[Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36506-36515]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jn06-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No.060609159-01; I.D. 060606A]
RIN 0648-AU12
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery; Amendment 18
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 18 to
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment
18 is intended to respond to a court order by setting the Pacific
Fishery Management Council's (Council's) bycatch minimization policies
and requirements into the FMP. This rule would implement new
standardized bycatch reporting methodology and bycatch minimization
requirements for groundfish fisheries off the U.S. West Coast.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
August 8, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Amendment 18 is available on the Council's website at: http/
/http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery Management/
NEPA-Documents/Progammatic-EIS.cfm.
You may submit comments, identified by I.D. number 060606A by any
of the following methods:
E-mail: Amendment18.nwr@noaa.gov. Include the I.D. number
060606A in the subject line of the message.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Yvonne deReynier.
Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region,
NMFS, Attn: Yvonne deReynier, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA
98115-0070.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region,
NMFS), phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736; and e-mail:
yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is also accessible via the internet
at the website of the Office of the Federal Register:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
NMFS is proposing this rule to implement Amendment 18 to the FMP,
which is intended to set the Council's bycatch minimization polices and
requirements into the FMP. Amendment 18 is intended to respond to court
orders in Pacific Marine Conservation Council v. Evans, 200 F.Supp.2d
1194 (N.D. Calif. 2002) [hereinafter PMCC v. Evans]. The regulations to
implement Amendment 18 would: require that groundfish fishery
management measures take into account the co-
[[Page 36507]]
occurrence ratios of overfished species with more abundant target
stocks; require vessels that participate in the open access groundfish
fisheries to carry observers if directed by NMFS; authorize the use of
depth-based closed areas as a routine management measure for protecting
and rebuilding overfished stocks, preventing the overfishing of any
groundfish species, minimizing the incidental harvest of any protected
or prohibited non-groundfish species, controlling effort to extend the
fishing season, minimizing the disruption of traditional commercial
fishing and marketing patterns, spreading the available recreational
catch over a large number of anglers, discouraging target fishing while
allowing small incidental catches to be landed, and allowing small
fisheries to operate outside the normal season; and, update the
boundary definitions of the Klamath and Columbia River Salmon
Conservation Zones and Eureka nearshore area to use latitude and
longitude coordinates in a style similar to that of the Groundfish
Conservation Areas (GCAs). This proposed rule is based on the
recommendations of the Council, under the authority of the FMP and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). The background and rationale for the Council's
recommendations are summarized below. Further detail appears in the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Bycatch Mitigation EIS (69 FR 57277,
September 24, 2004; available online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/NEPA-Documents/Programmatic-EIS.cfm
).
Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery management plans
``establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount
and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation
and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the
following priority - (A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize the
mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided.'' 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines the term bycatch to mean ``fish which
are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal
use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term
does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and
release fishery management program.'' 16 U.S.C. 1802(2).
Amendment 13 to the FMP, approved in December 2000, was intended to
comply with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements on bycatch monitoring and
minimization. However, in PMCC v. Evans, the court found that Amendment
13 did not adequately address the required provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Specifically, the court found that: (1) Amendment 13 failed to
establish adequate bycatch assessment methodology; (2) NMFS did not
comply with its duty under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize bycatch
and bycatch mortality; (3) NMFS did not take a ``hard look'' at the
environmental consequences of Amendment 13, in violation of NEPA; and
(4) the Environmental Assessment did not consider a reasonable range of
alternatives and environmental consequences, in violation of NEPA.
Following the court's decision and remand order in PMCC v. Evans,
NMFS completed a final EIS on a bycatch mitigation program for the West
Coast groundfish fisheries (69 FR 57277, September 24, 2004.) The
preferred alternative in that final EIS articulates the Council's
bycatch minimization policies and requirements. Once the bycatch
minimization program EIS was complete, the Council and NMFS began
drafting Amendment 18 to bring the preferred alternative from the EIS
into the groundfish FMP. Amendment 18 to the FMP articulates the
Council's bycatch minimization approach for the groundfish fisheries
and provides comprehensive direction for current and future bycatch
minimization efforts within Pacific Coast groundfish management.
Amendment 18 largely re-wrote Chapter 6 of the FMP, ``Management
Measures,'' to focus on bycatch monitoring and minimization.
Groundfish FMP prior to Amendment 18
Several FMP amendments and numerous Federal regulations subsequent
to Amendment 13 have dealt in some way with bycatch, although none has
had bycatch as their only focus. Amendment 14 to the FMP implemented a
permit stacking program for the limited entry fixed gear sablefish
fishery (66 FR 41152, August 7, 2001.) Amendment 14 reduced vessel
participation in the limited entry fixed gear primary sablefish fishery
by allowing up to three limited entry permits with sablefish
endorsements to be stacked on a single fixed gear vessel. Reducing the
number of fishery participants indirectly reduces bycatch by reducing
the number of vessels potentially responsible for fishing trips and
discard events.
Under Amendment 14, vessel owners with stacked permits are eligible
to harvest the tier amounts of sablefish associated with each of the
permits registered for use with a vessel (66 FR 41152, August 7, 2001.)
Landings limits for species other than sablefish are not stackable;
this means that although the tier stacking program maintains a fairly
consistent level of sablefish fishing effort, it reduces both the
number of fishing vessels and the fishing effort on groundfish species
other than sablefish. Amendment 14 also converted the fishery from a
brief (< 15 days per year) derby fishery to a 7-month annual season.
Because vessels are no longer fishing in a fast-paced fishery, they
have fewer incentives to discard non-sablefish catch in favor of
reserving hold space for the targeted sablefish. Since 2001, the
limited entry sablefish fleet has consolidated such that of the 164
sablefish endorsed permits, 155 are registered for use with 72 vessels
and 9 are not currently registered for use with a particular vessel (as
of January 2006.) Amendment 14's implementation has reduced the limited
entry fixed gear sablefish fleet to approximately 50 percent of its
2001 size.
In 2003, enactment of Public Law 108-7 provided NMFS with an
opportunity to reduce participation in the West Coast groundfish
limited entry trawl fleet. Congress funded a vessel and permit buyback
program through a $10 million appropriation, plus a $36 million loan to
the fleet, which is to be paid back through landings taxes. During
2003, NMFS developed and implemented the buyback program, which removed
91 vessels and their state and Federal permits from West Coast
fisheries. Three trawl permits have been subsequently removed from the
fishery via permit combination. The limited entry trawl fleet is
currently at 180 permits, down from 274 permits prior to the buyback
program, a fleet size reduction of 34 percent. Trawl trip limits for
the remaining vessels in the fleet are higher than they would have been
under the full-sized fleet; higher limits that are better matched to
the capacity of participating vessels reduce the frequency of
regulation-induced discard.
