Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Chafing Gear Modifications, 71340-71344 [2014-28275]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71340
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Effective 0001 hours, November
29, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reid
Lichwell, (978) 281–9112, or
Reid.Lichwell@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations governing the summer
flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR
part 648. The regulations require annual
specification of a commercial quota that
is apportioned on a percentage basis
among the coastal states from North
Carolina through Maine. The process to
set the annual commercial quota and the
percent allocated to each state is
described in § 648.102.
The initial coastwide total
commercial quota for summer flounder
for the 2014 fishing year was set at
10,835,720 lb (4,915,000 kg) (79 FR
29371, May 22, 2014). The percent
allocated to vessels landing summer
flounder in New Jersey is 16.72499
percent, resulting in a commercial quota
of 1,812,273 lb (822,033 kg). We
adjusted the 2014 New Jersey summer
flounder allocation to 1,765,169 lb
(800,667 kg) to deduct research setaside, quota overages from 2013, and
adjustments for quota transfers between
states.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic
Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator),
monitors the state commercial landings
and determines when a state’s
commercial quota has been harvested.
NMFS is required to publish
notification in the Federal Register
advising and notifying commercial
vessels and dealer permit holders that,
effective upon a specific date, the state’s
commercial quota has been harvested
and no commercial quota is available for
landing summer flounder in that state.
The Regional Administrator has
determined that the 2014 New Jersey
commercial summer flounder quota
would be harvested by November 24,
2014, based upon dealer reports and
other available information.
Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal
permit holders agree, as a condition of
the permit, not to land summer flounder
in any state that the Regional
Administrator has determined no longer
has commercial quota available.
Therefore, effective 0001 hours,
November 29, 2014, landings of summer
flounder in New Jersey by vessels
holding summer flounder commercial
Federal fisheries permits are prohibited
for the remainder of the 2014 calendar
year, unless additional quota becomes
available through a transfer and is
announced in the Federal Register.
Effective 0001 hours, November 29,
2014, federally permitted dealers are
also notified that they may not purchase
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
summer flounder from federally
permitted vessels that land in New
Jersey for the remainder of the calendar
year, or until additional quota becomes
available through a transfer from
another state.
Classification
This action is required by 50 CFR part
648 and is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive
prior notice and the opportunity for
public comment because it would be
contrary to the public interest. This
action closes the summer flounder
fishery for New Jersey until January 1,
2015, under current regulations. The
regulations at § 648.103(b) require such
action to ensure that summer flounder
vessels do not exceed quotas allocated
to the states. If implementation of this
closure was delayed to solicit prior
public comment, the quota for this
fishing year would be exceeded, thereby
undermining the conservation
objectives of the Summer Flounder
Fishery Management Plan. The AA
further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30day delayed effectiveness period for the
reason stated above.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: November 26, 2014.
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–28379 Filed 11–26–14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 130405338–4987–02]
RIN 0648–BC84
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; Trawl
Rationalization Program; Chafing Gear
Modifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action modifies the
existing chafing gear regulations for
midwater trawl gear. This action
includes regulations that affect all trawl
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
sectors (Shorebased Individual Fishing
Quota Program (IFQ), Mothership
Cooperative Program (MS), Catcher/
Processor Cooperative Program (C/P),
and tribal fishery) managed under the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (PCGFMP). Many
Pacific whiting vessels also fish in the
Alaska groundfish fisheries. This action
establishes chafing gear restrictions for
the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery that
are more compatible with those for the
Gulf of Alaska groundfish and Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish
fisheries.
DATES: Effective January 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: NMFS prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA),
which is summarized in the
Classification section of this final rule.
NMFS also prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for the proposed rule. Copies of the
IRFA, FRFA and the Small Entity
Compliance Guide are available from
William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional
Administrator, West Coast Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE.,
Seattle, WA 98115–0070; or by phone at
206–526–6150. Copies of the Small
Entity Compliance Guide are available
on the West Coast Region’s Web site at
https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Becky Renko, 206–526–6110; (fax) 206–
526–6736; Becky.Renko@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule modifies the chafing gear
regulations that apply to all midwater
trawl gear. Chafing or chafer panels are
webbing or other material attached to
the codend to minimize damage from
wear caused by the codend rubbing
against the stern ramp and trawl alley
during net retrieval and from contact
with the ocean floor. Midwater trawl
gear is effective for targeting groundfish
species that ascend above the ocean
floor and is not designed to make
frequent contact with the ocean floor.
The only gear allowed for the targeting
of Pacific whiting during the Pacific
whiting primary seasons for the
shorebased IFQ program, MS coop
program, and CP coop program is
midwater trawl gear. Midwater trawl
gear is also used in the shorebased IFQ
program to target non-whiting species
such as widow, yellowtail, and
chilipepper rockfish. A proposed rule
was published in the Federal Register
on March 19, 2014 (79 FR 15296),
followed by a correction which was
published on April 4, 2014 (79 FR
18876).
During the proposed rule comment
period, NMFS specifically sought
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
comments on the proposed method of
attachment for chafing gear, including
the benefits and effects relative to
current minimum mesh size restrictions
and the prohibition on double-walled
codends. Only single-walled codend are
allowed in Pacific Coast groundfish
regulations and this rule does not
change that restriction. A single-walled
codend is constructed of a single wall of
webbing knitted with single or doublebar mesh (double twine tied into a
single knot). A double-walled codend is
constructed of two walls (layers) of
webbing. The prohibition on the use of
double-walled codends was developed
by the Council in the 1990s to ensure
the success of minimum mesh size
restrictions. Minimum mesh size
restrictions are intended to reduce the
catch of juvenile and small
unmarketable fish (groundfish and nongroundfish species). To prevent chafing
gear from being used to create the effect
of a double-walled codend, NMFS
identified an interest in adding
regulatory language to the final rule to
further clarify the existing regulatory
prohibition of double-walled codends
(§ 660.130(b)(1)).
