![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; Final 2000 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: February 18, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 34)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8298-8312]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe00-15]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 000211039-0039-01; I.D. 111899A]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of
Alaska; Final 2000 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final 2000 harvest specifications for groundfish and associated
management measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces final 2000 harvest specifications, reserves,
allocations, and apportionments for groundfish, Pacific halibut
prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, and assumed Pacific halibut
mortality rates for the groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA). This action is necessary to establish harvest specifications for
GOA groundfish for the 2000 fishing year and to conserve and manage the
groundfish resources in the GOA, and is intended to implement the goals
and objectives contained in the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish
of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).
DATES: The final 2000 harvest specifications are effective at noon on
February 15, 2000 through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.),
December 31, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA), the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action, and
the Final Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report (SAFE report),
dated November 1999, are available from the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK
99501-2252, or by calling 907-271-2809.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Pearson, 907-481-1780, fax 907-
481-1781, or tom.pearson@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 implement the FMP and govern
the groundfish fisheries in the GOA. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP and NMFS approved it
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
[[Page 8299]]
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). General
regulations that also pertain to the U.S. fisheries appear at 50 CFR
part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS announces for the 2000 fishing year: (1) Specifications of
total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for each groundfish species
category in the GOA, and reserves; (2) apportionments of reserves; (3)
allocations of the sablefish TAC to vessels using hook-and-line and
trawl gear; (4) apportionments of pollock TAC among regulatory areas,
seasons, and allocations for processing between inshore and offshore
components; (5) allocations for processing of Pacific cod TAC between
inshore and offshore components; (6) Pacific halibut PSC limits; (7)
fishery and seasonal apportionments of the Pacific halibut PSC limits;
and (8) Pacific halibut assumed discard mortality rates. A discussion
of each of these measures follows.
Regulations implementing the FMP establish the process of
determining TACs for groundfish species in the GOA. Pursuant to
Sec. 679.20(a)(2), the sum of the TACs for all species must fall within
the combined optimum yield (OY) range of 116,000-800,000 metric tons
(mt) established for these species at Sec. 679.20(a)(1)(ii).
The Council met from October 12 through 18, 1999, and developed
recommendations for proposed 2000 TAC specifications for each species
category of groundfish on the basis of the best available scientific
information. The Council also recommended associated management
measures pertaining to the 2000 fishing year. The Council proposed
rolling over all the 1999 final specifications for 2000, pending an
update of the preliminary 1999 SAFE report to include new information
collected during 1999 and revised stock assessments to be incorporated
in the final SAFE report. Pursuant to Sec. 679.20(c)(1)(ii), the
proposed 2000 harvest specifications for the GOA groundfish fishery
were published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1999 (64 FR
69457), and comments were accepted through January 12, 2000. NMFS
received one letter of comment on the proposed 2000 GOA specifications,
which is responded to in the following text. Interim TAC and PSC
amounts equal to one-fourth of the proposed amounts were published in
the Federal Register on January 3, 2000 (65 FR 65). The interim TACs
for pollock subsequently were revised by an emergency interim rule
effective January 20, 2000 (65 FR 3892, January 25, 2000), that
implemented revised final reasonable and prudent alternatives (RFRPAs)
to avoid the likelihood the pollock fisheries off Alaska will
jeopardize the continued existence of the western population of Steller
sea lions or adversely modify its critical habitat. The emergency
interim rule implements three types of management measures for the
pollock fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area (BSAI) and GOA: (1) Measures to temporally disperse fishing
effort, (2) measures to spatially disperse fishing effort, and (3)
measures to provide full protection from pollock fisheries that compete
with Steller sea lions for prey in waters immediately adjacent to
rookeries and important haulouts.
The interim TACs were revised further under a second emergency
interim rule effective January 20, 2000 (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000),
that established GOA groundfish and PSC limits for specified catcher
vessels authorized to harvest BSAI pollock under the American Fisheries
Act (AFA).
With the exception of the pollock harvest specifications
implementing the RFRPAs and the AFA harvest limits, the final 2000
groundfish harvest specifications and PSC limits contained in this
action supersede the interim 2000 specifications.
The Council met December 7 through 12, 1999, to review the best
available scientific information concerning groundfish stocks, and to
consider public testimony regarding 2000 groundfish fisheries. The best
available scientific information is contained in the current SAFE
report, dated November 1999. The SAFE report includes the most recent
information concerning the status of groundfish stocks based on the
most recent catch data, survey data, and biomass projections using
alternative modeling approaches or assumptions. The Council's GOA Plan
Team prepared the SAFE report and presented it to the Council and the
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Advisory Panel
(AP) at the December 1999 Council meeting. The Plan Team's
recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels and
overfishing levels (OFL) are contained in the SAFE report along with
the rationale supporting those recommendations.
For establishment of the ABCs and TACs, the Council considered the
ecological, socioeconomic, and ecosystem information in the SAFE
report, recommendations from its SSC and AP, as well as public
testimony. The SSC adopted the OFL recommendations from the Plan Team,
which were provided in the SAFE report, for all groundfish species
categories. The SSC also adopted the ABC recommendations from the Plan
Team, which were provided in the SAFE report, for all of the groundfish
species categories, except pollock in the combined Western, Central,
West Yakutat (W/C/WYK) area.
The SSC did not adopt the Plan Team's recommendation of ABC for
pollock in the W/C/WYK area of the GOA. The Plan Team's recommendation
was to roll over the 1999 ABCs for the area in consideration of: (1)
The pollock stock biomass level is in a downward trend, (2) projected
year 2000 biomass will be at an all time low, and (3) high variability
about the 1999 trawl survey abundance estimate. The SSC shared these
concerns with the Plan Team, but recommended that the year 2000 ABC be
explicitly based on the current stock assessment. The SSC recommended
setting the 2000 ABC for the W/C/WYK area at an adjusted F45 percent
exploitation strategy, resulting in an ABC of 93,540 mt for the area.
The Council adopted the SSC's ABC and AP's TAC recommendations for
all species except sablefish. The SSC's ABC recommendation for
sablefish area apportionments were based on the Plan Team's 5-year
weighted average of hook- and-line survey relative abundance. The AP's
recommendations were to set TAC equal to ABC in these areas. The
Council recommended ABCs and TACs based on an alternative model for
apportionment of ABC among management areas, which includes commercial
fishery as well as survey data. The fishery and survey data were
combined by computing a weighted average of the survey and fishery
estimates, with the weight inversely proportional to the variability of
each data source. The Council's recommendation for sablefish area
apportionments also takes into account the prohibition on the use of
trawl gear in the Southeast Outside (SEO) District of the Eastern GOA
and makes available 5 percent of the combined Eastern GOA ABCs to trawl
gear for use as incidental catch in other directed groundfish fisheries
in the West Yakutat (WYK) District.
NMFS agrees with the Council's approach for the 2000 harvest
specifications. NMFS stock assessment scientists believe that the use
of unbiased commercial fishery data reflecting catch-per-unit effort
provides a desirable input for stock distribution assessments. The use
of commercial fishery data would need to be evaluated annually to
assure that unbiased
[[Page 8300]]
information is included in stock distribution models.
As in previous years the Plan Team, SSC, and Council recommended
that total removals of Pacific cod from the GOA not exceed ABC
recommendations. Accordingly, the Council recommended that the TACs be
adjusted downward from the ABCs by amounts equal to the 2000 guideline
harvest levels (GHL) established for Pacific cod by the State of Alaska
(State) for a State-managed fishery in State waters. The effect of the
State's GHL on the Pacific cod TAC is discussed in greater detail
below.
The Council's recommended ABCs, listed in Table 1, reflect harvest
amounts that are less than the specified overfishing amounts. The sum
of 2000 ABCs for all groundfish is 448,010 mt, which is lower than the
1999 ABC total of 532,590 mt.
2000 Harvest Specifications
Specifications of TAC and Reserves
The Council recommended TACs equal to ABCs for pollock, deep-water
flatfish, rex sole, sablefish, shortraker and rougheye rockfish, other
slope rockfish, northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf
rockfish, thornyhead rockfish, demersal shelf rockfish, and Atka
mackerel. The Council recommended TACs less than the ABC for Pacific
cod, flathead sole, shallow-water flatfish, and arrowtooth flounder
(Table 1).
The TAC for pollock has decreased in the combined W/C/WYK areas of
the GOA from 94,590 mt in 1999 to 93,540 mt in 2000. It has increased
from 6,330 mt in 1999 to 6,460 mt in 2000 in the SEO District of the
Eastern GOA. The apportionment of TAC in the W/C/WYK area of the GOA
reflects the current biomass distribution.
