Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, 33142-33146 [2021-13349]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33142
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Tribal land. We have determined that
while no Tribes will be directly affected
by this action, the delisting may result
in changes to the flow regime for the
Colorado River in and adjacent to the
Grand Canyon. Several Tribes have an
historic affiliation with the Grand
Canyon and could be affected by flow
changes, should they occur. The
potentially impacted Tribes are the
Chemehuevi, the Colorado River Indian
Tribes, the Hualapai, the Hopi, the
Kaibab Band of Paiute, the San Carlos
Apache, the San Juan Southern Paiute,
the Navajo, and the Zuni. These Tribes
were notified in advance of the
publication of the proposed rule and
have been informed of the finalization
of the delisting.
§ 17.11
References Cited
50 CFR Part 660
A complete list of all references cited
in this rule is available on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055 or
upon request from the Utah Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
[RTID 0648–XA797]
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are
staff members of the Service’s Utah
Ecological Services Field Office.
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Martha Williams, Principal Deputy
Director Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, approved this
document on June 14, 2021, for
publication.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Accordingly, we hereby amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
Anissa Craghead,
Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division
of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and
Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–13257 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries;
Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic
Species Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of agency decision.
AGENCY:
On June 14, 2021, the
Regional Administrator of the West
Coast Region, NMFS, with the
concurrence of the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, approved
Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic
Species Fishery Management Plan.
Amendment 18 implements a rebuilding
plan for the northern subpopulation of
Pacific sardine, which NMFS declared
overfished in June 2019.
DATES: The amendment was approved
on June 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Coastal
Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) as amended
through Amendment 18, are available at
the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place,
Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384, or
at this URL; https://www.pcouncil.org/
coastal-pelagic-species/fisherymanagement-plan-and-amendments/.
The final Environmental Assessment
(EA) prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
Amendment 18 is available on NMFS’
website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/
laws-and-policies/west-coast-regionnational-environmental-policy-actdocuments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Massey, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, NMFS, at lynn.massey@
noaa.gov or 562–436–2462; or Kerry
SUMMARY:
Signing Authority
■
[Amended]
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the
entry for ‘‘Ambersnail, Kanab’’ under
SNAILS from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife.
■
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management
Council, at kerry.griffin@noaa.gov or
503–820–2409.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Amendment 18 expands Section 4.5 of
the CPS FMP to include the rebuilding
plan for Pacific sardine. There are no
implementing regulations associated
with Amendment 18, therefore NMFS
did not promulgate proposed and final
rules to implement this amendment.
NMFS published a Notice of
Availability for Amendment 18 on
March 16, 2021 (86 FR 14401), and
solicited public comments through May
17, 2021. NMFS received five public
comments in support of Amendment 18,
one from a student and four from
prominent fishing industry groups. The
industry groups included the California
Wetfish Producers Association, the West
Coast Pelagic Conservation Group, the
Sportfishing Association of California,
and the West Coast Seafood Processors
Association. NMFS received three
public comments opposing Amendment
18, one from a private citizen and two
from the environmental nongovernmental organization Oceana.
Oceana submitted two letters, one
containing its public comment and the
other containing a list of names that
signed a petition campaigning against
Amendment 18. NMFS summarizes and
responds to the public comments below.
NMFS responded to comments related
to NEPA compliance in the final EA
prepared for Amendment 18 (see
ADDRESSES).
Comment 1: Oceana argues that by
adopting the recommended
management strategy for the rebuilding
plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo
Management) considered in the
supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see
ADDRESSES), NMFS is continuing failed
policies that led to the overfished
determination.
Response: This comment
misunderstands the biology of Pacific
sardine, the structure of the CPS FMP,
and the extraordinary and precautionary
measures that the Council has built into
the framework for managing CPS.
Pacific sardines are well known to
experience dramatic swings in
abundance in response to
environmental conditions, even in the
absence of fishing pressure. The recent
population decline of Pacific sardine
appears to be due to poor recruitment.
Specifically, the Southwest Fisheries
Science Center’s (SWFSC) 2020 stock
assessment states that recruitment has
declined since 2005–2006 except for a
brief period of modest recruitment
success in 2009–2010, with the 2011–
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
2018 year-classes being among the
weakest in recent history. Such declines
in population are by no means
unprecedented. The Pacific sardine has
undergone large population fluctuations
for centuries even in the absence of
industrial fishing as evidenced by
historical records of scale deposits.
Although this decrease in biomass
triggered the requirement to declare the
stock overfished, overfishing has never
occurred for this stock, as Pacific
sardine catch has been well below both
the acceptable biological catch (ABC)
and the overfishing limit (OFL) in every
year.