Amendment 16-1, which dealt primarily with a framework for
implementing overfished species rebuilding plans, revised the FMP at
section 6.5.1.2 to read in part, ``The Regional Administrator [of
NMFS's Northwest Region] will implement an observer program through a
Council-approved Federal regulatory framework....'' At Sec.
303(a)(11), the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that
[[Page 36508]]
fishery management plans ``establish a standardized reporting
methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the
fishery....'' The Amendment 16-1 revision to Section 6.5.1.2 was
intended to comply with the Maguson-Stevens Act requirement for
inclusion of standardized reporting methodologies in FMPs. NMFS has
implemented two major rulemakings for placing observers on West Coast
groundfish vessels, one in 2001 to require at-sea observer coverage in
the catcher-boat fleet, and a second in 2004 to convert and expand
observer coverage in the at-sea processor fleet from voluntary to
mandatory.
Observers are a uniformly trained group of technicians who collect
biological data aboard fishing vessels. They are stationed aboard
vessels to gather independent data about the fish that are taken or
received by the vessel. Standardized sampling protocol, defined by NMFS
to incorporate random sampling theory, is intended to provide
statistically reliable data for fleetwide fishery monitoring. The
primary duties of an observer include: estimating catch weights;
determining catch composition; collecting length and weight
measurements, and doing sex determinations. Data collected by observers
are compiled for the purpose of estimating overall catches of
groundfish; estimating incidental catch of species not allowed to be
retained by these vessels; and for assessing stock condition. Observers
must meet minimum education and experience requirements and must be
trained by NMFS to ensure that they properly apply NMFS's sampling
protocol.
In April 2001, NMFS published a final rule to implement a mandatory
observer program for the West Coast groundfish fishery (66 FR 20609;
April 24, 2001.) NMFS established the West Coast Groundfish Observer
Program (WCGOP) in 2001 to collect total catch and discard information
from the groundfish fisheries. Vessels are selected for observer
coverage under the authority of Federal groundfish observer regulations
at 50 CFR 660.314 and in accordance with a coverage sampling plan (See:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/index.cfm.
NMFS periodically refines this plan in response to changes in vessel
numbers and fishing distribution along the coast.
WCGOP focuses a significant proportion of its sampling effort on
the limited entry bottom trawl fleet, because the majority of non-
whiting groundfish landings are taken by that sector of the groundfish
fleet. While many West Coast groundfish species are taken only by trawl
gear, trawl gear is less selective than other West Coast groundfish
gears, making the potential for bycatch higher with this gear type.
During the period January 2004 through April 2005, WCGOP observed 26
percent of catch landed by the bottom trawl fleet (Observer data
report, Table 1, http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/datareport/trawl/datareprtsep2005.cfm
). This level of coverage
equals or surpasses observer coverage levels in other observed
fisheries nationwide and meets statistical sampling requirements to
monitor and manage the fishery.
In addition to managing coastwide observer coverage of catcher
boats, WCGOP also manages observer coverage in the at-sea whiting
mothership processing and catcher-processor fishery sectors.
Participants in the at-sea whiting fleet had been carrying observers
voluntarily since 1991, but NMFS made that coverage mandatory in 2004
(69 FR 31751, June 6, 2004). Through that rulemaking, NMFS also
increased observer coverage in the at-sea whiting fleet to 200 percent,
meaning that each vessel carries two observers. Although the whiting
fishery is the largest-volume single species West Coast groundfish
fishery, it has relatively low bycatch rates, making proper observer
coverage a challenge because such coverage seeks to quantify rare
events.
In 2004, Amendments 16-2 and 16-3 implemented overfished species
rebuilding programs for eight overfished species: bocaccio, canary
rockfish, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, lingcod, Pacific ocean perch,
widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. Rebuilding plans for overfished
species endorsed the use of GCAs to reduce the incidental catch of
overfished species in times and areas where they are more likely to
occur. GCAs are large areas where specific fishing activities are
prohibited or restricted and are used to reduce directed or incidental
fishing effort on overfished species. NMFS and the Council had begun
using closed areas to reduce the incidental catch of overfished species
in 2001, with the implementation of two Cowcod Conservation Areas
(CCAs) in the Southern California Bight (66 FR 2338, January 11, 2001.)
Their implementation led the way to a series of area closures intended
to reduce the catch of other overfished species. In September 2002,
NMFS introduced its first large-scale, depth based conservation area,
the Darkblotched Rockfish Conservation Area. The Darkblotched Rockfish
Conservation Area extended from the U.S./Canada border to Cape
Mendocino, CA, between boundary lines approximating the 100 fm (183-m)
and 250-fm (457-m) depth contours, with trawling prohibited within the
conservation area. NMFS and the Council expanded the use of depth-based
area closures beginning in January 2003. This expansion took place at
the same time that the Council was developing Amendments 16-2 and 16-3,
which later incorporated the use of closed areas as important tools for
managing fisheries to stay within overfished species rebuilding OYs.
The terms ``Rockfish Conservation Areas'' and ``RCAs'' refer to
gear-specific depth-based closures, most of which stretch along the
entire length of the U.S. West Coast, bounded by lines approximating
the depth contours that have been shown to enclose areas of higher
overfished species abundance. RCAs are gear-specific in order to
account for the differing effects that different gear types have on
overfished species. For example, Pacific ocean perch and darkblotched
rockfish have historically been taken almost exclusively with trawl
gear, while yelloweye rockfish is more susceptible to hook-and-line
gear in recreational and commercial fisheries. Managers developed a
suite of RCAs for trawl gear, non-trawl gear, and recreational
fisheries to reduce the impacts of different gears on overfished
species. RCAs and the closed-polygon CCAs and Yelloweye Rockfish
Conservation Area are implemented in permanent Federal regulations at
50 CFR 660.390 - 660.394.
The GCAs reflect the Council's contemporary approach to groundfish
management, which largely focuses on rebuilding overfished species
through minimizing total catch of those species. Area closures have
moved vessels away from many of the traditional rockfish fishing
grounds, where the longer-lived and slow-maturing rockfish are more
likely to be found. Fishing fleets have reacted differently to these
requirements in terms of how and when they fish and the gear that they
use. Trawlers in the northern portion of the West Coast have turned
their fishing effort more strongly toward the more abundant and faster-
maturing flatfish species managed within the groundfish FMP.
