Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications, 8764-8768 [2018-04123]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8764
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Parts per
million
Commodity
Coffee, green bean .......................................................................................................................................
Cola ..............................................................................................................................................................
Cucurbit, seed ...............................................................................................................................................
Fig .................................................................................................................................................................
Fruit, berry and small fruit, group 13–07 ......................................................................................................
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 .............................................................................................................................
Herb and spice, group 19 .............................................................................................................................
Hibiscus, seed ..............................................................................................................................................
Ivy gourd .......................................................................................................................................................
Kaffir lime, leaves .........................................................................................................................................
Kenaf, seed ..................................................................................................................................................
Longan ..........................................................................................................................................................
Lychee ..........................................................................................................................................................
Oilseed group 20 ..........................................................................................................................................
Peppermint, tops ...........................................................................................................................................
Pointed gourd ...............................................................................................................................................
Pomegranate ................................................................................................................................................
Rambutan .....................................................................................................................................................
Spanish lime .................................................................................................................................................
Spearmint, tops .............................................................................................................................................
Stalk, stem and leaf petiole vegetable group 22 ..........................................................................................
Tropical and subtropical fruits, edible peel, group 23 ..................................................................................
Tropical and subtropical fruits, inedible peel, group 24 ...............................................................................
Vegetable, bulb, group 3–07 ........................................................................................................................
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ........................................................................................................................
Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 .........................................................................................................
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 ....................................................................................................................
Vegetable, Head and Stem Brassica, group 5–16 .......................................................................................
Vegetable, leafy, group 4–16 .......................................................................................................................
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 ..............................................................................................
Vegetable, legume, group 6 .........................................................................................................................
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 ..............................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–04193 Filed 2–28–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 170713663–8176–02]
RIN 0648–BH04
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS implements longfin
squid, Illex squid, and butterfish
specifications for the 2018 fishing year
and projected specifications for fishing
years 2019 and 2020. This action is
necessary to specify catch levels for the
squid and butterfish fisheries based
upon updated information on stock
status. These specifications are intended
to promote the sustainable utilization
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Feb 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
and conservation of the squid and
butterfish resources.
DATES: Effective April 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting
documents used by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, including
the Environmental Assessment (EA), the
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
analysis are available from: Dr.
Christopher M. Moore, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 800 North State
Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901,
telephone (302) 674–2331. The EA/RIR/
RFA analysis is also accessible via the
internet at www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20170089. Stock assessment reports and
assessment update reports for all species
are available online at:
www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/reviews_
report_options.php. Performance reports
for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and
butterfish fisheries are available online
at: https://www.mafmc.org/msb.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281–9141.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations implementing the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
150
150
150
10
5.0
5.0
35
150
5.0
0.50
150
5.0
5.0
150
35
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
35
0.50
10
5.0
2.0
5.0
0.50
7.0
1.0
0.50
0.50
3.0
3.0
Expiration date
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
2020.
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require
the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
Monitoring Committee to develop
specification recommendations for each
species based upon the ABC advice of
the Council’s SSC. The FMP regulations
also require the specification of annual
catch limits (ACLs) and accountability
measure (AM) provisions for butterfish.
Both squid species are exempt from the
ACL/AM requirements because they
have a life cycle of less than one year.
In addition, the regulations require the
specification of domestic annual harvest
(DAH), domestic annual processing
(DAP), total allowable level of foreign
fishing (TALFF), joint venture
processing (JVP), commercial and
recreational annual catch targets (ACT),
the butterfish mortality cap in the
longfin squid fishery, and initial
optimum yield (IOY) for both squid
species.
On December 13, 2017, NMFS
published a proposed rule (82 FR
58583) for the 2018–2020 squid and
butterfish specifications recommended
by the Council. The proposed rule for
this action included additional
background on specifications and the
details of how the Council derived its
recommended specifications for longfin
and Illex squid and butterfish. Those
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
8765
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
details are not repeated here. For
additional information, please refer to
the proposed rule for this action.
Because we implemented Atlantic
mackerel specifications for fishing years
2016–2018 on April 26, 2016 (81 FR
24504), this action does not consider
revisions to existing Atlantic mackerel
specifications.
Final 2018 and Projected 2019–2020
Illex Squid Specifications
DAH, and DAP of 22,915 mt for 2018
that would be maintained for the 2019
and 2020 fishing years. These are the
same specifications for the Illex squid
fishery since 2012. The Council will
review these specifications during its
annual specifications process following
annual data updates each spring, and
may change its recommendations for
2019 or 2020 if new information is
available.
Final 2018 and Projected 2019–2020
Longfin Squid Specifications
TABLE 1—FINAL 2018 AND PROJECTED 2019 AND 2020 Illex SQUID
TABLE 2—FINAL 2018 AND PROSPECIFICATIONS IN METRIC TONS
JECTED 2019 AND 2020 LONGFIN
(MT)
SQUID SPECIFICATIONS IN METRIC
OFL .......................................
Unknown
TONS (MT)
ABC ......................................
IOY ........................................
DAH/DAP ..............................
24,000
22,915
22,915
This action maintains the existing
Illex squid ABC of 24,000 mt for 2018
and projects continuing that ABC for
2019 and 2020. The IOY, DAH, and DAP
are calculated by deducting an
estimated discard rate (4.52 percent)
from the ABC. This results in a IOY,
OFL .......................................
ABC ......................................
IOY ........................................
DAH/DAP ..............................
Unknown
23,400
22,932
22,932
This action maintains the existing
longfin squid ABC of 23,400 mt for 2018
and projects continuing that ABC for
2019 and 2020. The IOY, DAH, and DAP
are calculated by deducting an
estimated discard rate (updated from
4.08 to 2.0 percent) from the ABC. This
results in a IOY, DAH, and DAP of
22,932 mt for 2018 that would be
maintained for the 2019 and 2020
fishing years. This action also maintains
the existing allocation of longfin squid
DAH among trimesters according to
percentages specified in the FMP (see
Table 3). The Council will review these
specifications during its annual
specifications process following annual
data updates each spring, and may
change its recommendations for 2019 or
2020 if new information is available.