Under the January 25, 2000, emergency interim rule implementing the
RFRPAs for Steller sea lions (65 FR 3892), the annual pollock TAC in
the Western and Central GOA is divided into four seasonal
apportionments. Thirty percent of the annual TAC in the Western and
Central Regulatory Areas in the GOA is apportioned to the A season
(January 20 through March 1) in the Western GOA, Shelikof Strait, and
Statistical Areas 620 and 630 (outside of Shelikof Strait) in the
Central GOA (Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(ii)); 15 percent to the B season (March
15 through May 31) in the Western GOA, Shelikof Strait, and Statistical
Areas 620 and 630 (outside of Shelikof Strait) in the Central GOA; 30
percent to the C season (August 20 through September 15) in the Western
GOA and Statistical Areas 620 and 630 in the Central GOA; and 25
percent to the D season (October 1 through November 1) in the Western
GOA and Statistical Areas 620 and 630 in the Central GOA
(Sec. 679.23(d)(3)(i) through (iv)). The Shelikof area (defined at
Sec. 679.22(a)(3)(iii)(B)) apportionments during the A and B seasons
are derived from the estimate of pollock biomass (489,900 mt) in the
critical habitat of the Shelikof Strait divided by the pollock biomass
(933,000 mt) estimated for the entire GOA multiplied by the A and B
seasonal apportionments of pollock TAC (i.e., 30 percent of the annual
TACs (27,361 mt) in the A season and 15 percent of the annual TACs in
the B season (13,680 mt) in the GOA (Sec. 679.22(a)(3)(iii)(C))). These
specifications under the emergency rule expire July 19, 2000. NMFS
anticipates that a final rule permanently implementing these management
measures will be in effect prior to the expiration of the emergency
rule. This final rule would revise the annual specifications to
establish pollock harvest specifications for the remainder of 2000
consistent with the RFRPAs.
NMFS has concluded that these harvest specifications are not an
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that has the
effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of reasonable
and prudent alternatives that might be developed as part of the
biological opinion that is currently under development for the BSAI and
GOA groundfish fishery management plans. This conclusion is based on
the best scientific and commercial data available on population
dynamics, fish stock dynamics, fishery management measures, the
population dynamics of groundfish stocks in the Aleutian Islands,
Bering Sea, and Gulf of Alaska, and interactions between these
fisheries and the endangered western population of Steller sea lions.
In reaching the conclusion that the year 2000 groundfish fisheries in
the BSAI and GOA can proceed as approved at the levels contained in the
final harvest specifications for the BSAI and GOA, and as dictated by
the groundfish FMPs for the BSAI and GOA, NMFS considered factors
pertinent to section 7(d) of the ESA.
Our concerns about the effect of these groundfish fisheries on the
Steller sea lions' likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild has
resulted from apparent competition between some of the fisheries and
sea lions when and where sea lions forage. The total number or biomass
of the groundfish species (e.g., pollock, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel,
and flatfish) has not been, and does not appear to be, an issue with
these fish stocks: the high recruitment rates, relatively short life-
histories, and migratory patterns of these species throughout the BSAI
and GOA should allow these species to recover relatively quickly. The
substantial basis for this assumption comes from the scientific
literature on sustainable harvest rates (e.g., Beddington and Cooke,
1983; Clarke, 1991; Sissenwine and Shepard, 1987). The issue is whether
the way these fisheries are managed allows the fish stocks to recover
and become available again to foraging Steller sea lions before the
fishery can compete with the sea lions.
The spatial and temporal distribution of the groundfish fisheries,
as opposed to the allowable catch, has been the essence of concern for
Steller sea lions, which was also expressed by the National Research
Council in its 1996 review of these issues in the Bering Sea (National
Research Council, Committee on the Bering Sea Ecosystem: The Bering Sea
Ecosystem, 1996). The need for spatial and temporal distribution has
also been the foundation for the development and implementation of
management measures that avoid competition between the fisheries and
foraging Steller sea lions.
The TAC-setting process, specified in the FMPs, is very
conservative with respect to harvest rate by internationally accepted
scientific standards (e.g., Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries
and Species Introductions, FAO, 1996; Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries, FAO, 1995). Harvesting of the TACs established by this
process is not expected to deplete groundfish resources. Conducting a
fishery in 2000 should not irreversibly or irretrievably alter the
ability of these groundfish species to recover from the proposed
harvest. A fishery in 2000 would not alter recruitment rates for any of
these species and it would not alter their ability to redistribute
throughout the area of concern in a way that would reduce their
availability for foraging Steller sea lions. While the biological
opinion will examine the TAC setting process, we do not believe that
the 2000 TAC specifications will threaten the survival and recovery of
Steller sea lions or diminish the value of designated critical habitat
for sea lions. Groundfish species should be able to recover quickly
enough after the 2000 harvest to effect reasonable and prudent
alternatives that avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing Steller sea
lions or adversely modifying critical habitat designated for them.
The conduct of this fishery, therefore, would not foreclose any of
our options to develop and implement reasonable
[[Page 8301]]
and prudent alternatives that avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
sea lions. NMFS intends to complete the comprehensive biological
opinion, which will evaluate all activities that govern the groundfish
fisheries authorized and managed under the current fishery management
plans, prior to the start of the 2001 fisheries. These same activities
are also being evaluated in the programmatic supplemental environmental
impact statement that we currently are drafting.
The 2000 Pacific cod TAC is affected by the State's developing
fishery for Pacific cod in State waters in the Central and Western GOA,
as well as Prince William Sound. The SSC, AP, and Council recommended
that the sum of all State and Federal water Pacific cod removals should
not exceed the ABC. Accordingly the Council recommended that Pacific
cod TAC be reduced from ABC levels to account for State GHLS in each
regulatory area of the GOA so that the TAC for: (1) The Eastern GOA be
lower than the ABC by 1,340 mt, (2) the Central GOA be lower than the
ABC by 8,385 mt, and (3) the Western GOA be lower than the ABC by 6,875
mt.
Subsequent to the Council's December 1999 meeting, harvests of
Pacific cod in State waters of the Kodiak District in the Central GOA
increased to over 90 percent of the 1999 GHL for the area. This results
in an unanticipated increase in the 2000 GHL for the Kodiak District
(i.e., from 10 percent to 12.5 percent of the Central GOA ABC for a
total of 21.75 percent of the Central GOA ABC). NMFS is adjusting the
Council's recommended Pacific cod TAC downward for the Central GOA from
35,615 mt to 34,080 mt to reflect the increased 2000 GHLs in the
Central GOA. These amounts reflect the increased percentages the State
has established for GHLs in these areas. In the Western GOA, the State
Pacific cod GHL has increased from 20 percent in 1999, to 25 percent in
2000. The Pacific cod GHL in the Central GOA has increased from 19.25
percent in 1999 to 21.75 percent in 2000. The State's Pacific cod GHL
of 1,340 mt for PWS is based on 25 percent of the 2000 Eastern GOA ABC.
The FMP specifies that the amount for the ``other species''
category is calculated as 5 percent of the combined TAC amounts for
target species. The GOA-wide ``other species'' TAC is 14,215 mt, which
is 5 percent of the sum of the combined TAC amounts for the target
species. The sum of the TACs for all GOA groundfish is 298,510 mt,
which is within the OY range specified by the FMP. The sum of the TACs
is lower than the 1999 TAC sum of 306,535 mt. NMFS has reviewed the
Council's recommended TAC specifications and apportionments and hereby
approves these specifications under Sec. 679.20(c)(3)(ii). The 2000
ABCs, TACs, and OFLs are shown in Table 1. The initial TAC amounts
shown for Pacific cod reflect the reserve of 20 percent of the TACs in
this fishery.
Table 1.--2000 ABCs, TACs, Initial TACs (Pacific Cod Only) and Overfishing Levels of Groundfish for the Western/
Central/West Yakutat (W/C/WYK), Western (W), Central (C), Shelikof Strait, Eastern (E) Regulatory Areas, and in
the West Yakutat (WYK), Southeast Outside (SEO), and Gulf-Wide (GW) Districts of the Gulf of Alaska
[Values are in metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Area 1 ABC TAC Initial TAC Overfishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock: 2
Shumagin................... (610) 29,290 29,290 ........... ........... ...........
Chirikof................... (620) 17,430 17,430 ........... ........... ...........
Kodiak..................... (630) 22,930 22,930 ........... ........... ...........
Shelikof................... .............. 21,550 21,550 ........... ........... ...........
WYK........................ (640) 2,340 2,340 ........... ........... ...........
Subtotal....................... W/C/WYK 93,540 93,540 ........... ........... 130,760
SEO........................ (650) 6,460 6,460 ........... ........... 8,610
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................ .............. 100,000 100,000 ........... ........... 139,370
================================================================
Pacific cod: 3
W 27,500 20,625 16,500 ........... ...........
C 43,550 34,080 27,264 ........... ...........
