Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 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 8282-8297]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe00-13]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 000211040-0040-01; I.D. 111899B]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands; Final 2000 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final 2000 specifications for groundfish and associated
management measures; apportionment of reserves; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces final 2000 harvest specifications, prohibited
species bycatch allowances, and associated management measures for the
groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI).
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 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area (FMP). The intended effect of this action is to
conserve and manage the groundfish resources in the BSAI.

DATES: The final 2000 harvest specifications and associated
apportionment of reserves are effective at 1200 hrs, Alaska local time
(A.l.t.), February 15, 2000 through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31,
2000. Comments on the apportionment of reserves must be received by
March 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the apportionment of reserves may be sent to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668,
Attn: Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th
Street, Juneau, AK. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-
mail or Internet.
Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action and the
Final 2000 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report, dated
November 1999, are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99510-2252 (907-271-
2809).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Capron, 907-586-7228 or
shane.capron@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background for the 2000 Final Harvest Specifications

Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 that implement the FMP
govern the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The Council prepared the
FMP, and NMFS approved it under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. General regulations governing U.S.
fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after
consultation with the Council, to specify annually the total allowable
catch (TAC) for each target species and for the ``other species''
category, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield range of
1.4 million to 2.0 million metric tons (mt) (Sec. 679.20(a)(1)(i)).
Regulations at Sec. 679.20(c)(3) further require NMFS to consider
public comments received on proposed annual TACs and apportionments
thereof and on proposed prohibited species catch (PSC) allowances and
to publish final specifications in the Federal Register. The final
specifications set forth in Tables 1 through 8 of this action satisfy
these requirements. For 2000, the sum of TACs is 2 million mt.
The proposed BSAI groundfish specifications and prohibited species
bycatch allowances for the groundfish fishery of the BSAI were
published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1999 (64 FR 69464).
Comments were invited and accepted through January 12, 2000. NMFS
received one letter of comment on the proposed specifications. This
comment is

[[Page 8283]]

summarized and responded to in the Response to Comments section. Public
consultation with the Council occurred during the December 1999 Council
meeting in Anchorage, AK. After considering public comments received,
as well as biological and economic data that were available at the
Council's December meeting, NMFS is implementing the final 2000
groundfish specifications as recommended by the Council.
In accordance with regulations at Sec. 679.20(c)(2)(ii), NMFS
established interim amounts of each proposed initial TAC (ITAC), and
allocations thereof, and proposed PSC allowances established under
Sec. 679.21 that become available at 0001 hours Alaska local time
(A.l.t.), January 1, and remain available until superseded by the final
specifications. NMFS published the interim 2000 groundfish harvest
specifications in the Federal Register on January 3, 2000 (65 FR 60).
The interim TACs for pollock subsequently were revised by an emergency
interim rule effective January 20, 2000 (65 FR 3892; January 25, 2000).
Regulations at Sec. 679.20(c)(2)(ii) do not provide for an interim
specification for either the hook-and-line and pot gear sablefish CDQ
reserve or for sablefish managed under the Individual Fishing Quota
management plan.
With the exception of the sideboard provisions for groundfish and
prohibited species under the American Fisheries Act (AFA), the final
2000 groundfish harvest specifications and prohibited species bycatch
allowances contained in this action supersede the interim 2000
groundfish harvest specifications. The emergency interim rule
implementing AFA cooperative harvest limit provisions (65 FR 4520;
January 28, 2000) specified allocations of inshore pollock between
cooperative and vessels not participating in cooperatives, as well as
harvest amounts and PSC limits for AFA catcher/processors and catcher
vessels. These specifications will remain effective for the duration of
the AFA emergency interim rule or until superseded by completion of a
notice and comment rulemaking to implement the AFA.

Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and TAC Specifications

The final ABC levels are based on the best available scientific
information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed
distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to
calculate stock biomass. The FMP specifies the formulas, or tiers, to
be used in computing ABCs and overfishing levels. The formulas
applicable to a particular stock or stock complex are determined by the
level of reliable information available to fishery scientists. This
information is categorized into a successive series of six tiers.
At its December 1999 meeting, the Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC), the Council's Advisory Panel (AP), and
Council itself reviewed current biological information about the
condition of groundfish stocks in the BSAI. This information was
compiled by the Council's Plan Team and is presented in the final 2000
SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, dated November 1999. The
SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and
estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters, as
well as summaries of the available information on the BSAI ecosystem
and the economic condition of groundfish fisheries off Alaska. From
these data and analyses, the Plan Team estimates an ABC for each
species or species category.
In December 1999, the SSC, AP, and Council reviewed the Plan Team's
recommendations. Except for pollock and the ``other species'' category,
the SSC, AP, and Council endorsed the Plan Team's ABC recommendations.
Based on the best available information, the SSC recommended slightly
higher ABCs for pollock and ``other species'' than the Plan Team
recommended. For pollock, the maximum ABC under the overfishing
definition results in an amount of 1.2 million mt. The Plan Team
recommended using a lower fishing mortality to account for
uncertainties in recruitment because there is a limited range of age-
classes supporting the fishery. The SSC agreed with the Plan Team's
rationale, but disagreed with the extent of the decrease in the fishing
mortality rate. The SSC adopted a mortality rate lower than the maximum
permissible, but higher than the Plan Team's, resulting in an ABC of
1.139 million mt. For ``other species'', the Plan Team recommended an
ABC based on mean catch since 1977. The SSC disagreed with this
approach and recommended using a Tier 5 approach under the FMP. For all
species, the AP endorsed the ABCs recommended by the SSC, and the
Council adopted them. The final ABCs, as adopted by the Council, are
listed in Table 1.
The final TAC recommendations were based on the ABCs as adjusted
for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including
maintaining the total TAC within the required OY range of 1.4 million
to 2.0 million mt. The Council adopted the AP's TAC recommendations.
None of the Council's recommended TACs for 2000 exceeds the final ABC
for any species category. NMFS finds that the recommended TACs are
consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as
described in the 2000 SAFE document and approved by the Council.
Table 1 lists the 2000 ABC, TAC, ITAC and Community Development
Quota (CDQ) reserve amounts, overfishing levels, and initial
apportionments of groundfish in the BSAI. The apportionment of TAC
amounts among fisheries and seasons is discussed in the following
sections.