TABLE 3—FINAL 2018 AND PROJECTED 2019–2020 LONGFIN QUOTA
TRIMESTER ALLOCATIONS
Trimester
Percent
I (Jan–Apr) ...................
II (May–Aug) ................
III (Sep–Dec) ................
43
17
40
Metric
tons
9,861
3,898
9,173
Final 2018 and Projected 2019–2020
Butterfish Specifications
TABLE 4—FINAL 2018 AND PROJECTED 2019–2020 BUTTERFISH SPECIFICATIONS IN METRIC TONS (MT)
2018
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
OFL ..............................................................................................................................................
ABC = ACL ..................................................................................................................................
Commercial ACT (ABC minus management uncertainty buffers for each year) ........................
DAH (ACT minus butterfish cap and discards) ...........................................................................
Directed Fishery closure limit (DAH minus 1,000 mt incidental landings buffer) ........................
Butterfish Mortality Cap (in the longfin squid fishery) .................................................................
This action implements a butterfish
ABC of 17,801 mt in 2018, and projected
ABCs of 27,108 mt in 2019, and 32,063
mt in 2020. For butterfish, the ACL is
set equal to the ABC. Deducting an
estimate of management uncertainty
from each year’s ABC/ACL (5 percent in
2018, 7.5 percent in 2019, and 10
percent in 2020) results in commercial
ACTs of 16,911 mt in 2018, and
projected ACTs of 25,075 mt in 2019,
and 28,857 mt in 2020. This action
maintains the butterfish cap for the
longfin squid fishery at the 2014 level
of 3,884 mt for 2018 and projects
maintaining that level for 2019 and
2020. Subtracting the existing butterfish
mortality cap in the longfin squid
fishery (3,884 mt), catch in other
fisheries (637 mt), and an estimate of
discards in the directed butterfish
fishery (2.4 percent) results in a DAH of
12,093 mt in 2018, and projected DAHs
of 20,061 mt in 2019 and 23,752 mt in
2020. This action also maintains the
existing allocation of the butterfish
mortality cap among longfin squid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Feb 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
trimesters according to percentages
specified in the FMP (see Table 5).
Finally, this action maintains the
existing 1,000-mt set aside in each year
to account for incidental landings of
butterfish after a closure of the directed
fishery. We will close the directed
butterfish fishery once 11,093 mt is
caught in 2018. The Council will review
these specifications during its annual
specifications process following annual
data updates each spring, and may
change its recommendations for 2019 or
2020 if new information is available.
2019
28,628
17,801
16,911
12,093
11,093
3,884
2020
37,637
27,108
25,075
20,061
19,061
3,884
39,592
32,063
28,857
23,752
22,752
3,884
TABLE 5—FINAL TRIMESTER ALLOCATION OF BUTTERFISH MORTALITY
CAP ON THE LONGFIN SQUID FISHERY FOR 2018 AND PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS FOR 2019 AND 2020—
Continued
Trimester
Total .......
Percent
100
Metric tons
3,844
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 10 comments in
response to the proposed rule for this
TABLE 5—FINAL TRIMESTER ALLOCA- action. Two comments were from
TION OF BUTTERFISH MORTALITY industry groups, the Garden State
CAP ON THE LONGFIN SQUID FISH- Seafood Association (GSSA) and
ERY FOR 2018 AND PROJECTED AL- Seafreeze, Ltd., Eight comments were
from individuals. Five comments
LOCATIONS FOR 2019 AND 2020
received were not relevant to the
Trimester
Percent
Metric tons
proposed action and are not included in
this final rule.
I (Jan–Apr) ....
43
1,670
Comment 1: One individual requested
II (May–Aug)
17
660
III (Sep–Dec)
40
1,554 that NMFS post weekly butterfish
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
8766
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
landings, including butterfish landings
against the butterfish mortality cap in
the longfin squid fishery, on the Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
(GARFO) quota monitoring website so
that the fishing industry has a better
understanding of fishery operations
during the year.
Response: We post weekly landings of
all species on the GARFO quota
monitoring website unless doing so
violates Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements to protect the
confidentiality of submitted data. We
currently post butterfish landings
against the mortality cap in the longfin
squid fishery on the GARFO website.
While we had previously posted
landings from the directed butterfish
fishery, a recent review of landings data
indicated that doing so is no longer
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act confidentiality requirements, as
posting landings may inadvertently
reveal landings or dealer purchases by
an individual entity. Current regulations
require us to reduce butterfish
possession limits when landings reach
the butterfish closure threshold and the
DAH. Moving forward, we will post
butterfish landings once catch has
reached 75 percent of the closure
threshold. This will inform the public of
cumulative butterfish landings and
allow fishery participants to plan
operations sufficiently in advance of
any required adjustments to possession
limits without compromising efforts to
protect the confidentiality of any
entity’s butterfish landings or
purchases.
Comment 2: One individual stated
generally that too many fish are being
caught, resulting in overfishing and the
possibility of resource decline into
extinction and negative impacts to
predators, recommending that quotas for
all species should be reduced by 50
percent.
Response: Longfin squid is not
overfished and is considered to be
lightly exploited. Illex squid abundance
in 2016 was near the long-term median,
with the SSC suggesting that annual
landings of up to 26,000 mt do not
appear to have harmed the stock.
Therefore, there is no scientific
evidence to suggest that either of these
species are subject to overfishing or that
quota reductions for these species are
warranted at this time. For butterfish,
the latest stock assessment update
indicated that the fishing mortality rate
is well below the overfishing limit and
that biomass is well above the target
level in 2016. The SSC recommended,
and this final rule implements, a 42percent reduction in the 2018 butterfish
ABC based on concerns regarding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Feb 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
declining trends in both biomass and
recruitment in recent years. The 2018–
2020 specifications for these species
should ensure sufficient forage for
predators. Extinction is not a concern
with these species.