E 5,350 4,010 3,208 ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 76,400 58,715 46,972 ........... 102,000
================================================================
Flatfish 4 (deep-water)........ W 280 280 ........... ........... ...........
C 2,710 2,710 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 1,240 1,240 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 1,070 1,070 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 5,300 5,300 ........... ........... 6,980
================================================================
Rex sole 4..................... W 1,230 1,230 ........... ........... ...........
C 5,660 5,660 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 1,540 1,540 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 1,010 1,010 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 9,440 9,440 ........... ........... 12,300
================================================================
Flathead sole.................. W 8,490 2,000 ........... ........... ...........
C 15,720 5,000 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 1,440 1,440 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 620 620
----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8302]]
Total.................... .............. 26,270 9,060 ........... ........... 34,210
================================================================
Flatfish 5 (shallow-water)..... W 19,510 4,500 ........... ........... ...........
C 16,400 12,950 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 790 790 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 1,160 1,160 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 37,860 19,400 ........... ........... 45,330
================================================================
Arrowtooth flounder............ W 16,160 5,000 ........... ........... ...........
C 97,710 25,000 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 23,770 2,500 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 7,720 2,500 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 145,360 35,000 ........... ........... 173,910
================================================================
Sablefish 6.................... W 1,840 1,840 ........... ........... ...........
C 5,730 5,730 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 2,207 2,207 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 3,553 3,553
Subtotal....................... E 5,760 5,760 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 13,330 13,330 ........... ........... 16,660
================================================================
Pacific 7 ocean perch.......... W 1,240 1,240 ........... ........... 1,460
C 9,240 9,240 ........... ........... 10,930
WYK 840 840 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 1,700 1,700 ........... ........... ...........
Subtotal....................... E ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 13,020 13,020 ........... ........... 15,390
================================================================
Short raker/rougheye 8......... W 210 210 ........... ........... ...........
C 930 930 ........... ........... ...........
E 590 590 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 1,730 1,730 ........... ........... 2,510
================================================================
Other rockfish 10............. W 20 20 ........... ........... ...........
C 740 740 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 250 250 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 3,890 3,890 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 4,900 4,900 ........... ........... 6,390
================================================================
Northern Rockfish 12.......... W 630 630 ........... ........... ...........
C 4,490 4,490 ........... ........... ...........
E N/A N/A ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 5,120 5,120 ........... ........... 7,510
================================================================
Pelagic shelf rockfish 13...... W 550 550 ........... ........... ...........
C 4,080 4,080 ........... ........... ...........
WYK 580 580 ........... ........... ...........
SEO 770 770 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 5,980 5,980 ........... ........... 9,040
================================================================
Thornyhead rockfish............ W 430 430 ........... ........... ...........
C 990 990 ........... ........... ...........
E 940 940 ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 2,360 2,360 ........... ........... 2,820
================================================================
Demersal shelf rockfish 11..... SEO 340 340 ........... ........... 420
Atka mackerel.................. GW 600 600 ........... ........... 6,200
Other 14 species............... GW 15 N/A 14,215 ........... ........... N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8303]]
Total 16................. .............. 448,010 298,510 ........... ........... 581,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Regulatory areas and districts are defined at Sec. 679.2.
2 Under the emergency interim rule (65 FR 3892, January 25, 2000) pollock is apportioned in the Western/Central
Regulatory areas to the Shelikof Strait conservation area (defined at Sec. 679.22(b)(2)(iii)(B)) in the A and
B seasons only (Sec. 679.22(b)(2)(iii)) in accordance with Sec. 679.22(b)(2)(iii)(C) and the remainder to
the three statistical areas in the combined Western/Central Regulatory Area outside the Shelikof Strait based
on the relative distribution of pollock biomass at 42 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent in Regulatory areas
610, 620, and 630 respectively. During the C and D seasons pollock is apportioned based on the relative
distribution of pollock biomass at 42 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent in Regulatory Areas 610, 620, and
630 respectively. These seasonal apportionments are shown in Tables 3 and 4. In the Eastern Regulatory Area,
pollock is not divided into seasonal allowances.
3 Pacific cod is allocated 90 percent for processing by the inshore component and 10 percent for processing by
the offshore component. Component allocations of the initial TACs are shown in Table 5.
4 ``Deep-water flatfish'' means Dover sole, Greenland turbot, and deepsea sole.
5 ``Shallow-water flatfish'' means flatfish not including ``deep-water flatfish,'' flathead sole, rex sole, or
arrowtooth flounder.
6 Sablefish is allocated to trawl and hook-and-line gears (Table 2).
7 ``Pacific ocean perch'' means Sebastes alutus.
8 ``Shortraker/rougheye rockfish'' means Sebastes borealis (shortraker) and S. aleutianus (rougheye).
9 ``Other rockfish'' in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas and in the West Yakutat District means slope
rockfish and demersal shelf rockfish. The category ``other rockfish'' in the Southeast Outside District means
Slope rockfish.
10 ``Slope rockfish'' means Sebastes aurora (aurora), S. melanostomus (blackgill), S. paucispinis (bocaccio), S.
goodei (chilipepper), S. crameri (darkblotch), S. elongatus (greenstriped), S. variegatus (harlequin), S.
wilsoni (pygmy), S. babcocki (redbanded), S. proriger (redstripe), S. zacentrus (sharpchin), S. jordani
(shortbelly), S. brevispinis (silvergrey), S. diploproa (splitnose), S. saxicola (stripetail), S. miniatus
(vermilion), and S. reedi (yellowmouth). In the Eastern GOA only, ``slope rockfish'' also includes northern
rockfish, S. polyspinous.
11 ``Demersal shelf rockfish'' means Sebastes pinniger (canary), S. nebulosus (china), S. caurinus (copper), S.
maliger (quillback), S. helvomaculatus (rosethorn), S. nigrocinctus (tiger), and S. ruberrimus (yelloweye).
12 ``Northern rockfish'' means Sebastes polyspinis.
13 ``Pelagic shelf rockfish'' means Sebastes ciliatus (dusky), S. entomelas (widow), and S. flavidus
(yellowtail).
14 ``Other species'' means sculpins, sharks, skates, squid, and octopus. The TAC for ``other species'' equals 5
percent of the TACs of target species.
15 N/A means not applicable.
16 The total ABC is the sum of the ABCs for target species.
Apportionment of Reserves
Regulations implementing the FMP require 20 percent of each TAC for
pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, and the ``other species'' category be
set aside in reserves for possible apportionment at a later date
(Sec. 679.20(b)(2)). For the preceding 12 years, including 1999, NMFS
reapportioned all of the reserves in the final harvest specifications
except for Pacific cod. Beginning in 1997, NMFS retained the Pacific
cod reserve. NMFS proposed reapportionment of all reserves for 2000,
except for Pacific cod, in the proposed GOA groundfish specifications
published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1999 (64 FR 69457).
NMFS received no public comments on the proposed reapportionments. For
2000, NMFS has reapportioned all of the reserve for pollock, flatfish,
and ``other species.'' NMFS is retaining the Pacific cod reserve at
this time to provide for a management buffer to account for excessive
fishing effort and/or incomplete or late catch reporting. In recent
years, unpredictable increases in fishing effort and harvests,
uncertainty of incidental catch needs in other directed fisheries
throughout the year, and untimely submission and revision of weekly
processing reports have resulted in early and late closures of the
Pacific cod fishery. NMFS believes that retention of the Pacific cod
reserve to provide for TAC management difficulties later in the year is
a conservative approach that will lead to a more orderly fishery and
provide greater assurance that incidental catch of Pacific cod may be
retained throughout the year. Specifications of TAC shown in Table 1
reflect apportionment of reserve amounts for pollock, flatfish species,
and ``other species.'' Table 1 also lists the initial TACs for Pacific
cod, which reflect the withholding of the Pacific cod TAC reserve.
Allocations of the Sablefish TACs to Vessels Using Hook-and-Line
and Trawl Gear
Under Sec. 679.20(a)(4)(i) and (ii), sablefish TACs for each of the
regulatory areas and districts are allocated to hook-and-line and trawl
gear. In the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, 80 percent of each
TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear and 20 percent of each TAC is
allocated to trawl gear. In the Eastern Regulatory Area, 95 percent of
the TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear and 5 percent is allocated
to trawl gear. The trawl gear allocation in the Eastern Regulatory Area
may only be used to support incidental catch of sablefish in directed
fisheries for other target species. In recognition of the trawl ban in
the SEO District of the Eastern Regulatory Area, the Council
recommended that 5 percent of the combined Eastern GOA sablefish be
allocated to trawl gear in the WYK District and the remainder to
vessels using hook-and-line gear. In the SEO District, 100 percent of
the sablefish TAC is allocated to vessels using hook-and-line gear.