This rule also includes minor
technical revisions to related regulatory
text. Section 660.11, General
definitions, contains basic descriptions
of small footrope, large footrope and
midwater trawl gear while the in-depth
descriptions of these trawl gears found
in § 660.130. Modifications at § 660.130
eliminate redundancy with § 660.11 and
increase clarity.
Response to Comments
One letter of comment was received
from an individual representing
members of the Pacific whiting industry
who are directly affected by the
rulemaking.
Comment 1: NMFS states in the
proposed rule that they are considering
clarifying the chafing gear regulation to
prevent creating an incentive to use
chafing gear to make a double-walled
codend. However, NMFS provides no
information in the proposed rule about
how the proposed chafing gear
regulations relate to the creation of a
double-walled codend. To the contrary,
the regulations as proposed do not
create an incentive for fishermen to
fashion a double-walled codend because
the chafing gear can only cover up to 75
percent of the codend and the top panel
of the codend will remain open. Putting
aside the fact that the entirety of the
codend will not be covered with chafing
gear, NMFS appears to request input
about the potential for the creation of a
double-walled codend because this has
the potential to increase the catch of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
smaller fish and incidental catch of nonwhiting species. However, doing this in
the Pacific whiting fishery is counter
intuitive because maximizing utilization
and minimizing bycatch are standard
practices. Similarly, NMFS states that
the proposed rule might create an
incentive for bottom contact with the
codend. Given the fishing dynamics of
a whiting midwater trawl, this is nearly
impossible. These are not reasons to
justify modification of the proposed rule
language, especially in regards to the
catcher/processor sector of the whiting
fishery.
The proposed rule language most
closely matches current industry
practice. Any deviation from the PFMC
recommendation will cause disruption
and economic hardship to the fleet with
no conservation or other benefit to
fisheries or habitat. The rule language as
proposed is well justified and should be
implemented as soon as possible.
Response: When the chafing gear
provisions were originally
implemented, the Council’s stated
intent was to maintain the minimum
mesh size restrictions so small fish
could escape. The proposed rule did not
consider changing regulations on
minimum mesh size restrictions or the
required use of single-walled codends
(use of double-walled codends is
prohibited). Therefore, NMFS believes it
is necessary to maintain the Council’s
intent for the minimum mesh size
restriction and double-walled codend
prohibition, by simply adding
regulatory text to state that chafing gear
may not be used to create a doublewalled codend.
The request for comment applied to
all midwater trawl gear regardless of the
target species and was not specific to
vessels targeting Pacific whiting. With
the growth in non-whiting midwater
fishing, gear configurations could differ
from those used in the Pacific whiting
fishery. NMFS is clarifying the
regulations so the intent of the gear
regulations is maintained relative to
minimum mesh size restrictions and the
prohibition on the use of double-walled
codends.
The data used in the analysis for this
action shows that Pacific whiting
vessels using midwater trawl gear,
including those in the C/P sector, make
occasional contact with the ocean floor.
While NMFS recognizes that there is
occasional bottom contact by midwater
trawl, this final rule does not change
regulations to address that occasional
bottom contact.
With this final rule, NMFS is
implementing the Council’s
recommendation for chafing gear and
maintaining the Council’s intent to
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71341
allow escapement of small fish from the
codend of midwater trawl gear. The gear
restrictions on minimum mesh size and
a prohibition on double-walled codends
are existing requirements. All of the
changes in this final rule either relieve
a restriction or further clarify an existing
restriction. Therefore, these changes
would not cause disruption or economic
hardship.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
In the trawl fishery management
measures at § 660.130(b)(1) pertaining to
the trawl codends, clarification is added
to prevent vessel operators from using
chafing gear to create a double-walled
codend. The Council did not explicitly
consider changes to the minimum mesh
size restrictions or the requirement to
use a single walled codend. Therefore,
clarifications are being made to the
regulations to preserve the intent of
those regulations to allow small fish to
escape given the changes to chafing gear
restrictions.
Classification
NMFS has made a determination that
this action is consistent with PCGFMP,
the MSA, and other applicable law. To
the extent that the regulations in this
final rule differ from what was deemed
by the Council, NMFS invokes its
independent authority under 16 U.S.C.
1855(d). In making this determination,
NMFS took into account the complete
record, including the data, views, and
comments received during the comment
period.
An EA was prepared for this action.
The EA is available on the Council’s
Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org/.
Pursuant to the procedures
established to implement section 6 of
Executive Order 12866, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that this rule is not
significant.
Pursuant to section 604 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS
has prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in support
of this action. The FRFA incorporates
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the
significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA,
NMFS’ response to those comments,
relevant analysis contained in the action
and its EA, and a summary of the
analyses in this rule. A copy of the
analyses and the EA are available from
the NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary
of the IRFA was published in the
proposed rule for this action and is not
repeated here. A description of why this
action was considered, the objectives of,
and the legal basis for this rule is
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71342
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
contained in the preamble to the
proposed rule and this final rule and is
not repeated here.
In addition to clarifying existing
regulations, this rule revises the
regulations to conform to current
industry chafing gear practices while
increasing the flexibility of vessel
owners to make chafing gear
modifications according to their own
individual operations and needs. Only
one comment was received on the
proposed rule (See Response to
Comments section above.) This
comment did not raise any issues or
concerns related to the IRFA but
confirmed that this final rule closely
matches current industry practice. No
changes were made to this final rule as
a result of the comment.
