Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual Specifications and Management Measures for the 2019 Tribal and Non-Tribal Fisheries for Pacific Whiting, and Requirement To Consider Chinook Salmon Bycatch Before Reapportioning Tribal Whiting, 20578-20588 [2019-09661]
Download as PDF
20578
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
46 CFR Part 401
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Administrative practice and
procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 181218999–9402–02]
46 CFR Part 404
Great Lakes, Navigation (water),
Seamen.
RIN 0648–BI67
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46
CFR part 401 as follows:
PART 401—GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 401
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101,
7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).
2. Amend § 401.405 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 401.405
PART 404—GREAT LAKES
PILOTAGERATEMAKING
3. The authority citation for part 404
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303,
9304; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).
[Amended]
4. Amend § 404.2 by removing
paragraph (b)(6).
■
§ 404.104
[Amended]
5. Amend § 404.104 in paragraph (c)
by removing the reference
‘‘§ 404.103(d)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 404.103’’.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
■
Dated: May 6, 2019.
John P. Nadeau,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019–09657 Filed 5–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS issues this final rule
for the 2019 Pacific whiting fishery
under the authority of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan,
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, and
the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. This
final rule announces the 2019 U.S. Total
Allowable Catch of 441,433 metric tons
(mt) of Pacific whiting, establishes a
tribal allocation of 77,251 mt,
establishes a set-aside for research and
bycatch of 1,500 mt, and announces the
allocations of Pacific whiting to the nontribal fishery for 2019. This final rule
also amends the provisions regarding
reapportionment of the treaty tribes’
whiting allocation to the non-treaty
sectors to require that NMFS consider
the level of Chinook salmon bycatch
before reapportioning whiting. This rule
is necessary to manage the Pacific
whiting stock to Optimal Yield, ensure
that the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan is
implemented in a manner consistent
with treaty rights of four treaty tribes to
fish for Pacific whiting in their ‘‘usual
and accustomed grounds and stations’’
in common with non-tribal citizens, and
to protect salmon stocks listed under the
Endangered Species Act. The catch
limits in this rule are intended to ensure
the long-term sustainability of the
Pacific whiting stock.
DATES: Effective May 10, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Miako Ushio (West Coast Region,
NMFS), phone: 206–526–4644, and
email: Miako.Ushio@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Pilotage rates and charges.
(a) The hourly rate for pilotage service
on—
(1) The St. Lawrence River is $733;
(2) Lake Ontario is $493;
(3) Lake Erie is $531;
(4) The navigable waters from
Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is
$603;
(5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior is $306; and
(6) The St. Mary’s River is $594.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 404.2
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Annual Specifications and
Management Measures for the 2019
Tribal and Non-Tribal Fisheries for
Pacific Whiting, and Requirement To
Consider Chinook Salmon Bycatch
Before Reapportioning Tribal Whiting
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Electronic Access
This final rule is accessible via the
internet at the Office of the Federal
Register website at https://
www.federalregister.gov. Background
information and documents are
available at the NMFS West Coast
Region website at https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_
whiting.html and at the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)’s
website at https://www.pcouncil.org/.
The final environmental impact
statement regarding Harvest
Specifications and Management
Measures for 2015–2016 and Biennial
Periods Thereafter, and the Final
Environmental Assessment for Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery 2019–20
Harvest Specifications, Yelloweye
Rebuilding Plan Revisions, and
Management Measures, are available on
the NMFS West Coast Region website at:
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
publications/nepa/groundfish/
groundfish_nepa_documents.html.
Background
This final rule announces the total
allowable catch (TAC) for Pacific
whiting, which was determined under
the terms of the Agreement with Canada
on Pacific Hake/Whiting (Agreement)
and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006
(Whiting Act). The Agreement and the
Whiting Act establish bilateral bodies to
implement the terms of the Agreement.
The bilateral bodies include: The Joint
Management Committee (JMC), which
recommends the annual catch level for
Pacific whiting; the Joint Technical
Committee (JTC), which conducts the
Pacific whiting stock assessment; the
Scientific Review Group (SRG), which
reviews the stock assessment; and the
Advisory Panel (AP), which provides
stakeholder input to the JMC.
The Agreement establishes a default
harvest policy of F–40 percent, which
means a fishing mortality rate that
would reduce the biomass to 40 percent
of the estimated unfished level. The
Agreement also allocates 73.88 percent
of the TAC to the United States and
26.12 percent of the TAC to Canada. The
JMC is primarily responsible for
developing a TAC recommendation to
the United States and Canada. The
Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, has the
authority to accept or reject this
recommendation.
2019 Pacific Whiting Stock Assessment
and Scientific Review
The JTC completed a stock assessment
for Pacific whiting in February 2019.
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
This assessment is available at https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_
whiting_treaty.html. The assessment
presents a model that depends primarily
upon an acoustic survey biomass index
and catches of the transboundary Pacific
whiting stock to estimate the biomass of
the current stock. The most recent
survey, conducted collaboratively
between the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and NMFS, was
completed in 2017.
Pacific whiting spawning stock
biomass has been relatively stable since
2017. The 2019 spawning biomass is
estimated to be 1.3 million mt, an
estimated 64 percent of unfished levels.
The 2010 year class of Pacific whiting
was very large, and the 2014 and 2016
year classes are estimated to be above
average. The 2010, 2014, and 2016 year
classes support the fishery at this time.
In terms of relative health of the stock,
the joint probability that the stock is
both below 40 percent of unfished level
and above the Agreement’s F–40 percent
default harvest rate is estimated to be
10.3 percent. As with past estimates,
there is a considerable range of
uncertainty associated with this
estimate, because the youngest cohorts
that make up a large portion of the
survey biomass have not been observed
for very long.
The JTC provided tables showing
catch alternatives for 2019. Using the
default F–40 percent harvest rule
identified in the Agreement [Paragraph
1 of Article III] results in a coastwide
TAC for 2019 of 725,593 mt. The stock
assessment indicates that the coastal
Pacific whiting stock is not overfished
and overfishing is not occurring.
Summary of 2018 Fishery
Coast-wide fishery Pacific Hake
landings averaged 233,645 mt from 1966
to 2018, with a low of 89,930 mt in 1980
and a peak of 440,942 mt in 2017. The
coastwide catch in 2018 was the second
largest on record at 410,443 mt out of a
597,500 mt adjusted coastwide TAC.
Attainment in the U.S. was 71.4 percent
of its quota (down 9 percent from 2017);
in Canada it was 61.1 percent (up 6
percent from 2017).
In the U.S., the tribal sector was
initially allocated 77,251 mt Pacific
whiting, of which NMFS reallocated
40,000 mt inseason to non-tribal sectors
on September 24, 2018 (83 FR 61569;
November 30, 2018). The Makah Tribe
was the only participant in the tribal
sector, and caught approximately 5,700
mt of Pacific whiting in 2018. The U.S.
non-tribal sector’s catches compared to
their final allocations were: C/P Sector:
116,073 of 136,912 mt; Mothership
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
67,129 of 96,644 mt; and Shorebased:
131,829 of 169,127 mt.
TAC Recommendation
The AP and JMC met March 4–5,
2019, in Vancouver, British Columbia in
Canada, to develop advice on a 2019
coastwide TAC. The AP provided its
2019 TAC recommendation to the JMC
on March 5, 2019. The JMC reviewed
the advice of the JTC, the SRG, and the
AP, and agreed on a TAC
recommendation for transmittal to the
United States and Canadian
Governments.
The Agreement directs the JMC to
base the catch limit recommendation on
the default harvest rate unless scientific
evidence demonstrates that a different
rate is necessary to sustain the offshore
Pacific whiting resource. After
consideration of the 2019 stock
assessment and other relevant scientific
information, the JMC did not use the
default harvest rate, and instead agreed
on a more conservative approach, using
the same catch limit as 2017 and 2018.
Choosing a TAC well below the default
level of F–40 percent was supported by
a desire to minimize mortality of the
2016 year class, the scale of which is
uncertain. This TAC advice was also
based in part on an estimate from
Canadian and U.S. industry members
that the 2019 total coastwide harvest
will be more similar to the 2017 level,
approximately 440,000 mt, rather than
the amount harvested in 2018, 410,000
mt. The JMC did not choose an even
lower TAC, because of the presence of
the strong 2010 and 2014 year classes.
In the unlikely event the 2019 coastwide
harvest reaches 500,000 mt, the
beginning of year relative spawning
biomass in 2020 is projected to be 61
percent of unfished biomass, which is
well above target levels. The
recommended TAC is projected to
prevent overfishing and maintain the
stock above overfished levels, but
allows each Party and each fishing
sector to maximize their harvesting
opportunity to the extent of their
relative respective capacities and
interests.
The recommendation for an
unadjusted 2019 U.S. TAC of 384,053
mt, plus 57,380 mt carryover of
uncaught quota from 2018 results in an
adjusted U.S. TAC of 441,433 mt for
2019 (73.88 percent of the coastwide
TAC). This recommendation is
consistent with the best available
scientific information, provisions of the
Agreement, and the Whiting Act. The
recommendation was transmitted via
letter to the United States and Canadian
Governments on March 5, 2019. NMFS,
under delegation of authority from the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20579
Secretary of Commerce, approved the
adjusted TAC recommendation of
441,433 mt for U.S. fisheries on April 3,
2019.
Tribal Fishery Allocation
This final rule establishes the tribal
allocation of Pacific whiting for 2019.
NMFS issued a proposed rule regarding
this allocation on March 15, 2019 (84 FR
9471). Since 1996, NMFS has been
allocating a portion of the U.S. TAC of
Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery.
Regulations for the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
specify that the tribal allocation is
subtracted from the total U.S. Pacific
whiting TAC. The tribal Pacific whiting
fishery is managed separately from the
non-tribal Pacific whiting fishery, and is
not governed by limited entry or open
access regulations or allocations.
The proposed rule described the tribal
allocation as 17.5 percent of the U.S.
TAC, and projected a range of potential
tribal allocations for 2019 based on a
range of U.S. TACs over the last 10 years
(plus or minus 25 percent to capture
variability in stock abundance). As
described in the proposed rule, the
resulting range of potential tribal
allocations was 17,842 to 96,563 mt.
Applying the approach described in the
proposed rule, NMFS is establishing the
2019 tribal allocation of 77,251 mt (17.5
percent of the U.S. TAC) in this final
rule. In 2009, NMFS, the states of
Washington and Oregon, and the tribes
with treaty rights to harvest whiting
started a process to determine the longterm tribal allocation for Pacific
whiting; however, no long-term
allocation has been determined. While
new scientific information or
discussions with the relevant parties
may impact that decision, the best
available scientific information to date
suggests that 77,251 mt is within the
likely range of potential treaty right
amounts.
As with prior tribal Pacific whiting
allocations, this final rule is not
intended to establish precedent for
future Pacific whiting seasons, or for the
determination of the total amount of
whiting to which the Tribes are entitled
under their treaty right. Rather, this rule
adopts an interim allocation. The longterm tribal treaty amount will be based
on further development of scientific
information and additional coordination
and discussion with and among the
coastal tribes and the states of
Washington and Oregon.
Harvest Guidelines and Allocations
In addition to the tribal allocation
described in the proposed rule
published on March 15, 2019 (84 FR
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
20580
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
9471), this final rule establishes the
fishery harvest guideline (HG), called
the non-tribal allocation. NMFS did not
include the HG in the tribal whiting
proposed rule, for reasons related to
timing and process. The HG had not yet
been determined at the time the
proposed rule was published. A
recommendation on the coastwide and
U.S. TAC for Pacific whiting for 2019,
under the terms of the Agreement with
Canada was approved by NMFS, under
delegation of authority from the
Secretary of Commerce, on April 3,
2019.
Although this was not part of the
proposed rule, the environmental
assessment for the 2019–2020 harvest
specifications rule (see Electronic
Access) analyzed a range of TAC
alternatives for 2019, and the final 2019
TAC falls within this analyzed range. In
addition, via the 2019–2020 harvest
specifications rulemaking process, the
public had an opportunity to comment
on the 2019–2020 TACs for whiting, just
as they did for all species in the
groundfish FMP. NMFS follows this
process because, unlike for all other
groundfish species, the TAC for whiting
is decided in a highly abbreviated
annual process from February through
April of every year, and the normal
rulemaking process would not allow for
the fishery to open with the new TAC
on the annual season opening date of
May 15. The 2019 fishery HG for Pacific
whiting is 362,682 mt. This amount was
determined by deducting the 77,251 mt
tribal allocation and the 1,500 mt
allocation for scientific research catch
and fishing mortality in non-groundfish
fisheries from the total U.S. TAC of
441,433 mt. The Council recommends
the research and bycatch set-aside on an
annual basis, based on estimates of
scientific research catch and estimated
bycatch mortality in non-groundfish
fisheries.
The regulations further allocate the
fishery HG among the three non-tribal
sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery:
The catcher/processor (C/P) Coop
Program, the Mothership (MS) Coop
Program, and the Shorebased Individual
Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. The C/P
Coop Program is allocated 34 percent
(123,312 mt for 2019), the MS Coop
Program is allocated 24 percent (87,044
mt for 2019), and the Shorebased IFQ
Program is allocated 42 percent
(152,326.5 mt for 2019). The fishery
south of 42° N lat. may not take more
than 7,616 mt (5 percent of the
Shorebased IFQ Program allocation)
prior to May 15, the start of the primary
Pacific whiting season north of 42° N
lat.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
TABLE 1—2019 PACIFIC WHITING
ALLOCATIONS
2019 Pacific
whiting
allocation
(mt)
Sector
Tribal .....................................
Catcher/Processor (C/P)
Coop Program ...................
Mothership (MS) Coop Program ..................................
Shorebased IFQ Program ....
77,251
123,312
87,044
152,326.5
Consideration of Chinook Salmon
Bycatch Before Reapportioning Tribal
Whiting
On December 11, 2017, NMFS
completed an ESA Section 7(a)(2)
biological opinion on the effects of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan on listed salmonids.
Term and Condition 2c of the Biological
Opinion states: ‘‘No later than May 15th,
2019, NMFS will amend the provisions
regarding reapportionment of the treaty
tribes’ whiting allocation to the nontreaty sectors to require that NMFS
consider the level of Chinook bycatch
when determining whether to
reapportion whiting.’’
This final rule amends the Pacific
Coast Groundfish fishery regulations to
require this consideration, and to
identify what factors will be considered
when determining whether to
reapportion whiting. The purpose of
this action is twofold. Reapportioning
whiting that would not otherwise be
used allows the non-tribal whiting
fishery to continue fishing, thereby
potentially impacting Chinook salmon,
which occurs as bycatch in that fishery.
The first purpose of the action is to
issue regulatory changes that will
minimize impacts to Chinook salmon
from the whiting fishery. The second
purpose is to protect the treaty rights of
the tribes by preventing a
reapportionment of Pacific whiting that
could cause the entire whiting fishery,
both tribal and non-tribal, to close via
automatic action measures outlined at
§ 660.60(d)(1)(v), thereby limiting the
tribal whiting fishery’s opportunity to
harvest their allocation.
Comments and Responses
On March 15, 2019, NMFS issued a
proposed rule for the allocation and
management of the 2018 tribal Pacific
whiting fishery, and implementation of
regulations requiring consideration of
Chinook salmon bycatch before
reapportioning tribal whiting (84 FR
9471). The comment period on the
proposed rule closed on April 1, 2019.