Comment 3: One individual expressed
concern with the substantial increase in
butterfish ABCs in 2019 and 2020,
stating that these increases are based on
an expectation that a higher historic
recruitment rate will return in those
years despite reductions in observed
recruitment in recent years. The
individual suggested that there is no
scientific evidence that historic
recruitment will occur in 2019 or 2020
based on the declining trend in
recruitment in recent years.
Response: We disagree. We recognize
the recent declining trend in butterfish
recruitment and its effects on spawning
stock biomass and projected ABCs. We
support the use of the low 2016
recruitment estimate to inform SSC
recommendations for the 2018
butterfish ABC as it represents the best
scientific information available. As
documented in the 2017 butterfish
assessment update, we know that
terminal year recruitment estimates are
highly uncertain. In 2014, the 58th
Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 58)
(see ADDRESSES) concluded that the
2012 recruitment estimate (terminal
year for that assessment update) was the
lowest in the time series. Updated data
have substantially raised the 2012
recruitment estimate, and 2013–2015
recruitment was estimated to be much
higher than the 2012 estimate. The SSC
recognized that predicting future
recruitment is very difficult, as the
butterfish stock has experienced years of
low recruitment followed by
substantially higher recruitment (see
2017 butterfish assessment update).
They preferred to use yearly recruitment
estimates taken from the entire time
series (1989–2016) to project 2019 and
2020 butterfish ABCs because the entire
time series includes recruitment
estimates from both high and low years.
This is a practice used in other stock
assessments, and was reviewed as part
of the 2017 butterfish assessment update
and SSC deliberations. Therefore, the
use of time series recruitment to project
2018 and 2019 butterfish ABCs is
consistent with the best scientific
information available. Further, the
Council expects to review future
butterfish ABCs as additional
information on butterfish recruitment
becomes available. The Council could
adjust 2019 and 2020 projected
specifications if new information
indicated recruitment conclusions for
this action need to be updated.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comment 4: One individual indicated
that the butterfish ABC reduction is
unnecessary due to the short lifespan of
the species and recent mechanical
problems and inefficiencies with the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s
survey vessel. The GSSA and Seafreeze,
Ltd., also opposed the proposed
butterfish specifications. Instead, they
supported an alternative that would
specify a constant ABC of 24,500 mt for
2018–2020. They highlight that
butterfish is neither overfished, nor
subject to overfishing, and assert that it
is unlikely that butterfish biomass will
be reduced in half because of poor
recent recruitment. Similar to other
short-lived species, they suggest that
butterfish may lack a strong stockrecruit relationship, noting that
butterfish recruitment has been highly
variable and unpredictable, with
terminal year recruitment estimates
previously underestimated. They
contend that basing ABC decisions on
recruitment alone in this action is not
scientifically sound. Further, they state
that without the fall 2017 NMFS survey
to update recruitment estimates, the
Council cannot verify the low 2016
recruitment estimate or adjust the 2019
ABC based on updated data. Similar to
past SSC decisions to phase in summer
flounder quota reductions, they argue
that such an alternative would avoid
substantially reducing commercial
butterfish quotas unnecessarily and
provide for a more stable fishery.
Response: We agree that butterfish is
neither overfished, nor subject to
overfishing and that recruitment is
highly variable. According to SAW 58,
because butterfish are a short-lived
species that are typically dominated by
one or two yearclasses of fish,
recruitment has a strong influence over
biomass. As a result, declining
recruitment translates into declining
biomass. The most recent stock
assessment update showed continuing
declines in both recruitment and
biomass since the late 1990s. Catches of
age zero butterfish were nearly absent in
the fishery during 2016, have declined
in the NMFS surveys since peaking in
the mid 1990s, and were the lowest in
the fall Northeast Area Monitoring and
Assessment Program (NEAMAP) time
series in 2016. Although recent
NEAMAP survey indices have been
more variable than NMFS surveys, a
similar downward trend in both the fall
NEAMAP and NMFS survey indices for
butterfish have been observed since
2007 and 1989, respectively. These
declining trends in both recruitment
and spawning stock biomass, as
documented in the best scientific
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
information available, formed the basis
for the SSC’s recommended 2018
butterfish ABC of 17,801 mt.
As noted above in the response to
Comment 3, terminal year recruitment
estimates have been previously
underestimated and revised upward
based on additional data. We will not
know whether the 2016 recruitment
estimate was similarly underestimated
until additional data are available. We
agree that mechanical problems with the
RSV Henry B. Bigelow will prevent us
from updating recruitment estimates
from the fall NMFS survey and may
limit the information available to the
Council to adjust the 2019 or 2020
ABCs, as appropriate. However, these
problems occurred after the completion
of the butterfish assessment update and
do not affect the 2018–2020 butterfish
ABCs recommended by the Council.
Further, an updated estimate of 2016
recruitment is unlikely to substantially
affect the declining trend observed in
recent years. The Council can revise
future butterfish ABCs based on any
available information, including
NEAMAP data, during the required
annual review of these specifications.
The SSC considered the constant ABC
alternative advocated by the GSSA and
Seafreeze, Ltd., but did not recommend
it based on declining trends in biomass
and recruitment. The SSC recognized
that a stable ABC approach has been
used in other fisheries, but noted that
there are different needs for different
species and that a stable ABC approach
was not appropriate for butterfish for
biological reasons. At the May 2017
meeting, the SSC also admitted that they
lacked the social science expertise and
Council guidance necessary for
evaluating economic tradeoffs between
the different alternatives and the
associated impacts to fishing
communities. The Council considered
the SSC’s input during their June 2017
meeting, and chose to follow the
recommendations of the SSC instead of
adopting a different suite of butterfish
ABCs. We did not receive sufficient
information through public comment to
challenge recommendations by either
the SSC or the Council, and have,
therefore, implemented the proposed
butterfish ABCs through this final rule.
