![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Regulatory Amendment
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 4, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52523-52527]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04se03-13]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 030612150-3214-02; I.D. 051503B]
RIN 0648-AQ94
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific;
Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Regulatory Amendment
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to implement a regulatory amendment
to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that
changes the management subareas and the allocation process for Pacific
sardine. The purpose of this final rule is to establish a more
effective and efficient allocation process for Pacific sardine and
increase the possibility of achieving optimum yield (OY).
DATES: Effective August 29, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental assessment/regulatory impact
review/final regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) may be
obtained from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery
Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR
97220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4036.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 28, 2003, the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) submitted a regulatory amendment to the
FMP that proposed changing the management subareas and the allocation
process for Pacific sardine. A range of options were analyzed in the
Council's regulatory amendment, which included an environmental
assessment, a regulatory impact review, and an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA). A proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on June 26, 2003 (68 FR 37995). The public comment
period ended on July 28, 2003. The background on development of the
amendment was explained in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
The Council recommended a preferred option that: (1) Changes the
definition of subarea A and subarea B by moving the geographic boundary
between the two areas from Pt. Piedras
[[Page 52524]]
Blancas, CA at 35[deg]
40' 00'' N. lat. to Pt. Arena, CA at 39[deg]
00'
00'' N. lat., (2) moves the date when Pacific sardine that remain
unharvested are reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B from October 1
to September 1, (3) changes the percentage of the unharvested sardine
that is reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B from 50 percent to both
subareas to 20 percent to Subarea A and 80 percent to Subarea B, and
(4) reallocates all unharvested sardine that remain on December 1 coast
wide. This procedure will be in effect for 2003 and 2004, and for 2005
if the 2005 harvest guideline is at least 90 percent of the 2003
harvest guideline. Currently, Subarea A includes the area from
Monterey, CA, north to the U.S.-Canada border. Subarea B includes the
area south of Monterey, CA to the U.S.-Mexico border. Changing the
boundary between the two subareas will move Monterey, CA to Subarea B,
and the new geographic boundary will coincide with the boundary for the
limited access and open access fisheries.
The change in the allocation system is viewed by the Council as an
interim approach. The sardine resource has recovered after decades of
low abundance and there is a more detailed process for allocating the
resource among the fishing communities along the Pacific coast. The
change will most likely avoid the need for an emergency rule to
reallocate unharvested portions of the OY, which was necessary in 2002,
and will have a greater possibility of achieving OY than the current
allocation process. Information from resource surveys scheduled for the
Pacific Northwest in 2003 and 2004 plus accumulated data on size and
age of sardine from all areas of the fishery will improve the
assessment model and provide better data for measuring the impacts of
various allocation options for the longer-term.
Comments and Responses
Six letters were received from the fishing industry and one from
the city of Monterey, CA. Two electronic mail messages were received.
Most respondents opposed the proposed action. One comment was received
on the IRFA and is addressed in the Response to Comment 10. Following
is a summary of the comments received:
Comment 1: The proposed regulations do not comply with the
Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) because the proposed action overcapitalizes the fishery by
allowing more vessels in the fishery than are Federally licensed.
Response: The final regulations comply with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Amendment 8 to the FMP gives the reasons for having an open access
area in the Pacific Northwest. Sardine will be available in the Pacific
Northwest only when the biomass is around 750,000 mt or more. A high
biomass allows benefits to be obtained by a larger number of
harvesters. Amendment 8 cautions against investing heavily in
harvesting sardine in this area because sardine exhibit wide
fluctuations in abundance. The fishing season in the Pacific Northwest
is also restricted by deteriorating sea conditions in the fall. The new
allocation procedure is only valid through 2005. Resource surveys are
being conducted in the Pacific Northwest to obtain better information
on the status of Pacific sardine. At this time, there is no indication
that there is overcapitalization in the Pacific northwest; however,
fishing capacity in this area will be an issue when the Council begins
review of alternatives for a longer term allocation procedure.