The expansion of area closures has also changed fishing behavior in
other ways. In 2003, trawlers began working with the State of Oregon to
develop parameters for a trawl net that better targets flatfish while
excluding rockfish. NMFS issued the State of Oregon an exempted fishing
permit (EFP) to test rockfish-excluding nets in 2003-2004, and the
Council developed its 2005-2006 management measures for the
[[Page 36509]]
trawl sector in part based on the results of this EFP. Trawlers
operating inshore of the Trawl RCA and north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. are
required by regulation to use selective flatfish trawl gear, which is
configured to reduce bycatch of rockfish while allowing the nets to
retain flatfish. Selective flatfish trawl nets have a flattened ovoid
trawl mouth opening that is notably wider than it is tall, with
headropes that are recessed from the trawl mouth. This combination of a
flattened oval shape and a recessed headrope herds flatfish into the
trawl net while allowing rockfish to slip up and over the headrope
without entering the net. Selective flatfish trawl gear has been shown
to have lower rockfish bycatch rates than more traditional trawl net
configurations. By preventing the non-target species from even entering
the net, the selective flatfish trawl gear reduces both bycatch and
bycatch mortality in the trawl fishery.
At the same time that the Council was developing Amendment 18, it
was also working on Amendment 19 to the FMP, which designates West
Coast groundfish essential fish habitat (EFH) and implements measures
to minimize fishing impacts to EFH. Amendment 19, which NMFS approved
on March 8, 2006, establishes 51 ecologically important habitat closed
areas (FMP section 6.8.5,) including a bottom trawl closure for waters
offshore of the 700-fm (1290-m) depth contour (FMP section 6.8.6) to
minimize the adverse effects of fishing on West Coast groundfish EFH
(71 FR 27408, May 11, 2008.) Like the CCAs, the habitat closed areas
are discrete closed polygons. And, like the RCAs, some of the closed
areas apply just to bottom trawling, while others apply to all bottom
contact gear. Although the Amendment 19 closures are not specifically
intended to prevent bycatch, some or all fishing will be eliminated
within the habitat closed areas, reducing opportunities to directly or
incidentally take species found within the habitat closed areas.
Groundfish FMP under Amendment 18
As mentioned earlier, Amendment 18 significantly revised Chapter 6
of the FMP, ``Management Measures'' to address the bycatch monitoring
and minimization requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. At Section
6.5, Amendment 18 revises the FMP to require the use of a three-part
bycatch minimization strategy to meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act's
bycatch related mandates: ``(1) gather data through a standardized
reporting methodology; (2) use Federal/state/tribal agency partners to
assess these data through bycatch models that estimate when, where, and
with which gear types bycatch of varying species occurs; and (3)
develop management measures that minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality
to the extent practicable.'' Although NMFS and the Council have been
using this strategy for several years, Amendment 18 formalizes it
within the FMP and uses it to institute a comprehensive approach to and
requirements for bycatch monitoring and minimization.
In addition to the revisions to Chapter 6, which are discussed
below, Amendment 18 revises one of the FMP's goals and five of its
objectives to place a greater emphasis on reducing bycatch as part of
groundfish fishery management. Amendment 18's changes to the FMP are
available on the Council's website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gffmp/gfal8.html
.
Amendment 18 creates a new section 6.4 in the FMP, ``Standardized
Total Catch Reporting Methodology and Compliance Monitoring Program.''
Section 6.4 establishes standard reporting mechanisms that provide the
Council with total catch estimates and monitoring methods to verify
vessel compliance with regulations intended to minimize bycatch and
meet other fishery management goals.
In the West Coast groundfish fishery, bycatch reporting is included
as part of total catch (landed catch + discard) reporting. Amendment 18
expands the obligations of the Council and its collaborating agencies
to contribute to and improve total catch reporting methodologies for
West Coast groundfish fisheries. Under Amendment 18, the FMP would:
retain the requirement that the Regional Administrator implement an
observer program to collect data used for total catch accounting,
authorize the use of electronic monitoring equipment (via cameras and
other devices) as appropriate, require the use of observer data in the
biennial and inseason fishery management processes, and provide for new
information on state monitoring programs for recreational fisheries.
Amendment 18 particularly addresses the need to increase catch data
collection from vessels that may not target groundfish, but which may
take groundfish incidentally at section 6.4.1.1, ``All fishing vessels
operating in this management unit, which includes catcher/processors,
at-sea processors, and those vessels that directly or incidentally
harvest groundfish in waters off Washington, Oregon and California may
be required to accommodate an observer and/or electronic-monitoring
system for the purpose of collecting scientific data or verifying catch
and discard used for scientific data collection....''
Section 6.4 also authorizes the use of electronic monitoring
programs ``for appropriate sectors of the fishery.'' Since 2004, NMFS
has been working with the three states, with Oregon taking the lead, on
an experimental program to test electronic monitoring in the shore-
based whiting sector. Electronic monitoring is an integrated assortment
of electronic components, usually including video recorders, that can
be used at-sea to monitor specific fishing behavior at a lower-cost
than human observers. Electronic monitoring programs do not replace
observer programs, although they can be used to reduce the cost of
observer monitoring in some sectors. The Council is scheduled to
consider at its September and November 2006 meeting whether to convert
the experimental use of at-sea electronic monitoring in the whiting
fishery into a longer-term regulatory requirement.
Section 6.4 also updates the FMP's authorizations for implementing
a vessel compliance monitoring and reporting system. At the same time
that NMFS and the Council were developing the bycatch mitigation EIS,
they were also developing a vessel monitoring system (VMS) program to
monitor compliance with fishery closed areas. VMS is a tool that allows
enforcement agents to monitor a vessel's speed, direction, and
location. VMS transceiver units installed aboard vessels automatically
determine the vessel's position and transmit that position to a
processing center via a communication satellite. At the processing
center, the information is validated and analyzed before being
disseminated for various purposes, which may include fisheries
management, surveillance and enforcement. Prior to Amendment 18, the
FMP had authorized a variety of general reporting requirements, but had
not linked those requirements to compliance monitoring. Section 6.4.2
reflects the Council's focus on better linking science, management, and
enforcement throughout the groundfish management program.