Table 1.--2000 ABC, Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Initial TAC (ITAC), CDQ Reserve Allocation, and Overfishing Levels of Groundfish in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) \1\
[All amounts are in metric tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overfishing
Species Area level ABC TAC ITAC \2\ CDQ reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\3\-----
Pollock \4\............................ Bering Sea (BS)................ 1,680,000 1,139,000 1,139,000 973,845 113,900
Aleutian Islands (AI).......... 31,700 23,800 2,000 1,800 200
Bogoslof District.............. 30,400 22,300 1,000 900 100
Pacific cod............................ BSAI........................... 240,000 193,000 193,000 164,050 14,475
Sablefish \5\.......................... BS............................. 1,750 1,470 1,470 624 202
AI............................. 3,090 2,430 2,430 516 410
Atka mackerel.......................... Total.......................... 119,000 70,800 70,800 60,180 5,309
Western AI..................... .............. 29,700 29,700 25,245 2,227
Central AI..................... .............. 24,700 24,700 20,995 1,852
Eastern AI/BS.................. .............. 16,400 16,400 13,940 1,230

[[Page 8284]]

Yellowfin sole......................... BSAI........................... 226,000 191,000 123,262 104,773 9,244
Rock sole.............................. BSAI........................... 273,000 230,000 134,760 114,546 10,107
Greenland turbot....................... Total.......................... 42,000 9,300 9,300 7,906 697
BS............................. .............. 6,231 6,231 5,297 467
AI............................. .............. 3,069 3,069 2,609 230
Arrowtooth flounder.................... BSAI........................... 160,000 131,000 131,000 111,350 9,825
Flathead sole.......................... BSAI........................... 90,000 73,500 52,652 44,755 3,948
Other flatfish \6\..................... BSAI........................... 141,000 117,000 83,813 71,242 6,285
Pacific ocean perch.................... BS............................. 3,100 2,600 2,600 2,210 195
AI Total....................... 14,400 12,300 12,300 10,456 922
Western AI..................... .............. 5,670 5,670 4,820 425
Central AI..................... .............. 3,510 3,510 2,984 263
Eastern AI..................... .............. 3,120 3,120 2,652 234
Other red rockfish \7\................. BS............................. 259 194 194 165 14
Sharpchin/Northern..................... AI............................. 6,870 5,150 5,150 4,378 386
Shortraker/rougheye.................... AI............................. 1,180 885 885 753 66
Other rockfish \8\..................... BS............................. 492 369 369 314 27
AI............................. 913 685 685 583 51
Squid.................................. BSAI........................... 2,620 1,970 1,970 1,675 147
Other species \9\...................... BSAI........................... 71,500 31,360 31,360 26,656 2,352
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. ............................. 3,139,274 2,260,113 2,000,000 1,703,677 178,862
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts are in metric tons. These amounts apply to the entire Bering Sea (BS) and Aleutian Islands (AI) subarea unless otherwise specified. With the
exception of pollock, and for the purpose of these specifications, the Bering Sea subarea includes the Bogoslof District.
\2\ Except for pollock and the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line and pot gear, 15 percent of each TAC is put into a reserve. The
ITAC for each species is the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of these reserves.
\3\ Except for pollock and the hook-and-line or pot gear allocation of sablefish, one half of the amount of the TACs placed in reserve, or 7.5 percent
of the TACs, is designated as a CDQ reserve for use by CDQ participants (see Sec. 679.31(a)(1)). Fifteen percent of the groundfish CDQ reserve
established for arrowtooth flounder and ``other species'' is allocated to a non-specific CDQ reserve found at Sec. 679.31(g).
\4\ The AFA requires that 10 percent of the annual pollock TAC be allocated as a directed fishing allowance for the CDQ sector. Then, NMFS is
subtracting 5 percent of the remainder as an incidental catch allowance for pollock, which is not apportioned by season or area. The remainder of this
amount is further allocated by sector as follows: inshore, 50 percent; catcher/processor, 40 percent; and motherships, 10 percent. NMFS, under
regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(B), allocates zero mt of pollock for directed fishing by vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear. This action is
based on Council intent to prohibit the use of nonpelagic trawl gear in the directed pollock fishery in 2000 because of concerns of unnecessary
incidental catch with bottom trawl gear in the pollock fishery.
\5\ Regulations at Sec. 679.20(b)(1) do not provide for the establishment of an ITAC for the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation for sablefish. The
ITAC for sablefish reflected in Table 1 is for trawl gear only. Twenty percent of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line gear or pot gear is
reserved for use by CDQ participants (see Sec. 679.31(c)).
\6\ ``Other flatfish'' includes all flatfish species, except for Pacific halibut (a prohibited species), flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole,
yellowfin sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
\7\ ``Other red rockfish'' includes shortraker, rougheye, sharpchin, and northern rockfish.
\8\ ``Other rockfish'' includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, sharpchin, northern, shortraker, and rougheye
rockfish.
\9\ ``Other species'' includes sculpins, sharks, skates and octopus. Forage fish, as defined at Sec. 679.2 are not included in the ``other species''
category.

