these fisheries would cause disruption to the industry and potential economic harm through unnecessary discards. Determining which fisheries may close is impossible because these fisheries are affected by several factors that cannot be predicted in advance, including fishing effort, weather, movement of fishery stocks, and market price. Furthermore, the closure of one fishery has a cascading effect on other fisheries by freeing-up fishing vessels, allowing them to move from closed fisheries to open ones, increasing the fishing capacity in those open fisheries and causing them to close at an accelerated pace.
If the final harvest specifications are not effective by March 10, 2007, which is the start of the Pacific halibut season as specified by the IPHC, the hook-and-line sablefish fishery will not begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut season. This would cause sablefish that is caught with Pacific halibut to be needlessly discarded, as both hook-and-line sablefish and Pacific halibut are managed under the same IFQ program. Immediate effectiveness of the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications will allow the sablefish fishery to begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut season. Also, the immediate effectiveness of this action is required to provide consistent management and conservation of fishery resources based on the best available scientific information, and to give the fishing industry the earliest possible opportunity to plan its fishing operations. Therefore NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30 day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Furthermore, the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications implement the groundfish sideboards and sideboard closures that restrict the owners of vessels with a history of participation in the Rockfish Program from using the increased flexibility provided by the Rockfish Program to expand their level of participation the catcher vessel Pacific cod fishery in BSAI groundfish fisheries. Until the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications are effective no sideboard restrictions or closures apply to these vessels. Accordingly, NMFS finds that there is good cause to waive the 30 day delayed effectiveness period under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 1801 et seq.;1851 note; and 3631 et seq.
Dated: February 22, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3692 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