Comment 2: The Council did not take a precautionary approach when
selecting its proposed action. Cooler sea surface temperatures indicate
a potential shift in the ocean environment that will likely lead to a
decline in sardine abundance. Action was taken without knowing the
impact of harvesting the larger fish in the Pacific Northwest.
Response: Recognizing the role of temperature in sardine abundance
is one of the risk averse measures utilized in the FMP. If the average
sea surface temperature declines, the harvest rate will be reduced,
which will yield a smaller harvest guideline, thereby protecting the
resource. The size of the fish harvested involves two issues. One is
that a disproportional harvest of larger fish in the Pacific Northwest
may have a detrimental effect on the resource. Size and age data are
collected all along the Pacific coast and, to date, there is no
indication of a detrimental impact on the resource from harvesting
relatively large fish in the north or relatively small fish in the
south. The second issue is that the migration patterns of the resource
are poorly understood; therefore, the relationship between fish
harvested in the south and fish harvested in the north at any
particular time is not known. Although uncertainty does exist, the
model used to estimate the current biomass includes a factor to account
for migration, which is based on information obtained from the
historical fishery. Given the overall conservative harvest formula
adopted by the Council, there does not appear to be any risk to the
resource from implementing the proposed action.
Comment 3: Including Monterey in the southern California subarea
risks preempting Monterey's fall harvest due to the much larger fishing
industry in southern California.
Response: Monterey may be at some risk of preemption from southern
California and the Pacific Northwest, but preemption is not likely at
current harvest guideline levels. Under the current system, Monterey is
at risk of early closure if there is strong participation from the
northern fisheries, as in 2002. There is less risk to Monterey
fisheries under the proposed new system because Monterey often has a
strong fall fishery, which might be preempted by the summer fishery in
the Pacific Northwest. The Council may address this issue when it
considers a more permanent allocation process.
Comment 4: The net result of the proposed action will be to shift
economic hardship from the open access area in the Pacific Northwest to
the limited access area in California.
Response: Under the proposed alternative, the net gain in producer
surplus above the status quo in the open access area would be
$1,567,441. The net gain in the limited access area would be $288,712.
Of all options considered, the proposed alternative has the largest net
gain above the status quo for the limited access while still providing
a net gain for the open access area. No economic hardships are
anticipated from taking this action.
Comment 5: The proposed action perpetuates the coast wide
overfishing of the sardine resource that has occurred from the recent
expansion of the Mexican and Canadian harvest, which is not adequately
accounted for in setting the harvest guideline.
Response: The Council determined that the proposed alternative is
more likely to achieve OY than the status quo, and the analysis in the
analytical documents supporting the conclusion. From current figures on
the 2002 fishery, the total harvest by Mexico, Canada, and the United
States was about 145,000 mt, close to 9,000 mt above the total
allowable biological catch. There is no agreement between the United
States and any other country on management; however, the harvest
formula deals with this uncertainty in two ways. First, a percentage of
the biomass is subtracted from the total biomass to account for harvest
beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. Second, total removals
from the resource in all sectors of the fishery are included in the
calculation of the next
[[Page 52525]]
year's biomass estimate. A better way to manage the resource would be
to have a management agreement with Mexico and Canada. Nevertheless,
the formula in the FMP uses the best information available to account
for harvests beyond U.S. jurisdiction and is designed to minimize the
potential for overfishing. In 2002, the U.S. fishery left about 18,000
mt of the harvest guideline unharvested.
Comment 6: The proposed option encourages further expansion of the
open access fishery, which includes more than 40 additional vessels,
even though veteran California fishermen were denied limited entry
permits.
Response: In 2002, 26 vessels landed sardine in the open access
fishery off Oregon and Washington, of which six vessels held limited
entry permits for the southern fishery. By the end of July 2003,
however, sardine landings in the Pacific Northwest were about 3,000 mt
below the landings through July 2002, about 75 percent of the 2002
landings. Only 18 vessels had participated. At this time, there is no
indication that this regulation will lead to a substantial increase in
the number of participating vessels in the Northwest. Amendment 8
assumes that since high biomass levels of Pacific sardine are
transitory, the limited availability of sardine in the Pacific
Northwest will tend to limit the number of participating vessels, while
offering an opportunity for more northern fisheries to gain benefits
when the sardine biomass is large. To date, neither the Council nor any
other source of information has indicated a need to change this
approach.