NMFS received three unique comment
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
letters during the comment period on
the proposed rule: One letter from
Heather Mann, Executive Director of
Midwater Trawlers Cooperative and
Brent Paine, Executive Director of
United Catcher Boats; one letter from
Kristen McQuaw, Manager of Shoreside
Whiting Cooperative; and one from
Daniel Waldeck, Executive Director of
Pacific Whiting Conservation
Cooperative (representing American
Seafoods, Glacier Fish Co. and Trident
Seafoods). All three letters were from
organizations representing participants
in the non-tribal whiting fishery and
contained substantive comments. NMFS
addresses the summarized comments
below. No changes from the proposed
rule were made based on comments
NMFS received.
Comment 1: A commenter requested
NMFS remove the language in the
proposed rule that requires NMFS
consider Chinook salmon take numbers
and bycatch rates in the Pacific Whiting
fishery prior to making a
reapportionment. The rationale given
was that whiting sectors are already
mindful of Chinook bycatch, harvesters
and processors have implemented
significant voluntary measures in recent
years to avoid interacting with Chinook.
Commenters mentioned that the
recently completed Biological Opinion
and associated measures includes a new
‘hard cap’ on Chinook salmon for
whiting participants’, referring to
regulations that close the Pacific
whiting fishery after a certain number of
Chinook salmon have been caught.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
voluntary measures the Pacific whiting
fishery has implemented in recent years
to avoid interacting with Chinook
salmon, and the continued efforts of the
fishery to manage bycatch. Low Chinook
salmon bycatch resulting from
implementation of voluntary and
mandatory measures will be considered
prior to reapportionment. NMFS also
acknowledges that this is one of several
complementary measures that have been
put into place as the result of the
Biological Opinion, to minimize the
impact of the amount or extent of
incidental take of ESA-listed Chinook
salmon. The terms and conditions of the
Biological Opinion are, in part, designed
to minimize Chinook salmon
interactions with Pacific whiting
fishery. Terms and conditions of an ESA
biological opinion are nondiscretionary, meaning NMFS is
obligated under ESA to implement this
measure.
The ‘hard cap’ this comment refers to
is a provision implemented (83 FR
63970; December 12, 2018) to give
NMFS automatic authority to close
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
either or both of the whiting and nonwhiting sector fisheries if: (1) Either
sector catches its guideline limit and the
reserve amount; or (2) either sector
reaches its guideline limit when the
other sector has already taken the
reserve amount. The guideline limit for
the whiting sector (including tribal and
non-tribal vessels in the mothership,
catcher/processor (C/P), and Shoreside
whiting fleets) is 11,000 Chinook
salmon. The guideline limit for the nonwhiting sector (including tribal and
non-tribal vessels in the Shoreside
trawl, fixed gear, and recreational fleets)
is 5,500 Chinook salmon. The reserve
amount of Chinook is 3,500 fish. The
‘hard cap’ measure ensures that certain
levels of Chinook salmon bycatch are
not exceeded. The measure addressed in
this final rule has the added purpose of
ensuring that non-tribal catch of Pacific
whiting that was originally allocated to
the Tribal sector does not cause closure
of the entire Pacific whiting fishery
(tribal and non-tribal sectors), thereby
prevent the tribal sector’s fishery.
Therefore, NMFS is retaining this
language in the regulations
implementing this final rule.
Comment 2: Three commenters stated
that reapportionment is necessary to
meet National Standard 1 and achieve
optimum yield (OY).
Response: The purpose of the tribal
allocation is to facilitate the tribes
exercising their treaty right to harvest
fish in their usual and accustomed
fishing areas in U.S. waters, and NMFS
must take the necessary steps to ensure
that this opportunity is available to
those tribes. In 1994, the United States
formally recognized that the four
Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes
(Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault)
have treaty rights to fish for groundfish,
including Pacific whiting, in the Pacific
Ocean, and concluded that, in general
terms, the quantification of those rights
is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus
of groundfish that pass through the
tribes usual and accustomed fishing
areas. These treaty rights are
implemented by the Secretary following
the procedures outlined in 50 CFR
660.60. The tribal allocation is specific
to the tribes, who manage and would
optimally harvest all of their allocation.
The Council, through the Council
process, manages allocations to the nontribal sectors of the Pacific whiting
fishery to achieve optimal yield, in
accordance with the National Standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Comment 3: Commenters suggested
that NMFS provide for reapportionment of tribal whiting to
specific non-tribal sectors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
Response: This management
suggestion is outside of the scope of the
measure discussed in the proposed rule
but could be achieved through the
Council process. In this final rule,
revisions to the reapportionment
provisions are limited to implementing
the non-discretionary terms and
conditions of the recently completed
ESA Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion.
NMFS notes that distributing
reapportioned tribal whiting to specific
non-tribal sectors based on concerns
about Chinook salmon bycatch is
currently possible, and was done in
2014 (February 10, 2015; 80 FR 7390),
based on recommendation by the
Council. In that reapportionment action,
NMFS distributed reapportioned fish to
the MS and C/P sectors but not to the
Shorebased IFQ sector, based on
voluntary bycatch reduction measures
that were taken by the MS and C/P
sectors in conjunction with projected
higher bycatch rates in the Shorebased
IFQ sector, and the fact that the
Shorebased IFQ sector had not yet
attained their existing allocation.
Comment 4: Commenters said the
proposed action leads to uncertainty in
the non-tribal fishery about the timing
and amount of reapportionment during
a given year, which makes it difficult to
manage factors such as bycatch and
vessel maintenance. One commenter
expressed that ‘‘if NMFS poorly
manages the tribal allocation by not
using the reapportionment process to
effectively balance the needs of the
tribal and non-tribal fisheries it will
cause economic harm within the nontribal whiting fishery. For example,
delaying reapportionment past
September 15th hinders the ability of
the non-tribal sectors to plan and
schedule fishing operations that are
necessary to optimally achieve our
allocations.’’
Response: With this final rule, NMFS
issues allocations to the non-tribal
participants of the Pacific whiting
fishery, and allocations to the tribal
participants of the fishery. These
amounts are certain for participants in
the fishery. It is not the goal of the
action, nor would it be appropriate, for
NMFS to provide certainty that nontribal participants will derive benefit
from the tribal allocation.
NMFS does not anticipate that this
rule will change the timing of
reapportionment, because there is no
additional data collection or analysis
requirement (see response to Comment
9 for a discussion regarding this
consideration). NMFS will make every
effort to ensure that consideration of
Chinook bycatch does not hinder timely
reapportionment. Specifically, NMFS
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20581
continuously tracks information
required for considering Chinook
bycatch prior to reapportionment as part
of managing Chinook bycatch inseason.
This information is available in
accordance with other components of
the ESA Biological Opinion. Therefore,
the most up-to-date Chinook bycatch
information will be available when
NMFS is ready to make the
reapportionment decision.
Revisions to the timing of the
reapportionment is beyond the scope of
the action discussed in the proposed
rule. Current regulations, however, do
provide NMFS with flexibility in the
timing of reapportionment and allow for
reapportionment to occur prior to
September 15. Based on a review of
reapportionment actions in 2012–2018,
it does not appear that the timing of the
reapportionment impacted operational
decisions during that time period. For
reference, in 2012 the non-tribal sector
caught 24,142 mt more than its initial
allocation, of 28,000 mt reapportioned
on October 4. In 2013, after a 30,000 mt
reallocation on September 18 (sixteen
days earlier than in 2012), the non-tribal
fishery caught 24,146 mt more than its
initial allocation. The sixteen-day
earlier reapportionment yielded 4 mt
more catch (valued at $1,210 in real
dollars). In 2014, a 25,000 mt initial
reapportionment on September 12
resulted in only 4,564 mt attained over
the initial non-tribal allocation. As
discussed in greater detail in response
to Comment 12, from 2015–2018, the
non-tribal fishery as a whole did not
catch its initial allocation, which
implies that the timing of reallocations
did not likely impact operational
decisions during that period. Timing of
reapportionments is further addressed
below, in response to comment 8.
Comment 5: Commenters expressed
views that the proposed action seems
punitive to the non-tribal participants in
general, and to specific sectors with low
Chinook salmon bycatch.
Response: In this final rule, revisions
to the reapportionment provisions are
limited to implementing the nondiscretionary terms and conditions of
the recently completed ESA Section
7(a)(2) Biological Opinion. Regulations
governing reapportionment give the
Secretary discretion, but do not impose
an obligation, to reapportion Pacific
whiting from the tribal sector of the
Pacific whiting fishery to non-tribal
sectors. While the non-tribal sectors
may receive additional economic
benefits via reapportionments from the
tribal allocation, it is not punitive to
either consider Chinook bycatch before
making the reapportionment, or keep
allocations in their original sectors. See
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
20582
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
the response to Comment 3 for a
discussion on distributing
reapportioned tribal whiting to specific
non-tribal sectors.
Comment 6: Commenters mentioned
that the reapportionment is of economic
benefit to harvesters.
Response: NMFS agrees that
reapportionment is of economic benefit
to recipients of additional whiting
allocation. This is reflected in the
regulatory Impact Review-Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR–
IRFA) and Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA).
Comment 7: One commenter
expressed concern that the proposed
rule made reference to possible impacts
to the tribal whiting fishery due to
Chinook salmon bycatch taken in the
non-tribal fishery, but did not mention
anything about Chinook bycatch
impacts to the non-tribal fisheries by the
tribal fishery.
Response: The impacts to the tribal
fishery referenced are specifically
associated with the Chinook salmon
bycatch that occurs when the non-tribal
fishery fishes for Pacific whiting
originally allocated to the tribal fishery.
Because there is no mechanism to
reapportion in the other direction, (from
non-tribal sectors to the tribal sector) the
second scenario mentioned in the
comment (tribal sector causing impacts
while fishing for Pacific whiting
originally allocated to the non-tribal
sectors) cannot happen under current
regulations.
Comment 8: A commenter stated:
‘‘Dependent on the interannual
variability in the stocks, fishing later in
the year can, although not always,
increase the probability of encountering
salmon. For this reason, the current
timeframe for which tribal treaty
whiting is reallocated is already later in
the year than preferred.’’ Accordingly,
the commenter requested that
reapportionment occur earlier in the
year, by August 1st.
Response: The timing of
reapportionment in the whiting fishery
is outside the scope of action described
in the proposed rule, and is addressed
further in response to comment 4,
above. NMFS is responsible for
consulting with the tribes to ensure that
reapportionments, should they occur,
will not limit tribal harvest
opportunities. As explained in the RIR–
IRFA, the timing of reapportionment in
regulations was intended to allow for
the tribal fishery to proceed to a point
where it could likely be determined
whether the full allocation would be
used, while reallocating in time to allow
the non-treaty sectors to catch the
reallocated fish prior to the onset of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
winter weather conditions. In some
years, the participating tribes may
determine prior to September 15 that
they will not use a portion of the tribal
allocation.
Comment 9: Commenters requested
clarity on the metric, guidelines, or
inseason analysis NMFS will use to
determine reapportionment. One
commenter requested detailed criteria
describing how Chinook salmon bycatch
information will be used to guide the
whiting reapportionment process.
Another commented that this action
increases staff workload to accomplish a
task that is already being satisfied with
existing management measures, and that
the proposed rule will require in-season
analysis, increasing the workload of
NMFS staff.
Response: NMFS will not conduct
additional inseason analysis as a result
of this modification to the regulations.
NMFS already continuously tracks
information required for considering
Chinook bycatch prior to
reapportionment as part of managing
Chinook bycatch inseason. Therefore,
the most up-to-date Chinook bycatch
information will be available when
NMFS is ready to make the
reapportionment decision. This
modification does not increase the data
requirement or workload, but rather
requires NMFS to review readily
available information, the total number
of total Chinook salmon taken by the
Pacific whiting fishery and rates of
Chinook salmon bycatch in each sector,
prior to making a decision about annual
reapportionment.
Comment 10: A commenter stated:
‘‘Reapportionment of whiting to nontribal sectors re-distributes fishing effort
from a centralized region in the North
to widespread locations along the
coastline. Consequently,
reapportionment could indirectly
provide increased food availability for
predators that prey on Northern
Chinook stocks. The proposed rule does
not acknowledge the conservation
benefits that reapportionment
provides.’’
Response: This action changes neither
the existing discretion nor the
mechanism NMFS has for the
reapportionment. The indirect
conservation benefits mentioned in the
comment may exist, however they are
outside the scope of this action.
Comment 11: Several commenters
addressed economic benefits to
communities from reapportioning fish
and stated that the action prevents
economic benefits from accruing,
threatens small business, and that the
IRFA fails to consider how the
discretion provided to NMFS could
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impact small businesses. Commenters
calculated the benefit of
reapportionments by multiplying exvessel price of Pacific whiting by the
amount of historic reapportionments.
Response: The RIR–IRFA indicates
allocation to both the tribal and nontribal sectors provides benefits, in the
form of opportunity, to large and small
entities across sectors. In response to
comments, NMFS clarifies that the
value of this additional opportunity is
not equivalent to the ex-vessel price
multiplied by the amount of
reapportioned fish. The U.S. non-tribal
whiting fishery catch exceeded initial
allocations in 2012–2014 by utilizing
reapportioned fish. In 2012 and 2013,
the whiting sectors utilized about
24,000 mt of reapportionments of 30,000
and 45,000 mt, respectively. In 2014, the
non-tribal fishery utilized about 5,000
mt of a reapportioned 45,000 mt. At
annual average shoreside ex-vessel
prices ranging from $263 to $352/mt
from 2012–2014, the total ex-vessel
value of reapportioned fish was $17
million across the three years.
From 2015 to 2018, higher TACs have
been correlated with lower attainment,
ranging from 58.1–96.5 percent
attainment of initial non-tribal
allocations. If TACs remain at or near
those levels, these lower attainment
trends indicate that reapportioned tribal
catch is not expected to provide the
non-tribal sector additional opportunity
over the initial allocations, as
cumulatively, 212,714 of initial
allocations remained unharvested
(53,000 mt per year, on average). While
opportunity of reapportioned harvest is
generally distributed along fixed
allocation percentages in the FMP that
are not being reconsidered in the scope
of this rule, reapportioned catch has in
recent years provided measurable
increased revenue to C/P sector, as this
sector generally does attain most or all
of its initial allocation. All of the permit
owners in the C/P sector self-identified
in 2019 permit applications as large
entities. The proposed rule and
corresponding analyses do not include a
reconsideration of the allocations either
between tribal and non-tribal sectors, or
within the non-tribal sector.
Comment 12: A commenter stated: ‘‘In
the proposed rule, NMFS states that the
re-apportionment process prevents
adverse economic impacts—‘The
reapportioning process allows
unharvested tribal allocations of Pacific
whiting . . . to be fished by the nontribal fleets, benefitting both large and
small entities. NMFS has prepared an
IRFA and is requesting comments on
this conclusion.’ However, this
statement is not supported by any
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
information in the proposed rule.’’
Another commenter stated that they
disagreed with the claim that ‘‘ ‘NMFS
believes this proposed rule would not
adversely affect small entities’, as no
evidence for it is provided in the
[IRFA].’’