Reserves and the Incidental Catch Allowance (ICA) for Pollock

Regulations at Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(i) require that 15 percent of the
TAC for each target species or species group, except for the hook-and-
line and pot gear allocation of sablefish, be placed in a non-specified
reserve. The AFA supersedes this provision for pollock by requiring
that the 2000 TAC for this species be fully allocated among the CDQ
program, the ICA, inshore, catcher/processor, and mothership directed
fishery allowances.
Regulations at Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii) require that one-half of each
TAC amount placed in the non-specified reserve be allocated to the
groundfish CDQ reserve and that 20 percent of the hook-and-line and pot
gear allocation of sablefish be allocated to the fixed gear sablefish
CDQ reserve. Section 206(a) of the AFA requires that 10 percent of the
pollock TAC be allocated to the pollock CDQ reserve. With the exception
of the hook-and-line and pot gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the
regulations do not further apportion the CDQ reserves by gear.
Regulations at Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(i) also require that 7.5 percent of
each PSC limit, with the exception of herring, be withheld as a
prohibited species quota (PSQ) reserve for the CDQ fisheries.
Regulations governing the management of the CDQ and PSQ reserves are
set forth at Secs. 679.30 and 679.31.
Pursuant to section 206(b) of the AFA, NMFS allocates a pollock ICA
of 5 percent of the pollock TAC after subtraction of the 10-percent CDQ
reserve. This allowance is based on an examination of the incidental
catch of pollock in non-pollock target fisheries from 1996 through
1999. During this 4-year period, the incidental catch of pollock ranged
from a low of 3 percent in 1998 to a high of about 6 percent in 1997,
with a 4-year average of 5 percent.
The regulations do not designate the remainder of the non-specified
reserve by species or species group, and any amount of the reserve may
be reapportioned to a target species or to the ``other species''
category during the year, providing that such reapportionments do not
result in overfishing. The Regional Administrator has determined that
the ITACs specified for the species listed in Table 2 need to be
supplemented from the non-specified

[[Page 8285]]

reserve because U.S. fishing vessels have demonstrated the capacity to
harvest their full TAC allocations. Therefore, in accordance with
Sec. 679.20(b)(3), NMFS is apportioning the amounts shown in Table 2
from the nonspecified reserve to increase the ITAC to an amount that is
equal to the TAC minus the CDQ reserve.

Table 2.--Apportionment of Reserves to ITAC Categories
[All amounts are in metric tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species--area or subarea Reserve amount Final ITAC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel--Western Aleutian Islands. 2,227 27,472
Atka mackerel--Central Aleutian Islands. 1,852 22,847
Atka mackerel--Eastern Aleutian Is. & 1,230 15,170
Bering Sea subarea.....................
Pacific ocean perch--Western Aleutian 425 5,245
Islands................................
Pacific ocean perch--Central Aleutian 263 3,247
Islands................................
Pacific ocean perch--Eastern Aleutian 234 2,886
Islands................................
Pacific cod--BSAI....................... 14,475 178,525
Shortraker/rougheye rockfish--Aleutian 66 819
Islands................................
Sharpchin/Northern rockfish--Aleutian 386 4,764
Islands................................
Greenland turbot--Bering Sea subarea.... 467 5,764
Greenland turbot--Aleutian Islands...... 230 2,839
-------------------------------
Total............................... 21,855 269,578
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apportionment of Pollock TAC to Vessels Using Nonpelagic Trawl Gear

Regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(B) authorize NMFS, in
consultation with the Council, to limit the amount of pollock that may
be taken in the directed fishery for pollock using nonpelagic trawl
gear. In June 1998, the Council adopted management measures that, if
approved by NMFS, would prohibit the use of nonpelagic trawl gear in
the directed fishery for pollock and reduce specified prohibited
species bycatch limits by amounts equal to anticipated savings in
bycatch or bycatch mortality that would be expected from this
prohibition. These measures could be effective by mid-2000. Therefore,
NMFS allocates zero mt of pollock to non-pelagic trawl gear.

Pollock Allocations Under the AFA

Section 206(a) of the AFA requires the allocation of 10 percent of
the BSAI pollock TAC as a directed fishing allowance to the CDQ
program. The remainder of the BSAI pollock TAC, after the subtraction
of an allowance for the incidental catch of pollock by vessels,
including CDQ vessels, harvesting other groundfish species, must be
allocated as follows: 50 percent to catcher vessels harvesting pollock
for processing by the inshore component, 40 percent to catcher/
processors and catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by
catcher/processors in the offshore component, and 10 percent to catcher
vessels harvesting pollock for processing by motherships in the
offshore component. These amounts are listed in Table 3.
The AFA also contains several specific requirements concerning
pollock and pollock allocations. First, paragraph 210(c) of the AFA
requires that not less than 8.5 percent of the pollock allocated to
vessels for processing by offshore catcher/processors be available for
harvest by offshore catcher vessels listed in section 208(b) harvesting
pollock for processing by offshore catcher/processors listed in
paragraph 208(e). Second, paragraph 208(e)(21) of the AFA specifies
that catcher/processors eligible to fish for pollock under such
paragraph are prohibited from harvesting in the aggregate a total of
more than one-half of a percent (0.5) of the pollock allocated to
vessels for processing by offshore catcher/processors. Other provisions
of the AFA, including inshore pollock cooperative allocations, AFA
catcher vessel harvest limitations, and excessive harvest and
processing shares as well as their rationale are described in the
emergency interim rule that implements the AFA (65 FR 4520; January 28,
2000). Table 3 lists the 2000 allocations of pollock TAC as described
by the AFA.

