[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71450-71458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23465]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 051116304-5304-01; I.D. 110805A]
RIN 0648-AT92
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Total
Allowable Catch Amount for ``Other Species'' in the Groundfish
Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
[[Page 71451]]
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 69
to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP). Amendment 69, if approved, would amend the manner in which the
total allowable catch (TAC) for the ``other species'' complex is
annually determined in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The FMP amendment
would allow the TAC amount for the ``other species'' complex to be set
less than or equal to 5 percent of the sum of groundfish targets
species in the GOA. This proposed rule would revise the maximum
retainable amount (MRA) of ``other species'' in the directed arrowtooth
flounder fishery from 0 to 20 percent. This action would allow
conservation and management of species within the ``other species''
category and is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by January 13, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Lori Durall. Comments may be submitted by:
E-mail: [email protected]. Include in the
subject line the following document identifier: GOA 69 PR. E-mail
comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802
Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
Fax: 907-586-7557.
Copies of Amendment 69 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA)
prepared for the amendment may be obtained from the same address or
from the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov. The FMP is
available from www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/goa/goa.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Pearson, 907-481-1780 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive
economic zone of the GOA are managed under the FMP. The North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.
Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General
regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The Council has submitted Amendment 69 for review by the Secretary
of Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was
published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2005 (FR citation),
with comments on the FMP amendment invited through January 17, 2006.
Comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both,
but must be received by January 17, 2006, to be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment. All comments
received by that time, whether specifically directed to the FMP
amendment or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
Background
Designation and management of the ``other species'' complex have
evolved through a series of amendments to the GOA FMP. The following
section provides an overview of how the complex has been managed
historically under the FMP, and the amendments that have modified the
complex and its management.
The original FMP, implemented in 1978, identified three separate
species categories: (1) prohibited species; (2) specific species or
species complexes; and (3) ``other species.'' Under the original FMP,
``other species'' had a Maximum Sustained Yield/Optimum Yield (MSY/OY)
of 16,200 mt based upon historic foreign catch.
Amendment 5 to the FMP removed grenadiers from the ``other
species'' complex and established them as their own category with a
separate MSY/OY of 13,200 mt based upon the recorded average grenadier
catch from 1967-1979. Grenadiers were removed from the ``other
species'' complex due to concerns that catches of grenadiers
(specifically unforeseen incidental catches in the hook-and-line
sablefish fishery) would exceed the MSY/OY for the ``other species''
complex and close directed fishing for target species. Because the
population of grenadiers was not included in the development of the OY
for ``other species'', the MSY/OY for the ``other species'' complex
remained unchanged following the removal of grenadiers.
Amendment 8 to the FMP was implemented in 1980 (45 FR 73486,
November 5, 1980). Under this amendment, the grenadiers category was
renamed non-specified species. All species caught that were not
classified as target, prohibited or ``other species'' were reported to
the non-specified category. Amendment 8 was intended to alleviate
operational problems from fishermen reporting non-specified species in
the ``other species'' complex. ``Other species'' were defined as
species that have ``only slight economic value and are not generally
targeted upon, but which are either significant components of the
ecosystem or have economic potential.'' The OY for the ``other
species'' complex was established as 5 percent of the OYs for all
target species. The ``other species'' complex included sculpins,
sharks, skates, eulachon, smelts, capelin, and octopi. Squids were
managed as a separate target fishery with a separate MSY and OY. Under
Amendment 8, the OY for the ``other species'' complex was modified to
be managed Gulf-wide, rather than allocated by management area.
Amendment 14 to the FMP was implemented November 18, 1985 (50 FR
43193). This amendment set the OY for the ``other species'' complex to
22,460 mt. Two years later, the FMP was amended by Amendment 15 (52 FR
7868, March 13, 1987 such that the TAC calculation for the ``other
species'' complex was equal to 5 percent of the total TACs for all GOA
target groundfish species. This percentage was consistent with previous
approaches for setting OY for the ``other species'' complex, and was
determined to be ample to provide for the anticipated incidental catch
of those species.
Amendment 16 moved squids into the ``other species'' complex from
the target species category (53 FR 7756, March 10, 1988). Atka mackerel
was combined into the ``other species'' complex due to low abundance,
and the absence of a directed fishery for several years. High landings
in 1992 and a directed fishery in 1993 demonstrated Atka mackerel was a
target species. Amendment 31 moved Atka mackerel from the ``other
species'' complex and established it as a target species (58 FR 54553,
October 22, 1993).