This final rule would affect those
vessels that use midwater trawl gear in
Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries.
Midwater trawl gear is used by catcher/
processors, mothership catcher vessels,
and vessels that deliver to Shoreside
processors. According to the Small
Business Administration (SBA), a
business involved in finfish harvesting
is a small business if it is independently
owned and operated, not dominant in
its field of operation, and has combined
annual receipts, not in excess of $20.5
million for all its affiliated operations
worldwide. After taking into account
vessels that fish in multiple midwater
fisheries and their affiliations, NMFS
estimates that there are 28 midwater
businesses, 22 of which are small
businesses.
In addition to No Action, two
alternatives were considered. The No
Action Alternative would limit chafing
gear to the very end of the codend (the
last 50 mesh lengths) and 50 percent of
the codend’s circumference via a single
panel. Under Alternative 1 (Council
Preferred Alternative), fishermen would
have the option of covering up to 100
percent of the length of the codend and
up to approximately 75 percent of the
codend’s circumference through the use
of a single panel or multiple panels.
Alternative 2A, fishermen would have
the option of covering up to 100 percent
of the length of the codend and up to
50 percent of the codend’s
circumference through the use of a
single panel or multiple panels. Under
Alternative 2B, fishermen would have
the option of covering up to 50 percent
of the length of the codend and up to
50 percent of the codend’s
circumference; however, no single panel
could cover more than 50 meshes of the
codend.
Adoption of any alternative other than
the No Action Alternative would
increase the useful life of the codend by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
allowing for greater protection against
abrasion and wear. Currently, most
fishermen are using gear compliant with
Alternative 2B, so there would be no
additional costs associated with this
alternative. The No Action Alternative
would require vessel owners to remove
chafing gear which is estimated to be a
one-time cost between $5,000 and
$10,000. As a result, their nets will have
the least amount of protection and thus
have to be replaced more often.
Alternative 1 is the Council’s Preferred
Alternative allows fishermen more
flexibility and comports with the
chafing gear currently used by the
majority of the fleet that fish in both
Pacific Coast and Alaska fisheries
allowing the same gear to be used in
both regions. Data in the EA shows that
62 percent of Pacific Coast whiting
vessels also fished off Alaska between
2004 and 2010. The codend replacement
costs are highest under No Actions and
lowest under the Council Preferred
Alternative. This rule implements the
Council Preferred Alternative which
closely matches current industry
practice and is not likely to have a
significant economic impact on any
entity, large or small.
Copies of the Small Entity
Compliance Guide prepared for this
final rule are available on the West
Coast Region’s Web site at https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
This final rule does not contain a
collection-of-information requirement
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175,
this final rule was developed after
meaningful consultation and
collaboration with tribal officials from
the area covered by the PCGFMP. 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.
The proposed regulations, which have a
direct effect on the tribes, were deemed
by the Council as ‘‘necessary or
appropriate’’ to implement the PCGFMP
as amended.
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
PCGFMP 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
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 PCGFMP is 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 issued a Supplemental
Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006,
concluding that neither the higher
observed bycatch of Chinook in the
2005 whiting fishery nor new data
regarding salmon bycatch in the
groundfish bottom trawl fishery
required a reconsideration of its prior
‘‘no jeopardy’’ conclusion. NMFS also
reaffirmed its prior determination that
implementation of the PCGFMP is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any of the affected species.
Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR
37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon
Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11,
2008) were recently relisted as
threatened under the ESA. The 1999
biological opinion concluded that the
bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific
whiting fishery were almost entirely
Chinook salmon, with little or no
bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and
steelhead.
On January 22, 2013, NMFS requested
the reinitiation of the biological opinion
for listed salmonids to address changes
in the fishery, including the trawl
rationalization program and the
emerging midwater trawl fishery. The
consultation will not be completed prior
to publication of this rule to modify
chafing gear regulations for the Pacific
whiting fishery. NMFS has considered
the likely impacts on listed salmonids
for the period of time between the final
rule and the completion of the
reinitiated consultation relative to
sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA. On
December 18, 2013, NMFS determined
that ongoing fishing under the PCGFMP,
assuming that the chafing gear
modifications are implemented in 2014,
prior to the completion of the
consultation would not be likely to
jeopardize listed salmonids or result in
any irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources that would
have the effect of foreclosing the
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
formulation or implementation of any
necessary reasonable and prudent
alternatives.
On December 7, 2012, NMFS
completed a biological opinion
concluding that the groundfish fishery
is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid
marine species including listed
eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback
whales, Steller sea lions, and
leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also
concludes that the fishery is not likely
to adversely modify critical habitat for
green sturgeon and leatherback sea
turtles. An analysis included in the
same document as the opinion
concludes that the fishery is not likely
to adversely affect green sea turtles,
olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea
turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right
whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm
whales, Southern Resident killer
whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the
critical habitat for Steller sea lions. With
this rulemaking, an informal
consultation on eulachon was initiated
on January 21, 2013. NMFS considered
whether the 2012 opinion should be
reconsidered for eulachon in light of
new information from the 2011 fishery
and the proposed chafing gear
modifications and determined that
information about the eulachon bycatch
in 2011 and chafing gear regulations did
not change the anticipated extent of
effects of the action, or provide any
other basis to reinitiate the December 7,
2012 biological opinion. Therefore, the
December 7, 2012 biological opinion
meets the requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the ESA and implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 402 and no further
consultation is required at this time.