Most stocks managed under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) are managed
with the goal of maintaining a fixed
biomass level and use a constant
exploitation rate to achieve that
management goal. This is not the case
for Pacific sardines, which as stated
above, are well known to experience
dramatic swings in abundance in
response to environmental conditions
and in the absence of fishing pressure.
In addition, Pacific sardine are
important forage species and play a
critical role in the marine ecosystem.
Accordingly, management for Pacific
sardine does not rely on a fixed
exploitation rate or a single set of
management measures. Instead, the
Council has crafted a management
framework that does two critical things:
(1) The harvest control rule incorporates
the stock’s current levels of productivity
to adjust the exploitation rate based on
whether the stock is experiencing high
or low recruitment, and (2) implements
stringent management measures as soon
as the stock exhibits signs that it is
entering a significant downswing in
biomass. With respect to this latter
element, the FMP takes the very
precautionary step of mandating a
closure of the primary directed fishery,
when the stock reaches 150,000 metric
tons (mt), a level three times higher than
the overfished threshold. The primary
directed fishery is the main driver of
fishing mortality for Pacific sardines
and its closure creates an automatic
reduction in removals, even in the
absence of changes to the annual catch
limit (ACL). This FMP provision has
kept the primary directed fishery closed
since 2015 (7 years so far), which was
4 years before the stock was even
declared overfished. In addition, when
the stock reached its overfished level of
50,000 mt in 2019, the FMP
automatically required a reduction on
incidental catch limits of Pacific
sardines in other CPS fisheries from 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
percent to 20 percent, which also has
major impacts on fishing mortality. The
FMP explicitly acknowledges that this
framework could constitute a rebuilding
plan without further adjustment. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
Councils with 2 years to develop a
rebuilding plan once a stock is declared
overfished (a process which itself takes
several months). Sometimes, if a
Council fails to develop a rebuilding
plan and NMFS must develop and
implement its own plan, it can take
more than 2 years to implement a plan.
The Council took the extraordinary step
to anticipate population fluctuations for
this cyclical stock and not wait to
respond to low productivity and
decreasing stock size. Instead, the
Council automatically implemented
provisions that would be found in a
rebuilding plan as soon as the stock
passed certain biomass thresholds. This
represents an extremely precautionary
approach to management.
Comment 2: Oceana claimed that
Amendment 18 violates the MagnusonStevens Act because the recommended
management strategy for the rebuilding
plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo
Management) considered in the
supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see
ADDRESSES) does not provide at least a
50 percent probability of rebuilding the
stock within the modeled rebuilding
timeframe (through 2050). Relevant to
this, Oceana also claims that NMFS did
not use the best scientific information
available for evaluating the effects
Alternative 1 Status Quo Management
in the EA. Furthermore, Oceana claims
that NMFS mischaracterizes Alternative
1 Status Quo Management to achieve a
particular conclusion.
Response: NMFS has determined that
the information and analysis used to
determine a rebuilding timeline based
on status quo management is supported
by the best scientific information
available and that status quo
management has not been
mischaracterized for a specific outcome.
To support their claim, Oceana
highlights the results of the preliminary
model run for Alternative 1 Status Quo
Management provided in the SWFSC’s
Pacific Sardine Rebuilding Analysis
(Appendix A of the EA), which had an
output that the stock would not rebuild
before 2050. However, NMFS does not
rely on these initial modeling results
because they do not realistically reflect
the biological impacts that would result
from management under Alternative 1
Status Quo Management. Instead, NMFS
relied on several sources of information
when selecting Ttarget (i.e., the target
rebuilding time frame). First, additional
modeling results using a 2,200 mt
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33143
constant catch level predict that the
stock has at least a 50 percent chance of
rebuilding in 17 years, only one year
later than the 16 years predicted under
Alternative 3 (Five Percent Fixed U.S.
Harvest Rate). Second, both rebuilding
timelines under Alternative 1 and
Alternative 3 are likely overestimated by
the modeling results since both
alternatives do not account for the fact
that in recent years only a small portion
of the already-small U.S. Pacific sardine
landings are from the northern
subpopulation of Pacific sardine (i.e.,
the population managed under the CPS
FMP), with a greater proportion coming
from the southern subpopulation. Third,
NMFS took into account the biology of
the sardine stock and its changing
productivity based on ocean conditions.