This recommendation results in an allocation of 288 mt to trawl gear
and 1,919 mt to hook-and-line gear in the WYK District. Table 2 shows
the allocations of the 2000 sablefish TACs between hook-and-line gear
and trawl gear.
[[Page 8304]]
Table 2.--2000 Sablefish TAC Specifications in the Gulf of Alaska and Allocations Thereof to Hook-and-Line and
Trawl Gear
[Values are in metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hook-and-line Trawl
Area/district TAC apportionment apportionment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western................................................ 1,840 1,472 368
Central................................................ 5,730 4,584 1,146
West Yakutat........................................... 2,207 1,919 288
Southeast Outside...................................... 3,553 3,553 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 13,330 11,528 1,802
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportionments of Pollock TAC Among Seasons and Regulatory Areas,
and Allocations for Processing by Inshore and Offshore Components
In the GOA, pollock is apportioned by season and area, and is
further allocated for processing by inshore and offshore components.
Under the emergency interim rule published January 25, 2000 (65 FR
3892), implementing the RFRPAs, the annual pollock TAC specified for
the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA is apportioned into
four seasonal allowances of 30, 15, 30, and 25 percent, respectively
(Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(ii)(B)). As established by Sec. 679.23(d)(2), the A,
B, C, and D season allowances are available from January 20 through
March 1, from March 15 through May 31, from August 20 through September
15, and from October 1 through November 1 respectively.
To prevent localized depletions of pollock outside the Shelikof
Strait conservation area (defined at Sec. 679.20(b)(2)(iii)(B)), the
emergency rule also establishes seasonal TACs of pollock within
Shelikof Strait during the A and B seasons. The derivation of these
harvest limits is explained here and listed in Tables 1 and 3.
The remainder of the A and B seasonal allowances of pollock TAC in
the Western and Central Regulatory Areas are apportioned among
statistical area 610, and statistical areas 620 and 630 outside
Shelikof Strait conservation area in proportion to the distribution of
pollock biomass as determined by the four most recent NMFS surveys.
Pollock TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas in the C and D
seasons are apportioned among statistical areas 610, 620, and 630 in
proportion to the distribution of pollock biomass as determined by the
four most recent NMFS surveys. Within any fishing year, underage or
overage of a seasonal allowance may be added to or subtracted from
subsequent seasonal allowances in a manner to be determined by the
Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, provided that a revised
seasonal allowance does not exceed 30 percent of the annual TAC
apportionment (Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(ii)(C)). The WYK and SEO District
pollock TACs of 2,340 mt and 6,460 mt, respectively, are not allocated
seasonally.
Regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(6)(ii) require that 100 percent of
the pollock TAC in all regulatory areas and all seasonal allowances
thereof be allocated to vessels catching pollock for processing by the
inshore component after subtraction of amounts that are projected by
the Regional Administrator to be caught by, or delivered to, the
offshore component incidental to directed fishing for other groundfish
species. The amount of pollock available for harvest by vessels
harvesting pollock for processing by the offshore component is that
amount actually taken as bycatch during directed fishing for groundfish
species other than pollock, up to the maximum retainable bycatch
amounts allowed under regulations at Sec. 679.20(e) and (f). At this
time, these bycatch amounts are unknown and will be determined during
the fishing year.
The biomass distribution of pollock in the Western and Central GOA,
area apportionments, and seasonal apportionments for the A and B
seasons are summarized in Table 3 and for the C and D seasons in Table
4, except that amounts of pollock for processing by the inshore and
offshore component are not shown.
Table 3.--Distribution of Pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska (W/C GOA);
Biomass Distribution, Area Apportionments, and Seasonal Allowances of Annual TAC for the A and B Seasons in 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal allowances of annual
Biomass 2000 annual TAC
Statistical area percent TAC -------------------------------
A (30%) B (15%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelikof........................................ 52.5 21,550 14,366 7,183
Shumagin (610).................................. 11.9 29,290 5,465 2,732
Chirikof \1\ (620).............................. 20.0 17,430 3,252 1,626
Kodiak \1\ (630)................................ 15.6 22,930 4,278 2,139
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 100.0 91,200 27,361 13,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A and B seasonal allowances in the Chirikof and Kodiak Districts are outside the Shelikof Strait defined at
Sec. 679.20(b)(2)(iii)(B).
[[Page 8305]]
Table 4.--Distribution of Pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska (W/C GOA);
Biomass Distribution, Area Apportionments, and Seasonal Allowances of Annual TAC for the C and D Seasons in 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal allowances of annual
Biomass 2000 annual TAC \1\
Statistical area percent TAC -------------------------------
C (30%) D (25%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelikof........................................ .............. 21,550 Not Apportioned
Shumagin (610).................................. 25 29,290 11,506 9,588
Chirikof (620).................................. 42 17,430 6,847 5,706
Kodiak (630).................................... 33 22,930 9,008 7,506
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 100 91,200 27,361 22,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Emergency interim regulations (65 FR 3892; January 25, 2000) for pollock in the GOA which specify A and B
season dates and harvest limitations, expire July 19, 2000, before the C and D seasons are scheduled to begin.
Therefore, the C and D seasons are not authorized unless either the emergency rule is extended, or proposed
and final rulemaking is completed.
Allocations for Processing of Pacific Cod TAC Between Inshore and
Offshore Components
Regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(6)(iii) require that the TAC
apportionment of Pacific cod in all regulatory areas be allocated to
vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore and offshore
components. Ninety percent of the Pacific cod TAC in each regulatory
area is allocated to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the
inshore component. The remaining 10 percent of the TAC is allocated to
vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component.
These allocations of the Pacific cod initial TAC for 2000 are shown in
Table 5. The Pacific cod reserves are not included in Table 5.
Table 5.--2000 Allocation (Metric Tons) of Pacific Cod Initial TAC Amounts in the Gulf of Alaska; Allocations
for Processing by the Inshore and Offshore Components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component allocation
Regulatory area Initial TAC --------------------------------------
Inshore (90%) Offshore (10%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western.............................................. 16,500 14,850 1,650
Central.............................................. 27,264 24,538 2,726
Eastern.............................................. 3,208 2,887 321
Total.......................................... 46,972 42,275 4,697
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Halibut PSC Mortality Limits
Under Sec. 679.21(d), annual Pacific halibut PSC limits are
established and apportioned to trawl and hook-and-line gear and may be
established for pot gear.
As in 1999, the Council recommended that pot gear, jig gear, and
the hook-and-line sablefish fishery be exempted from the non trawl
halibut limit for 2000. The Council recommended these exemptions
because of the low halibut bycatch mortality experienced in the pot
gear fisheries (41 mt in 1999) and because of the 1995 implementation
of the sablefish and halibut Individual Fishing Quota program, which
allows legal-sized halibut to be retained in the sablefish fishery.
Halibut mortality for the jig gear fleet cannot be estimated because
these vessels do not carry observers. However, halibut mortality is
assumed to be very low given the small amount of fish harvested by this
gear type (186 mt in 1999) and the assumed high survival rate of any
halibut that are incidentally taken and discarded.
As in 1999, the Council recommended a hook-and-line halibut PSC
mortality limit of 300 mt. Ten mt of this limit are apportioned to the
demersal shelf rockfish fishery in the Southeast Outside District. The
fishery is defined at Sec. 679.21(d)(3) and historically has been
apportioned this amount in recognition of its small scale harvests.
Observer data are not available to verify actual bycatch amounts given
most vessels are less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA and are exempt from
observer coverage. The remainder of the PSC limit is seasonally
apportioned among the non-sablefish hook-and-line fisheries as shown in
Table 6.
The Council continued to recommend a trawl halibut PSC mortality
limit of 2,000 mt. The PSC limit has remained unchanged since 1989.
Regulations at Sec. 679.21(d)(3)(iii) authorize separate apportionments
of the trawl halibut PSC limit between trawl fisheries for deep-water
and shallow-water species. Regulations at Sec. 679.21(d)(5) authorize
seasonal apportionments of halibut PSC limits. For 2000, the Council
recommended delaying the release of the third seasonal apportionment of
trawl halibut PSC limits to July 4 to facilitate inseason management of
directed trawl fisheries, particularly rockfish.
NMFS concurs in the Council's recommendations described and listed
in Table 6. The following types of information as presented in, and
summarized from, the current SAFE report, or as otherwise available
from NMFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), or public testimony, were
considered:
(A) Estimated Halibut Bycatch in Prior Years
The best available information on estimated halibut bycatch is data
collected by observers during 1999. The calculated halibut bycatch
mortality by trawl, hook-and-line, and pot gear through December 25,
1999, is 2,127 mt, 348 mt, and 41 mt, respectively, for a total halibut
mortality of 2,516 mt.