Amendment 18 adds a new section 6.5, ``Bycatch Mitigation Program''
that describes the Council's three-part bycatch strategy, sets
processes for developing bycatch minimization measures, authorizes the
use of a variety of regulatory programs to minimize bycatch where
practicable, and particularly requires the use of several management
programs and measures. As mentioned earlier, the second part of the
strategy to address bycatch requirements is ``use Federal/state/tribal
[[Page 36510]]
agency partners to assess these data through bycatch models that
estimate when, where, and with which gear types varying species
occur.'' Bycatch models are reviewed in the Council process through the
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee. Managing the fishery
with these bycatch models has focused the Council's overfished species
rebuilding efforts on the co-occurrence ratios between target species
and overfished species. In other words, management measures are
designed to take into account information about the rates at which
healthy stocks interact with depleted stocks, so that there is less
fishing effort during times and within areas where healthy stocks are
more likely to co-occur with depleted stocks.
WCGOP began collecting non-whiting observer data in August 2001 and
data on the bottom trawl fishery began entering the management process
with the 2003 groundfish specifications and management measures. The
introduction of non-whiting observer data into the management process
changed and improved NMFS's estimates of species co-occurrence ratios
within commercial catch. Amendment 18 revises the FMP to require the
use of co-occurrence ratios in management measures development at
Section 6.5.3 of the FMP, ``During the development of the biennial
specifications and management measures, and throughout the year when
measures are adjusted, the Council will take into account the co-
occurrence rates of target stocks with overfished stocks, and will
select measures that will minimize, to the extent practicable,
bycatch.''
Amendment 18 implements the third part of the FMP's bycatch
strategy, ``develop management measures that minimize bycatch and
bycatch mortality to the extent practicable,'' by bringing a variety of
management measures and requirements into the FMP. Some of these
measures are specific requirements to be implemented, while others
articulate the Council's future policy direction on bycatch
minimization within groundfish management. Section 6.5.1 states, in
part, ``The Council manages its groundfish fisheries to allow targeting
on more abundant stocks while constraining the total mortality of
overfished and precautionary zone stocks. For overfished stocks,
measures to constrain total mortality are primarily intended to reduce
bycatch of those stocks....'' Section 6.5.1 requires that the Council
use catch restrictions (FMP section 6.7,) time and area closures (FMP
section 6.8,) gear restrictions (FMP section 6.6,) and other measures
to tailor the catch of more abundant stocks so that incidental catch of
depleted stocks is avoided. Section 6.5.3 provides implementation
guidance for these bycatch minimization programs, which are to be
implemented where practicable: full retention programs, sector-specific
total catch limit programs, vessel-specific total catch limit programs,
and providing catch allocations to or gear flexibility for gear types
with lower bycatch rates.
A full retention program is ``a regulatory regime that requires
participants in a particular sector of the fishery to retain either all
of the fish that they catch or all of some species or species group
that they catch....Full retention requirements also encourage affected
fishery participants to tailor their fishing activities so that they
are less likely to encounter non-target species.'' NMFS's work with the
states to experiment with electronic monitoring in the shore-based
whiting fishery is also looking at whether it is practicable to manage
that fishery as a full retention program.
A sector-specific total catch limit program is ``one in which a
fishery sector would have access to a pre-determined amount of a
groundfish FMU [fishery management unit] species, stock, or stock
complex that would be allowed to be caught by vessels in that sector.
Once a total catch limit is attained, all vessels in the sector would
have to cease fishing until the end of the limit period, unless the
total catch limit is increased by the transfer of additional limit
amounts.'' Because the whiting fishery has a more mature observer and
monitoring program than the non-whiting fisheries, NMFS has been able
to implement sector-specific bycatch limits for overfished species
taken incidentally in the Pacific whiting fishery (50 CFR 660.373.)
Whiting fishery participants have expressed an interest in dividing
those bycatch limits by sector, so that there are sector-specific
limits for the shore-based sector, the catcher-processor sector, and
the mothership sector. Sector-specific limits are not practicable until
the shore-based retention and monitoring program is more fully
developed.
Vessel-specific catch limit programs ``are similar to individual
vessel quotas as applied to groundfish FMU species, stocks, or stock
complexes and require more intense monitoring than a sector-specific
total catch limit program....Under a vessel-specific total catch limit
program, the participating vessels would be monitored inseason and each
vessel would be prohibited from fishing once it had achieved its total
catch limit for a given FMU species, stock or stock complex.'' (FMP at
6.5.3.2.) The Council is developing alternatives for an individual
quota (IQ) program for the limited entry trawl fishery. IQs, depending
on specific requirements, could include vessel-specific catch limits
for bycatch species. One of the objectives the Council has adopted for
the design of the program is ``reduce bycatch and discard mortality.''
Amendment 18 revises the FMP to specify that individual fishing quota
programs ``would be established for the purposes of reducing fishery
capacity, minimizing bycatch, and to meet other goals of the FMP.'' An
IQ program with specific bycatch limits would be dependent upon a more
intense level of monitoring than is practicable under the current
management regime and could be designed using the FMP's guidance on
vessel-specific total catch limit programs.
Section 6.5.3.3 allows the allocation of catch or fishing areas to
gear types with lower bycatch rates. The Council made this principle
mandatory when, beginning in 2005, it required the use of selective
flatfish trawl gear for vessels fishing shoreward of the Trawl RCA
north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. The Council is also implementing this
principle in using bycatch models that differ by gear type, which in
turn means that the management measures developed out of the bycatch
models are gear-specific in addressing target species interactions with
depleted species.
Section 6.6 of the FMP addresses ``Gear Definitions and
Restrictions.'' Amendment 18 primarily updated the FMP with the gear
regulations that NMFS has implemented through regulations. Amendment 19
to the FMP, developed on a concurrent time frame, implements
prohibitions in section 6.6.1.1 against: fishing with bottom trawl gear
with footrope diameter greater than 8 inches (20.5 cm) shoreward of a
boundary line approximating the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour, fishing
with bottom trawl gear with a footrope diameter greater than 19 inches
(48.6 cm) anywhere in the EEZ, fishing with dredge gear, and fishing
with beam trawl gear. These measures are specifically intended to
protect groundfish EFH, although they will also reduce the access that
some gears have to portions of the EEZ, constraining directed and
incidental catch by those gears. Amendment 19's trawl footrope
prohibitions in the FMP are the culmination of longer-term Council
efforts to restrict trawl gear access to habitat areas where incidental
catch of sensitive species may occur.