Comment 5: The GSSA and Seafreeze,
Ltd., highlighted seemingly conflicting
estimates of the probability of
overfishing butterfish between the SSC
report, the proposed rule, and
supporting materials for the Council’s
June 2017 meeting. Specifically, they
note that the SSC report and the
proposed rule state that the probability
of overfishing (the P* metric) is
estimated at 0.08, but the Council
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Feb 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
meeting supporting materials indicated
P* = 0.34. They sought clarification as
to the correct probability of overfishing
butterfish.
Response: The correct P* value is
0.34. In other words, there is an average
34 percent probability that the proposed
butterfish ABCs would result in
overfishing during 2018–2020 based on
the SSC’s judgement of true underlying
assessment uncertainty. The 0.08
probability of overfishing is the average
probability of overfishing that the
projection model calculates when the
proposed ABCs are entered. The 0.08
probability assumes that the model fully
captures all elements of uncertainty.
However, the SSC believes there is
additional uncertainty that is not fully
captured in the model. Therefore, the
model is rerun using a 100 percent
coefficient of variation (a measure of
uncertainty—the higher the number, the
higher the uncertainty) to estimate the
probability of overfishing. This
generated an average P* of 0.34 for the
proposed 2018–2020 butterfish ABCs,
which is consistent with the Council’s
policies for setting ABCs.
Comment 6: The GSSA and Seafreeze,
Ltd., asked why the proposed butterfish
ABCs have a P* value less than 0.4,
when the Council’s risk policy indicates
that stocks with a typical life history
should have a 40-percent chance of
overfishing (P* = 0.4) when the stock is
above the biomass target. They note that
in 2016, butterfish was at 141 percent of
the target biomass and that the Council
should have used a P* = 0.4 to calculate
butterfish ABCs.
Response: As noted in the response to
Comment 4 above, while the 2016
spawning stock biomass estimate was
above the target level, the 2017
butterfish assessment update projected
that butterfish spawning stock biomass
would decline to below the target level
(45,616 mt) until 2020. The P* values
for 2018 and 2019 ABCs are 0.28 and
0.35, respectively, because the biomass
is projected to be less than the biomass
target in those years. In 2020, P* = 0.4
because biomass was estimated to be
above target levels. This is consistent
with the Council’s risk policy. The
average of these values is 0.34, below
0.4, due to the lower biomass estimates
in 2018 and 2019.
Comment 7: Noting that the fall 2017
NMFS survey was not conducted, the
GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., asked for data
from the recruitment indices from fall
2017 NEAMAP. They asked if
integrating the NEAMAP and state
survey recruitment and biomass indices
would change the butterfish ABC
projections.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8767
Response: The fall 2016 NEAMAP
indices were included in the 2017
butterfish assessment update model
runs and presented to the SSC when
they considered butterfish ABCs
proposed in this action. As noted above
in the response to Comment 4, the fall
2016 NEAMAP recruitment indices
were the lowest in the time series. Fall
2017 NEAMAP indices are not available
at this time but will be considered in the
next assessment or update. State survey
data were previously considered in the
last assessment but were not used
because they were not representative of
the entire stock area. During the June
2017 Council meeting, the Council
asked if state survey data could be
considered, but they were informed that
a benchmark assessment would be
needed to reconsider state survey data
in a future assessment.
Comment 8: The GSSA and Seafreeze,
Ltd., objected to the fact that the
projections used to calculate butterfish
ABCs in the 2017 assessment update
assumed that the fishery would fully
harvest the DAH of 20,652 mt during
2018–2020. They indicated that this
assumption is completely erroneous and
assumes that the fishing mortality rate
would exceed the known rate by several
orders of magnitude. They asked about
the impact that this assumption has on
the outcome of the specifications
process.
Response: The 2017 fishing year was
still ongoing when the SSC and Council
recommended butterfish ABCs.
Projections for 2018–2020 ABCs require
some estimate of butterfish landings
during each year. As a conservative
approach, the projections assumed that
2017 landings would be equal to the
DAH for 2017—the bridge year between
the assessment update and when
proposed ABCs would be
implemented—and that landings would
equal the ABC in 2019 and 2020. These
assumptions are consistent with
standard practice. We agree that it is
unlikely that the fishery would have
caught 20,652 mt during 2017.
Preliminary estimates indicate that only
about 3,700 mt were landed during
2017, although discards are still
unknown at this time. However, the
projections were also run using several
other estimates of butterfish landings,
including 3,139 mt (the fishery landings
when the projections were run), 6,278
mt (double the landings when
projections were run), and 9,100 mt
(2014 DAH). All of these sensitivity runs
resulted in negligible changes on the
resulting spawning stock biomass
estimates used to calculate ABCs.
Therefore, it is unlikely that an updated
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
8768
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with RULES
catch estimate would have substantially
changed the projected butterfish ABCs.
Comment 9: One individual indicated
that NMFS is not recognizing shifts in
economic, governmental, and ecological
trends in setting future catch levels. The
individual suggested that changes in tax
law, economic booms, the impacts of
offshore drilling, relative profitability
between small and large operations,
technological innovation, and demand
may all affect future estimates of fish
stocks and the appropriate levels of
catch in future years.