On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a
biological opinion concluding that the
groundfish fishery will not jeopardize
the continued existence of the shorttailed albatross. The FWS also
concurred that the fishery is not likely
to adversely affect the marbled murrelet,
California least tern, southern sea otter,
bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.
This rule would not alter the effects
on marine mammals over what has
already been considered for the fishery.
West Coast pot fisheries for sablefish are
considered Category II fisheries under
the MMPA’s List of Fisheries, indicating
occasional interactions. All other West
Coast groundfish fisheries, including the
trawl fishery, are considered Category III
fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a
remote likelihood of or no known
serious injuries or mortalities to marine
mammals. On February 27, 2012, NMFS
published notice that the incidental
taking of Steller sea lions in the West
Coast groundfish fisheries is addressed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
in NMFS’ December 29, 2010 Negligible
Impact Determination (NID) and this
fishery has been added to the list of
fisheries authorized to take Steller sea
lions (77 FR 11493, February 27, 2012).
On September 4, 2013, based on its
negligible impact determination dated
August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit
for a period of three years to authorize
the incidental taking of humpback
whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78
FR 54553, September 4, 2013).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian
fisheries.
Dated: November 25, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended
as follows:
PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST
COAST STATES
1. The authority citation for part 660
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C.
773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
2. In § 660.130, paragraph (b) and the
introductory text of paragraph (c) are
revised to read as follows:
■
§ 660.130 Trawl fishery—management
measures.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Trawl gear requirements and
restrictions. Trawl nets may be fished
with or without otter boards, and may
use warps or cables to herd fish.
(1) Codends. Only single-walled
codends may be used in any trawl.
Double-walled codends are prohibited.
Chafing gear may not be used to create
a double-walled codend.
(2) Mesh size. Groundfish trawl gear,
including chafing gear, must meet the
minimum mesh size requirements in
this paragraph. Mesh size requirements
apply throughout the net. Minimum
trawl mesh sizes are: Bottom trawl, 4.5
inches (11.4 cm); midwater trawl, 3.0
inches (7.6 cm). Minimum trawl mesh
size requirements are met if a 20-guage
stainless steel wedge, less one thickness
of the metal wedge, can be passed with
only thumb pressure through at least 16
of 20 sets of two meshes each of wet
mesh.
(3) Bottom trawl gear—(i) Large
footrope trawl gear. Lines or ropes that
run parallel to the footrope may not be
augmented with material encircling or
tied along their length such that they
have a diameter larger than 19 inches
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71343
(48 cm). For enforcement purposes, the
footrope will be measured in a straight
line from the outside edge to the
opposite outside edge at the widest part
on any individual part, including any
individual disk, roller, bobbin, or any
other device.
(ii) Small footrope trawl gear. Lines or
ropes that run parallel to the footrope
may not be augmented with material
encircling or tied along their length
such that they have a diameter larger
than 8 inches (20 cm). For enforcement
purposes, the footrope will be measured
in a straight line from the outside edge
to the opposite outside edge at the
widest part on any individual part,
including any individual disk, roller,
bobbin, or any other device.
(A) Selective flatfish trawl gear.
Selective flatfish trawl gear is a type of
small footrope trawl gear. The selective
flatfish trawl net must be a two-seamed
net with no more than two riblines,
excluding the codend. The breastline
may not be longer than 3 ft (0.92 m) in
length. There may be no floats along the
center third of the headrope or attached
to the top panel except on the riblines.
The footrope must be less than 105 ft
(32.26 m) in length. The headrope must
be not less than 30 percent longer than
the footrope. The headrope shall be
measured along the length of the
headrope from the outside edge to the
opposite outside edge. An explanatory
diagram of a selective flatfish trawl net
is provided as Figure 1 of part 660,
subpart D.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) Chafing gear restrictions for
bottom trawl gear. Chafing gear may
encircle no more than 50 percent of the
net’s circumference and may be in one
or more sections. Chafing gear may be
used only on the last 50 meshes,
measured from the terminal (closed) end
of the codend. Only the front edge (edge
closest to the open end of the codend)
and sides of each section of chafing gear
may be attached to the codend; except
at the corners, the terminal edge (edge
closest to the closed end of the codend)
of each section of chafing gear must not
be attached to the net. Chafing gear must
be attached outside any riblines and
restraining straps.
(4) Midwater (pelagic or off-bottom)
trawl gear. Midwater trawl gear must
have unprotected footropes at the trawl
mouth, and must not have rollers,
bobbins, tires, wheels, rubber discs, or
any similar device anywhere on any
part of the net. The footrope of
midwater gear may not be enlarged by
encircling it with chains or by any other
means. Ropes or lines running parallel
to the footrope of midwater trawl gear
must be bare and may not be suspended
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71344
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
with chains or any other materials.
Sweep lines, including the bottom leg of
the bridle, must be bare. For at least 20
ft (6.15 m) immediately behind the
footrope or headrope, bare ropes or
mesh of 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum
mesh size must completely encircle the
net.
(i) Chafing gear restrictions for
midwater trawl gear. Chafing gear may
cover the bottom and sides of the
codend in either one or more sections.
Only the front edge (edge closest to the
open end of the codend) and sides of
each section of chafing gear may be
attached to the codend; except at the
corners, the terminal edge (edge closest
to the closed end of the codend) of each
section of chafing gear must not be
attached to the net. Chafing gear is not
permitted on the top codend panel
except as provided in paragraph
(b)(4)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Chafing gear exception for
midwater trawl gear. A band of mesh (a
‘‘skirt’’) may encircle the net under or
over transfer cables, lifting or splitting
straps (chokers), riblines, and
restraining straps, but must be the same
mesh size and coincide knot-to-knot
with the net to which it is attached and
be no wider than 16 meshes.