[[Page 36511]]
Amendment 18 adds section 6.7 to update the FMP's guidance on
``Catch Restrictions.'' Amendment 18's additions on catch restrictions
primarily provide further guidance on the FMP's direct catch limiting
tools: quotas, size limits, total catch limits, prohibited species
designation, trip limits, and recreational bag limits, boat limits, and
catch dressing requirements.
Amendment 18 adds section 6.8, ``Time/Area Closures'' to the FMP,
including a variety of time/area closures in the FMP that vary by type
both in their permanency and in the size of area closed, explaining:
``When the Council sets fishing seasons [Section 6.8.1,] it generally
uses latitude lines extending from shore to the EEZ boundary to close
large sections of the EEZ for part of a fishing year to one or more
fishing sectors. RCAs [at section 6.8.2,] by contrast, are coastwide
fishing area closures bounded on the east and west by lines connecting
a series of coordinates approximating a particular depth contour. RCAs
are gear-specific and their eastern and western boundaries may vary
during the year. RCAs also may be polygons that are closed to fishing
for a brief period (less than one year) in order to provide short-term
protection for the more migratory overfished or other protected
species. Groundfish fishing areas (GFAs) [at section 6.8.3] are
enclosed areas of high abundance of a particular species or species
group and may be used to allow targeting of a more abundant stock
within that enclosed area. Long-term bycatch mitigation closed areas
(section 6.8.4) have boundaries that do not vary by season and are not
usually modified annually or biennially.''
Since the court's ruling in PMCC v. Evans, NMFS has implemented a
broad suite of marine area closures intended to reduce incidental catch
of overfished groundfish species. RCAs have been used as a significant
tool in rebuilding overfished groundfish species through reducing
opportunities for incidental cath of those species. RCA boundaries can
be altered inseason to tailor fishery management measures with the most
recently available catch or scientific information, to better ensure
that overfished species OYs are not exceeded.
When the Council finalized its recommendations on Amendment 18 at
its November 2005 meeting, it recommended expanding the allowable use
of depth-based management measures from reducing catch of and
rebuilding overfished stocks to: ``protect and rebuild overfished
stocks; extend the fishing season; for the commercial fisheries, to
minimize disruption of traditional fishing and marketing patterns; to
reduce discards; for the recreational fisheries, to spread the
available catch over a large number of anglers; to discourage target
fishing while allowing small incidental catches to be landed; and to
allow small fisheries to operate outside the normal season.'' (section
6.2.1.) This expanded allowable use of depth-based management measures
makes those measures available for constraining the incidental catch of
a broad array of species, not just overfished species.
The wide variety of marine closed areas intended to protect
overfished species, protected salmon, and groundfish habitat (closures
implemented via Amendment 19) creates a potentially confusing mixture
of open and closed areas that apply to various gear types. In order to
better enforce the closed areas, NMFS introduced a pilot VMS program on
January 1, 2004 (68 FR 62374, November 4, 2003). The pilot VMS
regulatory system initially required vessels registered to limited
entry permits to carry and use VMS units. When it made its
recommendations that NMFS implement this pilot system, the Council
stated its intent to expand VMS requirements to cover the open access
commercial groundfish fisheries and portions of the recreational
fisheries. Over 2004-2005, the Council developed and considered a
program to expand VMS requirements to the commercial open access
fishery. At its November 2005 meeting, the Council made its final
recommendation to require VMS coverage for all open access vessels
operating in the EEZ. NMFS is developing a proposed rule to implement
the Council's VMS expansion recommendations, which the agency plans to
publish in summer 2006. To recognize the need for VMS as a compliance
tool for area and/or season closures, the Council recommended including
an authorization for its use within the FMP via Amendment 18 at section
6.4.2. Amendment 18 also adds section 6.10, ``Fishery Enforcement and
Vessel Safety,'' to provide a more clear framework for evaluating the
enforceability of all regulations implementing the FMP, including those
related to area closures.
Regulations Implementing Amendment 18
As discussed above, NMFS and the Council have implemented a variety
of bycatch minimization regulations since Amendment 13. In addition to
those measures already in place, the regulations to implement Amendment
18 would: require that groundfish fishery management measures take into
account the co-occurrence ratios of overfished species with more
abundant target stocks; revise Federal observer regulations to
authorize NMFS to place observers on vessels that participate in the
open access groundfish fisheries; allow the use of depth-based closed
areas as a routine management measure for protecting and rebuilding
overfished stocks, preventing the overfishing of any groundfish
species, minimizing the incidental harvest of any protected or
prohibited non-groundfish species, controlling effort to extend the
fishing season, minimizing the disruption of traditional commercial
fishing and marketing patterns, spreading the available recreational
catch over a large number of anglers, discouraging target fishing while
allowing small incidental catches to be landed, and allowing small
fisheries to operate outside the normal season; and update the boundary
definitions of the Klamath and Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zones
and Eureka nearshore area to use latitude and longitude coordinates in
a style similar to that of the GCAs.
This proposed rule would revise Federal regulations at 50 CFR
660.370 to require species co-occurrence ratios to be taken into
account during the setting of harvest specifications and management
measures. This action is intended to implement the FMP's requirement
under Amendment 18 that bycatch be addressed through modeling
interactions between target and bycatch species, and the requirement
that management measures be designed to take into account those modeled
interactions.
To implement Amendment 18 and to clarify the agency's authority to
place observers on open access groundfish vessels, this rule proposes
to revise observer coverage requirement regulations at Sec.
660.314(c)(2). Catcher vessels that would be subject to Federal
observer coverage requirements would include: (A) Any vessel registered
for use with a Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry permit that
fishes in state or Federal waters seaward of the baseline from which
the territorial sea is measured off the States of Washington, Oregon,
or California (0-200 nm offshore); (B) Any vessel that is used to take
and retain, possess, or land groundfish in or from the EEZ; (C) Any
vessel that is required to take a Federal observer by the applicable
state law. WCGOP is working with the three West Coast states to ensure
that state law is concurrent with Federal law in permitting Federal
observer coverage of vessels that take groundfish. This action is
intended to ensure that WCGOP has
[[Page 36512]]
access not just to vessels targeting groundfish in Federal waters, but
also to open access vessels participating in fisheries that take and
retain federally managed groundfish species, even if they are not
specifically targeting groundfish.
As mentioned earlier, Amendment 18 expands the use of depth-based
management measures beyond protecting and rebuilding overfished stocks.