Implementation of Steller Sea Lion Conservation Measures

In an emergency interim rule published January 25, 2000 (65 FR
3892), NMFS implemented revised final reasonable and prudent
alternatives (RFRPAs) to avoid the likelihood that 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 BSAI and GOA: (1)
Measures to temporally disperse fishing effort, (2) measures to
spatially disperse fishing effort, and (3) measures to provide
sufficient protection from competition with pollock fisheries for prey
in waters immediately adjacent to rookeries and important haulouts.
The emergency rule established a Steller Sea Lion Conservation Area
(SCA) to facilitate regulation of total removals of pollock in an area
considered to be critical to the recovery of the endangered western
population of Steller sea lions. This area was referred to as the
Critical Habitat/Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CH/CVOA) in previous
emergency rulemaking and in the 1999 specifications. The emergency rule
restricts pollock harvests within the SCA to a percentage of each
sector's seasonal allocation as recommended by the Council. The
seasonal apportionments and SCA limits described in Table 3 are
consistent with the requirements of the RFRPAs in order to avoid
jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat.
Additionally, directed fishing for pollock is prohibited within the
Aleutian Islands subarea. The amounts of pollock specified are for
incidental catch only. NMFS determined that this region is especially
sensitive to the recovery of the western population of Steller sea
lions because of the significant reductions in the population over the
past 20 years. The emergency rule also implements fishing closures or
partial closures for 25 sites in the Bering Sea subarea. These fishing
closures alleviate competition for pollock prey resources in critical
foraging areas around Steller sea lion rookeries and haulouts.
NMFS has concluded that these harvest specifications are not an
irreversible or irretrievable commitment

[[Page 8286]]

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, we
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 our 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 our development and
implementation of management measures that avoid competition between
the fisheries and foraging Stellar 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
Stellar 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 and prudent
alternatives that avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the sea lions.
We intend 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.

[[Page 8287]]

Table 3.--Allocations of the Pollock TAC and Directed Fishing Allowance to the Inshore, Catcher/Processor, Mothership, and CDQ Components \1\
[All amounts are in metric tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/B Season C/D Season \2\
Area and sector 2000 DFA -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/B DFA A SCA limit B SCA Limit C/D DFA C SCA Limit D SCA Limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Sea subarea 1,139,000 440,794 166,751 55,497 646,951 48,210 80,142
CDQ...................................................... 113,900 45,560 28,247 9,339 68,340 9,567 15,718
ICA \3\.................................................. 51,257 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
AFA Inshore.............................................. 486,922 194,769 81,802 27,267 292,153 39,440 65,734
AFA C/Ps \4\............................................. 389,537 155,815 38,564 12,854 233,722 0 0
Catch by C/Ps........................................ 356,426 142,570 ........... ........... 213,855 ........... ...........
Catch by CVs \4\..................................... 33,111 13,245 ........... ........... 19,867 ........... ...........
Restricted C/P cap \5\............................... 1,848 779 ........... ........... 1,069 ........... ...........
AFA Motherships.......................................... 97,384 38,954 14,607 4,869 58,430 0 0
Excessive shares cap \6\................................. 170,442 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Aleutian Islands
ICA \7\.................................................. 2,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Bogoslof District
ICA \7\.................................................. 1,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After subtraction for the CDQ reserve and the incidental catch allowance, the pollock TAC is allocated as follows: inshore component--50 percent,
catcher/processor component--40 percent, and mothership component--10 percent. Under paragraph 206(a) of the AFA, the CDQ reserve for pollock is 10
percent. NMFS, under regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(B), allocates zero mt of pollock to nonpelagic trawl gear. This action is based on Council
intent to prohibit the use of nonpelagic trawl gear in 2000 because of concerns of unnecessary incidental catch with bottom trawl gear in the pollock
fishery.
\2\ Emergency interim regulations (65 FR 3892; January 25, 2000) for pollock in the BS subarea which specify A/B and C/D season dates and SCA
limitations, expire on July 19, 2000, before the C/D season is scheduled to begin. Therefore, the C/D season is not authorized unless either the
emergency interim rule is extended, or proposed and final rulemaking is completed.
\3\ The pollock incidental catch allowance for the BS subarea is 5 percent of the TAC after subtraction of the CDQ reserve.
\4\ Subsection 210(c) of the AFA requires that not less than 8.5 percent of the directed fishing allowance allocated to listed catcher/processors (C/Ps)
shall be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels (CVs) delivering to listed catcher/processors.
\5\ The AFA requires that vessels described in section 208(e)(21) be prohibited from exceeding a harvest amount of one-half of 1 percent of the directed
fishing allowance allocated to vessels for processing by AFA catcher/processors.
\6\ Paragraph 210(e)(1) of the AFA specifies that ``No particular individual, corporation, or other entity may harvest, through a fishery cooperative or
otherwise, a total of more than 17.5 percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the directed pollock fishery.''
\7\ Consistent with the revised final RPAs, the Aleutian Islands subarea and the Bogoslof District are closed to directed fishing for pollock. The
amounts specified are for incidental catch amounts only, and are not apportioned by season or sector.

