67 FR 101 pgs. 36556-36559 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,Squid and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 2
Type: PRORULEVolume: 67Number: 101Pages: 36556 - 36559
Docket number: [Docket No. 020508113-2113-01; I.D. 090501D]
FR document: [FR Doc. 02-13240 Filed 5-22-02; 2:44 pm]
Agency: Commerce Department
Sub Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 020508113-2113-01; I.D. 090501D]
RIN 0648-AP12
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,Squid and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 2
AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION:
Proposed rule, request for comments.
SUMMARY:
NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 2)to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan(FMP). This action would extend the limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery for an additional year; modify the Loligo squid overfishing definition and control rule; allow forthe roll-over of the annual specifications for these fisheries (with theexception of total allowable landings of foreign fishing (TALFF)) in theevent annual specifications are not published prior to the start of thefishing year; and allow Loligo squid specifications to beset for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. NMFS has disapproved theproposed framework measure to allow Illex squid vessels anexemption from the Loligo squid trip limit during an Augustor September closure of the directed Loligo squid fishery.This action is necessary to address issues and problems that have developedrelative to the management of these fisheries and is intended to furtherthe objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES:
Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standardtime, on June 10, 2002.
ADDRESSES:
Copies of Framework 2, including the Environmental Assessment (EA) andRegulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA), are available on request from Daniel T. Furlong, ExecutiveDirector, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 South New Street,Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via theInternet at http:/www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm .
Comments on Framework 2 should be sent to: Patricia A. Kurkul, RegionalAdministrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive,Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Please mark the envelope,"Comments-SMB Framework Adjustment 2." Comments also may besent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135. Comments will not be accepted ifsubmitted via e-mail or Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9273, fax978-281-9135, e-mail Paul.H.Jones@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In 1997, Amendment 5 to the FMP established a limited entry program forthe Illex squid fishery in response to a concern that fishingcapacity could otherwise expand to over exploit the stock. At the time theprogram was established, there were concerns that the capacity of thelimited entry vessels might prove, over time, to be insufficient to fullyexploit the annual quota. In response to this concern, a 5-yearsunset provision was placed on the Illex squid limited entryprogram, and it is currently scheduled to end July 1, 2002. However, inrecent years the limited entry fleet has demonstrated that it hassufficient capacity to harvest the long-term potential yield from thisfishery. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) mustprepare an amendment to the FMP to evaluate whether or not the limitedentry program should be extended permanently. In the meantime, this actionwould extend the Illex squid moratorium through July 1, 2003, to preventovercapitalization while the amendment is being prepared and considered bythe Council. This extension complies with the criteria in section303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.The extension will allow the Council additional time to consider long-termmanagement for the Illex squid fishery, including the limited entryprogram. Vessels that took small quantities of Illex squid in the past maycontinue to do so under the incidental catch provision of the FMP.
This action would also authorize the roll-over of the annualspecifications for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries.In recent years, publication of the annual specifications for thosefisheries has occurred after the start of the fishing year on January 1,resulting in inefficient management and industry uncertainty. Inparticular, late publication has affected business entities interested inconducting Joint Venture Processing (JVP) operations for Atlantic mackerel,because such operations cannot be authorized until there is a final rulethat includes a JVP allocation. This action would allow the annualAtlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications from the previousfishing year to roll-over into the next fishing year (excluding TALFF), inthe event that annual specifications for that year have not been published.The rolled-over specifications would be superceded by the publication ofthe current year's annual specifications.
While the primary components of the overfishing definition for Loligo squid (the maximum fishing mortality rate threshold andthe minimum biomass threshold) remain unchanged, this proposed action wouldmodify the control rules that guide the Council in making harvestrecommendations based upon those definitions. The fishing mortality rate(F) control rule adopted for Loligo squid in Amendment 8 tothe FMP specified that the target fishing mortality rate (F msy ) must be reduced to zero if biomass falls below 50 percentof the biomass target (B msy ). The target fishing mortalityrate increases linearly to 75 percent of F msy as biomassincreases to B msy . However, the 29th StockAssessment Workshop (SAW 29) indicated that the control rule was notappropriate for the stock, and that the target F of zero at 50 percent ofthe biomass target could be overly conservative. SAW 29 concluded that theapparent resilience of the stock is high, suggesting that it can rebuildquickly from low stock sizes at low to moderate F's. Estimates ofbiomass based on NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) fall1999, spring 2000, and fall 2000 survey indices for Loligo squid indicate that the stock is currently at or near B msy .The stock is also no longer listed as overfished in NMFS' Report toCongress: Status of the Fisheries of the United States (January 2001).However, projections of the 29th SAW indicated that if the Loligo quid stock were overfished, the biomass could be rebuiltfrom the minimum biomass threshold (½ B msy ) to levelsapproximating B msy in as little as 3 years, if F were reducedto 75 percent of F msy . Based on the above information, theCouncil concluded that the control rule adopted in Amendment 8, requiringan F of zero at 1/2B msy was too conservative.