Response: NMFS does not claim the
reapportionment process prevents
adverse economic impacts; rather, the
IRFA states ‘‘ . . . in 2018 NMFS
reapportioned 40,000 mt of the original
77,251 mt tribal allocation. This
reapportionment was based on
conversations with the tribes and the
best information available at the time,
which indicated that this amount would
not limit tribal harvest opportunities for
the remainder of the year. . . . This
reapportioning process allows
unharvested tribal allocations of Pacific
whiting to be fished by the non-tribal
fleets, benefitting both large and small
entities.’’
The benefits of the proposed rule
considered in the IRFA include the
benefits of the tribal allocation to the
tribal sector, and of the non-tribal
allocation to each of the commercial
sectors in the non-tribal sector. In years
when the tribal sector does not use its
full allocation and there is a
reapportionment to the non-tribal
sectors, the reapportioned fish offers
additional benefits for small and large
entities in the non-tribal sectors. In the
IRFA, the benefits from the tribal
allocation are assumed to accrue to the
tribal sector, with the reapportionment
flexibility an additional potential
benefit to the non-tribal sector, only in
years when the tribal sector does not
prosecute the entirety of its allocation.
In the IRFA, no portion of the benefits
from the tribal allocation are assumed to
accrue to the non-tribal sector, which
would double-count the value of the
benefit of this allocation to the tribal
sector.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Classification
The Annual Specifications and
Management Measures for the 2019
Tribal and non-Tribal Fisheries for
Pacific Whiting, and Consideration of
Chinook Salmon Bycatch Before
Reapportioning Tribal Pacific Whiting,
are issued under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Whiting
Act of 2006. The measures are in
accordance with 50 CFR part 660,
subparts C through G, the regulations
implementing the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP, and NMFS has
determined that this rule is consistent
with the national standards of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and
(d)(3), the NMFS Assistant
Administrator finds good cause to waive
prior public notice and delay in
effectiveness for this final rule, as
delaying this rule would be
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. The annual harvest
specifications for Pacific whiting must
be implemented by the start of the
primary Pacific whiting season, which
begins on May 15, 2019, or the primary
Pacific whiting fishery will effectively
remain closed.
Every year, NMFS conducts a Pacific
whiting stock assessment with
participation from U.S. and Canadian
scientists. The 2019 stock assessment
for Pacific whiting was prepared in
February 2019, and included updated
total catch, length and age data from the
U.S. and Canadian fisheries from 2018,
and biomass indices from the 2018 Joint
U.S.-Canadian acoustic/midwater trawl
surveys. Because of this late availability
of the most recent data for the
assessment, and the need for time to
conduct the treaty process for
determining the TAC using the most
recent assessment, it would not be
possible to allow for notice and
comment before the start of the primary
Pacific whiting season on May 15.
A delay in implementing the Pacific
whiting harvest specifications to allow
for notice and comment would be
contrary to the public interest because it
would require either a shorter primary
whiting season or development of a
TAC without the most recent data. A
shorter season could prevent the tribal
and non-tribal fisheries from attaining
their 2019 allocations, which would
result in unnecessary short-term adverse
economic effects for the Pacific whiting
fishing vessels and the associated
fishing communities. A TAC
determined without the most recent
data could fail to account for significant
fluctuations in the biomass of this
relatively short-lived species. To
prevent these adverse effects and to
allow the Pacific whiting season to
commence, it is in the best interest of
the public to waive prior notice and
comment.
In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), the NMFS Assistant
Administrator finds good cause to waive
the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this
final rule. Waiving the 30-day delay in
effectiveness will not have a negative
impact on any entities, as there are no
new compliance requirements or other
burdens placed on the fishing
community with this rule. Failure to
make this final rule effective at the start
of the fishing year will undermine the
intent of the rule, which is to promote
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20583
the optimal utilization and conservation
of Pacific whiting. Making this rule
effective immediately would also serve
the best interests of the public because
it will allow for the longest possible
Pacific whiting fishing season and
therefore the best possible economic
outcome for those whose livelihoods
depend on this fishery. Because the 30day delay in effectiveness would
potentially cause significant financial
harm without providing any
corresponding benefits, this final rule is
effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that this final rule is not
significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866. This rule is not an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this rule is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NMFS published a proposed rule on
March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9471), for the
allocation of the 2019 tribal Pacific
whiting fishery and the requirement to
consider Chinook salmon bycatch before
reapportioning tribal whiting. An IRFA
was prepared and summarized in the
Classification section of the preamble to
the proposed rule. The comment period
on the proposed rule ended on April 1,
2019. NMFS received three comment
letters on the proposed rule from
organizations representing the nontribal fishery. The Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA did not file any
comments on the IRFA or the proposed
rule. The description of this action, its
purpose, and its legal basis are
described in the preamble to the
proposed rule and are not repeated here.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) was prepared and incorporates
the IRFA and response to the public
comments, which are summarized in
the ‘Comments and Responses’ section
of this final rule. NMFS also prepared
a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for
this action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is
available from NMFS (see Electronic
Access). A summary of the FRFA, per
the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604
follows.
NMFS considered two alternatives for
this action: The ‘‘No-Action’’ and the
‘‘Action.’’ The tribal allocation is based
primarily on the requests of the tribes.
These requests reflect the level of
participation in the fishery that will
allow them to exercise their treaty right
to fish for Pacific whiting. Under the
Action alternative, NMFS sets the tribal
allocation percentage at 17.5 percent, as
requested by the tribes. This yields a
tribal allocation of 77,251 mt for 2019.
Consideration of a percentage lower
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
20584
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
than the tribal request of 17.5 percent is
not appropriate in this instance. As a
matter of policy, NMFS has historically
supported the harvest levels requested
by the tribes. Based on the information
available to NMFS, the tribal request is
within their tribal treaty rights. A higher
percentage would arguably also be
within the scope of the treaty right.
However, a higher percentage would
unnecessarily limit the non-tribal
fishery. NMFS also announces the 2019
U.S. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of
441,433 metric tons of Pacific whiting,
establishes a set-aside for research and
bycatch of 1,500 mt, and 362,682 mt for
the non-tribal fishery for 2019. Under
the action alternative, NMFS requires
the consideration of the number and
bycatch rate by sector of Chinook
salmon bycatch before reapportioning
tribal whiting, as required by the 2017
ESA Biological Opinion. Consideration
of other factors such as timing, location,
and genetics of bycatch would not be
feasible as an inseason automatic action,
which is the mechanism by which these
reapportionments occur.
Under the no-action alternative,
NMFS would not have made
allocations, which would not fulfill
NMFS’ responsibility to manage the
fishery. This alternative was considered,
but the regulatory framework provides
for a tribal allocation, research and
bycatch set-aside, and harvest guideline
on an annual basis only. Therefore, the
no-action alternative would result in no
allocation of Pacific whiting to the tribal
sector in 2019, which would be
inconsistent with NMFS’ responsibility
to manage the fishery consistent with
the tribes’ treaty rights. Given that there
is a tribal request for allocation and the
Council recommended a research and
bycatch set-aside in 2019, this
alternative received no further
consideration. Under the no-action
alternative, NMFS would not consider
Chinook salmon bycatch, as required by
the Biological Opinion. While the
consideration of Chinook bycatch may
negatively impact both large and small
entities in the event of a high bycatch
year, there are no alternatives identified
that would be consistent with the
applicable ESA requirements that would
also minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
RFA-Determination of a Significant
Impact
This rule is similar to previous rule
makings concerning whiting. Against an
internationally set TAC, this rule
concerns the amount of the US TAC that
should be allocated to the tribal fishery,
establishes a set-aside for research and
bycatch of 1,500 mt, announces Pacific
whiting allocations of 77,251 mt to the
tribal and 362,683 mt for the non-tribal
fishery for 2019, and requires NMFS to
consider bycatch of Chinook salmon
before reapportioning tribal whiting.
The tribal allocation is based primarily
on the requests of the tribes. These
requests reflect the level of participation
in the fishery that will allow them to
exercise their treaty right to fish for
whiting. Tribes are considered small
entities. The reapportioning process
allows unharvested tribal allocations of
whiting, fished by small entities, to be
fished by the non-tribal fleets,
benefitting both large and small entities.
NMFS has determined this rule will not
adversely affect small entities and did
not receive any comments in response
to the IRFA to alter this conclusion.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
There are no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final rule. No federal rules
have been identified that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this action.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 states that, for each rule or group
of related rules for which an agency is
required to prepare a FRFA, the agency
shall publish one or more guides to
assist small entities in complying with
the rule, and shall designate such
publications as ‘‘small entity
compliance guides.’’ The agency shall
explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule
or group of rules. As part of this and the
related 2019–2020 Biennial
Specifications and Management
Measures for the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery (83 FR 63970)
rulemaking process, a small entity
compliance guide was sent to
stakeholders, and copies of the final rule
and guides (i.e., information bulletins)
are available from NMFS at the
following website: https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_
whiting.html.
Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175,
this final rule was developed after
meaningful collaboration with tribal
officials from the area covered by the
FMP. Consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one
of the voting members of the Pacific
Council is a representative of an Indian
tribe with federally recognized fishing
rights from the area of the Council’s
jurisdiction. In addition, NMFS has
coordinated specifically with the tribes
interested in the whiting fishery
regarding the issues addressed by this
final rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian Fisheries.
Dated: May 7, 2019.
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
continues 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 § 660.50, revise paragraph (f)(4)
to read as follows:
■
§ 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian
fisheries.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(4) Pacific whiting. The tribal
allocation for 2019 is 77,251 mt.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Tables 1a and 1b to part 660,
subpart C, are revised to read as follows:
TABLE 1A TO PART 660, SUBPART C—2019, SPECIFICATIONS OF OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT AND FISHERY HG
[Weights in metric tons]
Stocks/stock complexes
Area
COWCOD c .......................................
COWCOD .........................................
COWCOD .........................................
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH d ..............
S of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
(Conception) .....................................
(Monterey) ........................................
Coastwide .........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
OFL
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACL a/
ABC
74
61
13
82
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
67
56
11
74
10MYR1
Fishery HG b/
10
NA
NA
48
8
NA
NA
42
20585
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1A TO PART 660, SUBPART C—2019, SPECIFICATIONS OF OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT AND FISHERY HG—Continued
[Weights in metric tons]
Stocks/stock complexes
Area
Arrowtooth Flounder e .......................
Big Skate f .........................................
Black Rockfish g ................................
Black Rockfish h ................................
Bocaccio i ..........................................
Cabezon j ...........................................
California Scorpionfish k ....................
Canary Rockfish l ..............................
Chilipepper Rockfish m ......................
Darkblotched Rockfish n ....................
Dover Sole o ......................................
English Sole p ....................................
Lingcod q ...........................................
Lingcod r ............................................
Longnose Skate s ..............................
Longspine Thornyhead t ....................
Longspine Thornyhead u ...................
Pacific Cod v ......................................
Pacific Whiting w ................................
Pacific Ocean Perch x .......................
Petrale Sole y ....................................
Sablefish z .........................................
Sablefish aa ........................................
Shortbelly Rockfish bb ........................
Shortspine Thornyhead cc .................
Shortspine Thornyhead dd .................
Spiny Dogfish ee ................................
Splitnose Rockfish ff ..........................
Starry Flounder gg ..............................
Widow Rockfish hh .............................
Yellowtail Rockfish ii ..........................
Black Rockfish/Blue Rockfish/Deacon Rockfish jj.
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling kk ...............
Coastwide .........................................
Coastwide .........................................
California (S of 42° N lat.) ................
Washington (N of 46° 16′ N lat.) ......
S of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
California (S of 42° N lat.) ................
S of 34° 27′ N lat .............................
Coastwide .........................................
S of 40° 10′ N lat. ............................
Coastwide .........................................
Coastwide .........................................
Coastwide .........................................
N of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
S of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
Coastwide .........................................
N of 34°27′ N lat ..............................
S of 34° 27′ N lat .............................
Coastwide .........................................
Coastwide .........................................
N of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
Coastwide .........................................
N of 36° N lat ...................................
S of 36° N lat ...................................
Coastwide .........................................
N of 34° 27′ N lat .............................
S of 34° 27′ N lat .............................
Coastwide .........................................
S of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
Coastwide .........................................
Coastwide .........................................
N of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
Oregon (Between 46° 16′ N lat. and
42° N lat.).
Oregon (Between 46° 16′ N lat. and
42° N lat.).
Washington (N of 46° 16′ N lat.) ......
N of 40° 10prime; N lat ....................
N of 40° 10prime; N lat ....................
N of 40° 10prime; N lat ....................
S of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
S of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
S of 40° 10′ N lat .............................
Coastwide .........................................
Coastwide .........................................
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling ll .................
Nearshore Rockfish mm .....................
Shelf Rockfish nn ...............................
Slope Rockfish oo ..............................
Nearshore Rockfish pp .......................
Shelf Rockfish qq ...............................
Slope Rockfish rr ................................
Other Flatfish ss .................................
Other Fish tt .......................................
OFL
ACL a/
ABC
18,696
541
344
312
2,194
154
337
1,517
2,652
800
91,102
11,052
5,110
1,143
2,499
4,112
15,574
494
329
298
2,097
147
313
1,450
2,536
765
87,094
10,090
4,885
1,093
2,389
3,425
3,200
725,593
4,753
3,042
8,489
........................
6,950
3,089
2,221
w/
w/
4,340
2,908
7,750
........................
5,789
2,573
2,486
1,831
652
12,375
6,568
677
2,071
1,750
452
11,831
6,279
617
4,340
2,908
5,606
1,990
500
1,683
890
2,071
1,750
452
11,831
6,279
617
13,479
452
328
280
2,051
147
311
1,383
2,451
731
48,404
9,874
4,593
1,028
1,852
2,553
821
1,094
362,682
4,318
2,587
See Table 1c
1,986
483
1,618
889
1,738
1,733
433
11,583
5,234
616
230
218
218
218
13
91
2,309
1,887
1,300
1,919
856
8,750
286
11
81
2,054
1,746
1,145
1,625
744
6,498
239
11
81
2,054
1,746
1,142
1,625
744
6,498
239
11
79
1,977
1,665
1,138
1,546
724
6,249
230
a Annual
15,574
494
329
298
2,097
147
313
1,450
2,536
765
50,000
10,090
4,871
1,039
2,000
2,603
822
1,600
catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs) and harvest guidelines (HGs) are specified as total catch values.