[[Page 8288]]

Allocation of the Atka Mackerel TAC

Due to concerns about the potential impact of the Atka mackerel
fishery on Steller sea lions and their critical habitat, NMFS issued
regulations that implement temporal and spatial dispersion of fishing
effort in the Atka mackerel fisheries. Regulations at 50 CFR
679.20(a)(8)(ii) apportion the Atka mackerel ITAC into two equal
seasonal allowances. The first allowance is made available for directed
fishing from January 1 to April 15 (A season), and the second seasonal
allowance is made available from September 1 to November 1 (B season)
as shown in Table 4. According to Sec. 679.22(a)(8), fishing with trawl
gear in areas defined as Steller sea lion critical habitat (see Figure
4 of 50 CFR part 226) within the Western and Central Aleutian Islands
subareas, is prohibited during each Atka mackerel season after
specified percentages of the TAC are harvested within designated
critical habitat areas. In 2000, the specified percentage of each
seasonal allowance within critical habitat is 57 percent in the Western
Aleutian Islands and 67 percent in the Central Aleutian Islands
(Sec. 679.22(a)(8)(iii)(B)). A Steller sea lion critical habitat
closure to fishing with trawl gear within an area will remain in effect
until NMFS closes Atka mackerel to directed fishing within the same
area. The regulations do not establish critical habitat closures based
on Atka mackerel catch percentages inside critical habitat areas for
the Eastern Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea subarea.
Under Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(i), up to 2 percent of the Eastern Aleutian
Islands district and the Bering Sea subarea Atka mackerel ITAC may be
allocated to the jig gear fleet. The Council determines the amount of
this allocation annually, based on several criteria including the
anticipated harvest capacity of the jig gear fleet. At its December
1999 meeting, the Council recommended that 1 percent of the Atka
mackerel TAC in the Eastern Aleutian Islands district/Bering Sea
subarea be allocated to the jig gear fleet based on historic harvest
capacity of the fleet. NMFS finds that this is consistent with the
status of the stock and with the regulatory framework stated earlier in
this document. Based on an ITAC of 15,170 mt, the jig gear allocation
is 152 mt.

[[Page 8289]]

Table 4.--Seasonal and Spatial Apportionments, Gear Shares, and CDQ Reserve of the BSAI ATKA Mackerel TAC
[All amounts are in metric tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal apportionment
---------------------------------------------------
Subarea and Component TAC CDQ reserve ITAC A Season ² B Season ³
---------------------------------------------------
Total CH Limit ⁴ Total CH Limit ⁴
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Aleutian Islands..................................... 29,700 2,227 27,473 13,736 7,829 13,736 7,829
Central Aleutian Islands..................................... 24,700 1,852 22,848 11,424 7,654 11,424 7,654
Eastern AI/BS subarea⁵....................................... 16,400 1,230 15,170
Jig (1%)⁶................................................ 152
Other gear (99%)......................................... 15,018 7,509 7,509 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 70,800 5,309 65,491 32,669 32,669
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ The reserves have been released for Atka mackerel see (Table 2).
¹ The seasonal apportionment of Atka mackerel is 50 percent in the A season and 50 percent in the B season.
² January 1 through April 15.
³ September 1 through November 1.
⁴ Critical habitat (CH) allowance refers to the amount of each seasonal allowance that is available for fishing inside critical habitat (Figure 4 of 50
CFR part 226). In 2000, the percentage of each seasonal allowance available for fishing inside critical habitat is 57 percent in the Western AI and 67
percent in the Central AI. When these critical habitat allowances are reached, critical habitat areas will be closed to trawling until NMFS closes
Atka mackerel to directed fishing within the same district.
⁵ Eastern Aleutian Islands District and Bering Sea subarea.
⁶ Regulations at Sec. 679.20 (a)(8) require that up to 2 percent of the Eastern AI area ITAC be allocated to the Jig gear fleet. The amount of this
allocation is 1 percent and was determined by the Council based on anticipated harvest capacity of the jig gear fleet. The jig gear allocation is not
apportioned by season.

[[Page 8290]]

Allocation of the Pacific Cod TAC

Under Sec. 679.20(a)(7), 2 percent of the Pacific cod ITAC is
allocated to vessels using jig gear, 51 percent to vessels using hook-
and-line or pot gear, and 47 percent to vessels using trawl gear. Under
Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(b), the portion of the Pacific cod TAC allocated to
trawl gear is further allocated 50 percent to catcher vessels and 50
percent to catcher/processors. In December 1999, the Council
recommended seasonal allowances for the portion of the Pacific cod TAC
allocated to the hook-and-line and pot gear fisheries. The seasonal
allowances are authorized under Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(iv) and are based on
the criteria set forth at Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(B). They are intended
to provide for the harvest of Pacific cod when flesh quality and market
conditions are optimum and when Pacific halibut bycatch rates are low.
Table 5 lists the 2000 allocations and seasonal apportionments of the
Pacific cod ITAC. Consistent with Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(C), any portion
of the first seasonal allowance of the hook-and-line and pot gear
allocation that is not harvested by the end of the first season will
become available on September 1, the beginning of the third season.

Table 5.--Gear Shares and Seasonal Apportionments of the BSAI Pacific Cod TAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal apportionment
Gear Percent Share of ITAC -------------------------------
of ITAC (mt)¹ Date Amount (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jig.................................................. 2 3,571 Jan 1-Dec 31 3,571
Hook-and-line/pot gear............................... 51 91,048 ² Jan 1-Apr 30 65,000
May 1-Aug 31 0
Sept 1-Dec 31 26,048
Trawl gear........................................... 47 83,905 Jan 1-Dec 31 83,905
Catcher vessels (50%)............................ ......... 41,953
Catcher/processors (50%)......................... ......... 41,953 .............. ..............
Total........................................ 100 178,525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ For Pacific cod in the BSAI, the reserve has been released (see Table 2).
² Any unused portion of the first seasonal Pacific cod allowance specified for the Pacific cod hook-and-line or
pot gear fishery will be reapportioned to the third seasonal allowance.