In addition, Alternative 1 Status Quo
management allows the stock to rebuild
on a similar timeline as Alternative 3,
but also prevents further economic harm
to the fishing industry, which has
already been declared a Federal disaster
since 2015 when NMFS closed the
primary directed fishery. NMFS believes
that the stock has at least a 50 percent
chance of rebuilding by the Council’s
recommended Ttarget of 14 years
(reduced from the modeled 17 years for
2,200 mt constant catch to account for
the fact that only a small portion of the
2,200 mt is from the northern
subpopulation, discussed more further
below).
When analyzing the effects of
Alternative 1 Status Quo Management,
NMFS relied on several sources of
information to support its conclusion.
These are not separate characterizations
of the alternative, as the comment
suggests. Instead, NMFS recognized that
the model available was not capable of
capturing all aspects of the Pacific
sardine stock and that other sources of
information should be used to evaluate
the alternatives and select rebuilding
criteria, including the additional model
results for a constant catch of 2,200 mt
(intended to represent expected average
catch by fishery during the rebuilding
period), the mixed stock composition of
Pacific sardine landings, and the biology
of the sardine stock and its changing
productivity based on ocean conditions.
The initial model run calculated
rebuilding probabilities as though the
full ABC is harvested, which has never
been the case due the non-discretionary
harvest restrictions already in place
pursuant to the CPS FMP that
purposefully restrict the fishery from
catching the full ABC. These include the
continued closure of the primary
directed fishery (i.e., the largest fishery
that takes the majority of Pacific sardine
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33144
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
catch) and restrictions on incidental
harvest of Pacific sardine in other CPS
fisheries (which are currently less than
half of typical incidental limits).
Therefore, although NMFS is required to
set an OFL and ABC every year for
Pacific sardine, those reference points
have not been the drivers for annual
catch levels. Instead, removals of Pacific
sardine are driven by the management
measures required by the FMP and
included in this rebuilding plan.
Therefore the Council and NMFS
determined that analyzing removals at
the level of the ABC would be
inaccurate and fail to realistically
evaluate the effectiveness of the
rebuilding plan management strategies
and their effects on fishing
communities. The results of the final
model run (i.e., 2,200 mt constant catch)
that the Council and NMFS find more
representative of Alternative 1 Status
Quo Management projects that the stock
has at least a 50 percent chance of
rebuilding in 17 years, which is in
between the Council’s recommended
Tmin of 12 years and Tmax of 24 years.
NMFS’ determination that 14 years is
the time period that is as short as
possible while taking into account the
factors set forth by the MagnusonStevens Act, including the biology of
the stock and the needs of fishing
communities, was further informed by
the stock composition of the removals
counted against the ACL and included
in the 2,200-mt average. There are two
stocks of Pacific sardine that can occur
off the U.S. West Coast, known as the
northern subpopulation and the
southern subpopulation. The northern
subpopulation is the dominate stock off
the U.S. West Coast, is the stock
managed in the CPS FMP, and is the
stock that is overfished and will be
managed under this rebuilding plan.
The southern subpopulation usually
resides off the coast of Mexico, however
in the summer months it usually
migrates north into waters off southern
California. Although the southern
subpopulation prefers warmer water
than the northern subpopulation,
meaning the two subpopulations
generally inhabit different geographic
ranges, they do typically mix in the
summertime and it is impossible to
distinguish between the subpopulations
at the time of landing. Therefore, in an
abundance of caution, NMFS counts all
landed Pacific sardine against the ACL
(which is set based on the biomass of
the northern subpopulation only),
regardless of which subpopulation they
might belong to. Since the closure of the
primary Pacific sardine fishery, the
remaining small levels of catch of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
Pacific sardine have occurred in the
summertime when the southern
subpopulation is mixing with the
northern subpopulation in the Southern
California Bight. Post-season
reconstruction, for purposes of assigning
landings in stock assessments, has
demonstrated that in recent years, only
472 mt on average of the 2,200-mt
average catch are assumed to be from
northern subpopulation. The Council
recognized, therefore, that the modeled
2,200 mt was significantly
overestimating the impact of the fishery
on the northern subpopulation and
adjusted the Ttarget accordingly. NMFS
notes that the rebuilding timeline under
Alternative 3 is also likely
overestimated for the same reasons,
however this does not change the fact
that the modeling shows Alternative 3
only rebuilding slightly faster than
Alternative 1.
Comment 3: Oceana claims that
harvest levels allowed under Alternative
1 Status Quo Management will not
allow the stock to rebuild because the
sea surface temperature index used to
calculate the EMSY parameter (i.e., the
exploitation rate at maximum
sustainable yield) in the OFL harvest
control rule causes the OFL, and hence
other harvest specifications, to be
inflated. Oceana supports this claim by
citing recent Council documents and a
2019 scientific paper from NMFS’
SWFSC that indicates that the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation is a better predictor
of sea surface temperature than the
currently used 3-year average of
California Cooperative Fisheries
Investigation (CalCOFI) sea surface
temperature measurements. Relevant to
this, Oceana claims that NMFS should
calculate EMSY based on the mean EMSY
from recent stock assessments rather
than the 3-year average of CalCOFI sea
surface temperature measurements.