HGs means the HG or quota after subtracting Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes allocations and projected catch, projected research
catch, deductions for fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, and deductions for EFPs from the ACL or ACT.
c Cowcod south of 40° 10′ N lat. 2 mt is deducted from the ACL to EFP fishing (less than 0.1 mt) and research activity (2 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 8 mt. Any additional mortality in research activities will be deducted from the ACL. A single ACT of 6 mt is being set for the Conception and Monterey areas combined.
d Yelloweye rockfish. The 48 mt ACL is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of 2029 and an SPR harvest rate of
65 percent. 6.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2.3 mt), the incidental open access fishery (0.62 mt), EFP catch
(0.24 mt) and research catch (2.92 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 42 mt. The non-trawl HG is 38.6 mt. The non-nearshore HG is 2.0 mt and the
nearshore HG is 6.0 mt. Recreational HGs are: 10 mt (Washington); 8.9 mt (Oregon); and 11.6 mt (California). In addition, there are the following
ACTs: Non-nearshore (1.6 mt), nearshore (4.7 mt), Washington recreational (7.8 mt), Oregon recreational (7.0 mt), and California recreational
(9.1 mt).
e Arrowtooth flounder. 2,094.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2,041 mt), the incidental open access fishery
(40.8 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (13 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 13,479 mt.
f Big skate. 41.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (15 mt), the incidental open access fishery (21.3 mt), EFP
fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (5.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 452 mt.
g Black rockfish (California). 1.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP fishing (1.0 mt) and incidental open access fishery (0.3
mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 328 mt.
h Black rockfish (Washington). 18.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (18 mt) and research catch (0.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 280 mt.
i Bocaccio south of 40° 10′; N lat. The stock is managed with stock-pecific harvest specifications south of 40° 10′; N lat. and within the Minor
Shelf Rockfish complex north of 40° 10′; N lat. 46.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (0.5 mt),
EFP catch (40 mt) and research catch (5.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,051 mt. The California recreational fishery south of 40° 10′; N lat
has an HG of 863.4 mt.
j Cabezon (California). 0.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery, resulting in a fishery HG of 147
mt.
k California scorpionfish south of 34° 27′ N lat. 2.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (2.2 mt)
and research catch (0.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 311 mt.
b Fishery
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Fishery HG b/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
20586
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
l Canary rockfish. 67.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (50 mt), the incidental open access fishery (1.3 mt),
EFP catch (8 mt), and research catch (7.8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,383 mt. Recreational HGs are: 47.1 mt (Washington); 70.7 mt (Oregon); and 127.3 mt (California).
m Chilipepper rockfish south of 40° 10′; N lat. Chilipepper are managed with stock-specific harvest specifications south of 40° 10′N lat. and
within the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex north of 40° 10′ N lat. 84.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access
fishery (11.5 mt), EFP fishing (60 mt), and research catch (13.4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,451 mt.
n Darkblotched rockfish. 33.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (0.2 mt), the incidental open access fishery (24.5
mt), EFP catch (0.6 mt), and research catch (8.5 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 731 mt.
o Dover sole. 1,595.6 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (1,497 mt), the incidental open access fishery (49.3 mt),
EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (49.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 48,404 mt.
p English sole. 216.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (200 mt), the incidental open access fishery (8.1 mt),
EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 9,874 mt.
q Lingcod north of 40° 10′; N lat. 278 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (250 mt), the incidental open access fishery (9.8 mt),
EFP catch (1.6 mt) and research catch (16.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 4,593 mt.
r Lingcod south of 40° 10′; N lat. 11.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (8.1 mt) and research
catch (3.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,028 mt.
s Longnose skate. 148.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (130 mt), incidental open access fishery (5.7 mt),
EFP catch (0.1 mt), and research catch (12.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,852 mt.
t Longspine thornyhead north of 34° 27′ N lat. 50.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (30 mt), the incidental open
access fishery (6.2 mt), and research catch (14.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,553 mt.
u Longspine thornyhead south of 34° 27′ N lat. 1.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate research catch, resulting in a fishery HG of
821 mt.
v Pacific cod. 506.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (500 mt), research catch (5.5 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt),
and the incidental open access fishery (0.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,094 mt.
w Pacific whiting. The coastwide stock assessment was published in 2019 and estimated the spawning stock to be at 64 percent of its unfished
biomasS The 2019 OFL of 725,593 mt is based on the 2019 assessment with an F40% FMSY proxy. The 2019 coastwide, unadjusted Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 519,834 mt is based on the 2019 stock assessment. The U.S. TAC is 73.88 percent of the coastwide unadjusted TAC.
Up to 15 percent of each party’s unadjusted 2018 TAC (57,380 mt for the U.S.) is added to each party’s 2019 unadjusted TAC, resulting in a
U.S. adjusted 2019 TAC of 441,433 mt. From the adjusted U.S. TAC, 77,251 mt is deducted to accommodate the Tribal fishery, and 1,500 mt is
deducted to accommodate research and bycatch in other fisheries, resulting in a 2019 fishery HG of 362,682 mt. The TAC for Pacific whiting is
established under the provisions of the Agreement with Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006, 16 U.S.C. 7001–
7010, and the international exception applies. Therefore, no ABC or ACL values are provided for Pacific whiting.
x Pacific ocean perch north of 40° 10′; N lat. 22.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (9.2 mt), the incidental open
access fishery (10 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (3.1 mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 4,318 mt.
y Petrale sole. 320.6 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (290 mt), the incidental open access fishery (6.4 mt), EFP
catch (0.1 mt), and research catch (24.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,587 mt.
z Sablefish north of 36° N lat. The 40–10 adjustment is applied to the ABC to derive a coastwide ACL value because the stock is in the precautionary zone. This coastwide ACL value is not specified in regulations. The coastwide ACL value is apportioned north and south of 36° N lat.,
using the 2003–2014 average estimated swept area biomass from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey, with 73.8 percent apportioned north of 36° N
lat. and 26.2 percent apportioned south of 36° N lat. The northern ACL is 5,606 mt and is reduced by 561 mt for the Tribal allocation (10 percent
of the ACL north of 36° N lat.). The 561 mt Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5 percent to account for discard mortality. Detailed sablefish allocations are shown in Table 1c.
aa Sablefish south of 36° N lat. The ACL for the area south of 36° N lat. is 1,990 mt (26.2 percent of the calculated coastwide ACL value). 4.2
mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (1.8 mt) and research catch (2.4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG
of 1,986 mt.
bb Shortbelly rockfish. 17.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (8.9 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt), and
research catch (8.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 483 mt.
cc Shortspine thornyhead north of 34° 27′ N lat. 65.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (50 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (4.7 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt), and research catch (10.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,618 mt for the area north of 34°
27′ N lat.
dd Shortspine thornyhead south of 34° 27′ N lat. 1.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (0.5 mt)
and research catch (0.7 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 889 mt for the area south of 34° 27′ N lat.
ee Spiny dogfish. 333 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (275 mt), the incidental open access fishery (22.6 mt),
EFP catch (1.1 mt), and research catch (34.3 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,738 mt.
ff Splitnose rockfish south of 40° 10′; N lat. Splitnose rockfish in the north is managed in the Slope Rockfish complex and with stock-specific
harvest specifications south of 40°10′ N lat. 16.6 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (5.8 mt), research catch (9.3 mt) and EFP catch (1.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,733 mt.
gg Starry flounder. 18.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt), research catch (0.6 mt),
and the incidental open access fishery (16.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 433 mt.
hh Widow rockfish. 248.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (200 mt), the incidental open access fishery (3.1 mt),
EFP catch (28 mt) and research catch (17.3 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 11,583 mt.
ii Yellowtail rockfish north of 40° 10′; N lat. 1,045.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (1,000 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (4.5 mt), EFP catch (20 mt) and research catch (20.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 5,234 mt.
jj Black rockfish/Blue rockfish/Deacon rockfish (Oregon). 1.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery
(0.3 mt) and EFP catch (0.9 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 616 mt.
kk Cabezon/kelp greenling (Oregon). 0.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP catch, resulting in a fishery HG of 218 mt.
ll Cabezon/kelp greenling (Washington). There are no deductions from the ACL so the fishery HG is equal to the ACL of 11 mt.
mm Nearshore Rockfish north of 40° 10′; N lat. 2.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (1.5 mt), EFP fishing (0.1
mt), research catch (0.3 mt) and the incidental open access fishery (0.9 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 79 mt.
nn Shelf Rockfish north of 40° 10′; N lat. 76.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (30 mt), the incidental open access fishery (17.7 mt), EFP catch (4.5 mt), and research catch (24.7 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,977 mt.
oo Slope Rockfish north of 40° 10′; N lat. 80.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (36 mt), the incidental open access fishery (21.7 mt), EFP catch (1.5 mt), and research catch (21.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,665 mt.
pp Nearshore Rockfish south of 40° 10′; N lat. 4.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (1.4 mt)
and research catch (2.7 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,138 mt.
qq Shelf Rockfish south of 40° 10′; N lat. 79.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (4.6 mt), EFP
catch (60 mt), and research catch (14.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,546 mt.
rr Slope Rockfish south of 40° 10′; N lat. 20.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (16.9 mt), EFP
catch (1 mt), and research catch (2.3 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 724 mt. Blackgill rockfish has a stock-specific HG for the entire groundfish
fishery south of 40° 10′; N lat. set equal to the speciesprime; contribution to the 40° 10′; adjusted ACL. Harvest of blackgill rockfish in all groundfish fisheries south of 40° 10′; N lat. counts against this HG of 159 mt.
ss Other Flatfish. The Other Flatfish complex is comprised of flatfish species managed in the PCGFMP that are not managed with stock-specific OFLs/ABCs/ACLs. Most of the species in the Other Flatfish complex are unassessed and include: Butter sole, curlfin sole, flathead sole, Pacific sanddab, rock sole, sand sole, and rex sole. 249.5 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (60 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (161.6 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (27.8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 6,249 mt.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
20587
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
tt Other Fish. The Other Fish complex is comprised of kelp greenling off California and leopard shark coastwide. 8.9 mt is deducted from the
ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (8.8 mt) and research catch (0.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 230 mt.
TABLE 1b TO PART 660, SUBPART C—2019, ALLOCATIONS BY SPECIES OR SPECIES GROUP
[Weight in metric tons]
Stocks/stock complexes
Arrowtooth flounder .............
Big skate a ...........................
Bocaccio a ...........................
Canary rockfish a d ...............
Chilipepper ..........................
COWCOD a b .......................
Darkblotched rockfish c .......
Dover sole ...........................
English sole .........................
Lingcod ................................
Lingcod ................................
Longnose skate a ................
Longspine thornyhead ........
Pacific cod ...........................
Pacific whiting g ...................
Pacific ocean perch e ..........
Petrale sole .........................
Sablefish .............................
Sablefish .............................
Shortspine thornyhead ........
Shortspine thornyhead ........
Splitnose rockfish ................
Starry flounder ....................
Widow rockfish f ..................
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH ..
Yellowtail rockfish ...............
Minor Shelf Rockfish North a
Minor Shelf Rockfish
South a.
Minor Slope Rockfish North
Minor Slope Rockfish South
Other Flatfish ......................
Trawl
Fishery HG
or ACT a b
Area
%
Non-trawl
Mt
Coastwide ...........................
Coastwide ...........................
S of 40°10′ N lat .................
Coastwide ...........................
S of 40°10′ N lat .................
S of 40°10′ N lat .................
Coastwide ...........................
Coastwide ...........................
Coastwide ...........................
N of 40′10° N lat ................
S of 40′10° N lat .................
Coastwide ...........................
N of 34°27′ N lat ................
Coastwide ...........................
Coastwide ...........................
N of 40°10′ N lat ................
Coastwide ...........................
N of 36° N lat .....................
S of 36° N lat .....................
N of 34°27′ N lat ................
S of 34°27′ N lat .................
S of 40°10′ N lat .................
Coastwide ...........................
Coastwide ...........................
Coastwide ...........................
N of 40°10′ N lat ................
N of 40°10′ N lat ................
S of 40°10′ N lat .................
13,479.1
452.1
2,050.9
1,382.9
2,451.1
6.0
731.2
48,404.4
9,873.8
4,593.0
1,027.7
1,851.7
2,552.6
1,093.8
362,682.0
4,317.6
2,587.4
NA
1,985.8
1,617.7
888.8
1,733.4
433.2
11,582.6
41.9
4,951.9
1,977.1
1,545.9
95
95
39
72
75
36
95
95
95
45
45
90
95
95
100
95
95
42
95
NA
95
50
91
8
88
60.2
12.2
N of 40°10′ N lat ................
S of 40°10′ N lat .................
Coastwide ...........................
1,665.2
723.8
6,248.5
81
63
90
%
12,805.1
429.5
800.7
999.6
1,838.3
2.2
694.6
45,984.2
9,380.1
2,066.9
462.5
1,666.5
2,425.0
1,039.1
362,682.0
4,101.7
2,458.0
See Table 1c
834.0
1,536.8
50.0
1,646.7
216.6
10,540.2
3.4
4,357.7
1,190.2
188.6
Mt
5
5
61
28
25
64
5
5
5
55
55
10
5
5
0
5
5
674.0
22.6
1,250.2
383.3
612.8
3.8
36.6
2,420.2
493.7
2,526.2
565.2
185.2
127.6
54.7
0.0
215.9
129.4
58
5
NA
5
50
9
92
12
39.8
87.8
1,151.8
80.9
838.8
86.7
216.6
1,042.4
38.6
594.2
786.9
1,357.3
19
37
10
316.4
267.8
624.9
1,348.8
456.0
5,623.7
a Allocations
decided through the biennial specification process.
cowcod fishery harvest guideline is further reduced to an ACT of 6.0 mt.
with regulations at § 660.55(c), 9 percent (62.5 mt) of the total trawl allocation for darkblotched rockfish is allocated to the Pacific
whiting fishery, as follows: 26.3 mt for the Shorebased IFQ Program, 15.0 mt for the MS sector, and 21.3 mt for the C/P sector. The tonnage calculated here for the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D).
d 46 mt of the total trawl allocation of canary rockfish is allocated to the MS and C/P sectors, as follows: 30 mt for the MS sector, and 16 mt for
the C/P sector.
e Consistent with regulations at § 660.55(c), 17 percent (697.3 mt) of the total trawl allocation for Pacific ocean perch is allocated to the Pacific
whiting fishery, as follows: 292.9 mt for the Shorebased IFQ Program, 167.4 mt for the MS sector, and 237.1 mt for the C/P sector. The tonnage
calculated here for the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D).
f Consistent with regulations at § 660.55(c), 10 percent (1,054 mt) of the total trawl allocation for widow rockfish is allocated to the whiting fisheries, as follows: 442.7 mt for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 253 mt for the mothership fishery, and 358.4 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The
tonnage calculated here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found
at § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D).
g Consistent with regulations at § 660.55(i)(2), the commercial harvest guideline for Pacific whiting is allocated as follows: 34 percent (123,312
mt) for the C/P Coop Program; 24 percent (87,044 mt) for the MS Coop Program; and 42 percent (152,326.5 mt) for the Shorebased IFQ Program. No more than 5 percent of the Shorebased IFQ Program allocation (7,616 mt) may be taken and retained south of 42° N lat before the
start of the primary Pacific whiting season north of 42° N lat.
b The
c Consistent
4. In § 660.140, revise paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(D) to read as follows:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
■
§ 660.140
*
Shorebased IFQ Program.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
(ii) * * *
(D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will
issue QP based on the following
shorebased trawl allocations:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (d)(1)(ii)(D)
IFQ species
Area
Arrowtooth flounder ................................................
Bocaccio .................................................................
Canary rockfish .......................................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
South of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
2019 Shorebased
trawl allocation
(mt)
2020 Shorebased
trawl allocation
(mt)
12,735.1
800.7
953.6
10,052.3
767.1
894.3
10MYR1
20588
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (d)(1)(ii)(D)—Continued
IFQ species
Area
Chilipepper ..............................................................
COWCOD ...............................................................
Darkblotched rockfish .............................................
Dover sole ...............................................................
English sole ............................................................
Lingcod ...................................................................
Lingcod ...................................................................