This proposed rule would revise Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.370
so that routine management measures for all fisheries allow depth-based
management measures to be used: ``to protect and rebuild overfished
stocks, to prevent the overfishing of any groundfish species by
minimizing the direct or incidental catch of that species, to minimize
the incidental harvest of any protected species taken in the groundfish
fishery, to extend the fishing season; for the commercial fisheries, to
minimize disruption of traditional fishing and marketing patterns; for
the recreational fisheries, to spread the available catch over a large
number of anglers; to discourage target fishing while allowing small
incidental catches to be landed; and to allow small fisheries to
operate outside the normal season.'' This measure is intended to allow
the expanded use of depth-based closed areas both as biennial and
inseason management measures to protect a more broad variety of species
than just overfished species.
NMFS has primarily used depth-based management in the non-whiting
groundfish fisheries. The whiting fishery has been managed with salmon
protection zones off the Columbia and Klamath rivers since 1993 (April
20, 1993, 58 FR 21263.) The whiting fishery is also restricted within
the Eureka management area (43[deg]00' to 40[deg]30' N. lat.,
approximately Cape Blanco, OR to Cape Mendocino, CA), wherein it is
subject to more restrictive trip limits shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m)
depth contour. Both the salmon protection zones and the trip limit
restrictions within the Eureka management area are intended to reduce
bycatch of endangered and threatened salmon taken incidental to the
whiting fishery. NMFS is using this Amendment 18 proposed rule to
update the boundary designations for the Klamath River and Columbia
River Salmon Conservation Zones, and to update the Eureka restriction
zone so that it is bounded by the RCA 100-fm (183-m) boundary line,
rather than by a bathymetric curve found on a series of NOAA charts.
Current regulatory language designating the boundaries of these areas
is not as precise as that used for RCAs and other overfished species
conservation areas. This proposed rule would revise Federal regulations
to define the boundaries of the salmon conservation zones within series
of latitude/longitude coordinates, as has been done for the RCAs and
other overfished species conservation areas. This proposed rule would
also revise Federal regulations to refer to the area affected by more
restrictive trip limits as shoreward of the boundary line approximating
the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour, as defined for RCAs and other
management areas with latitude/longitude coordinates at Sec. 660.393.
These measures are intended to improve the enforceability of
regulations designed to reduce salmon bycatch in the whiting fishery.
Continuing Council Efforts in Support of Amendment 18
In a multi-species fishery like the West Coast groundfish fishery,
developing management measures to minimize bycatch is an ongoing
effort. When the Council adopted Amendment 18, they discussed next
steps for bycatch minimization, particularly looking for practical
near-term actions that could swiftly result in bycatch reduction. In
addition to the suite of management measures brought into the FMP and
Federal regulations via Amendment 18, the Council recommended: (1)
investigating the state and Federal total catch data delivery systems
with the aim of increasing the frequency with which observer and total
catch data is made available to the Council and the public, and (2)
implementing a permitting program for the groundfish open access
fishery so as to better connect catch with vessels in particular
geographic areas.
For the first issue, more timely access to total catch data, the
Council asked NMFS to begin a dialogue within the Council process by
reporting to the Council on the process for observer data compilation
and analysis. The agency's initial sense is that there are several
steps in the data aggregation process that need to be reviewed for
efficiency: (1) the delivery of fish ticket and port sampler data to
the Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN;) (2) the
verification of fish ticket data with observer data to ensure that the
correct fish tickets are matched to the correct observed trips; (3) the
delivery of finalized trawl logbook data to PacFIN; (4) the analysis of
observer data and its expansion to the total fleet; (5) the compilation
of observer data into formats compatible with confidentiality laws and
the Information Quality Act.
For the second issue, open access fleet permitting, the Council did
not specify whether it intended the size of the open access fleet to be
reduced. When recommending permits for open access fishery
participants, Council members expressed a desire to have more complete
data on catch attributable to vessels landing groundfish outside of the
limited entry fishery. NMFS's draft Environmental Assessment on
expanding VMS coverage to the open access fishery found that 1,000 -
1,500 vessels participate in the open access fishery each year.
Amendment 18 revises the second objective of the FMP to place a higher
priority on managing harvest capacity so that it is better matched to
available groundfish resources. NMFS supports the Council's desire to
permit the open access fleet so as to provide better vessel-specific
tracking of landings in that sector. However, the agency also supports
bringing the capacity within the open access fishery into line with the
resources available to that fleet, and will be urging the Council to
consider management alternatives to reduce open access fleet size. The
Council is initially scheduled to consider this issue at its September
10-15, 2006, meeting in Foster City, CA.
Beyond these two issues, the Council is considering a variety of
management programs that include reducing bycatch as management goals:
additional area closures to protect both overfished species and
protected salmon as part of the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest
specifications and management measures; a trawl IQ program intended, in
part, to minimize discard; a full retention and electronic monitoring
program for the shorebased whiting fishery; and a groundfish allocation
EIS that would establish allocations between the trawl and fixed gear
sectors of the limited entry fleet, and between the commercial and
recreational fisheries, in order to allow the development and
consideration of a trawl IQ program, and sector-specific and/or vessel-
specific total catch limit programs.
Because technology and economic considerations change over time,
the practicability of effectively using different bycatch minimization
measures also changes over time. Amendment 18 to the groundfish FMP
contains measures to both minimize bycatch to the extent practicable at
this time, and to foster fishery management programs that will expand
the array of management measures that are practicable in the future.
Bycatch minimizing management tools that might not now be available to
manage the fleet may become available in the future. Amendment 18
provides a
[[Page 36513]]
framework for implementing bycatch minimization measures that are
impracticable at this time, but which may become practicable in the
future.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not determined whether Amendment 18, which
this rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making
that determination, will take into account the data, views, and
comments received during the comment period.
NMFS prepared a final EIS a bycatch minimization program in the
Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. Amendment 18 would implement the
Council's preferred alternative from that EIS. A notice of availability
for the final EIS was published on September 24, 2004 (69 FR 57277.) A
copy of the final EIS is available online at:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/NEPA-Documents/Programmatic-EIS.cfm
.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This action contains a variety of proposed revisions to Federal
regulations. With respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
revisions to observer regulations proposed by this action are within
the scope of the analysis conducted for the initial implementation of
the observer program: the EA/RIR/IRFA on ``An Observer Program for
Catcher Vessels in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery''(2000). NMFS
summarized the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for that action in
the preamble to the final rule published on April 24, 2001 (66 FR
20609.) For the remainder of the regulatory actions proposed in this
rule, NMFS prepared an updated initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and
the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this
proposed rule. A summary of the analysis follows.