Response: Changing how EMSY is
calculated is outside the scope of this
action, however NMFS would still like
to provide a response to this comment.
NMFS is aware of the scientific
publications and ongoing Council
discussions related to EMSY, and is
committed to participating in these
ongoing discussions about new science
and whether that new science justifies
a change for how EMSY is calculated for
management purposes. Regarding recent
Council discussion: The Council’s
Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC), which is the scientific advisory
body responsible for recommending
changes to EMSY, has the ability to
recommend changes to EMSY at any
time. The Council’s SSC has not done
this since 2014 when they
recommended that NMFS switch from
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
using the 3-year average of Scripps
Institution of Oceanography sea surface
temperature measurements to using the
3-year average of CalCOFI sea surface
temperature measurements to inform
EMSY. During this time, NMFS used a
static EMSY of 18 percent that was
produced by a management strategy
evaluation. The implementation of
Status Quo Management during the
rebuilding period for Pacific sardine
will not supersede the ability to change
EMSY if and when a recommendation
from the Council is made. Regarding the
recent 2019 paper from the SWFSC:
Research regarding the appropriate
temperature index to inform EMSY is
ongoing, and the SWFSC has not yet
determined whether a change in how
EMSY is calculated is necessary for
management purposes based on this
publication. The best predictor of sea
surface temperature will likely change
with time as equilibrium ocean
conditions shift with climate change.
The recent 2019 paper highlights new
sea surface temperature-sardine
recruitment relationships, however it
does not actually provide a new method
to calculate EMSY for management
purposes. NMFS and the SWFSC will
continue to collaborate on whether this
new publication warrants a change in
management. If a change is determined
to be necessary, NMFS will promulgate
a new action that will go through the
proper Council process and will include
public input during the Council process
and during NMFS’ subsequent
rulemaking process.
Comment 3: Oceana stated that NMFS
must base its analysis on a productivity
scenario representing the best known
long-term boom and bust dynamics of
the sardine population. Oceana points
out several shortcomings of the
Rebuilder tool that was used to analyze
rebuilding timelines under certain
management alternatives, including the
fact that it analyzes a limited range of
years for recruitment scenarios.
Response: NMFS acknowledges and
agrees that the boom and bust dynamics
of Pacific sardines are critical to
analyzing rebuilding for this stock.
Consideration of this biological
characteristic of the stock was an
important part of NMFS’ analysis. The
Council analyzed two productivity
scenarios for each management
alternative. The model used data inputs
from the 2020 benchmark stock
assessment that covers the time period
2005–2020. The two modeled time
periods, 2005–2018 and 2010–2018,
were chosen to represent different levels
of potential future productivity (i.e.,
recruitment scenarios) for this stock.
Each of these productivity scenarios was
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
also analyzed with two Mexican harvest
scenarios including a fixed tonnage
(6,044 mt) and a fixed rate (9.9 percent
of Pacific sardine biomass). The
Council’s CPS Management Team chose
to include only the modeling results for
the 2005–2018 productivity scenario as
part of its rationale for its
recommendations because this time
period represents a broader range of
recruitment observed for this stock than
the modeled subset of years 2010 to
2018, which include only years with
low Pacific sardine productivity. The
modeling results for 2010–2018 also
provided a relatively low spawning
stock biomass target (i.e., the model’s
estimated rebuilding target under this
productivity scenario) of only 38,122
mt, which is less than the overfished
threshold of 50,000 mt in the CPS FMP.
As a result, the CPS Management Team
determined that the model results from
the low productivity scenario do not
adequately represent the fluctuating
Pacific sardine population, and
therefore relied on analysis of the model
results for the moderate productivity
scenario when developing management
alternatives. The decision was also
made to consider the modeling runs
based on the fixed rate assumption for
Mexico versus a fixed catch level on the
presumption that it is reasonable to
assume Mexican catch might go up and
down based on stock size. Despite the
model’s limitations (discussed above in
the response to Comment #2), it is the
best model available to project Pacific
sardine biomass forward in time, taking
into account recruitment, fishing
mortality, etc. and was an appropriate
source of information for NMFS to rely
on when reaching its decision.
Furthermore, the Council’s SSC
endorsed the use of the model for this
purpose.