Response: Each year, Council staff
develop a fishery information document
summarizing trends in fishery landings,
revenues, and participation. In addition,
the Council’s Atlantic Mackerel, Squid,
and Butterfish Advisory Panel meets to
develop and discuss a fishery
performance report. This report
describes the factors that influence
fishing effort and landings, including
markets, environmental/ecological
issues (weather, temperature,
availability), management measures, or
other issues relevant to the fishery’s
operations (see ADDRESSES). This input
is used to provide context to fishery
operations and help the Council and its
SSC understand catch patterns when
setting ABCs in each fishery. Therefore,
we are considering many of the factors
identified by the commenter when
setting catch levels. Further, the
profitability of affected entities,
including both large and small
operations, are explicitly considered in
the National Environmental Policy Act
and associated economic analyses
conducted in support of this action and
included in the EA prepared by Council
staff (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined
that this final rule is consistent with the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
FMP, other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
This final rule is not an Executive
Order 13771 regulatory action because it
is not significant under Executive Order
12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration during
the proposed rule stage that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the
certification was published in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Feb 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
proposed rule and is not repeated here.
No comments were received regarding
this certification and no other
information has been obtained that
suggests any other conclusion. As a
result, a regulatory flexibility analysis
was not required and none was
prepared.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: February 23, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–04123 Filed 2–28–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 170816769–8162–02]
RIN 0648–XF633
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; Final
2018 and 2019 Harvest Specifications
for Groundfish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; harvest specifications
and closures.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces final 2018
and 2019 harvest specifications,
apportionments, and Pacific halibut
prohibited species catch limits for the
groundfish fishery of the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA). This action is necessary to
establish harvest limits for groundfish
during the 2018 and 2019 fishing years
and to accomplish the goals and
objectives of the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska. The intended effect of this
action is to conserve and manage the
groundfish resources in the GOA in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act.
SUMMARY:
Harvest specifications and
closures are effective at 1200 hours,
Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 1, 2018,
through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
Final Alaska Groundfish Harvest
Specifications Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), Record of Decision
(ROD), the Supplementary Information
Report (SIR) to the EIS, and the Initial
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
prepared for this action are available
from https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
The final 2017 Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report for the
groundfish resources of the GOA, dated
November 2017, is available from the
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) at 605 West 4th
Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK
99510–2252, phone 907–271–2809, or
from the Council’s website at https://
www.npfmc.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the GOA groundfish fisheries
in the exclusive economic zone of the
GOA under the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (FMP). The Council prepared the
FMP under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, 16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations
governing U.S. fisheries and
implementing the FMP appear at 50
CFR parts 600, 679, and 680.
The FMP and its implementing
regulations require NMFS, after
consultation with the Council, to
specify the total allowable catch (TAC)
for each target species, the sum of which
must be within the optimum yield (OY)
range of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons
(mt) (50 CFR 679.20(a)(1)(i)(B)). Section
679.20(c)(1) further requires NMFS to
publish and solicit public comment on
proposed annual TACs and
apportionments thereof, Pacific halibut
prohibited species catch (PSC) limits,
and seasonal allowances of pollock and
Pacific cod. Upon consideration of
public comment received under
§ 679.20(c)(1), NMFS must publish
notice of final harvest specifications for
up to two fishing years as annual TACs
and apportionments, Pacific halibut PSC
limits, and seasonal allowances of
pollock and Pacific cod, per
§ 679.20(c)(3)(ii). The final harvest
specifications set forth in Tables 1
through 30 of this rule reflect the
outcome of this process, as required at
§ 679.20(c).
The proposed 2018 and 2019 harvest
specifications for groundfish of the GOA
and Pacific halibut PSC limits were
published in the Federal Register on
December 8, 2017 (82 FR 57924).
Comments were invited and accepted
through January 8, 2018. NMFS received
two letters of comment on the proposed
harvest specifications; the comments are
summarized and responded to in the
‘‘Response to Comments’’ section of this
rule. In December 2017, NMFS
consulted with the Council regarding
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8764-8768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04123]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 170713663-8176-02]
RIN 0648-BH04
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS implements longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish
specifications for the 2018 fishing year and projected specifications
for fishing years 2019 and 2020. This action is necessary to specify
catch levels for the squid and butterfish fisheries based upon updated
information on stock status. These specifications are intended to
promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the squid and
butterfish resources.
DATES: Effective April 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, including the Environmental Assessment
(EA), the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis are available from: Dr. Christopher M.
Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800
North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-
2331. The EA/RIR/RFA analysis is also accessible via the internet at
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0089. Stock
assessment reports and assessment update reports for all species are
available online at: www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/reviews_report_options.php.
Performance reports for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish
fisheries are available online at: https://www.mafmc.org/msb.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281-9141.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations implementing the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require the Mid-Atlantic
Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee
to develop specification recommendations for each species based upon
the ABC advice of the Council's SSC. The FMP regulations also require
the specification of annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability
measure (AM) provisions for butterfish. Both squid species are exempt
from the ACL/AM requirements because they have a life cycle of less
than one year. In addition, the regulations require the specification
of domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP),
total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), joint venture
processing (JVP), commercial and recreational annual catch targets
(ACT), the butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, and
initial optimum yield (IOY) for both squid species.
On December 13, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule (82 FR 58583)
for the 2018-2020 squid and butterfish specifications recommended by
the Council. The proposed rule for this action included additional
background on specifications and the details of how the Council derived
its recommended specifications for longfin and Illex squid and
butterfish. Those
[[Page 8765]]
details are not repeated here. For additional information, please refer
to the proposed rule for this action. Because we implemented Atlantic
mackerel specifications for fishing years 2016-2018 on April 26, 2016
(81 FR 24504), this action does not consider revisions to existing
Atlantic mackerel specifications.
Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Illex Squid Specifications
Table 1--Final 2018 and Projected 2019 and 2020 Illex Squid
Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL..................................................... Unknown
ABC..................................................... 24,000
IOY..................................................... 22,915
DAH/DAP................................................. 22,915
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action maintains the existing Illex squid ABC of 24,000 mt for
2018 and projects continuing that ABC for 2019 and 2020. The IOY, DAH,
and DAP are calculated by deducting an estimated discard rate (4.52
percent) from the ABC. This results in a IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,915 mt
for 2018 that would be maintained for the 2019 and 2020 fishing years.