This proposed action would allow specification of an annual quotaassociated with a target F of up to 90 percent of F msy to bespecified if stock biomass is greater than one-half B msy . Ifstock biomass falls below, or is expected to fall below, one-half B msy , measures to control fishing mortality would be implementedto insure that the stock is rebuilt to B msy in a time periodconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS ispublishing the proposed definition and also reviewing it in light of theupdated Loligo stock assessment conducted in January 2002.
This action also proposes to allow maximum optimum yield (Max OY),allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY) and domestic annualharvest (DAH) for Loligo squid to be specified for up to 3 years. If theannual review conducted by the Council through its Monitoring Committeeindicates that it is necessary, such a multi-year specification would berevised in the annual specification process.
This action also proposes an outline for a timeframe to be followed forin-season adjustments to the annual specifications for Loligo squid. The Council's Monitoring Committee will meet in late springeach year to review available NEFSC survey data and to developrecommendations for the annual harvest for the following year. Inaddition, at that meeting, the Monitoring Committee will makerecommendations regarding inseason adjustments to the annual Loligo squid specifications for consideration by the AtlanticMackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee and the Council. Based on anevaluation of the most recent NEFSC spring and fall trawl survey data, theOY, DAH, and ABC specifications may be adjusted to be consistent with thecontrol rule. Upon review of the recommendations from the Council, theAdministrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) may makeinseason adjustments through publication of notification in the Federal Register , to be followed by a 30-day commentperiod, as specified in the current regulations. Inseason adjustmentactions may include increases or decreases in the OY, DAH and ABCspecifications and may result in opening or closing the directed fisheryfor Loligo squid.
Disapproved Measure
NMFS has disapproved the proposed measure to allow Illex squid vessels an exemption from the Loligo squid trip limitduring an August or September closure of the directed Loligo squid fishery. The proposed measure would have allowed vessels fishing inthe directed Illex squid fishery during a closure of the Loligo fishery to land Loligo squid harvested seaward of the50-fathom (91-m) curve in an amount not to exceed 10 percent ofthe total weight of Illex squid on board the vessel.Currently, all vessels are limited to an incidental catch allowance of2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo squid per trip during a closureof the directed Loligo fishery.
This provision is being disapproved at the proposed rule stage becauseit has been found to be inconsistent with national standards 2 and 7 underthe Magnuson-Stevens Act. Because this action would limit vessels to a Loligo squid bycatch of 10 percent of the amount of Illex squid on board the vessel, and because of the high-volumenature of the Illex fishery, NMFS believes it would be impossible toenforce the proposed provision. In addition, under this provision, vesselswould only be permitted to retain an increased bycatch of Loligo squid while directing on Illex squidseaward of the 50-fathom (91-m) curve. However, it would bedifficult for enforcement agents to determine if a vessel's Loligo squidbycatch was legally taken, or occurred landward of the 50-fathom(9- m) curve. Such a provision would create significant enforcementcosts and, therefore, would be inconsistent with national standard 7.
Additionally, the Council did not consider the best scientific dataavailable to it when it defined the exemption measure; thus the measure hasbeen found to be inconsistent with national standard 2. The data examinedby NMFS indicates that there are factors contributing to the Loligo squid bycatch that were not considered by the Council.NMFS is also concerned that the analysis of the proposed measure did notuse a sufficiently long time-series of data to account for the fact thatthe overlap of the Illex and Loligo squidstocks is quite variable from year to year. Preliminary review ofavailable data also shows that the Council analysis may haveunder-estimated the amount of Loligo squid that could belanded as incidental catch by vessels other than those fishing under the Illex squid exemption. As a result, the analysis of the measureappears not to properly assess the impact on the Loligo squidquota management program.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant forpurposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impacts thisproposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description ofthe action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this actionare contained at in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section ofthe preamble. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflictwith other Federal rules. There are no new reporting or recordkeepingrequirements contained in the Preferred Alternatives or any of thealternatives considered for this action. A copy of the complete IRFA canbe obtained from the Northeast Regional Office of NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) or via the Internet at http:/www.nero.nmfs.gov . A summary of the analysis follows.
