![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pelagic Fisheries, Amendment 8; Crustacean Fisheries, Amendment 10; Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries, Amendment 6; Precious Corals Fisheries, Amendment 4
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 5, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46112-46116]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05au03-9]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[I.D. 032703B]
RIN 0648-AN79, 0648-AP54, 0648-AP55
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific;
Pelagic Fisheries, Amendment 8; Crustacean Fisheries, Amendment 10;
Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries, Amendment 6; Precious
Corals Fisheries, Amendment 4
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of agency decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the approval of four supplemental amendments to
Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Precious Coral
Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Amendment 4); Amendment 6 to
the FMP for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the
Western Pacific Region (Amendment 6); Amendment 8 to the
[[Page 46113]]
FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Amendment
8); and Amendment 10 to the FMP for the Crustacean Fisheries of the
Western Pacific Region (Amendment 10). The supplemental amendments make
the four FMPs consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (SFA).
DATES: This agency decision is effective July 3, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the supplemental FMP amendments, including the
Environmental Assessment may be obtained from Ms. Kitty Simonds,
Executive Director, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Dalzell, Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council, at 808-522-8220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 3, 2003, NMFS approved supplemental
amendments to FMP Amendment 4, Amendment 6, Amendment 8, and Amendment
10 to address portions of previously submitted amendments that were
disapproved by NMFS in 1999 because of inconsistency with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, as amended by the SFA. Generally, the amendments pertain
to overfishing definitions and control rules for the bottomfish and
seamount groundfish, pelagics, and crustacean FMPs; bycatch provisions
for fisheries operating under the bottomfish and seamount groundfish
and pelagic FMPs; and definitions for ``fishing communities'' in Hawaii
under the bottomfish and seamount groundfish, pelagics, crustaceans,
and precious corals FMPs. The supplemental FMP amendments do not revise
the existing management regime; therefore, rulemaking is not required.
Additional background information may be found in the preamble to the
Notice of Availability for the supplemental FMP amendments (68 FR
16754, April 7, 2003) and is not presented here.
Comments and Responses
Comment 1: NMFS received comments urging the Secretary of Commerce
to enforce the conservation measures in the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve (Reserve).
Response: The supplemental FMP amendments do not contain management
measures that affect management of the Reserve. The specification of
status determination criteria for overfishing established for the four
FMPs governing the fisheries in the western Pacific region, including
American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, do not have an impact on Executive Order 13178 and
Executive Order 13196, which created the Reserve. These criteria, which
are consistent with NMFS' national guidelines, do not in themselves
require that fishing take place or that it takes place at any
particular level. NMFS recognizes that the Executive Orders are
currently in effect, including Reserve Preservation Areas and certain
other conservation measures that either completely prohibit fishing or
allow fishing in accordance with restrictions that are applicable in
the Reserve.
Comment 2: One commenter stated that the supplemental amendments
provided incorrect information about the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, specifically that they quoted Section
7(a)(1)(C) of Executive Order 13178 while failing to note that section
had been revised by Executive Order 13196, giving it a different
meaning.
Response: NMFS concurs that the supplemental FMP amendments could
provide a better description of the Executive Orders. Clarification is
provided here. Consistent with Executive Order 13196, Section
7(a)(1)(C) of Executive Order 13178 specifies that:
``(C) The annual level of aggregate take under all permits of any
particular type of fishing may not exceed the aggregate level of take
under all permits of that type of fishing as follows:
(1) Bottomfishing the annual aggregate level for each permitted
bottomfisher shall be that permittee's individual average taken over
the 5 years preceding December 4, 2000, as determined by the Secretary,
provided that the Secretary, in furtherance of the principles of the
reserve, may make a one-time reasonable increase to the total aggregate
to allow for the use of two Native Hawaiian bottomfishing permits;
(2) All other commercial fishing the annual aggregate level shall
be the permittee's individual take in the year preceding December 4,
2000, as determined by the Secretary.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that the overfishing criteria
specified in the crustaceans FMP are not consistent with the Executive
Orders establishing the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef
Ecosystem Reserve, specifically Section 7 (a)(1)(C) of Executive Order
13178. The commenter believes that the proper interpretation of that
section is that lobster fishing is prohibited within the Reserve, and
recommends that the discussion of overfishing and control rules for the
commercial lobster fishery be removed from the supplemental amendments
unless it is clear that they pertain only to areas outside the Reserve.