These are the same specifications for the Illex squid fishery since
2012. The Council will review these specifications during its annual
specifications process following annual data updates each spring, and
may change its recommendations for 2019 or 2020 if new information is
available.
Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Longfin Squid Specifications
Table 2--Final 2018 and Projected 2019 and 2020 Longfin Squid
Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL..................................................... Unknown
ABC..................................................... 23,400
IOY..................................................... 22,932
DAH/DAP................................................. 22,932
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action maintains the existing longfin squid ABC of 23,400 mt
for 2018 and projects continuing that ABC for 2019 and 2020. The IOY,
DAH, and DAP are calculated by deducting an estimated discard rate
(updated from 4.08 to 2.0 percent) from the ABC. This results in a IOY,
DAH, and DAP of 22,932 mt for 2018 that would be maintained for the
2019 and 2020 fishing years. This action also maintains the existing
allocation of longfin squid DAH among trimesters according to
percentages specified in the FMP (see Table 3). The Council will review
these specifications during its annual specifications process following
annual data updates each spring, and may change its recommendations for
2019 or 2020 if new information is available.
Table 3--Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Longfin Quota Trimester
Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric
Trimester Percent tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Apr)......................................... 43 9,861
II (May-Aug)........................................ 17 3,898
III (Sep-Dec)....................................... 40 9,173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Butterfish Specifications
Table 4--Final 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Butterfish Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL............................................................. 28,628 37,637 39,592
ABC = ACL....................................................... 17,801 27,108 32,063
Commercial ACT (ABC minus management uncertainty buffers for 16,911 25,075 28,857
each year).....................................................
DAH (ACT minus butterfish cap and discards)..................... 12,093 20,061 23,752
Directed Fishery closure limit (DAH minus 1,000 mt incidental 11,093 19,061 22,752
landings buffer)...............................................
Butterfish Mortality Cap (in the longfin squid fishery)......... 3,884 3,884 3,884
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action implements a butterfish ABC of 17,801 mt in 2018, and
projected ABCs of 27,108 mt in 2019, and 32,063 mt in 2020. For
butterfish, the ACL is set equal to the ABC. Deducting an estimate of
management uncertainty from each year's ABC/ACL (5 percent in 2018, 7.5
percent in 2019, and 10 percent in 2020) results in commercial ACTs of
16,911 mt in 2018, and projected ACTs of 25,075 mt in 2019, and 28,857
mt in 2020. This action maintains the butterfish cap for the longfin
squid fishery at the 2014 level of 3,884 mt for 2018 and projects
maintaining that level for 2019 and 2020. Subtracting the existing
butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery (3,884 mt), catch
in other fisheries (637 mt), and an estimate of discards in the
directed butterfish fishery (2.4 percent) results in a DAH of 12,093 mt
in 2018, and projected DAHs of 20,061 mt in 2019 and 23,752 mt in 2020.
This action also maintains the existing allocation of the butterfish
mortality cap among longfin squid trimesters according to percentages
specified in the FMP (see Table 5). Finally, this action maintains the
existing 1,000-mt set aside in each year to account for incidental
landings of butterfish after a closure of the directed fishery. We will
close the directed butterfish fishery once 11,093 mt is caught in 2018.
The Council will review these specifications during its annual
specifications process following annual data updates each spring, and
may change its recommendations for 2019 or 2020 if new information is
available.
Table 5--Final Trimester Allocation of Butterfish Mortality Cap on the
Longfin Squid Fishery for 2018 and Projected Allocations for 2019 and
2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trimester Percent Metric tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Jan-Apr)................................ 43 1,670
II (May-Aug)............................... 17 660
III (Sep-Dec).............................. 40 1,554
----------------------------
Total.................................. 100 3,844
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 10 comments in response to the proposed rule for this
action. Two comments were from industry groups, the Garden State
Seafood Association (GSSA) and Seafreeze, Ltd., Eight comments were
from individuals. Five comments received were not relevant to the
proposed action and are not included in this final rule.
Comment 1: One individual requested that NMFS post weekly
butterfish
[[Page 8766]]
landings, including butterfish landings against the butterfish
mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, on the Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) quota monitoring website so that the
fishing industry has a better understanding of fishery operations
during the year.
Response: We post weekly landings of all species on the GARFO quota
monitoring website unless doing so violates Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements to protect the confidentiality of submitted data. We
currently post butterfish landings against the mortality cap in the
longfin squid fishery on the GARFO website. While we had previously
posted landings from the directed butterfish fishery, a recent review
of landings data indicated that doing so is no longer consistent with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act confidentiality requirements, as posting
landings may inadvertently reveal landings or dealer purchases by an
individual entity. Current regulations require us to reduce butterfish
possession limits when landings reach the butterfish closure threshold
and the DAH. Moving forward, we will post butterfish landings once
catch has reached 75 percent of the closure threshold. This will inform
the public of cumulative butterfish landings and allow fishery
participants to plan operations sufficiently in advance of any required
adjustments to possession limits without compromising efforts to
protect the confidentiality of any entity's butterfish landings or
purchases.
Comment 2: One individual stated generally that too many fish are
being caught, resulting in overfishing and the possibility of resource
decline into extinction and negative impacts to predators, recommending
that quotas for all species should be reduced by 50 percent.
Response: Longfin squid is not overfished and is considered to be
lightly exploited. Illex squid abundance in 2016 was near the long-term
median, with the SSC suggesting that annual landings of up to 26,000 mt
do not appear to have harmed the stock. Therefore, there is no
scientific evidence to suggest that either of these species are subject
to overfishing or that quota reductions for these species are warranted
at this time. For butterfish, the latest stock assessment update
indicated that the fishing mortality rate is well below the overfishing
limit and that biomass is well above the target level in 2016. The SSC
recommended, and this final rule implements, a 42-percent reduction in
the 2018 butterfish ABC based on concerns regarding declining trends in
both biomass and recruitment in recent years. The 2018-2020
specifications for these species should ensure sufficient forage for
predators. Extinction is not a concern with these species.