In October 1999, the Council also adopted an FMP amendment that
would further allocate the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation among
different sectors of the fixed gear fleet. If NMFS approves this
amendment, after public notice and comment, the 2000 harvest
specifications would be revised accordingly.

Allocation of the Shortraker and Rougheye Rockfish TAC

Under Sec. 679.20(a)(9), the ITAC of shortraker rockfish and
rougheye rockfish specified for the Aleutian Islands subarea is
allocated 30 percent to vessels using non-trawl gear and 70 percent to
vessels using trawl gear. Based on a 2000 ITAC of 819 mt, the trawl
allocation would be 573 mt and the non-trawl allocation would be 246
mt.

Sablefish Gear Allocation

Regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(4) (iii) and (iv) require that
sablefish TACs for the BSAI subareas be allocated between trawl and
hook-and-line or pot gear types. Gear allocations of TACs for the
Bering Sea subarea are 50 percent for trawl gear and 50 percent for
hook-and-line/pot gear and for the Aleutian Islands subarea, 25 percent
for trawl gear, 75 percent for hook-and-line/pot gear. Regulations at
Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(B) require that 20 percent of the hook-and-line
and pot gear allocation of sablefish be reserved as sablefish CDQ.
Additionally, regulations at Sec. 679.20(b)(iii)(A) require that 7.5
percent of the trawl gear allocation of sablefish (one half of the
reserve) be reserved as groundfish CDQ. Gear allocations of the
sablefish TAC and CDQ reserve amounts are specified in Table 6.

Table 6.--Gear Shares and CDQ Reserve of BSAI Sablefish TAC
[All amounts are in metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Share of CDQ
Subarea and Gear of TAC TAC ITAC \1\ reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Sea
Trawl \2\....................................................... 50 735 624 55
Hook-&-line/pot gear \3\........................................ 50 735 N/A 147
-------------------------------------------
Total........................................................... 100 1,470 624 202
-------------------------------------------
Aleutian Islands
Trawl \2\....................................................... 25 607 515 45
Hook-&-line/pot gear\3\......................................... 75 1,823 N/A 364
Total........................................................... 100 2,430 515 409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except for the sablefish hook-and-line and pot gear allocation, 15 percent of TAC is apportioned to reserve.
The ITAC is the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of these reserves.
\2\ For the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to vessels using trawl gear, one half of the reserve (7.5
percent of the specified TAC) is reserved for the multi-species CDQ program.
\3\ For the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear, 20 percent of the
allocated TAC is reserved for use by CDQ participants. Regulations in Sec. 679.20(b)(1) do not provide for
the establishment of an ITAC for sablefish allocated to hook-and-line or pot gear.

[[Page 8291]]

Allocation of Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) Limits for Halibut,
Crab, and Herring