Halibut bycatch restrictions seasonally constrained trawl gear
fisheries during all quarters of the 1999 fishing year. Trawling for
the deep-water fishery complex was closed for the first quarter on
March 24 (64 FR 14840, March 29, 1999), for the second
[[Page 8306]]
quarter on April 25 (64 FR 22815, April 28, 1999), for the third
quarter on July 21 (64 FR 40293, July 26, 1999), and for the fourth
quarter on October 16, 1999 (64 FR 56473, October 20, 1999). The
shallow-water fishery complex was closed for the first quarter on March
20 (64 FR 14155, March 24, 1999), for the second quarter on April 1 (64
FR 16654, April 6, 1999), for the third quarter on July 4 (64 FR 35080,
June 30, 1999), and for the fourth quarter on October 16, 1999 (64 FR
56473, October 20, 1999). The three seasonal apportionments of the
hook-and-line halibut bycatch mortality limit resulted in closures of
hook-and-line fisheries for groundfish other than sablefish and
demersal shelf rockfish on April 24 (64 FR 22814, April 28, 1999), May
18 (64 FR 27476, May 20, 1999), and on September 1 (64 FR 46317, August
25, 1999).
(B) Expected Changes in Groundfish Stocks
At its December 1999 meeting, the Council adopted higher ABCs for
rex sole, flathead sole, sablefish, shortraker and rougheye rockfish,
northern rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, and thornyhead rockfish than
those established for 1999. The Council adopted lower ABCs for pollock,
Pacific cod, deep-water flatfish, shallow-water flatfish, arrowtooth
flounder, Pacific ocean perch, other rockfish, and demersal shelf
rockfish than those established for 1999. More information on these
changes is included in the final SAFE report (November 1999) and in the
Council and SSC minutes.
(C) Expected Changes in Groundfish Catch
The total of the 2000 TACs for the GOA is 298,510 mt, a decrease of
3 percent from the 1999 TAC total of 306,535 mt. Those fisheries for
which the 2000 TACs are lower than in 1999 are pollock (decreased to
100,000 mt from 100,920 mt), Pacific cod (decreased to 58,715 mt from
67,835 mt), deep-water flatfish (decreased to 5,300 mt from 6,050 mt),
other rockfish (decreased to 4,900 mt from 5,270 mt), demersal shelf
rockfish (decreased to 340 mt from 560 mt), and other species
(decreased to 14,215 mt from 14,600 mt). Those species for which the
2000 TACs are higher than in 1999 are rex sole (increased to 9,440 mt
from 9,150 mt), flathead sole (increased to 9,060 mt from 9,040 mt),
shallow-water flatfish (increased to 19,400 mt from 18,770 mt),
sablefish (increased to 13,330 mt from 12,700 mt), Pacific ocean perch
(increased to 13,020 mt from 12,590 mt), shortraker and rougheye
rockfish (increased to 1,730 mt from 1,590 mt), northern rockfish
(increased to 5,120 mt from 4,990 mt), pelagic shelf rockfish
(increased to 5,980 mt from 4,880 mt), and thornyhead rockfish
(increased to 2,360 mt from 1,990 mt).
(D) Current Estimates of Halibut Biomass and Stock Condition
The stock assessment for 1999 conducted by the IPHC indicates total
exploitable biomass estimates of Pacific halibut in the BSAI and GOA
management areas together to be 135,172 mt using an age-specific
estimate for 2000. In the age-specific estimate, the assumption is that
the selection of fish by the survey is based primarily on the age of
the fish and reflects the availability of fish of different ages on the
grounds.
New information used in the stock assessment in 1999 includes
updated assessment methods and results, IPHC hook-and-line surveys,
NMFS trawl survey catches of halibut, and updated information on
removals of halibut from all sources. The only significant change to
the assessment in 1999 was introducing an increase in the hook-and-line
survey catchability, beginning with the 1993 survey data, to account
for a change in bait used between the 1980s and 1990s. Estimates of
exploitable biomass for 2000 are substantially lower than last year's
(227,366 mt) because of the allowance for increased catchability, lower
mean weights at age, and recent declines in recruitment. In IPHC
management areas 2C and 3A the cumulative effect is a 35-and 40-percent
reduction, respectively.
Recruitment has declined from the high levels of the 1985 to 1995
period, and size at age continues to decline. Numerical abundance is
still quite high relative to the levels of 1975 or 1985, but biomass
levels are not as high and the prospect is for a continuing decline as
relatively strong year-classes pass out of the stock and relatively
weak ones enter (and grow more slowly). Additional information on the
Pacific halibut stock assessment may be found in the final SAFE report
(November 1999).
(E) Other Factors
Potential impacts of expected fishing for groundfish on halibut
stocks, as well as methods available for, and costs of, reducing
halibut bycatch in the groundfish fisheries were discussed in the
proposed 2000 specifications (64 FR 69457, December 13, 1999). That
discussion is not repeated here.
Fishery and Seasonal Apportionments of the Halibut PSC Limits
Under Sec. 679.21(d)(5), NMFS seasonally apportions the halibut PSC
limits based on recommendations from the Council. The FMP requires that
the following information be considered by the Council in recommending
seasonal apportionments of halibut PSC limits: (a) Seasonal
distribution of halibut; (b) seasonal distribution of target groundfish
species relative to halibut distribution; (c) expected halibut bycatch
needs on a seasonal basis relative to changes in halibut biomass and
expected catches of target groundfish species; (d) expected bycatch
rates on a seasonal basis; (e) expected changes in directed groundfish
fishing seasons; (f) expected actual start of fishing effort; and (g)
economic effects of establishing seasonal halibut allocations on
segments of the target groundfish industry.
The publication of the final 1999 groundfish and PSC specifications
(64 FR 12094, March 11, 1999) summarizes Council findings with respect
to each of the FMP considerations set forth here. The Council
reiterated its findings with respect to these FMP considerations and
recommended no change from the 1999 seasonal apportionments. Pacific
halibut PSC limits, and apportionments thereof, are presented in Table
6. Regulations at Sec. 679.21(d)(5)(iii) and (iv) specify that any
overages or shortfalls in a seasonal apportionment of a PSC limit will
be deducted from or added to the next respective seasonal apportionment
within the 2000 season.
[[Page 8307]]
Table 6.--Final 2000 Pacific Halibut PSC Limits, Allowances, and Apportionments. The Pacific Halibut PSC Limit for Hook-and-Line Gear is Allocated to
the Demersal Shelf Rockfish (DSR) Fishery and Fisheries Other Than DSR
[Values are in metric tons. The hook-and-line sablefish fishery is exempt from halibut PSC limits.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl gear Hook-and-line gear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than DSR DSR
Dates Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Amount Dates Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1-Mar. 31......................... 600 (30%) Jan. 1-May 17............. 250 (86%) Jan. 1-Dec. 31............ 10 (100%)
Apr. 1-July 3.......................... 400 (20%) May 18-Aug. 31............ 15 (5%) .......................... .................
July 4-Sept. 30........................ 600 (30%) Sept. 1-Dec. 31........... 25 (9%) .......................... .................
Oct. 1-Dec. 31......................... 400 (20%) .......................... ................. .......................... .................
Total............................ 2,000 (100%) .......................... 290 (100%) .......................... 10 (100%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulations at Sec. 679.21(d)(3)(iii) authorize apportionments of
the trawl halibut PSC limit to a deep-water species complex, comprised
of sablefish, rockfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole and arrowtooth
flounder; and a shallow-water species complex, comprised of pollock,
Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, and
``other species.'' The apportionment for these two fishery complexes is
presented in Table 7.
Table 7.--Final 2000 Apportionment of Pacific Halibut PSC Trawl Limits Between the Trawl Gear Deep-Water Species
Complex and the Shallow-Water Species Complex
[Values are in metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Shallow-water Deep-water Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 20-Mar. 31.............................................. 500 100 600
Apr. 1-July 3................................................ 100 300 400
July 4-Sept. 30.............................................. 200 400 600
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal:
Jan. 20-Sept. 30........................................... 800 800 1,600
Oct. 1-Dec. 31............................................. ................. ................. 400
--------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ ................. ................. 2,000
No apportionment between shallow-water and deep-water fishery complexes during the 4th quarter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Discard Mortality Rates
The Council recommended that the revised halibut discard mortality
rates recommended by the IPHC be adopted for purposes of monitoring
halibut bycatch mortality limits established for the 2000 groundfish
fisheries. NMFS concurs in the Council's recommendation. Most of the
IPHC's assumed halibut mortality rates were based on an average of
mortality rates determined from NMFS observer data collected during
1997 and 1998. Rates for 1997 and 1998 were lacking for some fisheries,
so rates from the most recent years were used. For fisheries where
insufficient mortality data are available, the mortality rate of
halibut caught in the Pacific cod fishery for that gear type was
recommended as a default rate. The majority of the assumed mortality
rates recommended for 2000 differ slightly from those used in 1999,
except for the pot gear groundfish fisheries discard mortality rate
that increased to 14 percent for 2000 from 6 percent in 1999. The
Council recommended that a single discard mortality rate be used in
2000 for the catcher vessel and the catcher/processor vessel fleets in
the trawl flathead sole fishery. The recommended rates for hook-and-
line targeted fisheries range from 11 to 17 percent, an increase from
1999. The recommended rates for most trawl targeted fisheries are
unchanged or lower than those used in 1999 and range from 53 to 75
percent. The 2000 assumed halibut mortality rates are listed in Table
8.