As discussed earlier in this document, regulations beyond those
applying to the observer program would: require that groundfish fishery
management measures take into account the co-occurrence ratios of
overfished species with more abundant target stocks; allow the use of
depth-based closed areas as a routine management measure for preventing
the overfishing of any groundfish species by minimizing the direct or
incidental catch of that species (in addition to the current use of
depth-based management measures to protect overfished species;) allow
the use of depth-based closed areas as a routine management measure for
minimizing the bycatch of any prohibited or protected species taken
incidentally in the groundfish fishery, for controlling effort to
extend the fishing season, for minimizing the disruption of traditional
fishing seasons and marketing patterns, for allowing the recreational
catch to be available to the largest number of anglers, for
discouraging target fishing while allowing small incidental catches to
be landed, and for allowing small fisheries to operate outside of the
normal fishing season, and; update the boundary definitions of the
Klamath and Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zones and Eureka
nearshore area to use latitude and longitude coordinates in a style
similar to that of the GCAs.
Approximately 1,511 vessels participated in the West Coast
commercial groundfish fisheries in 2003. Of those, about 498 vessels
were registered to limited entry permits issued for either trawl,
longline, or pot gear. All but 10-20 of the 1,511 vessels participating
in the groundfish fisheries are considered small businesses by the
Small Business Administration. In the 2001 recreational fisheries,
there were 106 Washington charter vessels engaged in salt water fishing
outside of Puget Sound, 232 charter vessels active on the Oregon coast,
and 415 charter vessels active on the California coast. Although some
charter businesses, particularly those in or near large California
cities, may not be small businesses, all are assumed to be small
businesses for purposes of this discussion.
The regulations that require that groundfish fishery management
measures take into account the co-occurrence ratios of overfished
species with more abundant target stocks, allow the use of depth-based
closed areas as a routine management measure for preventing the
overfishing of any groundfish species by minimizing the direct or
incidental catch of that species, and allow the use of depth-based
closed areas a routine management measure for minimizing the bycatch of
any prohibited or protected species taken incidentally in the
groundfish fishery apply to all 1,700 vessels participating in the West
Coast commercial groundfish fisheries. The regulations that update the
boundary definitions of the Klamath and Columbia River Salmon
Conservation Zones and Eureka nearshore area apply to the 40-50 vessels
that annually participate in the West Coast Pacific whiting fishery.
NMFS and the Council developed these proposed regulations in order
to implement Amendment 18, which brings the Council's bycatch
minimization program into the FMP. As discussed earlier in this
document, the Council developed Amendment 18 from its preferred
alternative in a September 2004 final EIS on a bycatch minimization
program in the West Coast groundfish fisheries. The EIS analyzed seven
alternatives for a long-term bycatch minimization program: (1) Status
quo, control bycatch by trip limits that vary by gear, depth, fishing
area, and season; (2) reduce effort in the fishery to allow for larger
trip limits; (3) shorten the commercial fishing season to allow for
larger trip limits; (4) establish sector catch and mortality caps; (5)
establish an individual quota program for the commercial fishery; (6)
close large marine areas to fishing, implement more strict gear
restrictions, establish individual bycatch caps, and; (7) preferred,
include all current bycatch minimization program elements in the FMP,
develop and adopt sector-specific caps for overfished and depleted
groundfish species where practicable; support the future use of
Individual Fishing Quota programs for appropriate sectors of the
fishery; improve baseline accounting of bycatch by sector for to better
meet future bycatch program goals.
Each of the alternatives analyzed in the EIS was expected to have
different overall effects on the economy. Because of the length of time
necessary to complete an EIS of this magnitude, many of the actions
contemplated in the preferred alternative and elsewhere in the EIS were
analyzed and implemented via some separate earlier action. For example,
the large-scale marine area closures off the West Coast known as RCAs
were first implemented coastwide as part of the 2004 groundfish harvest
specifications and management measures. The actions contemplated in the
preferred alternative that have not yet been implemented and which are
not proposed to be implemented via this rule, such as vessel-specific
bycatch caps, are not practicable at this time. All of the requirements
in this action do not increase the costs associated with reporting,
record-keeping, or other compliance requirements directly. These
requirements are: (1) groundfish fishery management measures take into
account the co-occurrence ratios of overfished species with more
abundant target stocks; (2) the allowance of the use of depth-based
closed areas a routine management measure for
[[Page 36514]]
preventing the overfishing of any groundfish species by minimizing the
direct or incidental catch of that species; and 3) the allowance of the
use of depth-based closed areas as a routine management measure for
minimizing the bycatch of any prohibited or protected species taken
incidentally in the groundfish fishery. However, rules based on these
provisions will, at some future time, result in compliance
requirements. When this occurs, those management measures will be
analyzed as part of the applicable rulemaking process. A copy of this
analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September
27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999, pertaining to the
effects of the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon
(Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper
Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River,
Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal),
coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern
California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River),
sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle
and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River,
central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central
California, northern California, southern California). These biological
opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific
Coast groundfish fishery was not expected to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species under the
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
NMFS reinitiated a formal ESA section 7 consultation under the ESA
in 2005 for both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery and the
groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999 Biological
Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the
Pacific whiting fishery. During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, the
11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering
reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish
Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an
analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.
NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11,
2006, which addressed salmon take in both the Pacific whiting midwater
trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental
Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the
2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered
during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300
over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the
reinitiation trigger of 11,000. Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has
averaged about 8,450. The Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the
whiting fishery has generally improved in status since the 1999 section
7 consultation. Although these species remain at risk, as indicated by
their ESA listing, NMFS concluded that the higher observed bycatch in
2005 does not require a reconsideration of its prior ``no jeopardy''
conclusion with respect to the fishery. For the groundfish bottom trawl
fishery, NMFS concluded that incidental take in the groundfish
fisheries is within the overall limits articulated in the Incidental
Take Statement of the 1999 Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom
trawl limit from that opinion was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will
continue to monitor and collect data to analyze take levels. NMFS also
reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the
Groundfish FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any of the affected ESUs.
There are four groundfish treaty tribes operating off the U.S. West
Coast: Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault. Representatives of these
tribes participate in the Pacific Council process, and were part of the
development of Amendment 18 to the FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific
Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally
recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction.