In addition to the measures described above, the Council consideredseveral alternatives. The non-preferred Illex permitalternatives considered were: (1) To extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional 5 years (through June 30,2007); and (2) to allow the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery to expire in 2002 (no action).
The alternative specification measures were: (1) If annualspecifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year,the fisheries would operate without specifications and Joint Ventures couldnot be conducted until specifications were published (no action/statusquo); (2) if annual specifications are not published prior to the start ofthe fishing year, a set of default specifications would apply until thespecifications are published; (3) if annual specifications are notpublished prior to the start of the fishing year, the fisheries would beclosed until the final specifications are published; (4) if annualspecifications for Atlantic mackerel are not published prior to the startof the fishing year, the previous year's specifications for Atlanticmackerel (excluding TALFF) would apply, until final specifications arepublished; and (5) if annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel are notpublished prior to the start of the fishing year, a set of defaultspecifications (excluding TALFF) would apply until the specifications arepublished.
The alternative Loligo overfishing definitions were: (1)An annual quota specified consistent with a target F of up to 90 percentF msy if stock biomass is greater than the minimum biomassthreshold (½ B msy ). If stock biomass was expected tofall below the minimum biomass threshold (½ Bmsy), measures would beimplemented to rebuild the stock to Bmsy in 3 to 5 years; (2) an annualquota specified consistent with a target F of up to 90 percent Fmsy ifstock biomass is greater than the minimum biomass threshold (½ Bmsy ). If stock biomass was below the minimum biomass threshold(½ B msy ), measures would be implemented to rebuild thestock to B msy in 3 to 10 years, but no longer than 10 years;(3) maintain current control rule and quota setting procedure for Loligo (no action/status quo).
Illex Moratorium Extension
The proposed action would extend the moratorium on entry of new vesselsinto the Illex fishery for one year; therefore no impact is expected onvessels in the fishery in 2002 (and the first half of 2003), compared toindividual vessel revenues in 2001. The Council assumed that the marketand prices are expected to remain stable. Any changes in individual vesselrevenues would be the result of factors outside the scope of the moratorium(e.g., change in fishing practices for individual vessels, or changes inabundance and distribution of Illex squid).
New vessels entering the fishery would limit per vessel share of the Illex squid quota and reduce revenues for the existingmoratorium vessels proportionally. Computing the negative impacts ofrevenue losses for the existing moratorium vessels is impossible due to theredirection of effort into the Illex squid fishery.Therefore, the Council decided to assume three scenarios that presumedrevenues derived from landings of Illex squid would bereduced by 75, 50, and 25 percent due to an assumed increase in vesselsthat have not participated in the Illex squid fishery.
Under alternative 2, the IRFA review of revenue impacts examined thelandings of vessels in the existing moratorium fishery and presumed thatrevenues derived from landing Illex for these vessels wouldbe reduced by 75 percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 75percent. A total of 109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenuelosses that ranged from less than 5 percent for 79 vessels, to a maximum of40-49 percent for 2 vessels. There were no impacted vesselshome-ported in Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 15 vesselshad home ports in New Jersey. Other impacted vessels were home ported inMassachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina. Presumably,other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.
Under alternative 3, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed thatvessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reducedby 50 percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 50 percent. A totalof 109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that rangedfrom less than 5 percent for 84 vessels, to a maximum of 30-39percent for one vessel. There were no impacted vessels home-ported inMaryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 11 vessels had home portsin New Jersey. Others were in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, andNorth Carolina. Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery wouldexperience gains in revenues.
Under alternative 4, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed thatvessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reducedby 25 percent due to an assumed increase in effort of 25 percent. A totalof 109 vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that rangedfrom less than 5 percent, for 88 vessels, to a maximum of 10-19 percent for8 vessels. The number of impacted vessels by home state ranged from nonein Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia, to a high of 11 in NewJersey. Other impacted vessels were home ported in Massachusetts, Maine,Rhode Island, and North Carolina. Presumably, other vessels entering thefishery would experience gains in revenues.