Table 8.--2000 Assumed Pacific Halibut Mortality Rates for Vessels
Fishing in the Gulf of Alaska
[Listed values are percent of halibut bycatch assumed to be dead]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality
Gear and target rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hook-and-line:
Pacific cod............................................ 17
Rockfish............................................... 11
Other species.......................................... 17
Trawl:
Midwater pollock....................................... 75
Rockfish............................................... 66
Shallow-water flatfish................................. 69
Pacific cod............................................ 63
Deep-water flatfish.................................... 56
Flathead sole.......................................... 57
Rex sole............................................... 53
Bottom pollock......................................... 61
Arrowtooth Flounder.................................... 55
Atka mackerel.......................................... 57
Sablefish.............................................. 71
Other species.......................................... 66
Pot:
Pacific cod............................................ 14
Other species.......................................... 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Entity Compliance Guide
The following information satisfies the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which requires a plain language guide
to assist small entities in complying with this rule. This rule's
primary management measures are to announce final 2000 harvest
specifications and
[[Page 8308]]
prohibited species bycatch allowances for the groundfish fishery of the
GOA. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and
associated management measures for groundfish during the 2000 fishing
year and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery
Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska. This
action affects all fishermen who participate in the GOA fishery. 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.
Response to Comments
NMFS received one letter commenting on the 2000 specifications.
This comment contained multiple issues that are paraphrased and
responded to separately in the following text.
Comment 1. NMFS did not follow specified procedures in its
regulations for promulgating the annual harvest specifications.
Specifically, NMFS proposes 2000 harvest specifications based on a
``roll over'' from the year previous that are merely a place holder to
start the fishery, implements interim specifications on the ``roll
over'' TACs without prior notice and comment, and has failed to
promulgate final harvest specifications before the start of the 2000
calender year. The process is convoluted, promotes distrust in the
government, and violates the law.
Response. The ABC and TAC for each species are based on the best
available biological and socioeconomic information. The Council, its
AP, and its SSC review current biological information about the
condition of groundfish stocks in the BSAI and GOA at their October and
December meetings. This information is compiled by the Council's BSAI
Groundfish Plan Team and is presented in the proposed SAFE report for
both groundfish FMPs in September and in a final SAFE report in
November.
Regulations at Sec. 679.20(c) require NMFS to publish the proposed
harvest specifications ``as soon as practicable after consultation with
the Council * * *. The proposed specifications will reflect as
accurately as possible the projected changes in U.S. harvesting and
processing capacity and the extent to which U.S. harvesting and
processing will occur during the coming year.'' On December 13, 1999,
NMFS published the proposed specifications in the Federal Register (64
FR 69464). These specifications were based on the best available
scientific information after consultation with the Council in October
1999. NMFS acknowledges that these were the same specifications as
established for 1999. Although new surveys had been performed in 1999,
the stock assessment data had not been analyzed and no new information
was available that indicated any of the target species' ABC should be
changed for conservation reasons.
NMFS published interim TAC specifications and PSC limits to
authorize the fisheries from January 1 until they are superseded by the
final specifications. The implementing regulations at Sec. 679.20(c)(2)
authorize one-fourth of each proposed initial total allowable catch
(ITAC) and apportionment thereof, one-fourth of each PSC allowance, and
the first seasonal allowance of pollock (and Atka mackerel in the BSAI)
to be in effect on January 1 on an interim basis and to remain in
effect until superseded by final specifications. NMFS published the
interim specifications for the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries in the
Federal Register on January 3, 2000 (65 FR 60 and 65 FR 65,
respectively).
The Council recommended final groundfish harvest specifications to
NMFS in mid-December 1999 that were based on the new information
contained in the November 1999 SAFE report. In order for NMFS to
complete notice-and-comment rulemaking before January 1, as the
commenter suggested. NMFS seeks to provide as much opportunity for
comment as possible and therefore must publish proposed specifications
earlier than the final SAFE report becomes available. NMFS relies on
the best information available when publishing the proposed
specifications. NMFS must publish proposed specifications earlier than
the final SAFE report becomes available. Therefore NMFS relies on the
best information available at the time of the proposed specifications.
Although the existing procedures condense the annual harvest
specification process into a short period of time at the end of the
year, procedures include multiple Plan Team meetings open to the public
and multiple Council meetings in which public comment is solicited and
provides adequate opportunity for the public to comment and participate
effectively.
NMFS agrees that the process should be improved and has explored
different options including changing the calendar dates of the fishing
year or creating a framework process that would not require proposed or
interim rulemaking. NMFS plans to explore other options for the
development of a new process, in consultation with the Council, as soon
as practicable.
Comment 2. The proposed annual harvest specifications are based on
the default harvest control rule set forth in Amendments 56/56 to the
fishery management plans for the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.
These amendments violate national standard 1 and other overfishing
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by allowing stocks that have
declined below the biomass consistent with maximum sustainable yield
(MSY) to remain indefinitely at the depleted biomass level.
Furthermore, the agency must set the minimum stock size threshold
(MSST) equal to the stock size consistent with MSY, so as to achieve
the long-term OY. Because the annual harvest specifications do not
reflect any MSST the agency should withdraw the proposed
specifications.
Response. NMFS disagrees that promulgation of the proposed harvest
specifications violate national standard 1 or other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The control rules set forth in Amendments 56/56
(64 FR 10952; March 8, 1999) define OFL and constrain ABC for stocks
managed under the FMPs for BSAI and GOA groundfish. In approving
Amendments 56/56, NMFS considered public comments submitted on the
proposed amendments and determined that these control rules are in
compliance with national standard 1 and all other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Comment 2 appears to presume that harvest control
rules can, by themselves, force stock biomass to increase. In fact,
harvest control rules are rules used to control harvest, not biomass.
All harvest control rules ``allow'' a depleted stock to remain at a low
abundance level indefinitely, because no harvest control rule can
control the size of incoming year classes. However, the control rules
adopted in Amendments 56/56 are explicitly designed to be
precautionary, especially in the context of managing stocks whose
biomass have fallen below reference levels.
For a stock that has been identified as overfished, the definition
of optimum yield contained in section 3(28) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
states that the rebuilding target should be ``a level consistent with
producing the maximum sustainable yield.'' The question then becomes
whether the rebuilding target, the biomass level to which a stock must
be rebuilt once the stock is identified as being overfished, must equal
the MSST, the biomass level at which a stock is identified as being
overfished in the first place. The
[[Page 8309]]
question is answered by the statutory definition of OY, which clearly
allows OY to be set as high as MSY unless relevant economic, social, or
ecological factors warrant a lower level. If the law allows OY to be
set as high as MSY in some cases, then setting an MSST equal to the MSY
level would mean that natural variability alone will cause such stocks
to be identified as ``overfished'' approximately 50 percent of the time
even if OY were achieved exactly each year. National standard 1
reflects Congress' belief that it is possible to prevent overfishing
while achieving OY. Equating MSST to the MSY level would imply the
exact opposite.
Currently, the best scientific information available indicates that
no stock managed under the BSAI or GOA groundfish FMPs is being
subjected to an inappropriate harvest rate, and that no stock managed
under these FMPs is overfished. The annual specifications reflect the
correct use of MSSTs and NMFS finds no reason to prepare new
specifications.
Comment 3. Even if the agency's current interpretation of national
standard 1 is accepted and MSSTs do not have to be set at MSY stock
sizes, the proposed annual harvest specifications are inconsistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard Guidelines because
the specifications do not identify MSSTs at all for individual stocks.
Response. NMFS disagrees. Every stock managed under Tiers 1-3 of
the BSAI and GOA groundfish fishery management plans was evaluated with
respect to its MSST in the most recent SAFE report dated November 1999.
NMFS believes the proposed harvest specifications are consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard Guidelines, neither
of which requires that MSSTs be identified in the final TAC
specifications themselves. MSSTs are used in the process of developing
the final TAC specifications and the TAC specifications use harvest
control rules that are demonstrably related to the MSY-based management
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The control rules used to define
OFL and the maximum permissible ABC restrict fishing at all stock
sizes, not just at stock sizes below 5 percent of the MSY level. Not
only is fishing restricted at all stock sizes, it is restricted in a
conservative manner. Furthermore, in the event that a stock declines
below its BMSY level (Tiers 1-2) or B40 % (Tier
3), the level of conservatism increases directly with the magnitude of
the decline.