Comment 3: One individual expressed concern with the substantial
increase in butterfish ABCs in 2019 and 2020, stating that these
increases are based on an expectation that a higher historic
recruitment rate will return in those years despite reductions in
observed recruitment in recent years. The individual suggested that
there is no scientific evidence that historic recruitment will occur in
2019 or 2020 based on the declining trend in recruitment in recent
years.
Response: We disagree. We recognize the recent declining trend in
butterfish recruitment and its effects on spawning stock biomass and
projected ABCs. We support the use of the low 2016 recruitment estimate
to inform SSC recommendations for the 2018 butterfish ABC as it
represents the best scientific information available. As documented in
the 2017 butterfish assessment update, we know that terminal year
recruitment estimates are highly uncertain. In 2014, the 58th Stock
Assessment Workshop (SAW 58) (see ADDRESSES) concluded that the 2012
recruitment estimate (terminal year for that assessment update) was the
lowest in the time series. Updated data have substantially raised the
2012 recruitment estimate, and 2013-2015 recruitment was estimated to
be much higher than the 2012 estimate. The SSC recognized that
predicting future recruitment is very difficult, as the butterfish
stock has experienced years of low recruitment followed by
substantially higher recruitment (see 2017 butterfish assessment
update). They preferred to use yearly recruitment estimates taken from
the entire time series (1989-2016) to project 2019 and 2020 butterfish
ABCs because the entire time series includes recruitment estimates from
both high and low years. This is a practice used in other stock
assessments, and was reviewed as part of the 2017 butterfish assessment
update and SSC deliberations. Therefore, the use of time series
recruitment to project 2018 and 2019 butterfish ABCs is consistent with
the best scientific information available. Further, the Council expects
to review future butterfish ABCs as additional information on
butterfish recruitment becomes available. The Council could adjust 2019
and 2020 projected specifications if new information indicated
recruitment conclusions for this action need to be updated.
Comment 4: One individual indicated that the butterfish ABC
reduction is unnecessary due to the short lifespan of the species and
recent mechanical problems and inefficiencies with the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center's survey vessel. The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd.,
also opposed the proposed butterfish specifications. Instead, they
supported an alternative that would specify a constant ABC of 24,500 mt
for 2018-2020. They highlight that butterfish is neither overfished,
nor subject to overfishing, and assert that it is unlikely that
butterfish biomass will be reduced in half because of poor recent
recruitment. Similar to other short-lived species, they suggest that
butterfish may lack a strong stock-recruit relationship, noting that
butterfish recruitment has been highly variable and unpredictable, with
terminal year recruitment estimates previously underestimated. They
contend that basing ABC decisions on recruitment alone in this action
is not scientifically sound. Further, they state that without the fall
2017 NMFS survey to update recruitment estimates, the Council cannot
verify the low 2016 recruitment estimate or adjust the 2019 ABC based
on updated data. Similar to past SSC decisions to phase in summer
flounder quota reductions, they argue that such an alternative would
avoid substantially reducing commercial butterfish quotas unnecessarily
and provide for a more stable fishery.
Response: We agree that butterfish is neither overfished, nor
subject to overfishing and that recruitment is highly variable.
According to SAW 58, because butterfish are a short-lived species that
are typically dominated by one or two yearclasses of fish, recruitment
has a strong influence over biomass. As a result, declining recruitment
translates into declining biomass. The most recent stock assessment
update showed continuing declines in both recruitment and biomass since
the late 1990s. Catches of age zero butterfish were nearly absent in
the fishery during 2016, have declined in the NMFS surveys since
peaking in the mid 1990s, and were the lowest in the fall Northeast
Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) time series in 2016.
Although recent NEAMAP survey indices have been more variable than NMFS
surveys, a similar downward trend in both the fall NEAMAP and NMFS
survey indices for butterfish have been observed since 2007 and 1989,
respectively. These declining trends in both recruitment and spawning
stock biomass, as documented in the best scientific
[[Page 8767]]
information available, formed the basis for the SSC's recommended 2018
butterfish ABC of 17,801 mt.
As noted above in the response to Comment 3, terminal year
recruitment estimates have been previously underestimated and revised
upward based on additional data. We will not know whether the 2016
recruitment estimate was similarly underestimated until additional data
are available. We agree that mechanical problems with the RSV Henry B.
Bigelow will prevent us from updating recruitment estimates from the
fall NMFS survey and may limit the information available to the Council
to adjust the 2019 or 2020 ABCs, as appropriate. However, these
problems occurred after the completion of the butterfish assessment
update and do not affect the 2018-2020 butterfish ABCs recommended by
the Council. Further, an updated estimate of 2016 recruitment is
unlikely to substantially affect the declining trend observed in recent
years. The Council can revise future butterfish ABCs based on any
available information, including NEAMAP data, during the required
annual review of these specifications.
The SSC considered the constant ABC alternative advocated by the
GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., but did not recommend it based on declining
trends in biomass and recruitment. The SSC recognized that a stable ABC
approach has been used in other fisheries, but noted that there are
different needs for different species and that a stable ABC approach
was not appropriate for butterfish for biological reasons. At the May
2017 meeting, the SSC also admitted that they lacked the social science
expertise and Council guidance necessary for evaluating economic
tradeoffs between the different alternatives and the associated impacts
to fishing communities. The Council considered the SSC's input during
their June 2017 meeting, and chose to follow the recommendations of the
SSC instead of adopting a different suite of butterfish ABCs. We did
not receive sufficient information through public comment to challenge
recommendations by either the SSC or the Council, and have, therefore,
implemented the proposed butterfish ABCs through this final rule.