Response: The preferred alternative of status determination
criteria in the supplemental FMP amendments do not introduce any
inconsistencies or conflicts with the Executive Orders that established
the Reserve. These criteria do not in themselves mandate that
commercial lobster fishing take place or that it takes place at any
particular level. They only describe how overfishing would be defined,
as expressed in terms of the two thresholds: the minimum stock size
threshold and the maximum fishing mortality threshold. These
definitions are consistent with NMFS' national guidelines
Comment 4: One commenter stated that the environmental assessments
for the three supplemental FMP amendments did not consider a wide
enough range of alternatives with respect to the overfishing criteria
(including alternative proxies that could be used in those criteria)
and the target and rebuilding control rules and associated reference
points.
Response: The preferred alternative (control rules and thresholds)
in the supplemental FMP amendments is scientifically sound and
consistent with the applicable guidelines. NMFS scientists assisted the
Council in developing status determination criteria (overfishing
definitions), guided by the ``Technical Guidance on the Use of
Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.'' (NOAA
Technical Memo NMFS-F/SPO-31, August 1998). NMFS recognizes that
relatively few alternatives were considered, but finds that the range
was adequate given the number of reasonable alternatives that were
available. That number is relatively small because of the limited data
that are available for the stocks. For example, in the case of the
Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP, for which the commenter was
specifically concerned about the failure to consider alternative
proxies other than catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), the data-poor nature
of the stocks in much of the region means that very few proxies for
biomass other than CPUE would be practical.
Comment 5: One commenter stated that a programmatic environmental
impact statement on the associated fisheries should be prepared in
order to ensure that, in the face of existing uncertainties, the
fishery management
[[Page 46114]]
regimes for these fisheries are conducted in an environmentally sound
manner.
Response: A final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the
Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western
Pacific Region was completed in March 2001. A supplemental pelagic
fisheries EIS has been proposed to cover additional issues, such as the
potential development of a pelagic squid fishery based in Hawaii. Draft
EISs for the Council's Bottomfish, Crustaceans, and Precious Corals
Fishery Management Plans are either under review by NMFS or under
preparation. NMFS will consider the need for a programmatic EIS apart
from these supplemental amendments.
Comment 6: One commenter stated that the definitions of
``overfished'' and ``overfishing'' should be broadened to account for
adverse effects from ecosystem overfishing and control rules and other
management procedures should be developed that require consistent,
rigorous, and systematic evaluation of potential adverse effects of
fishing activities.
Response: The recommendation to expand the definitions of
``overfished'' and ``overfishing'' is acknowledged, but these
supplemental FMP amendments are not the appropriate place to implement
such changes. In NMFS' National Standard Guidelines, stock or stock
complex is used synonymously for ``fishery''; that is, as one or more
stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit for the purposes of
conservation and management and that are identified on the basis of
geographic, scientific, technical, recreational, or economic
characteristics. The guidelines make the terms operational by requiring
that FMPs specify, to the extent possible, objective and measurable
status determination criteria, including control rules, for each stock
or stock complex. The criteria must specify both a maximum fishing
mortality threshold (MFMT) and a minimum stock size threshold (MSST),
or reasonable proxies thereof. NMFS finds that the supplemental FMP
amendments satisfy these requirements.
Comment 7: One commenter stated that the supplemental amendments do
not include a suitable discussion of seamount groundfish species;
specifically, what it means exactly that armorhead will serve as an
indicator species for the other seamount groundfish species.
Response: Seamount groundfish management unit species in the
Fishery Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish
Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Bottomfish FMP) include only
alfonsin (Beryx splendens), raftfish (Hyperoglyphe japonica)), and
armorhead (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni), and of these three species
armorhead dominated the historical catch by number, weight, and value.