Comment 4. Rather than identifying MSY and OY for individual fish
stocks, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the BSAI and GOA
groundfish FMPs manage stocks through default rules that are not
related to MSY-based management. Because this management system is
incompatible with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must disapprove the
proposed annual harvest specifications.
Response. NMFS disagrees. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require
that MSY and OY be identified for individual fish stocks. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act does require (paragraph 303(a)(3)) that each FMP ``assess
and specify the present and probable future condition of, and the
maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from, the fishery* * *,''
where ``fishery'' is defined (section (3)(13)) as ``(A) one or more
stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of
conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of
geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic
characteristics; and (B) any fishing for such stocks.''
A good estimate of the MSY for all stocks combined is not
necessarily provided if MSY is determined for a single stock without
regard to the effect that such fishing may have on other stocks. If,
instead, MSY is determined for a stock assemblage with due regard to
the effect that fishing on individual stocks may have on the other
members of the assemblage, then it is irrelevant whether all of the
individual stocks are simultaneously producing their individual MSYs.
Such an ``assemblage'' MSY will necessarily be associated with an
equilibrium level of abundance for each of the component stocks, and
these abundance levels would inform the fishery manager as to whether
individual stocks are being over- or underfished.
Further, the control rules specified in the BSAI and GOA groundfish
fishery management plans are expressly related to MSY-based management.
In Tiers 1 and 2, all of the reference points are defined in terms of
MSY. In Tiers 3 through 6, proxies for MSY-related reference points are
based on the scientific literature, the National Standard Guidelines,
and the Technical Guidance report. In approving Amendment 56/56, NMFS
has already determined that use of the present control rules does not
violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS believes that it has fully
complied with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and that the proposed groundfish
harvest specifications should not be disapproved.
Comment 5. The proposed annual harvest specifications are
inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard
Guidelines because the OYs established for the groundfish fisheries do
not take into account ecological factors and the protection of marine
ecosystems in setting the annual TAC. To obey the statute, NMFS must
identify the economic, social, and ecological factors relevant to a
fishery, then evaluate them to determine the amount by which OY should
be reduced below MSY. Because the proposed specifications do not
document any consideration by NMFS of these factors in setting the TACs
for the fisheries, the TACs should be reevaluated to consider these
factors and modified if appropriate.
Response. The requirement to consider any relevant economic,
social, or ecological factor in specifying OY has been in place since
the Council adopted and NMFS approved Amendment 1 to the BSAI
groundfish fishery management plan and Amendment 15 to the GOA
groundfish fishery management plan (1981 and 1984, respectively). In
approving these amendments, NMFS determined that any relevant economic,
social, or ecological factors had been duly considered in specifying
OY.
Amendment 1 to the Bering Sea groundfish fishery management plan
established the 1.4 to 2.0 million mt OY range. The amendment states
that, ``The groundfish complex and its fishery are a distinct
management unit of the Bering Sea. * * *. This complex forms a large
subsystem of the Bering Sea ecosystem with intricate interrelationships
between predators and prey, between competitors, and between those
species and their environment. Therefore, the productivity and MSY of
groundfish should be conceived for the groundfish complex as a unit
rather than for many individual species groups.'' When recommending the
OY level, the Council considered the results of ecosystem simulations
that included numerous ecosystem components (e.g., mammals, birds,
demersal fish, semi-demersal fish, pelagic fish, squid, crabs, and
benthos). The model considered their fluctuations in abundance caused
by predation, natural mortality, environmental anomalies, and fishing.
The simulations showed that the minimum sustainable exploitable biomass
may have been higher than 2.0 million mt.
Under Amendment 15 to the GOA groundfish fishery management plan,
the GOA OY is specified also as a range, 116,000-800,000 mt. The lower
end of
[[Page 8310]]
the GOA OY range is equal to the lowest historical groundfish catch
during the 21-year period 1965-1985. The upper end of the range is
approximately equal to 97 percent of the mean MSY from the years 1983-
1987.
In addition, in 1989 the Council began including a separate
ecosystem consideration section in the annual SAFE document. In 1993
this section was expanded and devoted to both marine mammals and
ecosystem consideration. In 1994, this section was expanded into a
separate chapter of the SAFE and entitled ``Ecosystem Considerations.''
NMFS further expanded the ecological advice given for the 2000
specification process by enhancing the document to include status and
trend information on key ecosystem components in the BSAI and the GOA.
Recent examples of inclusion of ecosystem considerations in the
2000 SAFE Report are provided by the pollock and Atka mackerel
chapters. The pollock chapter was modified to include a spatial and
temporal analysis of the pollock fishery to facilitate discussion of
its possible effects on Steller sea lions. The Atka mackerel chapter
authors, adhering to advice supplied by Congress' Ecosystem Principles
Advisory Panel and recognizing the importance of this species in the
diet of Steller sea lions, explored alternative harvest strategies to
determine an ABC that, in their view, was consistent with the Panel's
advocated precautionary approach.
This information is used to identify stocks or ecosystem elements
that may be at risk. The SSC uses this information to recommend
adjustments to harvest strategies and alternative management measures
in order to protect the marine environment. Furthermore, the EA
accompanying the specifications outlines the impacts of fishing on the
environment and describes mitigation measures incorporated in the
specifications. NMFS believes that it has evaluated the marine
environment using the best available scientific information and does
not believe that the specifications should be reevaluated.
Comment 6. The annual harvest specifications allow overfishing to
continue on overfished crab stocks because the proposed specifications
promulgate a ``roll over'' from the 1999 harvest specifications.
Response. Overfishing is defined as any rate of fishing mortality
in excess of the maximum fishing mortality threshold. Three Bering Sea
crab stocks have been declared overfished: Bering Sea Tanner crab,
Bering Sea Snow crab, and St. Matthews Blue King crab. All other crab
FMP stocks are not overfished or their status is unknown. Overfishing
is not occurring for any Bering Sea crab stock that has been declared
overfished. The maximum fishing mortality rate (MFMT) for all species
of King crab is 0.2 and for all Chionoecetes species (including Tanner
and Snow crab) the MFMT is 0.3. The St. Matthews Island Blue King crab
and Eastern Bering Sea Tanner crab stocks are closed to directed
commercial fishing. The current PSC limits on Bering Sea Tanner crab
are 0.005 multiplied by the most recent survey abundance (numbers) with
a cap of 1,000,000 crab in Zone 1 and 0.012 times the most recent
survey abundance (numbers) with a cap of 3,000,000 crab in Zone 2.
These bycatch caps are far below the maximum fishing mortality rate
that defines overfishing. The 2000 GHL for Snow crab is 28.5 million lb
(12,927.6 mt) or 10 percent of the mature biomass, which represents
about 23.75 million crabs. The 2000 PSC limit is 4.5 million Snow crab
for the entire year. A harvest in excess of about three times the 2000
GHL, or about 71.25 million crabs, would constitute overfishing. The
2000 GHL plus the PSC limit is about 28.25 million crabs, well below
the overfishing level. Furthermore, the actual catch levels in Zones 1
and 2 are well below the caps.
It is true that NMFS proposed to ``roll over'' the 1999 PSC levels
for the year 2000. However, it is incorrect to conclude that the action
fails to recognize that many crab stocks are overfished or approaching
an overfished condition. NMFS recognized that it is unlikely that the
``roll over'' would result in overfishing of any crab stock.
Comment 7. NMFS prepared an EA for this action that specifically
``tiers off'' the legally inadequate discussion of impacts and
alternatives of the 1998 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS). Furthermore, the existence of a previous programmatic EIS does
not eliminate the requirement to prepare another, action-specific EIS,
if the impacts of the specific action are significant. The 2000 TAC
specification have potentially significant environmental impacts that
must be addressed in an EIS and an EA is therefore inadequate.
Response. NMFS recognizes that in a July 8, 1999, order, amended on
July 13, 1999, the Court in Greenpeace v. NMFS Civ No. 98-0492 (W.D.
Wash.) held that the 1998 SEIS did not adequately address aspects of
the GOA and BSAI groundfish FMPs other than TAC setting, and therefore
was insufficient in scope under the National Environmental Policy Act.
In response to the Court's order, NMFS is currently preparing a
programmatic SEIS for the GOA and BSAI groundfish FMPs plans.
Notwithstanding the less expansive scope of the 1998 SEIS, NMFS
believes that the discussion and analysis of impacts and alternatives
in the 1998 SEIS, which focused on the issue of TAC setting, is
directly applicable to the EA prepared in support of this action, the
setting of TACs for the 2000 fishery. Consequently, the EA adopts the
discussion and analysis in the 1998 SEIS.