Comment 5: The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., highlighted seemingly
conflicting estimates of the probability of overfishing butterfish
between the SSC report, the proposed rule, and supporting materials for
the Council's June 2017 meeting. Specifically, they note that the SSC
report and the proposed rule state that the probability of overfishing
(the P* metric) is estimated at 0.08, but the Council meeting
supporting materials indicated P* = 0.34. They sought clarification as
to the correct probability of overfishing butterfish.
Response: The correct P* value is 0.34. In other words, there is an
average 34 percent probability that the proposed butterfish ABCs would
result in overfishing during 2018-2020 based on the SSC's judgement of
true underlying assessment uncertainty. The 0.08 probability of
overfishing is the average probability of overfishing that the
projection model calculates when the proposed ABCs are entered. The
0.08 probability assumes that the model fully captures all elements of
uncertainty. However, the SSC believes there is additional uncertainty
that is not fully captured in the model. Therefore, the model is rerun
using a 100 percent coefficient of variation (a measure of
uncertainty--the higher the number, the higher the uncertainty) to
estimate the probability of overfishing. This generated an average P*
of 0.34 for the proposed 2018-2020 butterfish ABCs, which is consistent
with the Council's policies for setting ABCs.
Comment 6: The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., asked why the proposed
butterfish ABCs have a P* value less than 0.4, when the Council's risk
policy indicates that stocks with a typical life history should have a
40-percent chance of overfishing (P* = 0.4) when the stock is above the
biomass target. They note that in 2016, butterfish was at 141 percent
of the target biomass and that the Council should have used a P* = 0.4
to calculate butterfish ABCs.
Response: As noted in the response to Comment 4 above, while the
2016 spawning stock biomass estimate was above the target level, the
2017 butterfish assessment update projected that butterfish spawning
stock biomass would decline to below the target level (45,616 mt) until
2020. The P* values for 2018 and 2019 ABCs are 0.28 and 0.35,
respectively, because the biomass is projected to be less than the
biomass target in those years. In 2020, P* = 0.4 because biomass was
estimated to be above target levels. This is consistent with the
Council's risk policy. The average of these values is 0.34, below 0.4,
due to the lower biomass estimates in 2018 and 2019.
Comment 7: Noting that the fall 2017 NMFS survey was not conducted,
the GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., asked for data from the recruitment
indices from fall 2017 NEAMAP. They asked if integrating the NEAMAP and
state survey recruitment and biomass indices would change the
butterfish ABC projections.
Response: The fall 2016 NEAMAP indices were included in the 2017
butterfish assessment update model runs and presented to the SSC when
they considered butterfish ABCs proposed in this action. As noted above
in the response to Comment 4, the fall 2016 NEAMAP recruitment indices
were the lowest in the time series. Fall 2017 NEAMAP indices are not
available at this time but will be considered in the next assessment or
update. State survey data were previously considered in the last
assessment but were not used because they were not representative of
the entire stock area. During the June 2017 Council meeting, the
Council asked if state survey data could be considered, but they were
informed that a benchmark assessment would be needed to reconsider
state survey data in a future assessment.
Comment 8: The GSSA and Seafreeze, Ltd., objected to the fact that
the projections used to calculate butterfish ABCs in the 2017
assessment update assumed that the fishery would fully harvest the DAH
of 20,652 mt during 2018-2020. They indicated that this assumption is
completely erroneous and assumes that the fishing mortality rate would
exceed the known rate by several orders of magnitude. They asked about
the impact that this assumption has on the outcome of the
specifications process.
Response: The 2017 fishing year was still ongoing when the SSC and
Council recommended butterfish ABCs. Projections for 2018-2020 ABCs
require some estimate of butterfish landings during each year. As a
conservative approach, the projections assumed that 2017 landings would
be equal to the DAH for 2017--the bridge year between the assessment
update and when proposed ABCs would be implemented--and that landings
would equal the ABC in 2019 and 2020. These assumptions are consistent
with standard practice. We agree that it is unlikely that the fishery
would have caught 20,652 mt during 2017. Preliminary estimates indicate
that only about 3,700 mt were landed during 2017, although discards are
still unknown at this time. However, the projections were also run
using several other estimates of butterfish landings, including 3,139
mt (the fishery landings when the projections were run), 6,278 mt
(double the landings when projections were run), and 9,100 mt (2014
DAH). All of these sensitivity runs resulted in negligible changes on
the resulting spawning stock biomass estimates used to calculate ABCs.
Therefore, it is unlikely that an updated
[[Page 8768]]
catch estimate would have substantially changed the projected
butterfish ABCs.
Comment 9: One individual indicated that NMFS is not recognizing
shifts in economic, governmental, and ecological trends in setting
future catch levels. The individual suggested that changes in tax law,
economic booms, the impacts of offshore drilling, relative
profitability between small and large operations, technological
innovation, and demand may all affect future estimates of fish stocks
and the appropriate levels of catch in future years.
Response: Each year, Council staff develop a fishery information
document summarizing trends in fishery landings, revenues, and
participation. In addition, the Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Advisory Panel meets to develop and discuss a fishery
performance report. This report describes the factors that influence
fishing effort and landings, including markets, environmental/
ecological issues (weather, temperature, availability), management
measures, or other issues relevant to the fishery's operations (see
ADDRESSES). This input is used to provide context to fishery operations
and help the Council and its SSC understand catch patterns when setting
ABCs in each fishery. Therefore, we are considering many of the factors
identified by the commenter when setting catch levels. Further, the
profitability of affected entities, including both large and small
operations, are explicitly considered in the National Environmental
Policy Act and associated economic analyses conducted in support of
this action and included in the EA prepared by Council staff (see
ADDRESSES).
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is
consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received
regarding this certification and no other information has been obtained
that suggests any other conclusion. As a result, a regulatory
flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: February 23, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-04123 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