Comment 7: The economics of the fishery were not well addressed in
California with regard to the impact of shifting the quotas to Oregon
and Washington.
Response: Under the proposed option, an additional 2,200 mt is
anticipated to be harvested off California. The proposed option
provides the greatest increase in producer surplus for California in
relation to the benefits that accrue to California from the nine
options analyzed. The increase in the estimated Pacific Northwest
harvest is not great enough to invite significant increases in vessels
and processors in the Pacific Northwest. If the biomass and the harvest
guideline increase substantially in the future, there would be pressure
to increase capital investment, but larger harvest guidelines would
produce this pressure even under the status quo.
Comment 8: If there is a cold water regime shift and the sardine
biomass declines, this is a good reason for precaution and to avoid
locking up a fixed 33 percent of the sardine quota in the open access
fishery. A reduced quota will cause economic hardship on the
traditional limited entry fishery.
Response: The harvest formula in the FMP is a risk averse approach
to fishing mortality, and the proposed option does not allocate a fixed
amount to any fishery. One-third of the harvest guideline would be
initially allocated to Subarea A (Pacific Northwest); however, the
unharvested portions of the harvest guideline in Subarea A and Subarea
B (California) are added together and reallocated on September 1, 20
percent to Subarea A and 80 percent to Subarea B. The amount received
in either area depends on performance of the individual fisheries and
the limit set by the harvest guideline. The Council also intends to
revisit this allocation issue in the near future. With regard to the
economic impact on California fisheries, if the biomass declines, there
would be economic consequences to all sardine fisheries under all
options.
Comment 9: The proposed rule incorrectly assumes that southern
California vessels can offset economic impact by fishing in Monterey,
California, when such long distance travel is not possible for much of
this fleet.
Response: The summary of the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis states only that some vessels may be able to participate in
more northern fisheries. However, there could be mitigation to a
certain extent for some vessels by changing fishing locations to land
larger, higher-priced sardines.
Comment 10: The regulatory amendment and the proposed rule do not
include impacts on processors, many of which are small businesses.
Response: The impact on processors was addressed in the regulatory
impact review, which included calculations of producer surplus based on
data supplied by cooperating sardine processors. Some processors may be
small businesses, but data are not available on processors in the way
that ex-vessel revenue is available for individual vessels. In this
regard, the best available data were used. No information on
profitability of individual vessels was available, so ex-vessel revenue
was used as a proxy for vessel profitability. The producer surplus
figures are assumed to reflect profitability for processors in general,
and the economic effect of the proposed action on processors is assumed
to be related to ex-vessel revenue.
In considering the above comments, NMFS did not change the proposed
rule.
Classification
The Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, determined that the FMP
regulatory amendment is necessary for the conservation and management
of the coastal pelagic species fishery and that it is consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that
this final rule relieves a restriction under 5 U.S.C. 553 (c)(1), and
thus is exempt from the 30 delay in the effective date requirement of 5
U.S.C. 553(d). This rule relieves a restriction because the allocation
to Subarea A is likely to be reached before October 1. If the
allocation is reached before October 1, the Subarea A fishery will be
closed and the fishery will not be able to resume until the
reallocation is completed on October 1 under the existing rule. In
2002, the Pacific Northwest fisheries landed more than 36,500 mt before
October 1, and the fishery in northern California, which was included
in Subarea A in 2002, landed more than 5,000 mt by October 1. The
initial allocation to Subarea A in 2003 is 36,969 mt, lower than the
allocation in 2002, when an emergency rule was necessary to keep the
fishery open following a temporary closure. Keeping the fishery
operating will increase landings by about 1,500 mt per week. At an ex-
vessel price of $100/mt, this would generate $150,000 per week to
fishermen and $300,000 to processors (based on 50 percent recovery rate
and a sales price of $400/mt).