Amendment 39 defined a forage fish category in the FMP (63 FR
13798, March 23, 1998). Important prey species were included in this
category. Regulations promulgated under
[[Page 71452]]
Amendment 39 prohibited directed fishing and commercial processing of
forage fish. Retention, sale, barter, trade, or other commercial
exchange were limited. Eulachon, capelin, and smelts were moved from
the ``other species'' complex to the forage fish category. The full
list of species included in the forage fish category is in the FMP (see
ADDRESSES).
In 2003, as a skate directed fishery expanded, conservation
concerns developed. As long as skates remained a part of the ``other
species'' complex, NMFS could not manage skates as a distinct target
category. Skate catch was limited only by the ``other species'' complex
TAC minus catch of the remaining species in the complex. In 2004,
Amendment 63 to the GOA FMP removed skates from the ``other species''
complex and placed them in a target category (69 FR 26313, May 12,
2004). Currently, overfishing levels, acceptable biological catches,
and TACs are specified for big skates, longnose skates, and the
remaining skates in the Bathyraja sp. (or other skate) complex. This
amendment allowed for an appropriate sized directed fishery for skates
based on the best available information on the stock, ensuring skate
sustainability.
The ``other species'' complex currently contains the following
species groups: squids, sculpins, sharks, and octopi. The ``other
species'' complex is open to directed fishing up to the TAC level for
the complex, after allowing for incidental catch needs in other
groundfish fisheries. The current requirement to set the ``other
species'' complex TAC to 5 percent of the combined groundfish TACs
could present conservation issues. Removing species from the ``other
species'' complex has two effects. First, the number of target
categories are increased. More target categories may increase the
combined TAC in the GOA. If the combined TAC is larger, the TAC for the
``other species'' complex will be larger because the ``other species''
TAC is equal to exactly 5 percent of the combined TAC. Second, the
number of species in the ``other species'' complex is reduced. Fewer
species in the complex and the larger TAC increase the chance that one
or more species groups in the complex may experience excessive harvest,
including up to the entire TAC for the ``other species'' complex. The
current process for calculating the ``other species'' TAC provides no
flexibility. NMFS cannot establish the TAC for the ``other species''
complex at an amount lower than 5 percent, if the best available
information indicates a lower amount is the most prudent action.
Retention of squids has increased by 13 times between 2003 and
2005. During 2005, shoreside processors were offering increased prices
for spiny dogfish sharks. As indicated by skates, markets can develop
quickly for species previously thought of as having little value. In
order to quickly respond to developing fisheries in the ``other
species'' complex, NMFS would need the flexibility to establish the
``other species'' complex TAC at a value less than 5 percent of the
combined GOA species TACs. Setting the ``other species'' complex TAC to
less than 5 percent of the combined GOA species TACs could prevent
catch of one or more groups in the complex from disproportionately
dominating the entire ``other species'' complex catch. NMFS would be
able to allow for a developing fishery on a group in the ``other
species'' complex while limiting the potential for excessive catch. The
increased incidental catch of squids and the potential developing
market for spiny dogfish sharks indicate that this proposed action is
necessary and timely to allow for the ``other species'' complex TAC to
be set at a level appropriate for sustainable harvest of sharks,
squids, sculpins, and octopi groups.
Amendment 69 would allow for sustainable management of any fishery
targeting one or more species groups within the ``other species''
complex. As part of the annual groundfish harvest specifications
process, Amendment 69 to the FMP would allow a TAC amount for ``other
species'' to be set less than or equal to 5 percent of the sum of TACs
of the target species in the GOA. The ``other species'' complex TAC
could be set at an amount estimated to be sufficient to meet the annual
incidental catch needs in other groundfish fisheries and could allow
for directed fishing for ``other species'' to occur at sustainable
levels. It is not necessary to amend existing regulations to implement
the change in the ``other species'' complex TAC calculation. This
calculation is described only in the FMP text and is not specified in
the harvest specifications regulations at Sec. 679.20. Because the
``other species'' TAC calculation is specified only in the FMP, no
regulatory amendment is required to change the method of calculating
the ``other species'' TAC. However, it is necessary to amend the
harvest specification regulations in order to ensure conservation and
management of ``other species'' incidental catch in groundfish
fisheries, as described below.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
To manage the incidental harvest of the ``other species'' complex
with the implementation of Amendment 69, this proposed action would
revise Table 10 of 50 CFR part 679 to raise the MRA for the ``other
species'' complex from 0 to 20 percent in the arrowtooth flounder
fishery in the GOA. This revision is necessary to properly manage the
retention of ``other species'' in the arrowtooth flounder fishery and
to potentially reduce the amount of discards of fish in the ``other
species'' complex.