Armorhead is the primary target species in this fishery, which has been
closed since 1986. Regarding indicator species, NMFS will manage this
fishery on the basis of established reference points for the armorhead
(indicator species or key target species) and, to the extent possible,
manage the other minor species based on the indicator species.
Comment 8: One commenter stated that using a single natural
mortality rate of 0.3 for the entire bottomfish species complex would
likely be inaccurate for many of the species; additional alternatives
should be considered.
Response: The supplemental FMP amendments for the bottomfish FMP
specify that a single natural mortality rate (M) will be used to assess
the status of multi-species stock complexes in cases where individual
species cannot be assessed, but it does not specify that a natural
mortality rate of 0.3 will be used. Instead, the latest available
estimate will be used, and the range of M among species within a stock
complex will be taken into consideration.
Comment 9: Several commenters questioned the use of multi-species
complexes. One commenter stated that individual species should not be
combined into complexes for the purpose of allowing fishing on those
complexes or assessing the effects of fishing on them. One commenter
stated that the use of the mixed stock exception in the national
standard guidelines is an inappropriate manner in which to manage
marine fish species, that it is contrary to the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that it should not be considered in the
amendments. One commenter stated that consideration should be given to
breaking down the bottomfish complex into at least three components
based on families or other applicable subdivisions as an interim step
towards generating individual species status determination criteria.
Response: The overfishing criteria and control rules will be
applied to individual species whenever possible, and only where it is
not possible will they be applied to indicator species or multi-species
complexes. The fishery that targets the bottomfish species complexes
fishes simultaneously for many different species. Although catch data
by species are available, NMFS does not have fishing effort data on a
species-by-species basis. Since fishing effort cannot be partitioned
among the various species, a multi-species approach to the overfishing
assessment will be used, consistent with the National Standard
Guidelines.
Comment 10: One commenter stated that the supplemental amendment
for bottomfish and seamount groundfish provides an unclear definition
of the minimum stock size threshold (MSST); specifically, no
information is given to clarify the meaning of the phrase ``c = max (1-
M, 0.5).''
Response: In the specifications of the MSST and MFMT, c is a scaler
that modifies Bmsy. The phrase ``c = max (1-M, 0.5)'' means
that c is equal to whichever is greater, 1-M or 0.5, where M is the
natural mortality rate or instantaneous natural mortality rate. If M is
greater than or equal to 0.5, then c is equal to 0.5; if M is less than
0.5, then c is equal to 1-M.
Comment 11: One commenter stated that the supplemental amendments
need to specify objective and measurable status determination criteria,
not merely a framework for doing so.
Response: NMFS finds that the supplemental FMP amendments do more
than establish a framework for specifying objective and measurable
status determination criteria; they actually specify those criteria,
including the MSST and the MFMT, and they do so largely following the
default recommendations in NMFS' ``Technical Guidance on the Use of
Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.''
Comment 12: One commenter stated that for the pelagic stocks, since
the fishing mortality rate associated with maximum sustainable yield (F
at MSY), the biomass associated with MSY (B at MSY), and the natural
mortality rate (M) can be directly estimated for some species, the
supplemental amendments should state where this information is
available and propose a range of values for public consideration.
Response: Although M, F at MSY, and B at MSY have been estimated
and are currently available for some of the pelagic stocks, the Council
has determined that rather than specifying such values in the Pelagics
FMP and treating them as constants, the preferred method is to use the
best available estimate of each of them at the time of a given
assessment. NMFS agrees that this is a sound approach, both because
they are in fact variables that are subject to change and because our
ability to
[[Page 46115]]
estimate them is likely to improve with time. The latest available
values will be published in the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
report, which for the pelagics fisheries is the Council's Annual Report
on Pelagic Fisheries in the Western Pacific. To give an idea of the
range of values that is likely to be used in the assessments, the
supplemental FMP amendments refer to previous estimates that have been
made.
Comment 13: Several commenters stated that the supplemental
amendments should include additional information on stock status;
methods of assessment, including a discussion of the methodologies to
be used in estimating biomass for the crustacean stocks; potential
sources of error, bias, and uncertainty; and the potential consequences
of such information (or lack thereof) on management of fisheries at low
stock levels.