Finally, NMFS believes that the 1998 SEIS's extensive discussion
and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with various
levels of TACs, coupled with the EA's additional discussion, provides
ample support for its determination that the 2000 specifications will
not have significant environmental impacts.
Comment 8. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and
management measures contained in fishery management plans shall, to the
extent practicable, minimize bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that
cannot be avoided. The annual harvest specifications fail to take any
steps to minimize bycatch and must contain a full analysis of bycatch
minimization, must minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, and must
establish an adequate standardized bycatch reporting methodology.
Response. NMFS disagrees that the annual harvest specifications are
the proper venue for meeting statutory requirements to minimize bycatch
and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. The annual
specifications rely on a frameworked process that does not involve
changes to regulations. Changes to regulations that promote reduction
in bycatch must be accomplished through separate fishery management
plan amendments and/or regulatory amendments and are outside the scope
of the 2000 harvest specifications. The annual harvest specifications
do implement existing regulations intended to limit or reduce
prohibited species incidental catch in that annual prohibited species
limits and seasonal fishery bycatch allowances are specified with the
intent to optimize the amount of groundfish harvest relative to
available incidental catch constraints.
Comment 9. The existing groundfish fishery management plans do not
comply with Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates to minimize bycatch to the
extent practicable, or to minimize the mortality of bycatch that is
unavoidable. Existing bycatch avoidance programs implemented prior to
the passage of
[[Page 8311]]
these mandates cannot be used to satisfy the bycatch provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response. This comment is outside the scope of the annual harvest
specifications. Notwithstanding that fact, NMFS disagrees that FMP
measures to reduce bycatch or bycatch mortality that were implemented
prior to the passage of these statutory provisions cannot be considered
when assessing overall compliance of an FMP with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Further, the Council and NMFS continue to assess, develop, and
implement reasonable approaches to reduce bycatch to the extent
practicable. This standard is not static and will continue to support
the evolution of bycatch avoidance programs as the fishery and
associated management measure changes.
Comment 10. The annual harvest specifications fail to prevent takes
of endangered short-tailed albatross.
Response. NMFS disagrees. Regulations at Sec. 679.24(e) and
Sec. 679.42(b)(2) contain specific seabird avoidance measures required
for vessels using hook-and-line gear. Under terms of the 1999
biological opinion and incidental take statement prepared by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, a take of up to four endangered short-tailed
albatross is allowed during the 2-year period from 1999 through 2000
for the BSAI and GOA hook-and-line groundfish fisheries. To date, there
have been no reported takes of endangered short-tailed albatross in
this time period.
In February 1999, NMFS presented an analysis on seabird mitigation
measures to the Council that investigated possible revisions to the
currently required seabird avoidance methods that could be employed by
the hook-and-line fleet to further reduce the take of seabirds. The
Council took final action at its April 1999 meeting to revise the
existing requirements for seabird avoidance measures. These revised
seabird avoidance measures are expected to be effective as soon in
2000.
Classification
This action is authorized under 50 CFR 679.20 and is exempt from
review under E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, NMFS has
completed a consultation on the effects of the 1999 through 2002
pollock and Atka mackerel fisheries on listed species, including the
Steller sea lion, and designated critical habitat. The Biological
Opinion prepared for this consultation, dated December 3, 1998,
concluded that the Atka mackerel fisheries in the BSAI are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the western population of
Steller sea lions or adversely modify its critical habitat. However,
the Biological Opinion concluded that the pollock fisheries in the BSAI
and the GOA would cause jeopardy and adverse modification of designated
critical habitat.
The Biological Opinion, and subsequent revised documents, require
that a suite of revised final RPAs be implemented to mitigate the
adverse impacts of the pollock fisheries on the western population of
Steller sea lions and its critical habitat. The revised final RPAs were
implemented by NMFS through emergency rulemaking effective on January
20, 2000 and published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2000 (65
FR 3892). As discussed above, these final specifications are consistent
with the RFRPAs as required by the Biological Opinion.
NMFS also completed consultations on the effects of the 2000 BSAI
groundfish fisheries on listed species, including the Steller sea lion
and salmon, and on designated critical habitat. These consultations
were completed on December 23, 1999, and concluded that the proposed
fisheries were not likely to cause jeopardy or adverse modification to
designated critical habitat. However, in an order dated January 25,
2000, the District Court for the Western District of Washington
concluded that NMFS must consult pursuant to section 7 of the ESA on
the fishery management plans for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI
and GOA. Greenpeace v. NMFS, Civ. No. 98-49ZZ (W.D. Wash). Prior to the
issuance of the court's order, NMFS had begun consultation to evaluate
the cumulative effects of the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries over a
multi-year period on candidate and listed species and critical habitat.
NMFS is currently reviewing this ongoing consultation for compliance
with the court's January 25, 2000, order and will continue
consultation. NMFS has determined that publication of these fishery
specifications will not result in an irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources which would have the effect of foreclosing the
formulation or implementation of any reasonable or prudent alternative
measures which may be necessary.
A Biological Opinion on the BSAI hook-and-line groundfish fishery
and the BSAI trawl groundfish fishery for the ESA listed short-tailed
albatross was issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in March
1999. The conclusion continued the no jeopardy determination and the
incidental take statement expressing the requirement to immediately re-
initiate consultations if incidental takes exceed four short-tailed
albatross over 2 years' time (1999-2000).
NMFS has prepared a final EA for this action, which describes the
impact on the human environment that would result from implementation
of the final harvest specifications. In December 1998, NMFS issued an
SEIS on the groundfish TAC specifications and PSC limits under the BSAI
and GOA groundfish FMPs. In July 1999, the District Court for the
Western District of Washington held that the 1998 SEIS did not
adequately address aspects of the BSAI and GOA FMPs. Notwithstanding
the deficiencies the court noted in the 1998 SEIS, NMFS believes that
the discussion of impacts and alternatives in the 1998 SEIS is directly
applicable to this action. The final EA for the 2000 harvest
specifications incorporates by reference the 1998 SEIS. Additionally,
given the foregoing conclusions that publication of the final
specifications for the 2000 Alaska groundfish fisheries will not amount
to an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would
have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any
reasonable and prudent alternative measures for the Alaska groundfish
fisheries, NMFS finds that it is unnecessary to revise, amend, or
supplement the environmental assessment and ``finding of no significant
impact'' prepared for publication of the final specifications for the
2000 fisheries.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act that describes the impact
the 2000 harvest specifications may have on small entities. The IRFA
considered the impacts of a range of alternative harvest levels that
included no action (i.e., no harvest in 2000) and harvest levels equal
to those proposed. NMFS solicited public comment on the IRFA. Although
NMFS did not receive any public comments directly addressing the IRFA,
NMFS and the Council have considered additional information on the
fishery that became available in December. Based on that information,
the Council recommended and NMFS hereby establishes final harvest
specifications that have been revised from the preferred alternative
identified in the proposed rule. NMFS has prepared an FRFA which
analyzes the new TAC levels, recommended by the Council in December
1999, and based on updated survey and stock assessment information, for
the final 2000 specifications. A copy of this analysis is
[[Page 8312]]
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This action authorizes the BSAI
groundfish fisheries to continue under final specifications set at 2000
levels until the TAC is harvested or until the fishery is closed due to
attainment of a PSC limit, or for other management reasons. The 2000
TACs are based on the most recent scientific information as reviewed by
the Plan Teams, SSC, AP, and Council and which were commented on
through public testimony and comment from the October and December
Council meetings and those comments sent to NMFS on the proposed
specifications. This action also achieves OY while preventing
overfishing. Small entities would receive the maximum benefits under
this alternative, in that they will be able to harvest target species
and species groups at the highest available level based on stock status
and ecosystem concerns.
Based on 1998 data, NMFS estimates that 1,122 vessels harvesting
groundfish in the GOA operate as small entities.
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements
or timetables, and the use of performance rather than design standards,
or exempting affected small entities from any part of this action would
not be appropriate because of the nature of this action.
This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for the GOA
groundfish fisheries for the 2000 fishing year. The groundfish
fisheries in the GOA are governed by Federal regulations at 50 CFR part
679 that require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to publish
and solicit public comments on proposed annual TACs, PSC allowances,
and seasonal allowances of the TACs. No recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are implemented with this final action. NMFS is not aware
of any other Federal rules which duplicate, overlap or conflict with
the final specifications.
This action is not subject to a 30-day delay in effectiveness
because it relieves a restriction as contemplated under 5 USC
553(d)(1). This rule allows fishing to continue. Without this rule,
fishermen who are already on the fishing grounds fishing on interim TAC
would have to stop fishing and return to port.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and
3631 et seq.
Dated: February 14, 2000.
Gary C. Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-3910 Filed 2-15-00; 2:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P