(c) Restrictions by limited entry trawl
gear type. Management measures may
vary depending on the type of trawl gear
(i.e., large footrope, small footrope,
selective flatfish, or midwater trawl
gear) used and/or on board a vessel
during a fishing trip, cumulative limit
period, and the area fished. Trawl nets
may be used on and off the seabed. For
some species or species groups, Table 1
(North) and Table 1 (South) of this
subpart provide trip limits that are
specific to different types of trawl gear:
Large footrope, small footrope
(including selective flatfish), selective
flatfish, midwater, and multiple types. If
Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) of
this subpart provide gear specific limits
for a particular species or species group,
it is unlawful to take and retain, possess
or land that species or species group
with limited entry trawl gears other than
those listed. The following restrictions
are in addition to the prohibitions at
§ 660.112(a)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–28275 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 120706220–4964–02]
RIN 0648–BC34
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod Pot Gear
Fishing Closure in the Pribilof Islands
Habitat Conservation Zone in the
Bering Sea; Amendment 103
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS issues this final rule to
implement Amendment 103 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area
(BSAI FMP). This rule closes year-round
the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation
Zone (PIHCZ) to directed fishing for
Pacific cod with pot gear to minimize
bycatch and prevent overfishing of
Pribilof Islands blue king crab (PIBKC).
This action is intended to promote the
goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act), the BSAI FMP, and other
applicable laws.
DATES: Effective: January 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
BSAI FMP, Amendment 103 to the BSAI
FMP, the Environmental Assessment
(EA), and the Regulatory Impact
Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this
action are available from https://
www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/analyses/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Marie Eich, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fisheries of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI) in the
Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska
under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council)
prepared the BSAI FMP under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and other applicable laws. General
regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries
appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
Regulations implementing the BSAI
FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.
This final rule implements
Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP. This
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
rule closes the PIHCZ to directed fishing
for Pacific cod with pot gear.
Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP is
being implemented with Amendment 43
to the Fishery Management Plan for
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and
Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). Amendment
43 to the Crab FMP revises the current
rebuilding plan for PIBKC to include the
Pacific cod pot gear prohibition that
would be implemented under
Amendment 103. No regulatory
amendments are needed to implement
Amendment 43. These amendments
implemented together ensure that the
PIBKC rebuilding plan is revised to
further reduce the bycatch of PIBKC in
the groundfish fisheries, supporting the
rebuilding of the PIBKC stock in the
shortest time possible.
NMFS published the Notice of
Availability (NOA) of Amendment 103
to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to
the Crab FMP in the Federal Register on
August 21, 2014, with a 60-day
comment period that ended October 20,
2014 (79 FR 49487). The Secretary of
Commerce approved Amendment 103 to
the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to
the Crab FMP on November 14, 2014.
NMFS received two comment letters on
the NOA of Amendment 103 to the
BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to the
Crab FMP. These comments raised
identical concerns to one of the
comments received on the proposed
rule, which is summarized in the
‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section in
this final rule.
NMFS published a proposed rule to
implement Amendment 103 to the BSAI
FMP and the closure of the PIHCZ to
directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot
gear on August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51520).
The 30-day comment period on the
proposed rule ended September 29,
2014. NMFS received two comment
letters during the proposed rule
comment period. The comment letters
contained three unique comments. A
summary of those comments and NMFS’
responses are provided in the
‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section of
this preamble.
This final rule closes the PIHCZ yearround to directed fishing for Pacific cod
with pot gear to minimize bycatch of
PIBKC in groundfish fisheries and
prevent overfishing of PIBKC. The term
‘‘directed fishing’’ is defined in the
groundfish fisheries regulation at
§ 679.2. In June 2012, the Council
recommended closing the PIHCZ to
directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot
gear based on (1) the high rate of PIBKC
bycatch in the PIHCZ relative to other
areas outside of the PIHCZ; (2) the high
concentration of PIBKC in the PIHCZ;
(3) the occurrence of known PIBKC
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71340-71344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28275]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 130405338-4987-02]
RIN 0648-BC84
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Chafing Gear
Modifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action modifies the existing chafing gear regulations for
midwater trawl gear. This action includes regulations that affect all
trawl sectors (Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota Program (IFQ),
Mothership Cooperative Program (MS), Catcher/Processor Cooperative
Program (C/P), and tribal fishery) managed under the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). Many Pacific whiting
vessels also fish in the Alaska groundfish fisheries. This action
establishes chafing gear restrictions for the Pacific Coast groundfish
fishery that are more compatible with those for the Gulf of Alaska
groundfish and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries.
DATES: Effective January 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA), which is summarized in the Classification section of this final
rule. NMFS also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) for the proposed rule. Copies of the IRFA, FRFA and the Small
Entity Compliance Guide are available from William W. Stelle, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or by phone at 206-526-6150. Copies of the
Small Entity Compliance Guide are available on the West Coast Region's
Web site at https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko, 206-526-6110; (fax) 206-
526-6736; Becky.Renko@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule modifies the chafing gear
regulations that apply to all midwater trawl gear. Chafing or chafer
panels are webbing or other material attached to the codend to minimize
damage from wear caused by the codend rubbing against the stern ramp
and trawl alley during net retrieval and from contact with the ocean
floor. Midwater trawl gear is effective for targeting groundfish
species that ascend above the ocean floor and is not designed to make
frequent contact with the ocean floor. The only gear allowed for the
targeting of Pacific whiting during the Pacific whiting primary seasons
for the shorebased IFQ program, MS coop program, and CP coop program is
midwater trawl gear. Midwater trawl gear is also used in the shorebased
IFQ program to target non-whiting species such as widow, yellowtail,
and chilipepper rockfish. A proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register on March 19, 2014 (79 FR 15296), followed by a correction
which was published on April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18876).