Longspine thornyhead ............................................
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex ................................
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex ................................
Minor Slope Rockfish complex ...............................
Minor Slope Rockfish complex ...............................
Other Flatfish complex ............................................
Pacific cod ..............................................................
Pacific ocean perch ................................................
Pacific whiting .........................................................
Petrale sole .............................................................
Sablefish .................................................................
Sablefish .................................................................
Shortspine thornyhead ............................................
Shortspine thornyhead ............................................
Splitnose rockfish ....................................................
Starry flounder ........................................................
Widow rockfish ........................................................
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH ......................................
Yellowtail rockfish ...................................................
South of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
South of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
North of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
South of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
North of 34°27′ N lat ..............................................
North of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
South of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
North of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
South of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
North of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
North of 36° N lat ...................................................
South of 36° N lat ..................................................
North of 34°27′ N lat ..............................................
South of 34°27′ N lat ..............................................
South of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
Coastwide ...............................................................
North of 40°10′ N lat ..............................................
*
*
*
*
2019 Shorebased
trawl allocation
(mt)
2020 Shorebased
trawl allocation
(mt)
1,838.3
2.2
658.4
45,979.2
9,375.1
2,051.9
462.5
2,420.0
1,155.2
188.6
1,248.8
456.0
5,603.7
1,034.1
3,697.3
152,326.5
2,453.0
2,581.3
834.0
1,506.8
50.0
1,646.7
211.6
9,928.8
3.4
4,305.8
1,743.8
2.2
703.4
45,979.2
9,417.9
1,903.4
386.0
2,293.6
1,151.6
188.6
1,237.5
455.4
5,192.4
1,034.1
3,602.2
TBD
2,393.2
2,636.8
851.7
1,493.5
50.0
1,628.7
211.6
9,387.1
3.4
4,048.0
*
[FR Doc. 2019–09661 Filed 5–9–19; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:24 May 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20578-20588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09661]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 181218999-9402-02]
RIN 0648-BI67
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual Specifications and Management
Measures for the 2019 Tribal and Non-Tribal Fisheries for Pacific
Whiting, and Requirement To Consider Chinook Salmon Bycatch Before
Reapportioning Tribal Whiting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule for the 2019 Pacific whiting
fishery under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. This final rule
announces the 2019 U.S. Total Allowable Catch of 441,433 metric tons
(mt) of Pacific whiting, establishes a tribal allocation of 77,251 mt,
establishes a set-aside for research and bycatch of 1,500 mt, and
announces the allocations of Pacific whiting to the non-tribal fishery
for 2019. This final rule also amends the provisions regarding
reapportionment of the treaty tribes' whiting allocation to the non-
treaty sectors to require that NMFS consider the level of Chinook
salmon bycatch before reapportioning whiting. This rule is necessary to
manage the Pacific whiting stock to Optimal Yield, ensure that the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan is implemented in a
manner consistent with treaty rights of four treaty tribes to fish for
Pacific whiting in their ``usual and accustomed grounds and stations''
in common with non-tribal citizens, and to protect salmon stocks listed
under the Endangered Species Act. The catch limits in this rule are
intended to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Pacific whiting
stock.
DATES: Effective May 10, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miako Ushio (West Coast Region, NMFS),
phone: 206-526-4644, and email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This final rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the
Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background
information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region
website at https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_whiting.html and at the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)'s website at https://www.pcouncil.org/.
The final environmental impact statement regarding Harvest
Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial
Periods Thereafter, and the Final Environmental Assessment for Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery 2019-20 Harvest Specifications, Yelloweye
Rebuilding Plan Revisions, and Management Measures, are available on
the NMFS West Coast Region website at:
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/groundfish/groundfish_nepa_documents.html.
Background
This final rule announces the total allowable catch (TAC) for
Pacific whiting, which was determined under the terms of the Agreement
with Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (Agreement) and the Pacific Whiting
Act of 2006 (Whiting Act). The Agreement and the Whiting Act establish
bilateral bodies to implement the terms of the Agreement. The bilateral
bodies include: The Joint Management Committee (JMC), which recommends
the annual catch level for Pacific whiting; the Joint Technical
Committee (JTC), which conducts the Pacific whiting stock assessment;
the Scientific Review Group (SRG), which reviews the stock assessment;
and the Advisory Panel (AP), which provides stakeholder input to the
JMC.
The Agreement establishes a default harvest policy of F-40 percent,
which means a fishing mortality rate that would reduce the biomass to
40 percent of the estimated unfished level. The Agreement also
allocates 73.88 percent of the TAC to the United States and 26.12
percent of the TAC to Canada. The JMC is primarily responsible for
developing a TAC recommendation to the United States and Canada. The
Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has
the authority to accept or reject this recommendation.
2019 Pacific Whiting Stock Assessment and Scientific Review
The JTC completed a stock assessment for Pacific whiting in
February 2019.
[[Page 20579]]
This assessment is available at https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_whiting_treaty.html. The assessment presents a model that
depends primarily upon an acoustic survey biomass index and catches of
the transboundary Pacific whiting stock to estimate the biomass of the
current stock. The most recent survey, conducted collaboratively
between the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and NMFS, was
completed in 2017.
Pacific whiting spawning stock biomass has been relatively stable
since 2017. The 2019 spawning biomass is estimated to be 1.3 million
mt, an estimated 64 percent of unfished levels. The 2010 year class of
Pacific whiting was very large, and the 2014 and 2016 year classes are
estimated to be above average. The 2010, 2014, and 2016 year classes
support the fishery at this time. In terms of relative health of the
stock, the joint probability that the stock is both below 40 percent of
unfished level and above the Agreement's F-40 percent default harvest
rate is estimated to be 10.3 percent. As with past estimates, there is
a considerable range of uncertainty associated with this estimate,
because the youngest cohorts that make up a large portion of the survey
biomass have not been observed for very long.
The JTC provided tables showing catch alternatives for 2019. Using
the default F-40 percent harvest rule identified in the Agreement
[Paragraph 1 of Article III] results in a coastwide TAC for 2019 of
725,593 mt. The stock assessment indicates that the coastal Pacific
whiting stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring.
Summary of 2018 Fishery
Coast-wide fishery Pacific Hake landings averaged 233,645 mt from
1966 to 2018, with a low of 89,930 mt in 1980 and a peak of 440,942 mt
in 2017. The coastwide catch in 2018 was the second largest on record
at 410,443 mt out of a 597,500 mt adjusted coastwide TAC. Attainment in
the U.S. was 71.4 percent of its quota (down 9 percent from 2017); in
Canada it was 61.1 percent (up 6 percent from 2017).
In the U.S., the tribal sector was initially allocated 77,251 mt
Pacific whiting, of which NMFS reallocated 40,000 mt inseason to non-
tribal sectors on September 24, 2018 (83 FR 61569; November 30, 2018).
The Makah Tribe was the only participant in the tribal sector, and
caught approximately 5,700 mt of Pacific whiting in 2018. The U.S. non-
tribal sector's catches compared to their final allocations were: C/P
Sector: 116,073 of 136,912 mt; Mothership 67,129 of 96,644 mt; and
Shorebased: 131,829 of 169,127 mt.
TAC Recommendation
The AP and JMC met March 4-5, 2019, in Vancouver, British Columbia
in Canada, to develop advice on a 2019 coastwide TAC. The AP provided
its 2019 TAC recommendation to the JMC on March 5, 2019. The JMC
reviewed the advice of the JTC, the SRG, and the AP, and agreed on a
TAC recommendation for transmittal to the United States and Canadian
Governments.
The Agreement directs the JMC to base the catch limit
recommendation on the default harvest rate unless scientific evidence
demonstrates that a different rate is necessary to sustain the offshore
Pacific whiting resource. After consideration of the 2019 stock
assessment and other relevant scientific information, the JMC did not
use the default harvest rate, and instead agreed on a more conservative
approach, using the same catch limit as 2017 and 2018. Choosing a TAC
well below the default level of F-40 percent was supported by a desire
to minimize mortality of the 2016 year class, the scale of which is
uncertain. This TAC advice was also based in part on an estimate from
Canadian and U.S. industry members that the 2019 total coastwide
harvest will be more similar to the 2017 level, approximately 440,000
mt, rather than the amount harvested in 2018, 410,000 mt. The JMC did
not choose an even lower TAC, because of the presence of the strong
2010 and 2014 year classes. In the unlikely event the 2019 coastwide
harvest reaches 500,000 mt, the beginning of year relative spawning
biomass in 2020 is projected to be 61 percent of unfished biomass,
which is well above target levels. The recommended TAC is projected to
prevent overfishing and maintain the stock above overfished levels, but
allows each Party and each fishing sector to maximize their harvesting
opportunity to the extent of their relative respective capacities and
interests.
The recommendation for an unadjusted 2019 U.S. TAC of 384,053 mt,
plus 57,380 mt carryover of uncaught quota from 2018 results in an
adjusted U.S. TAC of 441,433 mt for 2019 (73.88 percent of the
coastwide TAC). This recommendation is consistent with the best
available scientific information, provisions of the Agreement, and the
Whiting Act. The recommendation was transmitted via letter to the
United States and Canadian Governments on March 5, 2019. NMFS, under
delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce, approved the
adjusted TAC recommendation of 441,433 mt for U.S. fisheries on April
3, 2019.
Tribal Fishery Allocation
This final rule establishes the tribal allocation of Pacific
whiting for 2019. NMFS issued a proposed rule regarding this allocation
on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9471). Since 1996, NMFS has been allocating a
portion of the U.S. TAC of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery.
Regulations for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
specify that the tribal allocation is subtracted from the total U.S.
Pacific whiting TAC. The tribal Pacific whiting fishery is managed
separately from the non-tribal Pacific whiting fishery, and is not
governed by limited entry or open access regulations or allocations.
The proposed rule described the tribal allocation as 17.5 percent
of the U.S. TAC, and projected a range of potential tribal allocations
for 2019 based on a range of U.S. TACs over the last 10 years (plus or
minus 25 percent to capture variability in stock abundance). As
described in the proposed rule, the resulting range of potential tribal
allocations was 17,842 to 96,563 mt. Applying the approach described in
the proposed rule, NMFS is establishing the 2019 tribal allocation of
77,251 mt (17.5 percent of the U.S. TAC) in this final rule. In 2009,
NMFS, the states of Washington and Oregon, and the tribes with treaty
rights to harvest whiting started a process to determine the long-term
tribal allocation for Pacific whiting; however, no long-term allocation
has been determined. While new scientific information or discussions
with the relevant parties may impact that decision, the best available
scientific information to date suggests that 77,251 mt is within the
likely range of potential treaty right amounts.
As with prior tribal Pacific whiting allocations, this final rule
is not intended to establish precedent for future Pacific whiting
seasons, or for the determination of the total amount of whiting to
which the Tribes are entitled under their treaty right. Rather, this
rule adopts an interim allocation. The long-term tribal treaty amount
will be based on further development of scientific information and
additional coordination and discussion with and among the coastal
tribes and the states of Washington and Oregon.
Harvest Guidelines and Allocations
In addition to the tribal allocation described in the proposed rule
published on March 15, 2019 (84 FR
[[Page 20580]]
9471), this final rule establishes the fishery harvest guideline (HG),
called the non-tribal allocation. NMFS did not include the HG in the
tribal whiting proposed rule, for reasons related to timing and
process. The HG had not yet been determined at the time the proposed
rule was published. A recommendation on the coastwide and U.S. TAC for
Pacific whiting for 2019, under the terms of the Agreement with Canada
was approved by NMFS, under delegation of authority from the Secretary
of Commerce, on April 3, 2019.
Although this was not part of the proposed rule, the environmental
assessment for the 2019-2020 harvest specifications rule (see
Electronic Access) analyzed a range of TAC alternatives for 2019, and
the final 2019 TAC falls within this analyzed range. In addition, via
the 2019-2020 harvest specifications rulemaking process, the public had
an opportunity to comment on the 2019-2020 TACs for whiting, just as
they did for all species in the groundfish FMP. NMFS follows this
process because, unlike for all other groundfish species, the TAC for
whiting is decided in a highly abbreviated annual process from February
through April of every year, and the normal rulemaking process would
not allow for the fishery to open with the new TAC on the annual season
opening date of May 15. The 2019 fishery HG for Pacific whiting is
362,682 mt. This amount was determined by deducting the 77,251 mt
tribal allocation and the 1,500 mt allocation for scientific research
catch and fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries from the total
U.S. TAC of 441,433 mt. The Council recommends the research and bycatch
set-aside on an annual basis, based on estimates of scientific research
catch and estimated bycatch mortality in non-groundfish fisheries.
The regulations further allocate the fishery HG among the three
non-tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery: The catcher/
processor (C/P) Coop Program, the Mothership (MS) Coop Program, and the
Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. The C/P Coop Program
is allocated 34 percent (123,312 mt for 2019), the MS Coop Program is
allocated 24 percent (87,044 mt for 2019), and the Shorebased IFQ
Program is allocated 42 percent (152,326.5 mt for 2019). The fishery
south of 42[deg] N lat. may not take more than 7,616 mt (5 percent of
the Shorebased IFQ Program allocation) prior to May 15, the start of
the primary Pacific whiting season north of 42[deg] N lat.
Table 1--2019 Pacific Whiting Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Pacific
whiting
Sector allocation
(mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal.................................................. 77,251
Catcher/Processor (C/P) Coop Program.................... 123,312
Mothership (MS) Coop Program............................ 87,044
Shorebased IFQ Program.................................. 152,326.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of Chinook Salmon Bycatch Before Reapportioning Tribal
Whiting
On December 11, 2017, NMFS completed an ESA Section 7(a)(2)
biological opinion on the effects of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan on listed salmonids. Term and Condition 2c of
the Biological Opinion states: ``No later than May 15th, 2019, NMFS
will amend the provisions regarding reapportionment of the treaty
tribes' whiting allocation to the non-treaty sectors to require that
NMFS consider the level of Chinook bycatch when determining whether to
reapportion whiting.''
This final rule amends the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery
regulations to require this consideration, and to identify what factors
will be considered when determining whether to reapportion whiting. The
purpose of this action is twofold. Reapportioning whiting that would
not otherwise be used allows the non-tribal whiting fishery to continue
fishing, thereby potentially impacting Chinook salmon, which occurs as
bycatch in that fishery. The first purpose of the action is to issue
regulatory changes that will minimize impacts to Chinook salmon from
the whiting fishery. The second purpose is to protect the treaty rights
of the tribes by preventing a reapportionment of Pacific whiting that
could cause the entire whiting fishery, both tribal and non-tribal, to
close via automatic action measures outlined at Sec. 660.60(d)(1)(v),
thereby limiting the tribal whiting fishery's opportunity to harvest
their allocation.
Comments and Responses
On March 15, 2019, NMFS issued a proposed rule for the allocation
and management of the 2018 tribal Pacific whiting fishery, and
implementation of regulations requiring consideration of Chinook salmon
bycatch before reapportioning tribal whiting (84 FR 9471). The comment
period on the proposed rule closed on April 1, 2019. NMFS received
three unique comment letters during the comment period on the proposed
rule: One letter from Heather Mann, Executive Director of Midwater
Trawlers Cooperative and Brent Paine, Executive Director of United
Catcher Boats; one letter from Kristen McQuaw, Manager of Shoreside
Whiting Cooperative; and one from Daniel Waldeck, Executive Director of
Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative (representing American
Seafoods, Glacier Fish Co. and Trident Seafoods). All three letters
were from organizations representing participants in the non-tribal
whiting fishery and contained substantive comments. NMFS addresses the
summarized comments below. No changes from the proposed rule were made
based on comments NMFS received.