Response: The supplemental FMP amendments do not provide detailed
information regarding available information on stock status; methods of
assessment (including assessment of biomass for crustacean stocks);
potential sources of error, bias, and uncertainty; and the potential
consequences of such information on management of fisheries at low
stock levels. The supplemental amendments focus on establishing a
control rule framework within which stock assessments would be
performed rather than describing the operational aspects of stock
assessment. By prescribing assessment methods and information sources
in only general terms, the supplemental amendments implicitly allow
flexibility in those methods and information sources. As stated in the
supplemental FMP amendments, the best available information will be
used in the stock assessments. The sources of error, bias, and
uncertainty associated with a given assessment will be identified and
evaluated to the extent necessary at the time of the assessment, as
will their implications in terms of the overfishing thresholds and
other reference points and the possible need for management action, as
prescribed by the control rules.
Comment 14: Several commenters questioned the use of catch-per-
unit-effort (CPUE) as a proxy in the status determination criteria. One
commenter stated that the various sources of bias related to CPUE make
its use as a measure of fishing mortality rate and stock biomass
unacceptable, and that before any fisheries on these stocks are
initiated or expanded, NMFS should develop reliable methods for
assessing stock status and fishing mortality rate. One commenter stated
that the supplemental amendments for the bottomfish and pelagics FMPs
should include a full discussion of the use of CPUE as a proxy for
status determination criteria, including how it will be estimated, how
CPUE or fishing effort will be used to estimate an unfished biomass,
optimum yield (OY) or MSY level, how the use of CPUE will avoid the
pitfalls or make the adjustments presented in the Technical Guidance,
and consideration of alternative proxies.
Response: NMFS agrees that using CPUE as an indicator of stock
biomass is associated with some uncertainty and biases. However, the
same is true with all stock assessment methods; there is no practical
way to directly measure stock biomass. As indicated in the supplemental
FMP amendments, the CPUE estimates will be standardized for all
identifiable biases, as will the fishing effort estimates that will be
used as proxies for fishing mortality.
Comment 15: One commenter stated that because the supplemental
amendments for bottomfish and seamount groundfish and for pelagics do
not specify an OY and the supplemental amendment for crustaceans does
not specify a biomass at the OY level, the supplemental amendments are
inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the
National Standard Guidelines.
Response: OY has already been specified in each of the FMPs
(bottomfish/seamount groundfish, precious corals, crustaceans, and
pelagics. The supplemental FMP amendments for the bottomfish and
pelagics fisheries do not modify the existing specifications; that is,
they do not specify target controls rules that would be associated with
those OY specifications. The Council has determined that it would be
preferable to continue to manage the fisheries using the existing
qualitative OY specifications rather than specifying new OY control
rules and associated reference points (e.g., that would be expressed in
terms of target harvest levels, target fishing mortality, or target
biomass). One reason cited is the lack of information available to
quantitatively determine OY and its associated fishing mortality rate
with any useful degree of precision. Because of that lack of
information, specification of a target control rule could unnecessarily
constrain the FMPs' existing definitions of OY. The Council has
determined that it would be preferable not to specify an OY control
rule at this time rather than to specify one that is likely to be
poorly related to actual OY. Although NMFS finds that the specification
of OY control rules can, in some cases, be useful in satisfying the
objectives associated with National Standard 1, especially for
fisheries in which the relevant social, economic, and ecological
factors can be readily identified and measured, they are not necessary
and are not always appropriate. NMFS finds that the existing
specifications of OY in the bottomfish and pelagics FMPs satisfy the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Comment 16: One commenter stated that the supplemental amendment
for the crustaceans FMP provides no information on how biomass (B) will
be computed, so it is not possible to analyze the interplay of the
coefficient r, which is a fishing mortality rate that would yield a 10-
percent risk of the Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) reaching as low as
20 percent, in the target control rule. There is also insufficient
information to analyze the precautionary nature of the target control
rule. With no information provided on the MFMT, it is impossible to
tell how the target control rule operates. There is no information
explaining or justifying the appropriateness of a 20 percent SPR level
to serve as a threshold for recruitment overfishing, a level that was
established in 1990, in light of the new 1996 requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and its accompanying guidance.