PSC limits for halibut are set forth in regulations at
Sec. 679.21(e). For the BSAI trawl fisheries, the limit is 3,775 mt
mortality of Pacific halibut. For non-trawl fisheries, the limit is 900
mt mortality. PSC limits for crab and herring are specified annually
based on abundance and spawning biomass.
The criteria for determining the PSC limits for red king crab in
zone 1 are set forth at Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(ii). For 2000, the PSC limit
of red king crab in Zone 1 for trawl vessels is 100,000 animals. The
number of mature female red king crab was estimated in 1999 to be above
the threshold of 8.4 million animals, and the effective spawning
biomass is estimated to be 47.1 million pounds (21,364 mt), which is
less than the 55 million pound (24,948 mt) threshold level. Based on
the criteria set out at Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(ii)(B), the limit is 100,000
animals.
The criteria for determining the PSC limits for C. bairdi crabs are
set forth in Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(iii). The 2000 C. bairdi PSC limit for
trawl gear is 900,000 animals in Zone 1 and 2,550,000 animals in Zone
2. These limits are based on survey data from 1999. In Zone 1, C.
bairdi abundance was estimated to be greater than 270 million and less
than 400 million animals. In Zone 2, C. bairdi abundance was estimated
to be greater than 290 million animals and less than 400 million
animals.
Under Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(iv), the PSC limit for C. opilio is based
on total abundance as indicated by the NMFS annual bottom trawl survey.
The C. opilio PSC limit is set at 0.1133 percent of the Bering Sea
abundance index, with a minimum PSC of 4.5 million animals and a
maximum PSC of 13 million animals. Based on the 1999 survey estimate of
1.4 billion animals, the calculated limit would be 1,586,000 animals.
Because this limit falls below the minimum level of 4.5 million, under
Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(iv)(B), the 2000 C. opilio PSC limit is 4.5 million
animals.
Under Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(vi), the PSC limit of Pacific herring
caught while conducting any trawl operation for groundfish in the BSAI
is 1 percent of the annual eastern Bering Sea herring biomass. NMFS'
best estimate of 2000 herring biomass is 185,300 mt. This amount was
derived using 1999 survey data and an age-structured biomass projection
model developed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
Therefore, the herring PSC limit for 2000 is 1,853 mt.
Under Sec. 679.21(e)(1)(i), 7.5 percent of each PSC limit specified
for crab and halibut is reserved as a PSQ reserve for use by the
groundfish CDQ program. Regulations at Sec. 679.21(e)(3) require the
apportionment of each trawl PSC limit into PSC bycatch allowances for
seven specified fishery categories. Regulations at
Sec. 679.21(e)(4)(ii) authorize the apportionment of the non-trawl
halibut PSC limit among five fishery categories. The fishery bycatch
allowances for the trawl and non-trawl fisheries are listed in Table 7.
Regulations at Sec. 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B) establish criteria by which
NMFS must specify an annual red king crab bycatch limit for the Red
King Crab Savings Subarea (RKCSS). The regulations limit the RKCSS to
35 percent of the trawl bycatch allowance specified for the rock sole/
flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category and must be based on
the need to optimize the groundfish harvest relative to red king crab
bycatch. The Council recommended and NMFS is approving a red king crab
bycatch limit of 35 percent within the RKCSS in order to maximize the
harvest of groundfish relative to red king crab bycatch.
Regulations at Sec. 679.21(e)(4)(ii) authorize exemption of
specified non-trawl fisheries from the halibut PSC limit. As in past
years, NMFS after consultation with the Council, is exempting pot gear,
jig gear, and the sablefish IFQ hook-and-line gear fishery categories
from halibut bycatch restrictions because these fisheries use selective
gear types that take few halibut compared to other gear types such as
nonpelagic trawl. In 1999, total groundfish catch for the pot gear
fishery in the BSAI was approximately 17,082 mt with an associated
halibut bycatch mortality of about 3 mt. The 1999 groundfish jig gear
fishery harvested about 172 mt of groundfish. Most vessels in the jig
gear fleet are less than 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall and are exempt
from observer coverage requirements. As a result, observer data are not
available on halibut bycatch in the jig gear fishery. However, NMFS
assumes a negligible amount of halibut bycatch mortality because of the
selective nature of this gear type and the likelihood that halibut
caught with jig gear have a high survival rate when released.
As in past years, the Council recommended that the sablefish IFQ
fishery be exempt from halibut bycatch restrictions because of the
sablefish and halibut IFQ program (subpart D of 50 CFR part 679). The
sablefish IFQ program requires legal-sized halibut to be retained by
vessels using hook-and-line gear if a halibut IFQ permit holder is
aboard and is holding unused halibut IFQ. NMFS is approving the
Council's recommendation. This action results in less halibut discard
in the sablefish fishery. In 1995, about 36 mt of halibut discard
mortality was estimated for the sablefish IFQ fishery. A similar
estimate for 1996 through 1999 has not been calculated, but NMFS has no
information indicating that it would be significantly different.
Regulations at Sec. 679.21(e)(5) authorize NMFS, after consultation
with the Council, to establish seasonal apportionments of PSC amounts
in order maximize the ability of the fleet to harvest the available
groundfish TAC and to minimize bycatch. The factors to be considered
are (1) seasonal distribution of prohibited species, (2) seasonal
distribution of target groundfish species, (3) PSC bycatch needs on a
seasonal basis relevant to prohibited species biomass, (4) expected
variations in bycatch rates throughout the year, (5) expected start of
fishing effort, and (6) economic effects of seasonal PSC apportionments
on industry sectors. At its December meeting, the Council's AP
recommended seasonal PSC apportionments in order to maximize harvest
among gear types, fisheries, and seasons while minimizing bycatch of
PSC based upon the above factors. NMFS is approving the PSC
apportionments specified in Table 7.
The trawl PSC limits for Pacific halibut and crab are subject to
change in 2000 pending approval by NMFS of a proposed prohibition of
non-pelagic trawl gear in the BSAI directed pollock fishery and
associated downward adjustments to the halibut and crab PSC limits. A
proposed rule implementing these adjustments was published December 29,
1999 (64 FR 73003). Under the proposed rule, the 2000 halibut and crab
PSC limits for the BSAI trawl fisheries would be as follows: Halibut,
3,675 mt; Zone 1 red king crab, 97,000 animals; C. opilio, 4,350,000
animals; C. bairdi Zone 1, 830,000; and

[[Page 8292]]

C. bairdi Zone 2, 2,520,000 animals. If approved by NMFS, these PSC
limits would be established as part of the final rule implementing the
non-pelagic trawl prohibition and the 2000 PSC specifications would be
amended accordingly.

Table 7.--Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowances for the BSAI Trawl and Non-Trawl Fisheries \1\
[All amounts are in metric tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited Species and Zone
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut C. bairdi (animals) \2\
mortality Herring Red King Crab C. opilio -------------------------------
(mt) BSA (mt) BSAI (animals) Zone (animals)
\2\ 1 \2\ COBLZ \2\ \3\ Zone 1 Zone 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl Fisheries
Yellowfin sole.................................................... 910 169 12,015 2,975,771 295,708 1,532,715
January 20-March 31........................................... 269 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
April 1-May 20................................................ 201 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
May 21-July 3................................................. 50 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
July 4-December 31............................................ 390 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Rocksole/oth.flat/flat sole \4\................................... 800 24 43,392 899,932 316,780 510,905
January 20-March 31........................................... 460 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
April 1-July 3................................................ 168 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
July 4-December 31............................................ 172 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Turbot/sablefish/arrowtooth \5\................................... ......... 11 .............. 42,458 .............. ..............
Rockfish (July 4-December 31) \6\................................. 71 9 .............. 42,458 .............. 10,143
Pacific cod....................................................... 1,473 24 12,016 127,789 158,587 279,041
Pollock/Atka/other \7\............................................ 238 1,616 1,711 74,092 15,175 25,946
RKC savings subarea \4\........................................... ......... ......... 23,366 .............. .............. ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Trawl PSC........................................... 3,492 1,853 92,500 4,162,500 786,250 2,358,750
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Trawl Fisheries
Pacific cod--Total................................................ 748 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Jan. 1-April 30 \8\........................................... 457 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
May 1-August 31............................................... 0 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Sept. 1-Dec. 31................................................... 291 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Other non-trawl Total............................................. 84 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
May 1-December 31................................................. 84 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Groundfish pot & jig.............................................. Exempt ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Sablefish hook-&-line............................................. Exempt ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Total Non-Trawl........................................... 833 ......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSQ Reserve \9\........................................... 351 ......... 7,500 337,500 63,750 191,250
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................................... 4,675 1,853 100,000 4,500,000 850,000 2,550,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refer to Sec. 679.2 for definitions of areas.
\2\ On December 29, 1999, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 73003), that if adopted, would reduce the overall PSC limits by
the following amounts: halibut mortality 100 mt, red king crabs 3,000 animals, C. bairdi crabs 50,000 animals, and C. opilio crabs 150,000 animals.
NMFS would implement these reductions in the final rule.
\3\ C. opilioBycatch Limitation Zone. Boundaries are defined at Sec. 679.21 (e)(7)(iv)(B).
\4\ The Council, at its December 1999 meeting, limited red king crab for trawl fisheries within the RKCSS to 35 percent of the total allocation to the
rock sole, flathead sole, and other flatfish fishery category (Sec. 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B)).
\5\ Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder, and sablefish fishery category.
\6\ The Council, at its December 1999 meeting, apportioned the rockfish PSC amounts from July 4-December 31, to prevent fishing for rockfish before July
4, 2000.
\7\ Pollock, Atka mackerel, and ``other species fishery category.
\8\ Any unused halibut PSC from the first trimester may be rolled over into the third trimester.
\9\ With the exception of herring, 7.5 percent of each PSC limit is allocated to the multi-species CDQ program as PSQ reserve. The PSQ reserve is not
allocated by fishery, gear, or season.