Comment 1: A commenter requested NMFS remove the language in the
proposed rule that requires NMFS consider Chinook salmon take numbers
and bycatch rates in the Pacific Whiting fishery prior to making a
reapportionment. The rationale given was that whiting sectors are
already mindful of Chinook bycatch, harvesters and processors have
implemented significant voluntary measures in recent years to avoid
interacting with Chinook. Commenters mentioned that the recently
completed Biological Opinion and associated measures includes a new
`hard cap' on Chinook salmon for whiting participants', referring to
regulations that close the Pacific whiting fishery after a certain
number of Chinook salmon have been caught.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the voluntary measures the Pacific
whiting fishery has implemented in recent years to avoid interacting
with Chinook salmon, and the continued efforts of the fishery to manage
bycatch. Low Chinook salmon bycatch resulting from implementation of
voluntary and mandatory measures will be considered prior to
reapportionment. NMFS also acknowledges that this is one of several
complementary measures that have been put into place as the result of
the Biological Opinion, to minimize the impact of the amount or extent
of incidental take of ESA-listed Chinook salmon. The terms and
conditions of the Biological Opinion are, in part, designed to minimize
Chinook salmon interactions with Pacific whiting fishery. Terms and
conditions of an ESA biological opinion are non-discretionary, meaning
NMFS is obligated under ESA to implement this measure.
The `hard cap' this comment refers to is a provision implemented
(83 FR 63970; December 12, 2018) to give NMFS automatic authority to
close
[[Page 20581]]
either or both of the whiting and non-whiting sector fisheries if: (1)
Either sector catches its guideline limit and the reserve amount; or
(2) either sector reaches its guideline limit when the other sector has
already taken the reserve amount. The guideline limit for the whiting
sector (including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the mothership,
catcher/processor (C/P), and Shoreside whiting fleets) is 11,000
Chinook salmon. The guideline limit for the non-whiting sector
(including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the Shoreside trawl, fixed
gear, and recreational fleets) is 5,500 Chinook salmon. The reserve
amount of Chinook is 3,500 fish. The `hard cap' measure ensures that
certain levels of Chinook salmon bycatch are not exceeded. The measure
addressed in this final rule has the added purpose of ensuring that
non-tribal catch of Pacific whiting that was originally allocated to
the Tribal sector does not cause closure of the entire Pacific whiting
fishery (tribal and non-tribal sectors), thereby prevent the tribal
sector's fishery. Therefore, NMFS is retaining this language in the
regulations implementing this final rule.
Comment 2: Three commenters stated that reapportionment is
necessary to meet National Standard 1 and achieve optimum yield (OY).
Response: The purpose of the tribal allocation is to facilitate the
tribes exercising their treaty right to harvest fish in their usual and
accustomed fishing areas in U.S. waters, and NMFS must take the
necessary steps to ensure that this opportunity is available to those
tribes. In 1994, the United States formally recognized that the four
Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes (Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and
Quinault) have treaty rights to fish for groundfish, including Pacific
whiting, in the Pacific Ocean, and concluded that, in general terms,
the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable
surplus of groundfish that pass through the tribes usual and accustomed
fishing areas. These treaty rights are implemented by the Secretary
following the procedures outlined in 50 CFR 660.60. The tribal
allocation is specific to the tribes, who manage and would optimally
harvest all of their allocation. The Council, through the Council
process, manages allocations to the non-tribal sectors of the Pacific
whiting fishery to achieve optimal yield, in accordance with the
National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Comment 3: Commenters suggested that NMFS provide for re-
apportionment of tribal whiting to specific non-tribal sectors.
Response: This management suggestion is outside of the scope of the
measure discussed in the proposed rule but could be achieved through
the Council process. In this final rule, revisions to the
reapportionment provisions are limited to implementing the non-
discretionary terms and conditions of the recently completed ESA
Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion. NMFS notes that distributing
reapportioned tribal whiting to specific non-tribal sectors based on
concerns about Chinook salmon bycatch is currently possible, and was
done in 2014 (February 10, 2015; 80 FR 7390), based on recommendation
by the Council. In that reapportionment action, NMFS distributed
reapportioned fish to the MS and C/P sectors but not to the Shorebased
IFQ sector, based on voluntary bycatch reduction measures that were
taken by the MS and C/P sectors in conjunction with projected higher
bycatch rates in the Shorebased IFQ sector, and the fact that the
Shorebased IFQ sector had not yet attained their existing allocation.
Comment 4: Commenters said the proposed action leads to uncertainty
in the non-tribal fishery about the timing and amount of
reapportionment during a given year, which makes it difficult to manage
factors such as bycatch and vessel maintenance. One commenter expressed
that ``if NMFS poorly manages the tribal allocation by not using the
reapportionment process to effectively balance the needs of the tribal
and non-tribal fisheries it will cause economic harm within the non-
tribal whiting fishery. For example, delaying reapportionment past
September 15th hinders the ability of the non-tribal sectors to plan
and schedule fishing operations that are necessary to optimally achieve
our allocations.''
Response: With this final rule, NMFS issues allocations to the non-
tribal participants of the Pacific whiting fishery, and allocations to
the tribal participants of the fishery. These amounts are certain for
participants in the fishery. It is not the goal of the action, nor
would it be appropriate, for NMFS to provide certainty that non-tribal
participants will derive benefit from the tribal allocation.
NMFS does not anticipate that this rule will change the timing of
reapportionment, because there is no additional data collection or
analysis requirement (see response to Comment 9 for a discussion
regarding this consideration). NMFS will make every effort to ensure
that consideration of Chinook bycatch does not hinder timely
reapportionment. Specifically, NMFS continuously tracks information
required for considering Chinook bycatch prior to reapportionment as
part of managing Chinook bycatch inseason. This information is
available in accordance with other components of the ESA Biological
Opinion. Therefore, the most up-to-date Chinook bycatch information
will be available when NMFS is ready to make the reapportionment
decision.
Revisions to the timing of the reapportionment is beyond the scope
of the action discussed in the proposed rule. Current regulations,
however, do provide NMFS with flexibility in the timing of
reapportionment and allow for reapportionment to occur prior to
September 15. Based on a review of reapportionment actions in 2012-
2018, it does not appear that the timing of the reapportionment
impacted operational decisions during that time period. For reference,
in 2012 the non-tribal sector caught 24,142 mt more than its initial
allocation, of 28,000 mt reapportioned on October 4. In 2013, after a
30,000 mt reallocation on September 18 (sixteen days earlier than in
2012), the non-tribal fishery caught 24,146 mt more than its initial
allocation. The sixteen-day earlier reapportionment yielded 4 mt more
catch (valued at $1,210 in real dollars). In 2014, a 25,000 mt initial
reapportionment on September 12 resulted in only 4,564 mt attained over
the initial non-tribal allocation. As discussed in greater detail in
response to Comment 12, from 2015-2018, the non-tribal fishery as a
whole did not catch its initial allocation, which implies that the
timing of reallocations did not likely impact operational decisions
during that period. Timing of reapportionments is further addressed
below, in response to comment 8.
Comment 5: Commenters expressed views that the proposed action
seems punitive to the non-tribal participants in general, and to
specific sectors with low Chinook salmon bycatch.
Response: In this final rule, revisions to the reapportionment
provisions are limited to implementing the non-discretionary terms and
conditions of the recently completed ESA Section 7(a)(2) Biological
Opinion. Regulations governing reapportionment give the Secretary
discretion, but do not impose an obligation, to reapportion Pacific
whiting from the tribal sector of the Pacific whiting fishery to non-
tribal sectors. While the non-tribal sectors may receive additional
economic benefits via reapportionments from the tribal allocation, it
is not punitive to either consider Chinook bycatch before making the
reapportionment, or keep allocations in their original sectors. See
[[Page 20582]]
the response to Comment 3 for a discussion on distributing
reapportioned tribal whiting to specific non-tribal sectors.
Comment 6: Commenters mentioned that the reapportionment is of
economic benefit to harvesters.
Response: NMFS agrees that reapportionment is of economic benefit
to recipients of additional whiting allocation. This is reflected in
the regulatory Impact Review-Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(RIR-IRFA) and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA).
Comment 7: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule
made reference to possible impacts to the tribal whiting fishery due to
Chinook salmon bycatch taken in the non-tribal fishery, but did not
mention anything about Chinook bycatch impacts to the non-tribal
fisheries by the tribal fishery.
Response: The impacts to the tribal fishery referenced are
specifically associated with the Chinook salmon bycatch that occurs
when the non-tribal fishery fishes for Pacific whiting originally
allocated to the tribal fishery. Because there is no mechanism to
reapportion in the other direction, (from non-tribal sectors to the
tribal sector) the second scenario mentioned in the comment (tribal
sector causing impacts while fishing for Pacific whiting originally
allocated to the non-tribal sectors) cannot happen under current
regulations.
Comment 8: A commenter stated: ``Dependent on the interannual
variability in the stocks, fishing later in the year can, although not
always, increase the probability of encountering salmon. For this
reason, the current timeframe for which tribal treaty whiting is
reallocated is already later in the year than preferred.'' Accordingly,
the commenter requested that reapportionment occur earlier in the year,
by August 1st.
Response: The timing of reapportionment in the whiting fishery is
outside the scope of action described in the proposed rule, and is
addressed further in response to comment 4, above. NMFS is responsible
for consulting with the tribes to ensure that reapportionments, should
they occur, will not limit tribal harvest opportunities. As explained
in the RIR-IRFA, the timing of reapportionment in regulations was
intended to allow for the tribal fishery to proceed to a point where it
could likely be determined whether the full allocation would be used,
while reallocating in time to allow the non-treaty sectors to catch the
reallocated fish prior to the onset of winter weather conditions. In
some years, the participating tribes may determine prior to September
15 that they will not use a portion of the tribal allocation.
Comment 9: Commenters requested clarity on the metric, guidelines,
or inseason analysis NMFS will use to determine reapportionment. One
commenter requested detailed criteria describing how Chinook salmon
bycatch information will be used to guide the whiting reapportionment
process. Another commented that this action increases staff workload to
accomplish a task that is already being satisfied with existing
management measures, and that the proposed rule will require in-season
analysis, increasing the workload of NMFS staff.
Response: NMFS will not conduct additional inseason analysis as a
result of this modification to the regulations. NMFS already
continuously tracks information required for considering Chinook
bycatch prior to reapportionment as part of managing Chinook bycatch
inseason. Therefore, the most up-to-date Chinook bycatch information
will be available when NMFS is ready to make the reapportionment
decision. This modification does not increase the data requirement or
workload, but rather requires NMFS to review readily available
information, the total number of total Chinook salmon taken by the
Pacific whiting fishery and rates of Chinook salmon bycatch in each
sector, prior to making a decision about annual reapportionment.
Comment 10: A commenter stated: ``Reapportionment of whiting to
non-tribal sectors re-distributes fishing effort from a centralized
region in the North to widespread locations along the coastline.
Consequently, reapportionment could indirectly provide increased food
availability for predators that prey on Northern Chinook stocks. The
proposed rule does not acknowledge the conservation benefits that
reapportionment provides.''
Response: This action changes neither the existing discretion nor
the mechanism NMFS has for the reapportionment. The indirect
conservation benefits mentioned in the comment may exist, however they
are outside the scope of this action.
Comment 11: Several commenters addressed economic benefits to
communities from reapportioning fish and stated that the action
prevents economic benefits from accruing, threatens small business, and
that the IRFA fails to consider how the discretion provided to NMFS
could impact small businesses. Commenters calculated the benefit of
reapportionments by multiplying ex-vessel price of Pacific whiting by
the amount of historic reapportionments.
Response: The RIR-IRFA indicates allocation to both the tribal and
non-tribal sectors provides benefits, in the form of opportunity, to
large and small entities across sectors. In response to comments, NMFS
clarifies that the value of this additional opportunity is not
equivalent to the ex-vessel price multiplied by the amount of
reapportioned fish. The U.S. non-tribal whiting fishery catch exceeded
initial allocations in 2012-2014 by utilizing reapportioned fish. In
2012 and 2013, the whiting sectors utilized about 24,000 mt of
reapportionments of 30,000 and 45,000 mt, respectively. In 2014, the
non-tribal fishery utilized about 5,000 mt of a reapportioned 45,000
mt. At annual average shoreside ex-vessel prices ranging from $263 to
$352/mt from 2012-2014, the total ex-vessel value of reapportioned fish
was $17 million across the three years.
From 2015 to 2018, higher TACs have been correlated with lower
attainment, ranging from 58.1-96.5 percent attainment of initial non-
tribal allocations. If TACs remain at or near those levels, these lower
attainment trends indicate that reapportioned tribal catch is not
expected to provide the non-tribal sector additional opportunity over
the initial allocations, as cumulatively, 212,714 of initial
allocations remained unharvested (53,000 mt per year, on average).
While opportunity of reapportioned harvest is generally distributed
along fixed allocation percentages in the FMP that are not being
reconsidered in the scope of this rule, reapportioned catch has in
recent years provided measurable increased revenue to C/P sector, as
this sector generally does attain most or all of its initial
allocation. All of the permit owners in the C/P sector self-identified
in 2019 permit applications as large entities. The proposed rule and
corresponding analyses do not include a reconsideration of the
allocations either between tribal and non-tribal sectors, or within the
non-tribal sector.
Comment 12: A commenter stated: ``In the proposed rule, NMFS states
that the re-apportionment process prevents adverse economic impacts--
`The reapportioning process allows unharvested tribal allocations of
Pacific whiting . . . to be fished by the non-tribal fleets,
benefitting both large and small entities. NMFS has prepared an IRFA
and is requesting comments on this conclusion.' However, this statement
is not supported by any
[[Page 20583]]
information in the proposed rule.'' Another commenter stated that they
disagreed with the claim that `` `NMFS believes this proposed rule
would not adversely affect small entities', as no evidence for it is
provided in the [IRFA].''
Response: NMFS does not claim the reapportionment process prevents
adverse economic impacts; rather, the IRFA states `` . . . in 2018 NMFS
reapportioned 40,000 mt of the original 77,251 mt tribal allocation.
This reapportionment was based on conversations with the tribes and the
best information available at the time, which indicated that this
amount would not limit tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder
of the year. . . . This reapportioning process allows unharvested
tribal allocations of Pacific whiting to be fished by the non-tribal
fleets, benefitting both large and small entities.''
The benefits of the proposed rule considered in the IRFA include
the benefits of the tribal allocation to the tribal sector, and of the
non-tribal allocation to each of the commercial sectors in the non-
tribal sector. In years when the tribal sector does not use its full
allocation and there is a reapportionment to the non-tribal sectors,
the reapportioned fish offers additional benefits for small and large
entities in the non-tribal sectors. In the IRFA, the benefits from the
tribal allocation are assumed to accrue to the tribal sector, with the
reapportionment flexibility an additional potential benefit to the non-
tribal sector, only in years when the tribal sector does not prosecute
the entirety of its allocation. In the IRFA, no portion of the benefits
from the tribal allocation are assumed to accrue to the non-tribal
sector, which would double-count the value of the benefit of this
allocation to the tribal sector.