During the proposed rule comment period, NMFS specifically sought
[[Page 71341]]
comments on the proposed method of attachment for chafing gear,
including the benefits and effects relative to current minimum mesh
size restrictions and the prohibition on double-walled codends. Only
single-walled codend are allowed in Pacific Coast groundfish
regulations and this rule does not change that restriction. A single-
walled codend is constructed of a single wall of webbing knitted with
single or double-bar mesh (double twine tied into a single knot). A
double-walled codend is constructed of two walls (layers) of webbing.
The prohibition on the use of double-walled codends was developed by
the Council in the 1990s to ensure the success of minimum mesh size
restrictions. Minimum mesh size restrictions are intended to reduce the
catch of juvenile and small unmarketable fish (groundfish and non-
groundfish species). To prevent chafing gear from being used to create
the effect of a double-walled codend, NMFS identified an interest in
adding regulatory language to the final rule to further clarify the
existing regulatory prohibition of double-walled codends (Sec.
660.130(b)(1)).
This rule also includes minor technical revisions to related
regulatory text. Section 660.11, General definitions, contains basic
descriptions of small footrope, large footrope and midwater trawl gear
while the in-depth descriptions of these trawl gears found in Sec.
660.130. Modifications at Sec. 660.130 eliminate redundancy with Sec.
660.11 and increase clarity.
Response to Comments
One letter of comment was received from an individual representing
members of the Pacific whiting industry who are directly affected by
the rulemaking.
Comment 1: NMFS states in the proposed rule that they are
considering clarifying the chafing gear regulation to prevent creating
an incentive to use chafing gear to make a double-walled codend.
However, NMFS provides no information in the proposed rule about how
the proposed chafing gear regulations relate to the creation of a
double-walled codend. To the contrary, the regulations as proposed do
not create an incentive for fishermen to fashion a double-walled codend
because the chafing gear can only cover up to 75 percent of the codend
and the top panel of the codend will remain open. Putting aside the
fact that the entirety of the codend will not be covered with chafing
gear, NMFS appears to request input about the potential for the
creation of a double-walled codend because this has the potential to
increase the catch of smaller fish and incidental catch of non-whiting
species. However, doing this in the Pacific whiting fishery is counter
intuitive because maximizing utilization and minimizing bycatch are
standard practices. Similarly, NMFS states that the proposed rule might
create an incentive for bottom contact with the codend. Given the
fishing dynamics of a whiting midwater trawl, this is nearly
impossible. These are not reasons to justify modification of the
proposed rule language, especially in regards to the catcher/processor
sector of the whiting fishery.
The proposed rule language most closely matches current industry
practice. Any deviation from the PFMC recommendation will cause
disruption and economic hardship to the fleet with no conservation or
other benefit to fisheries or habitat. The rule language as proposed is
well justified and should be implemented as soon as possible.
Response: When the chafing gear provisions were originally
implemented, the Council's stated intent was to maintain the minimum
mesh size restrictions so small fish could escape. The proposed rule
did not consider changing regulations on minimum mesh size restrictions
or the required use of single-walled codends (use of double-walled
codends is prohibited). Therefore, NMFS believes it is necessary to
maintain the Council's intent for the minimum mesh size restriction and
double-walled codend prohibition, by simply adding regulatory text to
state that chafing gear may not be used to create a double-walled
codend.
The request for comment applied to all midwater trawl gear
regardless of the target species and was not specific to vessels
targeting Pacific whiting. With the growth in non-whiting midwater
fishing, gear configurations could differ from those used in the
Pacific whiting fishery. NMFS is clarifying the regulations so the
intent of the gear regulations is maintained relative to minimum mesh
size restrictions and the prohibition on the use of double-walled
codends.
The data used in the analysis for this action shows that Pacific
whiting vessels using midwater trawl gear, including those in the C/P
sector, make occasional contact with the ocean floor. While NMFS
recognizes that there is occasional bottom contact by midwater trawl,
this final rule does not change regulations to address that occasional
bottom contact.
With this final rule, NMFS is implementing the Council's
recommendation for chafing gear and maintaining the Council's intent to
allow escapement of small fish from the codend of midwater trawl gear.
The gear restrictions on minimum mesh size and a prohibition on double-
walled codends are existing requirements. All of the changes in this
final rule either relieve a restriction or further clarify an existing
restriction. Therefore, these changes would not cause disruption or
economic hardship.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
In the trawl fishery management measures at Sec. 660.130(b)(1)
pertaining to the trawl codends, clarification is added to prevent
vessel operators from using chafing gear to create a double-walled
codend. The Council did not explicitly consider changes to the minimum
mesh size restrictions or the requirement to use a single walled
codend. Therefore, clarifications are being made to the regulations to
preserve the intent of those regulations to allow small fish to escape
given the changes to chafing gear restrictions.
Classification
NMFS has made a determination that this action is consistent with
PCGFMP, the MSA, and other applicable law. To the extent that the
regulations in this final rule differ from what was deemed by the
Council, NMFS invokes its independent authority under 16 U.S.C.
1855(d). In making this determination, NMFS took into account the
complete record, including the data, views, and comments received
during the comment period.
An EA was prepared for this action. The EA is available on the
Council's Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org/.
Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of
Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that this rule is not significant.
Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
NMFS has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in
support of this action. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised
by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' response to those
comments, relevant analysis contained in the action and its EA, and a
summary of the analyses in this rule. A copy of the analyses and the EA
are available from the NMFS (see Addresses). A summary of the IRFA was
published in the proposed rule for this action and is not repeated
here. A description of why this action was considered, the objectives
of, and the legal basis for this rule is
[[Page 71342]]
contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule and
is not repeated here.
In addition to clarifying existing regulations, this rule revises
the regulations to conform to current industry chafing gear practices
while increasing the flexibility of vessel owners to make chafing gear
modifications according to their own individual operations and needs.
Only one comment was received on the proposed rule (See Response to
Comments section above.) This comment did not raise any issues or
concerns related to the IRFA but confirmed that this final rule closely
matches current industry practice. No changes were made to this final
rule as a result of the comment.
This final rule would affect those vessels that use midwater trawl
gear in Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. Midwater trawl gear is used
by catcher/processors, mothership catcher vessels, and vessels that
deliver to Shoreside processors. According to the Small Business
Administration (SBA), a business involved in finfish harvesting is a
small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant
in its field of operation, and has combined annual receipts, not in
excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
After taking into account vessels that fish in multiple midwater
fisheries and their affiliations, NMFS estimates that there are 28
midwater businesses, 22 of which are small businesses.
In addition to No Action, two alternatives were considered. The No
Action Alternative would limit chafing gear to the very end of the
codend (the last 50 mesh lengths) and 50 percent of the codend's
circumference via a single panel. Under Alternative 1 (Council
Preferred Alternative), fishermen would have the option of covering up
to 100 percent of the length of the codend and up to approximately 75
percent of the codend's circumference through the use of a single panel
or multiple panels. Alternative 2A, fishermen would have the option of
covering up to 100 percent of the length of the codend and up to 50
percent of the codend's circumference through the use of a single panel
or multiple panels. Under Alternative 2B, fishermen would have the
option of covering up to 50 percent of the length of the codend and up
to 50 percent of the codend's circumference; however, no single panel
could cover more than 50 meshes of the codend.
Adoption of any alternative other than the No Action Alternative
would increase the useful life of the codend by allowing for greater
protection against abrasion and wear. Currently, most fishermen are
using gear compliant with Alternative 2B, so there would be no
additional costs associated with this alternative. The No Action
Alternative would require vessel owners to remove chafing gear which is
estimated to be a one-time cost between $5,000 and $10,000. As a
result, their nets will have the least amount of protection and thus
have to be replaced more often. Alternative 1 is the Council's
Preferred Alternative allows fishermen more flexibility and comports
with the chafing gear currently used by the majority of the fleet that
fish in both Pacific Coast and Alaska fisheries allowing the same gear
to be used in both regions. Data in the EA shows that 62 percent of
Pacific Coast whiting vessels also fished off Alaska between 2004 and
2010. The codend replacement costs are highest under No Actions and
lowest under the Council Preferred Alternative. This rule implements
the Council Preferred Alternative which closely matches current
industry practice and is not likely to have a significant economic
impact on any entity, large or small.
Copies of the Small Entity Compliance Guide prepared for this final
rule are available on the West Coast Region's Web site at https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials
from the area covered by the PCGFMP. 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. The
proposed regulations, which have a direct effect on the tribes, were
deemed by the Council as ``necessary or appropriate'' to implement the
PCGFMP as amended.
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 PCGFMP 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 PCGFMP is 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 issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006,
concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the
2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the
groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior
``no jeopardy'' conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior
determination that implementation of the PCGFMP is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected species.
Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon
Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were recently relisted as
threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that
the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost
entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum,
sockeye, and steelhead.
On January 22, 2013, NMFS requested the reinitiation of the
biological opinion for listed salmonids to address changes in the
fishery, including the trawl rationalization program and the emerging
midwater trawl fishery. The consultation will not be completed prior to
publication of this rule to modify chafing gear regulations for the
Pacific whiting fishery. NMFS has considered the likely impacts on
listed salmonids for the period of time between the final rule and the
completion of the reinitiated consultation relative to sections 7(a)(2)
and 7(d) of the ESA. On December 18, 2013, NMFS determined that ongoing
fishing under the PCGFMP, assuming that the chafing gear modifications
are implemented in 2014, prior to the completion of the consultation
would not be likely to jeopardize listed salmonids or result in any
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have
the effect of foreclosing the
[[Page 71343]]
formulation or implementation of any necessary reasonable and prudent
alternatives.
On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding
that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid
marine species including listed eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback
whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion
also concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify
critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An
analysis included in the same document as the opinion concludes that
the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive
ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific
right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident
killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller
sea lions. With this rulemaking, an informal consultation on eulachon
was initiated on January 21, 2013. NMFS considered whether the 2012
opinion should be reconsidered for eulachon in light of new information
from the 2011 fishery and the proposed chafing gear modifications and
determined that information about the eulachon bycatch in 2011 and
chafing gear regulations did not change the anticipated extent of
effects of the action, or provide any other basis to reinitiate the
December 7, 2012 biological opinion. Therefore, the December 7, 2012
biological opinion meets the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402 and no further consultation
is required at this time.
On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will
not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross.
The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely
affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter,
bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.