To monitor halibut bycatch mortality allowances and apportionments,
the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), will
use observed halibut bycatch rates, assumed mortality rates, and
estimates of groundfish catch to project when a fishery's halibut
bycatch mortality allowance or seasonal apportionment is reached. The
Regional Administrator monitors a fishery's halibut bycatch mortality
allowances using assumed mortality rates that are based on the best
information available, including information contained in the annual
SAFE report.
The Council recommended, and NMFS concurs, that the assumed halibut
mortality rates developed by staff of the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC) for the 2000 BSAI groundfish fisheries, and set forth
in Table 8, be adopted for purposes of monitoring halibut bycatch
allowances established for 2000. The justification for these mortality
rates is discussed in the final SAFE report dated November 1999.

Table 8.--Assumed Pacific Halibut Mortality Rates for the BSAI Fisheries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed
Fishery mortality
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hook-and-line gear fisheries:
Rockfish................................................. 28
Pacific cod.............................................. 11

[[Page 8293]]

Greenland turbot......................................... 20
Sablefish................................................ 23
Other Species............................................ 11
Trawl gear fisheries:
Midwater pollock......................................... 87
Non-pelagic pollock...................................... 76
Yellowfin sole........................................... 81
Rock sole................................................ 79
Flathead sole............................................ 64
Other flatfish........................................... 75
Rockfish................................................. 64
Pacific cod.............................................. 66
Atka mackerel............................................ 81
Greenland turbot......................................... 81
Sablefish................................................ 23
Other species............................................ 66
Pot gear fisheries:
Pacific cod.............................................. 9
Other species............................................ 9
CDQ fisheries:
Trawl midwater pollock................................... 90
Trawl non-pelagic pollock................................ 90
Hook-and-line Pacific cod................................ 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Entity Compliance Guide

The following information is a plain language guide to assist small
entities in complying with this rule as required by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule's primary
management measures are to announce final 2000 harvest specifications
and prohibited species bycatch allowances for the groundfish fishery of
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. 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 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area. This
action affects all fishermen who participate in the BSAI 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 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 which 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 superceded 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 Gulf of Alaska (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 and based on the best
available scientific information. Unfortunately that information was
not available in time for NMFS to complete a notice-and-comment
rulemaking before January as the commenter suggested. 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, the procedures include
multiple Plan Team meetings open to the public and multiple Council
meetings in which public comment is solicited, and provide adequate
opportunity for the public to comment and participate effectively.
NMFS agrees that the process should be improved and has already
spent considerable time exploring different options including changing
the calendar dates of the fishing year or creating a framework process
which 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 maximum sustainable
yield, so as to achieve the long-term optimum yield. 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 violated 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

[[Page 8294]]

under the fishery management plans 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 question is answered by the
statutory definition of optimum yield (OY), which clearly allows OY to
be set as high as the 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 fishery management
plans is being subjected to an inappropriate harvest rate, and that no
stock managed under these fishery management plans is overfished (C.
bairdi tanner crab, C. opilio snow crab, and St. Matthew blue king crab
are considered overfished under a separate fishery management plan).
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
overfishing level (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 B MSY level (Tiers 1-2) or B
40 (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 fishery management plans 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 (section 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

[[Page 8295]]

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,
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 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 included 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 guideline harvest level (GHL) for
Snow crab is 28.5 million pounds 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 crab, 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 fishery management plans 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
fishery management 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' 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.

[[Page 8296]]

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 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 fishery
management plan 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 a fishery
management plan 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 measures change.
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 Executive Order 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

[[Page 8297]]

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 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 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 optimum yield 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.
The six Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups are comprised of
64 small governmental jurisdictions with direct involvement in
groundfish CDQ fisheries that are within the RFA definition of small
entities. Based on 1998 data, NMFS estimates less than 280 small
entities harvest groundfish in the BSAI.
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.
This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for the BSAI
groundfish fisheries for the 2000 fishing year. The groundfish
fisheries in the BSAI 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 U.S.C.
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. 00-3912 Filed 2-15-00; 2:50 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Final 2000 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish

Local Navigation