The final rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA which was summarized in the proposed
rule published on June 26, 2003 (68 FR 37995). The Council prepared an
FRFA that describes the economic impact of this action on small
entities. Two specific comments were received on the IRFA, one
regarding the possibility of some vessels minimizing impacts by fishing
in more northern fisheries and one regarding the treatment of
processors in the IRFA. Responses to these comments are contained in
comments 9 and 10 in the preamble to the final rule. The following is
the summary of the FRFA. The need for and objectives of this final rule
are contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the preamble and in
the proposed rule. Comments and responses regarding the economic
impacts of this rule are contained in the preamble.
Approximately 140 vessels are permitted in the sardine fisheries
off the U.S. West Coast; 65 vessels are
[[Page 52526]]
permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California,
while approximately 55 vessels are permitted in the sardine fisheries
of the States. An additional 18 live bait vessels are permitted in
southern California and 2 live bait vessels are permitted in Oregon and
Washington. All of these vessels would be considered small businesses
by the Small Business Administration. Therefore, there would be no
disproportionate economic impacts resulting between small and large
vessels under the proposed action. Because cost data are lacking for
the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels, it was not possible
to evaluate the economic impacts from estimated changes in sardine
landings in terms of vessel profitability. Instead, economic impacts
were evaluated based only on changes in sardine ex-vessel revenues
compared to sardine landings under the status quo. Therefore, the
difference between vessel revenues generated by 2003 proposed quotas
and those generated by 2003 projected landings were used as a proxy for
vessel profitability among the three regions evaluated. All projections
utilized 2001 data because this was the best available data. CPS
finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including
anchovy, mackerel, squid, and tuna. However, since data on individual
vessel operations were not readily available, it was not possible to
evaluate potential changes in fishing strategies by these vessels in
response to different opportunities to harvest sardines under each of
the allocation alternatives and what this would mean in terms of total
ex-vessel revenues from all species.
Under the proposed action, sardine landings for CPS vessels for the
entire West Coast are estimated to increase 9,846 metric tons (mt) from
the status quo, with a corresponding increase in ex-vessel value of
$1,077,540. As used by the Council, the ``status quo'' harvest levels
reflect an increase of 10 percent from 2002 harvest levels. All of the
coastwide harvest guideline OY would be caught by the end of the season
under the proposed action. Sardine landings by vessels participating in
the Oregon/Washington fishery were estimated to be 7,622 mt greater
than the status quo (and more than 11,000 mt above the 2002 level),
with ex-vessel revenues increasing by $873,526 relative to the status
quo. Landings by CPS vessels that historically would have participated
in the northern California sardine fishery would increase 2,449 mt
above the status quo (and 4000 mt above the 2002 harvest level) with a
corresponding rise in ex-vessel revenues of $228,035. Under the
proposed action, a loss of 225 mt in landings relative to the status
quo was estimated for vessels that historically fished out of southern
California ports, which equates to foregone ex-vessel revenues
amounting to $24,021, or approximately $370 per vessel, in lost ex-
vessel revenue relative to the status quo. However, landing would still
be about 4,900 mt greater than in 2002, and revenue would be almost 10
percent higher than in 2002. Twenty live bait vessels landed
approximately 2,000 mt per year of mixed species from 1993 through
1997. Those landings were comprised mostly of Pacific sardine and
northern anchovy. The estimated 18 live bait vessels fishing in
southern California are expected to be only minimally impacted by this
action similar to results for the CPS limited entry vessels fishing in
that area. The two live bait vessels fishing in Oregon and Washington
are not expected to be impacted by this action.
For the 65 CPS limited entry vessels that could participate in
either the southern California or northern California sardine
fisheries, the 225 mt reduction in harvest relative to the status quo
represents a potential loss in ex-vessel revenues for the CPS vessels
choosing to operate in southern California. If the 65 CPS limited entry
vessels choose to fish in the traditional northern California sardine
fishery, the potential gain in ex-vessel revenue for that fishery is
estimated to be approximately $3,508 per vessel per year. However, this
amount could be underestimated since data from the 2001 SAFE report
show that only 27 CPS vessels landed in Monterey/Santa Cruz and only 13
CPS vessels landed in San Francisco.