Classification
The Annual Specifications and Management Measures for the 2019
Tribal and non-Tribal Fisheries for Pacific Whiting, and Consideration
of Chinook Salmon Bycatch Before Reapportioning Tribal Pacific Whiting,
are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the
Whiting Act of 2006. The measures are in accordance with 50 CFR part
660, subparts C through G, the regulations implementing the Pacific
Coast Groundfish FMP, and NMFS has determined that this rule is
consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
other applicable laws.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the NMFS Assistant
Administrator finds good cause to waive prior public notice and delay
in effectiveness for this final rule, as delaying this rule would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The annual harvest
specifications for Pacific whiting must be implemented by the start of
the primary Pacific whiting season, which begins on May 15, 2019, or
the primary Pacific whiting fishery will effectively remain closed.
Every year, NMFS conducts a Pacific whiting stock assessment with
participation from U.S. and Canadian scientists. The 2019 stock
assessment for Pacific whiting was prepared in February 2019, and
included updated total catch, length and age data from the U.S. and
Canadian fisheries from 2018, and biomass indices from the 2018 Joint
U.S.-Canadian acoustic/midwater trawl surveys. Because of this late
availability of the most recent data for the assessment, and the need
for time to conduct the treaty process for determining the TAC using
the most recent assessment, it would not be possible to allow for
notice and comment before the start of the primary Pacific whiting
season on May 15.
A delay in implementing the Pacific whiting harvest specifications
to allow for notice and comment would be contrary to the public
interest because it would require either a shorter primary whiting
season or development of a TAC without the most recent data. A shorter
season could prevent the tribal and non-tribal fisheries from attaining
their 2019 allocations, which would result in unnecessary short-term
adverse economic effects for the Pacific whiting fishing vessels and
the associated fishing communities. A TAC determined without the most
recent data could fail to account for significant fluctuations in the
biomass of this relatively short-lived species. To prevent these
adverse effects and to allow the Pacific whiting season to commence, it
is in the best interest of the public to waive prior notice and
comment.
In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the NMFS Assistant
Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in
effectiveness of this final rule. Waiving the 30-day delay in
effectiveness will not have a negative impact on any entities, as there
are no new compliance requirements or other burdens placed on the
fishing community with this rule. Failure to make this final rule
effective at the start of the fishing year will undermine the intent of
the rule, which is to promote the optimal utilization and conservation
of Pacific whiting. Making this rule effective immediately would also
serve the best interests of the public because it will allow for the
longest possible Pacific whiting fishing season and therefore the best
possible economic outcome for those whose livelihoods depend on this
fishery. Because the 30-day delay in effectiveness would potentially
cause significant financial harm without providing any corresponding
benefits, this final rule is effective upon publication in the Federal
Register.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final
rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This
rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this
rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NMFS published a proposed rule on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9471), for
the allocation of the 2019 tribal Pacific whiting fishery and the
requirement to consider Chinook salmon bycatch before reapportioning
tribal whiting. An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the
Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The
comment period on the proposed rule ended on April 1, 2019. NMFS
received three comment letters on the proposed rule from organizations
representing the non-tribal fishery. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the SBA did not file any comments on the IRFA or the proposed rule. The
description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are
described in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated
here. A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared and
incorporates the IRFA and response to the public comments, which are
summarized in the `Comments and Responses' section of this final rule.
NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A
copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see Electronic Access). A
summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604 follows.
NMFS considered two alternatives for this action: The ``No-Action''
and the ``Action.'' The tribal allocation is based primarily on the
requests of the tribes. These requests reflect the level of
participation in the fishery that will allow them to exercise their
treaty right to fish for Pacific whiting. Under the Action alternative,
NMFS sets the tribal allocation percentage at 17.5 percent, as
requested by the tribes. This yields a tribal allocation of 77,251 mt
for 2019. Consideration of a percentage lower
[[Page 20584]]
than the tribal request of 17.5 percent is not appropriate in this
instance. As a matter of policy, NMFS has historically supported the
harvest levels requested by the tribes. Based on the information
available to NMFS, the tribal request is within their tribal treaty
rights. A higher percentage would arguably also be within the scope of
the treaty right. However, a higher percentage would unnecessarily
limit the non-tribal fishery. NMFS also announces the 2019 U.S. Total
Allowable Catch (TAC) of 441,433 metric tons of Pacific whiting,
establishes a set-aside for research and bycatch of 1,500 mt, and
362,682 mt for the non-tribal fishery for 2019. Under the action
alternative, NMFS requires the consideration of the number and bycatch
rate by sector of Chinook salmon bycatch before reapportioning tribal
whiting, as required by the 2017 ESA Biological Opinion. Consideration
of other factors such as timing, location, and genetics of bycatch
would not be feasible as an inseason automatic action, which is the
mechanism by which these reapportionments occur.
Under the no-action alternative, NMFS would not have made
allocations, which would not fulfill NMFS' responsibility to manage the
fishery. This alternative was considered, but the regulatory framework
provides for a tribal allocation, research and bycatch set-aside, and
harvest guideline on an annual basis only. Therefore, the no-action
alternative would result in no allocation of Pacific whiting to the
tribal sector in 2019, which would be inconsistent with NMFS'
responsibility to manage the fishery consistent with the tribes' treaty
rights. Given that there is a tribal request for allocation and the
Council recommended a research and bycatch set-aside in 2019, this
alternative received no further consideration. Under the no-action
alternative, NMFS would not consider Chinook salmon bycatch, as
required by the Biological Opinion. While the consideration of Chinook
bycatch may negatively impact both large and small entities in the
event of a high bycatch year, there are no alternatives identified that
would be consistent with the applicable ESA requirements that would
also minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.
RFA-Determination of a Significant Impact
This rule is similar to previous rule makings concerning whiting.
Against an internationally set TAC, this rule concerns the amount of
the US TAC that should be allocated to the tribal fishery, establishes
a set-aside for research and bycatch of 1,500 mt, announces Pacific
whiting allocations of 77,251 mt to the tribal and 362,683 mt for the
non-tribal fishery for 2019, and requires NMFS to consider bycatch of
Chinook salmon before reapportioning tribal whiting. The tribal
allocation is based primarily on the requests of the tribes. These
requests reflect the level of participation in the fishery that will
allow them to exercise their treaty right to fish for whiting. Tribes
are considered small entities. The reapportioning process allows
unharvested tribal allocations of whiting, fished by small entities, to
be fished by the non-tribal fleets, benefitting both large and small
entities. NMFS has determined this rule will not adversely affect small
entities and did not receive any comments in response to the IRFA to
alter this conclusion.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final rule. No federal rules have been identified that
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of
this and the related 2019-2020 Biennial Specifications and Management
Measures for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery (83 FR 63970)
rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide was sent to
stakeholders, and copies of the final rule and guides (i.e.,
information bulletins) are available from NMFS at the following
website: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_whiting.html.
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed
after meaningful collaboration with tribal officials from the area
covered by the FMP. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16
U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council is
a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing
rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, NMFS
has coordinated specifically with the tribes interested in the whiting
fishery regarding the issues addressed by this final rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian Fisheries.
Dated: May 7, 2019.
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 continues 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. 660.50, revise paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Pacific whiting. The tribal allocation for 2019 is 77,251 mt.
* * * * *
3. Tables 1a and 1b to part 660, subpart C, are revised to read as
follows:
Table 1a to Part 660, Subpart C--2019, Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT and Fishery HG
[Weights in metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishery HG b/
Stocks/stock complexes Area OFL ABC ACL a/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COWCOD \c\.................... S of 40[deg] 10' 74 67 10 8
N lat.
COWCOD........................ (Conception).... 61 56 NA NA
COWCOD........................ (Monterey)...... 13 11 NA NA
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH \d\........ Coastwide....... 82 74 48 42
[[Page 20585]]
Arrowtooth Flounder \e\....... Coastwide....... 18,696 15,574 15,574 13,479
Big Skate \f\................. Coastwide....... 541 494 494 452
Black Rockfish \g\............ California (S of 344 329 329 328
42[deg] N lat.).
Black Rockfish \h\............ Washington (N of 312 298 298 280
46[deg] 16' N
lat.).
Bocaccio \i\.................. S of 40[deg] 10' 2,194 2,097 2,097 2,051
N lat.
Cabezon \j\................... California (S of 154 147 147 147
42[deg] N lat.).
California Scorpionfish \k\... S of 34[deg] 27' 337 313 313 311
N lat.
Canary Rockfish \l\........... Coastwide....... 1,517 1,450 1,450 1,383
Chilipepper Rockfish \m\...... S of 40[deg] 10' 2,652 2,536 2,536 2,451
N lat..
Darkblotched Rockfish \n\..... Coastwide....... 800 765 765 731
Dover Sole \o\................ Coastwide....... 91,102 87,094 50,000 48,404
English Sole \p\.............. Coastwide....... 11,052 10,090 10,090 9,874
Lingcod \q\................... N of 40[deg] 10' 5,110 4,885 4,871 4,593
N lat.
Lingcod \r\................... S of 40[deg] 10' 1,143 1,093 1,039 1,028
N lat.
Longnose Skate \s\............ Coastwide....... 2,499 2,389 2,000 1,852
Longspine Thornyhead \t\...... N of 34[deg]27' 4,112 3,425 2,603 2,553
N lat.
Longspine Thornyhead \u\...... S of 34[deg] 27' 822 821
N lat.
Pacific Cod \v\............... Coastwide....... 3,200 2,221 1,600 1,094
Pacific Whiting \w\........... Coastwide....... 725,593 w/ w/ 362,682
Pacific Ocean Perch \x\....... N of 40[deg] 10' 4,753 4,340 4,340 4,318
N lat.
Petrale Sole \y\.............. Coastwide....... 3,042 2,908 2,908 2,587
Sablefish \z\................. N of 36[deg] N 8,489 7,750 5,606 See Table 1c
lat.
Sablefish \aa\................ S of 36[deg] N .............. .............. 1,990 1,986
lat.
Shortbelly Rockfish \bb\...... Coastwide....... 6,950 5,789 500 483
Shortspine Thornyhead \cc\.... N of 34[deg] 27' 3,089 2,573 1,683 1,618
N lat.
Shortspine Thornyhead \dd\.... S of 34[deg] 27' 890 889
N lat.
Spiny Dogfish \ee\............ Coastwide....... 2,486 2,071 2,071 1,738
Splitnose Rockfish \ff\....... S of 40[deg] 10' 1,831 1,750 1,750 1,733
N lat.
Starry Flounder \gg\.......... Coastwide....... 652 452 452 433
Widow Rockfish \hh\........... Coastwide....... 12,375 11,831 11,831 11,583
Yellowtail Rockfish \ii\...... N of 40[deg] 10' 6,568 6,279 6,279 5,234
N lat.
Black Rockfish/Blue Rockfish/ Oregon (Between 677 617 617 616
Deacon Rockfish \jj\. 46[deg] 16' N
lat. and
42[deg] N lat.).
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling \kk\... Oregon (Between 230 218 218 218
46[deg] 16' N
lat. and
42[deg] N lat.).
Cabezon/Kelp Greenling \ll\... Washington (N of 13 11 11 11
46[deg] 16' N
lat.).
Nearshore Rockfish \mm\....... N of 40[deg] 91 81 81 79
10prime; N lat.
Shelf Rockfish \nn\........... N of 40[deg] 2,309 2,054 2,054 1,977
10prime; N lat.
Slope Rockfish \oo\........... N of 40[deg] 1,887 1,746 1,746 1,665
10prime; N lat.
Nearshore Rockfish \pp\....... S of 40[deg] 10' 1,300 1,145 1,142 1,138
N lat.
Shelf Rockfish \qq\........... S of 40[deg] 10' 1,919 1,625 1,625 1,546
N lat.
Slope Rockfish \rr\........... S of 40[deg] 10' 856 744 744 724
N lat.
Other Flatfish \ss\........... Coastwide....... 8,750 6,498 6,498 6,249
Other Fish \tt\............... Coastwide....... 286 239 239 230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs) and harvest guidelines (HGs) are specified as total
catch values.
\b\ Fishery HGs means the HG or quota after subtracting Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes allocations and
projected catch, projected research catch, deductions for fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, and
deductions for EFPs from the ACL or ACT.
\c\ Cowcod south of 40[deg] 10' N lat. 2 mt is deducted from the ACL to EFP fishing (less than 0.1 mt) and
research activity (2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 8 mt. Any additional mortality in research activities
will be deducted from the ACL. A single ACT of 6 mt is being set for the Conception and Monterey areas
combined.
\d\ Yelloweye rockfish. The 48 mt ACL is based on the current rebuilding plan with a target year to rebuild of
2029 and an SPR harvest rate of 65 percent. 6.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery
(2.3 mt), the incidental open access fishery (0.62 mt), EFP catch (0.24 mt) and research catch (2.92 mt),
resulting in a fishery HG of 42 mt. The non-trawl HG is 38.6 mt. The non-nearshore HG is 2.0 mt and the
nearshore HG is 6.0 mt. Recreational HGs are: 10 mt (Washington); 8.9 mt (Oregon); and 11.6 mt (California).
In addition, there are the following ACTs: Non-nearshore (1.6 mt), nearshore (4.7 mt), Washington recreational
(7.8 mt), Oregon recreational (7.0 mt), and California recreational (9.1 mt).
\e\ Arrowtooth flounder. 2,094.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2,041 mt), the
incidental open access fishery (40.8 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (13 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 13,479 mt.
\f\ Big skate. 41.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (15 mt), the incidental open
access fishery (21.3 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (5.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 452
mt.
\g\ Black rockfish (California). 1.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP fishing (1.0 mt) and
incidental open access fishery (0.3 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 328 mt.
\h\ Black rockfish (Washington). 18.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (18 mt) and
research catch (0.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 280 mt.
\i\ Bocaccio south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. The stock is managed with stock-pecific harvest specifications south
of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. and within the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex north of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 46.1 mt is
deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (0.5 mt), EFP catch (40 mt) and
research catch (5.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,051 mt. The California recreational fishery south of
40[deg] 10'; N lat has an HG of 863.4 mt.
\j\ Cabezon (California). 0.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery,
resulting in a fishery HG of 147 mt.
\k\ California scorpionfish south of 34[deg] 27' N lat. 2.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the
incidental open access fishery (2.2 mt) and research catch (0.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 311 mt.
[[Page 20586]]
\l\ Canary rockfish. 67.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (50 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (1.3 mt), EFP catch (8 mt), and research catch (7.8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
1,383 mt. Recreational HGs are: 47.1 mt (Washington); 70.7 mt (Oregon); and 127.3 mt (California).
\m\ Chilipepper rockfish south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. Chilipepper are managed with stock-specific harvest
specifications south of 40[deg] 10'N lat. and within the Minor Shelf Rockfish complex north of 40[deg] 10' N
lat. 84.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (11.5 mt), EFP fishing
(60 mt), and research catch (13.4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 2,451 mt.
\n\ Darkblotched rockfish. 33.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (0.2 mt), the
incidental open access fishery (24.5 mt), EFP catch (0.6 mt), and research catch (8.5 mt) resulting in a
fishery HG of 731 mt.