Specifications Process
The only alternative considered concerning quota specifications thatwould be expected to change gross vessel revenues would be the option thatwould close the fisheries if the final specifications are not published bythe start of the fishing year. This measure would have significantnegative economic consequences for vessels operating in the Atlanticmackerel, Loligo and butterfish fisheries because landings ofthese three species would be prohibited until NMFS publishes the final rulefor new specifications and significant landings occur early in the fishingyear. The IRFA analysis assumed that these fisheries would most likely beclosed during the months of January and February under this alternative.The total value of the landings of these three species during the first 2months of 1999 represented about 20 percent of the annual revenue generatedfor all three species in 1999. For Atlantic mackerel, 291 vessels landed12.1 million lb of mackerel valued at $1.7 million. A closure in Januaryand February would result in a loss of mackerel revenue of $5,842 pervessel under this alternative. For Loligo , 281 vesselslanded 6.5 million lb of Loligo valued at $5.1 million. Aclosure in January and February would result in a loss of Loligo revenue of $18,361 per vessel under this alternative.For butterfish, 228 vessels landed 1.4 million lb of butterfish valued at$0.9 million. A closure in January and February would result in a loss ofbutterfish revenue of $4,067 per vessel under this alternative. Thismeasure would be expected to have little or no economic impact on the Illex fishery since the directed fishery occurs during thesummer.
Loligo Overfishing Definition
None of the alternatives considered concerning the Loligo control rule and in-season adjustment are expected to change grossrevenues. Therefore, the IRFA concluded that neither the preferred nor thenon-preferred alternative represents catch constraints on vessels in thesefisheries in aggregate or individually. Without such catch constraints,there is no impact on revenues.
However, the no action alternative could have severe economicconsequences if the stock biomass falls below ½ B msy .If the Council had followed the control rule implemented in Amendment 8 forthe 2000 fishery, the Loligo fishery would have been closedfor the entire year. Thus failure to replace the control rule could haveunwarranted negative economic and social consequences. The best example isfor fishing year 2000. If the Council had followed the control rule, thefishery would have been closed, with significant impacts in participantvessels. Preliminary NMFS data show that 525 vessels landed 34.9 millionlb of Loligo in 2000, valued at $27.3 million. A completeclosure of the fishery in 2000 would have resulted in an economic loss of$52,000 per vessel due to loss of Loligo revenue.
It has been determined that this proposed rule does not contain policieswith federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order13132.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 22, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed tobe amended as follows:
PART 648-FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read asfollows:
Authority:
16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(i), the introductory text is revised to read as follows:
§ 648.4 Vessel permits.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits . ( Illex squid moratorium is applicable from July 1, 1997, until July 1, 2003).* * *
3. In § 648.20, paragraph (b) is revised to read asfollows:
§ 648.20 Maximum optimum yields (OYs).
(b) Loligo -the catch associated with a fishingmortality rate of F msy , or the best available proxy for F msy .
4. In § 648.21, paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)(1) arerevised and paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) are added to read asfollows:
§ 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
(a) * * *
(1) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annualharvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Illex squid;
(4) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annualharvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Loligo squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specifiedfor a period of up to 3 years;
(5) Inseason adjustment, upward or downward, to the specifications for Loligo squid as specified in paragraph (e) of thissection.
(d) * * *
(1) The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review therecommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on theserecommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid,Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriatespecifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specificationswill not be exceeded. The MAFMC will review these recommendations and,based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, mustrecommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and anymeasures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded.The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, asappropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts ofthe recommendations. The Regional Administrator will review therecommendations and, on or about November 1 of each year, will publishnotification in the Federal Register proposing specificationsand any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not beexceeded and providing a 30-day public comment period. If theproposed specifications differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, thereasons for any differences must be clearly stated and the revisedspecifications must satisfy the criteria set forth in this section. TheMAFMC's recommendations will be available for inspection at the office ofthe Regional Administrator during the public comment period. If the annualspecifications for squid, mackerel, and butterfish are not published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing year, theprevious year's annual specifications, excluding specifications ofTALFF, will remain in effect. The previous year's specificationswill be superceded as of the effective date of the final rule implementingthe current year's annual specifications.
[FR Doc. 02-13240 Filed 5-22-02; 2:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S