Response: In this case, the target control rule is directly
associated with Optimum Yield, the target yield under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The OY target reference points are a function of M, B, and
B at MSY and are precautionary in the sense that they are MSY reference
points (i.e., Fmsy), scaled to account for social and
economic factors, as well as biological, environmental, and model
parameter uncertainty. The coefficient r, as specified in the control
rule (see; Supplemental FMP Amendments on Overfishing Provisions on
Page 56, Section 4.3, Fig. 6), is equivalent to Frisk-
averse/Fmsy. Frisk-averse is defined as the
fishing mortality that results in a 10-percent chance of the SPR
falling below 20 percent, based on a risk-averse stock assessment
model. Because of the risk-averse nature of the assessment model,
Frisk-averse is assumed equivalent to the optimum fishing
mortality, Foy, and less than Fmsy. The current
assessment model assumes higher than estimated levels of process and
measurement error, as well as conservative estimates of demographic
parameters, which when considered together, represent a
[[Page 46116]]
worst-case scenario (DiNardo, G.T. and J.A. Wetherall, 1999,
``Accounting for Uncertainty in the Development of Harvest Strategies
for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Lobster-trap Fishery'', ICES J.
Mar. Sci., 56:943-951). Additional sources of error or uncertainty that
influence Frisk-averse and ultimately r, could be easily
incorporated using this approach.
Comment 17: One commenter stated that the supplemental amendments
fail to consider a broad range of bycatch minimization alternatives and
bycatch reporting alternatives.
Response: NMFS agrees that a large number of bycatch minimization
tools and bycatch reporting tools exist, and that not all such tools
were considered in the supplemental FMP amendments. Some were not
considered because they are already being implemented under the
existing management regime, as described in sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the
supplemental amendment document for bycatch provisions. A relatively
small number of alternatives that focused on those areas were then
considered Discussion of the reasons for eliminating alternatives from
the broader pool of potential alternatives would have been desirable.
However, NMFS finds that the range of alternatives considered is
adequate given the existing bycatch patterns and bycatch reporting
methodologies in the affected fisheries. The agency recognizes that
achieving consistency with the bycatch-related provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act is an ongoing process that will require periodic
identification of areas in which bycatch might be further reduced and
bycatch reporting might be further improved, followed by consideration
of a range of reasonable alternatives for each of those areas.
Comment 18: One commenter stated that the supplemental amendments
fail to provide bycatch minimization and assessment measures that are
consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in part
because some of the measures would be implemented only at the
discretion of NMFS or the Council.
Response: A central purpose of the supplemental FMP amendments is
to describe the existing situation with respect to bycatch patterns,
bycatch minimization measures, and bycatch reporting measures. NMFS
finds that the supplemental amendments accomplish this purpose. The
amendments also serve the purpose of identifying weaknesses in the
bycatch reporting systems and identifying areas in which bycatch or
bycatch mortality might be successfully further reduced. However,
identification of such weaknesses and areas for improvement does not in
itself mean that management action is required. The need to minimize
bycatch and bycatch mortality and to establish a standardized bycatch
reporting methodology must be balanced against other requirements of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the need to achieve OY (National
Standard 1), the need to consider efficiency in the utilization of
fishery resources (National Standard 5), and the need to minimize costs
(National Standard 7). For similar reasons, the fact that some of the
management actions under the preferred alternative will be taken at the
discretion of the Council and/or NMFS does not mean that the actions
are inconsistent with National Standard 9. NMFS finds that the existing
bycatch-related management measures in the bottomfish and pelagics
FMPs, combined with the additional actions that would be taken under
the supplemental amendments, which include outreach to fishermen,
research into fishing gear and method modifications, research into
market development for discarded species, and improvement of
information systems, satisfy the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. At the same time, NMFS recognizes the need to continue to reduce
bycatch and bycatch mortality, and to continue to improve, where cost-
effective, the standardized bycatch reporting methodologies.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 31, 2003.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 03-19932 Filed 8-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S