In accordance with E.O. 13175, this proposed rule was developed after
meaningful consultation and collaboration with the tribal
representative on the Pacific Council and with the tribal officials
from the four groundfish treaty tribes affected by this action. NMFS
consulted and collaborated with tribal officials on this action both
within the Pacific Council process, and externally to that process.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
Dated: June 21, 2006.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
l. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 660.314, paragraphs (c)(2), and (f)(1)(v)(B) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.314 Groundfish observer program.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Catcher vessels. When NMFS notifies the vessel owner, operator,
permit holder, or the vessel manager of any requirement to carry an
observer, the vessel may not be used to fish in the EEZ without
carrying an observer.
(i) For the purposes of this section, catcher vessels include all
of the following vessels:
(A) Any vessel registered for use with a Pacific Coast groundfish
limited entry permit that fishes in state or Federal waters seaward of
the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured off the States
of Washington, Oregon, or California (0-200 nm offshore).
(B) Any vessel that is used to take and retain, possess, or land
groundfish in or from the EEZ.
(C) Any vessel that is required to take a Federal observer by the
applicable state law.
(ii) Notice of departure Basic rule. At least 24 hours (but not
more than 36 hours) before departing on a fishing trip, a vessel that
has been notified by NMFS that it is required to carry an observer, or
that is operating in an active sampling unit, must notify NMFS (or its
designated agent) of the vessel's intended time of departure. Notice
will be given in a form to be specified by NMFS.
(A) Optional notice Weather delays. A vessel that anticipates a
delayed departure due to weather or sea conditions may advise NMFS of
the anticipated delay when providing the basic notice described in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. If departure is delayed beyond 36
hours from the time the original notice is given, the vessel must
provide an additional notice of departure not less than 4 hours prior
to departure, in order to enable NMFS to place an observer.
(B) Optional notice Back-to-back fishing trips. A vessel that
intends to
[[Page 36515]]
make back-to-back fishing trips (i.e., trips with less than 24 hours
between offloading from one trip and beginning another), may provide
the basic notice described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)) of this section for
both trips, prior to making the first trip. A vessel that has given
such notice is not required to give additional notice of the second
trip.
(iii) Cease fishing report. Withing 24 hours of ceasing fishing,
vessel owners, operators, or managers must notify NMFS or its
designated agent that fishing has ceased. This requirement applies to
any vessel that is required to carry an observer, or that is operating
in a segment of the fleet that NMFS has identified as an active
sampling unit.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) Annual general endorsements. Each observer must obtain an
annual general endorsement to their certification prior to his or her
first deployment within any fishing year subsequent to a year in which
a certification training endorsement is obtained. To obtain an annual
general endorsement, an observer must successfully complete the annual
briefing, as specified by the Observer Program. All briefing
attendance, performance, and conduct standards required by the Observer
Program must be met.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 660.370, paragraphs (b) and (c)(3) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 660.370 Specifications and management measures.
* * * * *
(b) Biennial actions. The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is
managed on a biennial, calendar year basis. Harvest specifications and
management measures will be announced biennially, with the harvest
specifications for each species or species group set for two sequential
calendar years. In general, management measures are designed to
achieve, but not exceed, the specifications, particularly optimum
yields (harvest guidelines and quotas), commercial harvest guidelines
and quotas, limited entry and open access allocations, or other
approved fishery allocations, and to protect overfished and depleted
stocks. Management measures will be designed to take into account the
co-occurrence ratios of target species with overfished species, and
will select measures that will minimize bycatch to the extent
practicable.
(c) * * *
(3) All fisheries, all gear types, depth-based management measures.
Depth-based management measures, particularly the setting of closed
areas known as Groundfish Conservation Areas, may be implemented in any
fishery that takes groundfish directly or incidentally. Depth-based
management measures are set using specific boundary lines that
approximate depth contours with latitude/longitude waypoints found at
Sec. 660.390-.394. Depth-based management measures and the setting of
closed areas may be used: to protect and rebuild overfished stocks, to
prevent the overfishing of any groundfish species by minimizing the
direct or incidental catch of that species, to minimize the incidental
harvest of any protected or prohibited species taken in the groundfish
fishery, to extend the fishing season; for the commercial fisheries, to
minimize disruption of traditional fishing and marketing patterns; for
the recreational fisheries, to spread the available catch over a large
number of anglers; to discourage target fishing while allowing small
incidental catches to be landed; and to allow small fisheries to
operate outside the normal season.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 660.373, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 660.373 Pacific whiting (whiting) fishery management.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone. The Klamath River
Salmon Conservation Zone is an area off the northern California coast
intended to protect salmon from incidental catch in the whiting
fishery. The Klamath River Conservation Zone is defined by straight
lines connecting the following specific latitude and longitude
coordinates in the order listed:
(i) 41[deg]38.80' N. lat., 124[deg]07.49' W. long.;
(ii) 41[deg]38.80' N. lat., 124[deg]23.00' W. long.;
(iii) 41[deg]26.80' N. lat., 124[deg]19.26' W. long.;
(iv) 41[deg]26.80' N. lat., 124[deg]03.80' W. long.; and connecting
back to 41[deg]38.80' N. lat., 124[deg]07.49' W. long.
(2) Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone. The Columbia River
Salmon Conservation Zone is an area off the northern Oregon and
southern Washington coast intended to protect salmon from incidental
catch in the whiting fishery. The Columbia River Salmon Conservation
Zone is defined by straight lines connecting the following specific
latitude and longitude coordinates in the order listed:
(i) 46[deg]18.00' N. lat., 124[deg]04.50' W. long.;
(ii) 46[deg]18.00' N. lat., 124[deg]13.30' W. long.;
(iii) 46[deg]11.10' N. lat., 124[deg]11.00' W. long.;
(iv) 46[deg]13.58' N. lat., 124[deg]01.33' W. long.; and connecting
back to 46[deg]18.00' N. lat., 124[deg]04.50' W. long.
(d) Eureka area trip limits. Trip landing or frequency limits may
be established, modified, or removed under Sec. 660.370 or Sec.
660.373, specifying the amount of Pacific whiting that may be taken and
retained, possessed, or landed by a vessel that, at any time during a
fishing trip within the Eureka management area (from 43[deg]00.00'' to
40[deg]30.00'' N. lat.) and shoreward of a boundary line approximating
the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour, as defined with latitude/longitude
coordinates at Sec. 660.393.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-10114 Filed 6-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S