This rule would not alter the effects on marine mammals over what
has already been considered for the fishery. West Coast pot fisheries
for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the MMPA's
List of Fisheries, indicating occasional interactions. All other West
Coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered
Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood
of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. On
February 27, 2012, NMFS published notice that the incidental taking of
Steller sea lions in the West Coast groundfish fisheries is addressed
in NMFS' December 29, 2010 Negligible Impact Determination (NID) and
this fishery has been added to the list of fisheries authorized to take
Steller sea lions (77 FR 11493, February 27, 2012). On September 4,
2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28,
2013, NMFS issued a permit for a period of three years to authorize the
incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78
FR 54553, September 4, 2013).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.
Dated: November 25, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended
as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 660 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16
U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 660.130, paragraph (b) and the introductory text of
paragraph (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 660.130 Trawl fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(b) Trawl gear requirements and restrictions. Trawl nets may be
fished with or without otter boards, and may use warps or cables to
herd fish.
(1) Codends. Only single-walled codends may be used in any trawl.
Double-walled codends are prohibited. Chafing gear may not be used to
create a double-walled codend.
(2) Mesh size. Groundfish trawl gear, including chafing gear, must
meet the minimum mesh size requirements in this paragraph. Mesh size
requirements apply throughout the net. Minimum trawl mesh sizes are:
Bottom trawl, 4.5 inches (11.4 cm); midwater trawl, 3.0 inches (7.6
cm). Minimum trawl mesh size requirements are met if a 20-guage
stainless steel wedge, less one thickness of the metal wedge, can be
passed with only thumb pressure through at least 16 of 20 sets of two
meshes each of wet mesh.
(3) Bottom trawl gear--(i) Large footrope trawl gear. Lines or
ropes that run parallel to the footrope may not be augmented with
material encircling or tied along their length such that they have a
diameter larger than 19 inches (48 cm). For enforcement purposes, the
footrope will be measured in a straight line from the outside edge to
the opposite outside edge at the widest part on any individual part,
including any individual disk, roller, bobbin, or any other device.
(ii) Small footrope trawl gear. Lines or ropes that run parallel to
the footrope may not be augmented with material encircling or tied
along their length such that they have a diameter larger than 8 inches
(20 cm). For enforcement purposes, the footrope will be measured in a
straight line from the outside edge to the opposite outside edge at the
widest part on any individual part, including any individual disk,
roller, bobbin, or any other device.
(A) Selective flatfish trawl gear. Selective flatfish trawl gear is
a type of small footrope trawl gear. The selective flatfish trawl net
must be a two-seamed net with no more than two riblines, excluding the
codend. The breastline may not be longer than 3 ft (0.92 m) in length.
There may be no floats along the center third of the headrope or
attached to the top panel except on the riblines. The footrope must be
less than 105 ft (32.26 m) in length. The headrope must be not less
than 30 percent longer than the footrope. The headrope shall be
measured along the length of the headrope from the outside edge to the
opposite outside edge. An explanatory diagram of a selective flatfish
trawl net is provided as Figure 1 of part 660, subpart D.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) Chafing gear restrictions for bottom trawl gear. Chafing gear
may encircle no more than 50 percent of the net's circumference and may
be in one or more sections. Chafing gear may be used only on the last
50 meshes, measured from the terminal (closed) end of the codend. Only
the front edge (edge closest to the open end of the codend) and sides
of each section of chafing gear may be attached to the codend; except
at the corners, the terminal edge (edge closest to the closed end of
the codend) of each section of chafing gear must not be attached to the
net. Chafing gear must be attached outside any riblines and restraining
straps.
(4) Midwater (pelagic or off-bottom) trawl gear. Midwater trawl
gear must have unprotected footropes at the trawl mouth, and must not
have rollers, bobbins, tires, wheels, rubber discs, or any similar
device anywhere on any part of the net. The footrope of midwater gear
may not be enlarged by encircling it with chains or by any other means.
Ropes or lines running parallel to the footrope of midwater trawl gear
must be bare and may not be suspended
[[Page 71344]]
with chains or any other materials. Sweep lines, including the bottom
leg of the bridle, must be bare. For at least 20 ft (6.15 m)
immediately behind the footrope or headrope, bare ropes or mesh of 16-
inch (40.6-cm) minimum mesh size must completely encircle the net.
(i) Chafing gear restrictions for midwater trawl gear. Chafing gear
may cover the bottom and sides of the codend in either one or more
sections. Only the front edge (edge closest to the open end of the
codend) and sides of each section of chafing gear may be attached to
the codend; except at the corners, the terminal edge (edge closest to
the closed end of the codend) of each section of chafing gear must not
be attached to the net. Chafing gear is not permitted on the top codend
panel except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Chafing gear exception for midwater trawl gear. A band of mesh
(a ``skirt'') may encircle the net under or over transfer cables,
lifting or splitting straps (chokers), riblines, and restraining
straps, but must be the same mesh size and coincide knot-to-knot with
the net to which it is attached and be no wider than 16 meshes.
(c) Restrictions by limited entry trawl gear type. Management
measures may vary depending on the type of trawl gear (i.e., large
footrope, small footrope, selective flatfish, or midwater trawl gear)
used and/or on board a vessel during a fishing trip, cumulative limit
period, and the area fished. Trawl nets may be used on and off the
seabed. For some species or species groups, Table 1 (North) and Table 1
(South) of this subpart provide trip limits that are specific to
different types of trawl gear: Large footrope, small footrope
(including selective flatfish), selective flatfish, midwater, and
multiple types. If Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) of this subpart
provide gear specific limits for a particular species or species group,
it is unlawful to take and retain, possess or land that species or
species group with limited entry trawl gears other than those listed.
The following restrictions are in addition to the prohibitions at Sec.
660.112(a)(5).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-28275 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