This action is intended to meet the conservation objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to reduce the potential for overfishing the
species groups in the ``other species'' complex and to efficiently use
fishery resources by reducing potential discards. This action would be
an interim step towards the Council's development of a more
comprehensive approach towards the management of ``other species.''
Classification
NMFS has not yet determined whether the amendment that this
proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making that
determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and
comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an IRFA which describes any adverse impacts this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on directly regulated small
entities. Because this action is closely linked to the annual harvest
specifications, the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) prepared for this
action also analyzes the action to establish annual harvest
specifications for the ``other species'' complex in the GOA. The IRFA
analyses two FMP alternatives to revise the manner in which the annual
TAC for the ``other species'' in the GOA is established, along with the
status quo or no action alternative. In addition, two suboptions to
revise the MRAs for ``other species'' in the groundfish fisheries in
the GOA are analyzed along with the status quo, or no action suboption.
A summary of the IRFA for this action follows:
The proposed action for Amendment 69 revises the manner in which
the annual TAC for the ``other species'' complex in the GOA is
established and raises the MRA for ``other species'' from 0 to 20
percent in the arrowtooth
[[Page 71453]]
flounder fishery. As part of its annual groundfish harvest
specification process, the Council would recommend a TAC amount for the
``other species'' complex at less than or equal to 5 percent of the sum
of the groundfish TAC amounts. The objective of this action is to give
the Council greater flexibility in recommending a TAC amount for
``other species'' in order to better protect individual species in the
``other species'' complex from overfishing and to make a sustainable
fishery for the ``other species'' complex more likely.
The legal basis for this action is found in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and in the GOA groundfish FMP promulgated pursuant to that act.
The IRFA for this action ascertained that in 2003, 803 small
catcher vessels and 13 small catcher processors might be directly
regulated by this action. Most of these (655 catcher vessels and 9
small catcher processors) were hook-and-line vessels. In addition, 137
catcher vessels and 1 catcher processor used pot gear, and 93 small
catcher vessels and 3 small catcher processors used trawl gear. All
these vessels are considered ``small entities'' as defined by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 2003, these vessels had average revenues
of $190,000 from the federally managed groundfish fisheries. Average
revenues were $170,000 for catcher vessels and $1,530,000 for catcher
processors.
This action would allow the TAC for ``other species'' to be set at
less than 5 percent of the sum of other groundfish TACs, thereby
limiting potential future harvests of ``other species'' and gross
revenues from these harvests in the short run. In the long run,
however, the biomass of ``other species'' would be given additional
protection. Actual impacts to small entities would depend on the actual
TAC amount recommended for ``other species'' by the Council and
approved by NMFS. These impacts would be assessed in the IRFA for the
TAC specification action.
Nothing in the proposed action would result in changes in reporting
or recordkeeping requirements.
The analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
The IRFA evaluated a no-action alternative, the preferred
alternative and an alternative that would allow for only incidental
catch of ``other species.'' Under the no-action alternative, the TAC
for the ``other species'' complex would remain at 5 percent of the sum
of other groundfish TACs. The ``other species'' complex 2006 TAC is
13,525 mt (70 FR 8958, February 24, 2005). If this amount were
harvested by targeting a single species in the ``other species''
complex it could drive down that species biomass and reduce its
reproductive potential. While revenues from the fishery would be higher
in the short run, they would be lower in the longer run. Thus, while
this alternative may have imposed fewer short run restrictions on small
fishing operations, it did not meet the objectives of providing
protection to individual species within the ``other species'' complex
in the GOA and thereby protecting the future of a sustainable fishery.
The incidental catch only alternative would not allow the Council to
provide for a directed fishery for ``other species.'' This alternative
would prevent the Council's use of the best available information in
determining the appropriate management for ``other species.'' For
example, if the best available information indicated that a directed
fishery for ``other species'' could occur without harming its future
sustainability, then achieving its optimum yield would be prevented by
this alternative. The preferred alternative, however, would allow the
Council to decide whether to allow for a target fishery or for only
incidental catch based on the latest stock assessment information.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: November 22, 2005.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
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 ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 1801 et seq.; 1851
note; 3631 et seq.
2. Table 10 to part 679 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 71454]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29NO05.005
[[Page 71455]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29NO05.006
[[Page 71456]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29NO05.007
[[Page 71457]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29NO05.008
[[Page 71458]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29NO05.009
[FR Doc. 05-23465 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S