Even though limited entry vessels based in southern California are
not restricted from participating in the northern California or the
open access Oregon/Washington sardine fisheries, it is unlikely that it
would be profitable for all southern California vessels to do so due to
additional travel time and fuel costs. However, any loss in
profitability by the CPS vessels choosing to fish in southern
California could be mitigated to a certain extent by moving northward
to land larger, higher-priced sardines in northern California ports.
Vessels that participate in the Oregon/Washington sector of the
fishery are estimated to increase ex-vessel revenues by $15,882 per
vessel based on the estimated 55 state sardine permits issued. However,
this figure may be underestimated since data show that, of the 35
Washington permitted vessels, only 19 vessels participated in these
fisheries in 2002 with the majority of the catch accomplished by only
13 vessels.
The Council considered 3 alternatives to the proposed action in
addition to the no-action alternative. All alternatives resulted in ex-
vessel revenue gains of various magnitudes for the fishery as a whole.
However, the proposed alternative yielded the greatest overall gain,
with the least negative impacts to individual vessels from any one
region while also providing the fishery with a high likelihood of
achieving OY as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Alternative 1 (status quo)--With a 10-percent increase in harvest
from 2002, total landings would be 101,061 mt and total ex-vessel
revenues would amount to $10,587,481. Southern California vessels would
realize ex-vessel revenues of $5,749,562, northern California vessels
$1,039,424, and Oregon/Washington vessels $3,798,405.
Alternative 2 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line to
39[deg]
N lat., September (50-50) reallocation, and December
(coastwide) reallocation). Relative to 10 percent overall increase in
the status quo, southern California vessels would lose 3,618 mt or
$386,201 in ex-vessel revenues. Northern California vessels would gain
35 mt or $3,306, and Oregon/Washington would gain 10,108 mt or
$1,158,314, for a net increase in coastwide ex-vessel revenues of
$775,420.
Alternative 4 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line not
changed, September (50-50) reallocation, and December (coastwide)
reallocation). Compared to the status quo, southern California vessels
would realize no change in landings, northern California vessels would
gain 274 mt or $25,518 in ex-vessel revenues, and Oregon/Washington
vessels would gain 8,091 mt or $927,167. This results in an overall net
increase of $952,685 in ex-vessel revenues.
Alternative 5 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line to
39[deg]
N lat., September coastwide reallocation). Relative to the
status quo, southern California vessels would lose 2,500 mt or $266,924
in ex-vessel revenues. Northern California vessels would gain 2,239 mt
or $208,547, and Oregon/Washington vessels would gain 10,108 mt or
$1,099,937, for a net increase in overall ex-vessel revenues of
$1,099,937.
There are no new compliance requirements resulting from this rule.
Two management subareas and the amount of the harvest guideline
allocated to the subareas have been redefined, and the date unharvested
[[Page 52527]]
amounts of the resource are reallocated to the subareas has been
changed. This action changes how the annual harvest is monitored, but
imposes no compliance requirements on the fishing industry beyond those
already in effect and well understood by those affected.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 29, 2003.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
? For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended to
read as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN
PACIFIC
? 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
? 2. In Sec. 660.503, paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(1) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 660.503 Management subareas.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Southern boundary--at 39[deg]00'00'' N. lat. (Pt. Arena).
(c) * * *
(1) Northern boundary--at 39[deg]00'00'' N. lat. (Pt. Arena); and
* * * * *
? 3. Section 660.509 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.509 Closure of directed fishery.
(a) The date when Pacific sardine that remains unharvested will be
reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B is September 1 for 2003 and
2004, and for 2005 if the 2005 harvest guideline is at least 90 percent
of the 2003 harvest guideline.
(b) All unharvested sardine that remains on December 1 will be
available for harvest coast wide.
? 4. In Sec. 660.511 new paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 660.511 Catch restrictions.
* * * * *
(f) The percentages of the unharvested sardine that are reallocated
to Subarea A and Subarea B are 20 percent to Subarea A and 80 percent
to Subarea B.
[FR Doc. 03-22548 Filed 8-29-03; 3:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P