\o\ Dover sole. 1,595.6 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (1,497 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (49.3 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (49.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG
of 48,404 mt.
\p\ English sole. 216.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (200 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (8.1 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
9,874 mt.
\q\ Lingcod north of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 278 mt is deducted from the ACL for the Tribal fishery (250 mt), the
incidental open access fishery (9.8 mt), EFP catch (1.6 mt) and research catch (16.6 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 4,593 mt.
\r\ Lingcod south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 11.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open
access fishery (8.1 mt) and research catch (3.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,028 mt.
\s\ Longnose skate. 148.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (130 mt), incidental
open access fishery (5.7 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt), and research catch (12.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
1,852 mt.
\t\ Longspine thornyhead north of 34[deg] 27' N lat. 50.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal
fishery (30 mt), the incidental open access fishery (6.2 mt), and research catch (14.2 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 2,553 mt.
\u\ Longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg] 27' N lat. 1.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate research
catch, resulting in a fishery HG of 821 mt.
\v\ Pacific cod. 506.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (500 mt), research catch
(5.5 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and the incidental open access fishery (0.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
1,094 mt.
\w\ Pacific whiting. The coastwide stock assessment was published in 2019 and estimated the spawning stock to be
at 64 percent of its unfished biomasS The 2019 OFL of 725,593 mt is based on the 2019 assessment with an F40%
FMSY proxy. The 2019 coastwide, unadjusted Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 519,834 mt is based on the 2019
stock assessment. The U.S. TAC is 73.88 percent of the coastwide unadjusted TAC. Up to 15 percent of each
party's unadjusted 2018 TAC (57,380 mt for the U.S.) is added to each party's 2019 unadjusted TAC, resulting
in a U.S. adjusted 2019 TAC of 441,433 mt. From the adjusted U.S. TAC, 77,251 mt is deducted to accommodate
the Tribal fishery, and 1,500 mt is deducted to accommodate research and bycatch in other fisheries, resulting
in a 2019 fishery HG of 362,682 mt. The TAC for Pacific whiting is established under the provisions of the
Agreement with Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006, 16 U.S.C. 7001-7010, and
the international exception applies. Therefore, no ABC or ACL values are provided for Pacific whiting.
\x\ Pacific ocean perch north of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 22.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal
fishery (9.2 mt), the incidental open access fishery (10 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (3.1
mt) resulting in a fishery HG of 4,318 mt.
\y\ Petrale sole. 320.6 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (290 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (6.4 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt), and research catch (24.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
2,587 mt.
\z\ Sablefish north of 36[deg] N lat. The 40-10 adjustment is applied to the ABC to derive a coastwide ACL value
because the stock is in the precautionary zone. This coastwide ACL value is not specified in regulations. The
coastwide ACL value is apportioned north and south of 36[deg] N lat., using the 2003-2014 average estimated
swept area biomass from the NMFS NWFSC trawl survey, with 73.8 percent apportioned north of 36[deg] N lat. and
26.2 percent apportioned south of 36[deg] N lat. The northern ACL is 5,606 mt and is reduced by 561 mt for the
Tribal allocation (10 percent of the ACL north of 36[deg] N lat.). The 561 mt Tribal allocation is reduced by
1.5 percent to account for discard mortality. Detailed sablefish allocations are shown in Table 1c.
\aa\ Sablefish south of 36[deg] N lat. The ACL for the area south of 36[deg] N lat. is 1,990 mt (26.2 percent of
the calculated coastwide ACL value). 4.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access
fishery (1.8 mt) and research catch (2.4 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,986 mt.
\bb\ Shortbelly rockfish. 17.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery
(8.9 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt), and research catch (8.2 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 483 mt.
\cc\ Shortspine thornyhead north of 34[deg] 27' N lat. 65.3 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the
Tribal fishery (50 mt), the incidental open access fishery (4.7 mt), EFP catch (0.1 mt), and research catch
(10.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,618 mt for the area north of 34[deg] 27' N lat.
\dd\ Shortspine thornyhead south of 34[deg] 27' N lat. 1.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the
incidental open access fishery (0.5 mt) and research catch (0.7 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 889 mt for
the area south of 34[deg] 27' N lat.
\ee\ Spiny dogfish. 333 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (275 mt), the incidental
open access fishery (22.6 mt), EFP catch (1.1 mt), and research catch (34.3 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
1,738 mt.
\ff\ Splitnose rockfish south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. Splitnose rockfish in the north is managed in the Slope
Rockfish complex and with stock-specific harvest specifications south of 40[deg]10' N lat. 16.6 mt is deducted
from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (5.8 mt), research catch (9.3 mt) and EFP catch
(1.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,733 mt.
\gg\ Starry flounder. 18.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (2 mt), EFP catch (0.1
mt), research catch (0.6 mt), and the incidental open access fishery (16.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
433 mt.
\hh\ Widow rockfish. 248.4 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (200 mt), the
incidental open access fishery (3.1 mt), EFP catch (28 mt) and research catch (17.3 mt), resulting in a
fishery HG of 11,583 mt.
\ii\ Yellowtail rockfish north of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 1,045.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the
Tribal fishery (1,000 mt), the incidental open access fishery (4.5 mt), EFP catch (20 mt) and research catch
(20.6 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 5,234 mt.
\jj\ Black rockfish/Blue rockfish/Deacon rockfish (Oregon). 1.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the
incidental open access fishery (0.3 mt) and EFP catch (0.9 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 616 mt.
\kk\ Cabezon/kelp greenling (Oregon). 0.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate EFP catch, resulting in a
fishery HG of 218 mt.
\ll\ Cabezon/kelp greenling (Washington). There are no deductions from the ACL so the fishery HG is equal to the
ACL of 11 mt.
\mm\ Nearshore Rockfish north of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 2.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal
fishery (1.5 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), research catch (0.3 mt) and the incidental open access fishery (0.9
mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 79 mt.
\nn\ Shelf Rockfish north of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 76.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal
fishery (30 mt), the incidental open access fishery (17.7 mt), EFP catch (4.5 mt), and research catch (24.7
mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,977 mt.
\oo\ Slope Rockfish north of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 80.8 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal
fishery (36 mt), the incidental open access fishery (21.7 mt), EFP catch (1.5 mt), and research catch (21.6
mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,665 mt.
\pp\ Nearshore Rockfish south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 4.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the
incidental open access fishery (1.4 mt) and research catch (2.7 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 1,138 mt.
\qq\ Shelf Rockfish south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 79.1 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental
open access fishery (4.6 mt), EFP catch (60 mt), and research catch (14.5 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
1,546 mt.
\rr\ Slope Rockfish south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. 20.2 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental
open access fishery (16.9 mt), EFP catch (1 mt), and research catch (2.3 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 724
mt. Blackgill rockfish has a stock-specific HG for the entire groundfish fishery south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat.
set equal to the speciesprime; contribution to the 40[deg] 10'; adjusted ACL. Harvest of blackgill rockfish in
all groundfish fisheries south of 40[deg] 10'; N lat. counts against this HG of 159 mt.
\ss\ Other Flatfish. The Other Flatfish complex is comprised of flatfish species managed in the PCGFMP that are
not managed with stock-specific OFLs/ABCs/ACLs. Most of the species in the Other Flatfish complex are
unassessed and include: Butter sole, curlfin sole, flathead sole, Pacific sanddab, rock sole, sand sole, and
rex sole. 249.5 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the Tribal fishery (60 mt), the incidental open
access fishery (161.6 mt), EFP fishing (0.1 mt), and research catch (27.8 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of
6,249 mt.
[[Page 20587]]
\tt\ Other Fish. The Other Fish complex is comprised of kelp greenling off California and leopard shark
coastwide. 8.9 mt is deducted from the ACL to accommodate the incidental open access fishery (8.8 mt) and
research catch (0.1 mt), resulting in a fishery HG of 230 mt.
Table 1b to Part 660, Subpart C--2019, Allocations by Species or Species Group
[Weight in metric tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl Non-trawl
Stocks/stock complexes Area Fishery HG or ---------------------------------------------------------------
ACT a b % Mt % Mt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder....................... Coastwide................... 13,479.1 95 12,805.1 5 674.0
Big skate a............................... Coastwide................... 452.1 95 429.5 5 22.6
Bocaccio a................................ S of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 2,050.9 39 800.7 61 1,250.2
Canary rockfish a d....................... Coastwide................... 1,382.9 72 999.6 28 383.3
Chilipepper............................... S of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 2,451.1 75 1,838.3 25 612.8
COWCOD a b................................ S of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 6.0 36 2.2 64 3.8
Darkblotched rockfish c................... Coastwide................... 731.2 95 694.6 5 36.6
Dover sole................................ Coastwide................... 48,404.4 95 45,984.2 5 2,420.2
English sole.............................. Coastwide................... 9,873.8 95 9,380.1 5 493.7
Lingcod................................... N of 40'10[deg] N lat....... 4,593.0 45 2,066.9 55 2,526.2
Lingcod................................... S of 40'10[deg] N lat....... 1,027.7 45 462.5 55 565.2
Longnose skate a.......................... Coastwide................... 1,851.7 90 1,666.5 10 185.2
Longspine thornyhead...................... N of 34[deg]27' N lat....... 2,552.6 95 2,425.0 5 127.6
Pacific cod............................... Coastwide................... 1,093.8 95 1,039.1 5 54.7
Pacific whiting g......................... Coastwide................... 362,682.0 100 362,682.0 0 0.0
Pacific ocean perch e..................... N of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 4,317.6 95 4,101.7 5 215.9
Petrale sole.............................. Coastwide................... 2,587.4 95 2,458.0 5 129.4
Sablefish................................. N of 36[deg] N lat.......... NA See Table 1c
Sablefish................................. S of 36[deg] N lat.......... 1,985.8 42 834.0 58 1,151.8
Shortspine thornyhead..................... N of 34[deg]27' N lat....... 1,617.7 95 1,536.8 5 80.9
Shortspine thornyhead..................... S of 34[deg]27' N lat....... 888.8 NA 50.0 NA 838.8
Splitnose rockfish........................ S of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,733.4 95 1,646.7 5 86.7
Starry flounder........................... Coastwide................... 433.2 50 216.6 50 216.6
Widow rockfish f.......................... Coastwide................... 11,582.6 91 10,540.2 9 1,042.4
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH........................ Coastwide................... 41.9 8 3.4 92 38.6
Yellowtail rockfish....................... N of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 4,951.9 88 4,357.7 12 594.2
Minor Shelf Rockfish North a.............. N of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,977.1 60.2 1,190.2 39.8 786.9
Minor Shelf Rockfish South a.............. S of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,545.9 12.2 188.6 87.8 1,357.3
Minor Slope Rockfish North................ N of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 1,665.2 81 1,348.8 19 316.4
Minor Slope Rockfish South................ S of 40[deg]10' N lat....... 723.8 63 456.0 37 267.8
Other Flatfish............................ Coastwide................... 6,248.5 90 5,623.7 10 624.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Allocations decided through the biennial specification process.
b The cowcod fishery harvest guideline is further reduced to an ACT of 6.0 mt.
c Consistent with regulations at Sec. 660.55(c), 9 percent (62.5 mt) of the total trawl allocation for darkblotched rockfish is allocated to the
Pacific whiting fishery, as follows: 26.3 mt for the Shorebased IFQ Program, 15.0 mt for the MS sector, and 21.3 mt for the C/P sector. The tonnage
calculated here for the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at Sec.
660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D).
d 46 mt of the total trawl allocation of canary rockfish is allocated to the MS and C/P sectors, as follows: 30 mt for the MS sector, and 16 mt for the
C/P sector.
e Consistent with regulations at Sec. 660.55(c), 17 percent (697.3 mt) of the total trawl allocation for Pacific ocean perch is allocated to the
Pacific whiting fishery, as follows: 292.9 mt for the Shorebased IFQ Program, 167.4 mt for the MS sector, and 237.1 mt for the C/P sector. The tonnage
calculated here for the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at Sec.
660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D).
f Consistent with regulations at Sec. 660.55(c), 10 percent (1,054 mt) of the total trawl allocation for widow rockfish is allocated to the whiting
fisheries, as follows: 442.7 mt for the shorebased IFQ fishery, 253 mt for the mothership fishery, and 358.4 mt for the catcher/processor fishery. The
tonnage calculated here for the whiting portion of the shorebased IFQ fishery contributes to the total shorebased trawl allocation, which is found at
Sec. 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D).
g Consistent with regulations at Sec. [thinsp]660.55(i)(2), the commercial harvest guideline for Pacific whiting is allocated as follows: 34 percent
(123,312 mt) for the C/P Coop Program; 24 percent (87,044 mt) for the MS Coop Program; and 42 percent (152,326.5 mt) for the Shorebased IFQ Program.
No more than 5 percent of the Shorebased IFQ Program allocation (7,616 mt) may be taken and retained south of 42[deg] N lat before the start of the
primary Pacific whiting season north of 42[deg] N lat.
0
4. In Sec. 660.140, revise paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.140 Shorebased IFQ Program.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the
following shorebased trawl allocations:
Table 1 to Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Shorebased 2020 Shorebased
IFQ species Area trawl allocation trawl allocation
(mt) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder........................ Coastwide.................... 12,735.1 10,052.3
Bocaccio................................... South of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 800.7 767.1
Canary rockfish............................ Coastwide.................... 953.6 894.3
[[Page 20588]]
Chilipepper................................ South of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 1,838.3 1,743.8
COWCOD..................................... South of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 2.2 2.2
Darkblotched rockfish...................... Coastwide.................... 658.4 703.4
Dover sole................................. Coastwide.................... 45,979.2 45,979.2
English sole............................... Coastwide.................... 9,375.1 9,417.9
Lingcod.................................... North of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 2,051.9 1,903.4
Lingcod.................................... South of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 462.5 386.0
Longspine thornyhead....................... North of 34[deg]27' N lat.... 2,420.0 2,293.6
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex............... North of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 1,155.2 1,151.6
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex............... South of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 188.6 188.6
Minor Slope Rockfish complex............... North of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 1,248.8 1,237.5
Minor Slope Rockfish complex............... South of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 456.0 455.4
Other Flatfish complex..................... Coastwide.................... 5,603.7 5,192.4
Pacific cod................................ Coastwide.................... 1,034.1 1,034.1
Pacific ocean perch........................ North of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 3,697.3 3,602.2
Pacific whiting............................ Coastwide.................... 152,326.5 TBD
Petrale sole............................... Coastwide.................... 2,453.0 2,393.2
Sablefish.................................. North of 36[deg] N lat....... 2,581.3 2,636.8
Sablefish.................................. South of 36[deg] N lat....... 834.0 851.7
Shortspine thornyhead...................... North of 34[deg]27' N lat.... 1,506.8 1,493.5
Shortspine thornyhead...................... South of 34[deg]27' N lat.... 50.0 50.0
Splitnose rockfish......................... South of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 1,646.7 1,628.7
Starry flounder............................ Coastwide.................... 211.6 211.6
Widow rockfish............................. Coastwide.................... 9,928.8 9,387.1
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH......................... Coastwide.................... 3.4 3.4
Yellowtail rockfish........................ North of 40[deg]10' N lat.... 4,305.8 4,048.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-09661 Filed 5-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P