However, NMFS acknowledges the
limitations of the model and took that
into account in reaching its decision by
relying on other sources of information
to inform its decision. When evaluating
the Council’s recommendation, NMFS
took several other aspects into
consideration, including the basic
biology and life history of Pacific
sardine estimates of its large population
fluctuations over thousands of years,
and the history of the Pacific sardine
fishery on the west coast of North
America. One of the primary drivers of
Pacific sardine biology that the model
cannot take into account is the widerscale oceanographic conditions that
drive Pacific sardine recruitment. There
is no model that exists that can
accurately predict when ocean
conditions will ultimately allow for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
more favorable Pacific sardine
recruitment. NMFS understands these
limitations and explained the caveats of
the modeling results and analyzed them
holistically with other non-model based
considerations. NMFS notes that the
shortcomings of the Rebuilder Tool and
the SWFSC’s resulting Pacific Sardine
Rebuilding Analysis highlighted by
Oceana apply to all of the alternatives
analyzed.
Comment 4: Oceana claims that
NMFS must establish a rebuilding
biomass level target consistent with the
long-term BMSY (i.e., the biomass at
maximum sustainable yield) from
previous management strategy
evaluations. In addition to a 2014
management strategy evaluation,
Oceana also cites a value from a 2012
SWFSC scientific paper for
consideration of a BMSY. Relevant to
this, Oceana also claims that the
proposed BMSY of 150,000 mt age 1+
biomass in Amendment 18 is too low
because below that threshold, the
primary directed fishery for Pacific
sardine is prohibited from operating.
Response: NMFs has determined that
the established rebuilding target is
supported by the best scientific
information available and represents a
level consistent with producing the
maximum sustainable yield under
prevailing environmental conditions.
Because Pacific sardine biomass
fluctuates drastically with prevailing
oceanographic conditions, BMSY also
fluctuates with the stock’s productivity.
This is why so many values that could
potentially be used for BMSY exist in
relevant literature, and also why the
Council and NMFS have never
explicitly defined a single BMSY
reference point for Pacific sardine. The
two values that Oceana implies NMFS
should consider using for BMSY are
based on older stock assessment data. In
recommending a rebuilt level of 150,000
mt age 1+ biomass, the Council and
NMFS used the most recent data from
the 2020 Pacific sardine stock
assessment which includes the recent
decline in the population and recent
low recruitments. The Council’s SSC
endorsed using the 2020 stock
assessment and the model for this
purpose.
Regarding Oceana’s claim that
150,000 mt age 1+ biomass is too low
because it represents a level where ‘‘the
population is too low to support a
commercial fishery,’’ the comment
misunderstands the structure of the CPS
FMP and the precaution built into its
framework. The Council chose a
‘‘CUTOFF’’ threshold at which it would
automatically close the primary directed
fishery not because the stock could not
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33145
support a fishery at that level, but in
order to provide additional protections
to the stock as biomass began decreasing
in response to environmental
conditions. This CUTOFF threshold is
part of the optimum yield
considerations built into the Pacific
sardine harvest guideline control rule. A
stock on an upward trend does not
require the same safeguards. In addition,
NMFS notes that the CUTOFF value is
three times the overfished biomass
level, demonstrating both how
precautionary the automatic closure
level is and that it represents the level
at which the stock will produce
maximum sustainable yield.
Additionally, when developing a
rebuilding plan it is important to
consider the current environmental and/
or reproductive conditions the stock is
experiencing, which is why the model
used to project rebuilding timelines
used the most recent stock assessment.
Although history and science have
shown that the Pacific sardine
population can recover quickly when
conditions are favorable, as previously
stated it is unknown when those
conditions will change. If the modeling
analysis to determine an appropriate
rebuilt level or the rebuilding plan
included high biomass levels and high
recruitment levels witnessed in the past
as suggested by Oceana, then the model
could potentially over assume the level
of catches that could occur for
rebuilding.
Comment 5: Oceana claims that
NMFS fails to use the best scientific
information available on international
catch levels in its consideration of
Amendment 18. Specifically, Oceana
claims that the Distribution parameter
in the Pacific sardine harvest control is
inconsistent with recent high catch
levels by Mexico published in the 2020
Pacific sardine stock assessment.
Response: NMFS notes that changes
to the management framework of Pacific
sardine and to the Pacific sardine
harvest control rules are set in the CPS
FMP and are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. However, NMFS would like
to respond to this comment.
The value for the Distribution
parameter in the Pacific sardine harvest
control rules has recently been
reviewed. In 2015, a 3-day meeting was
held that included agency and nonagency scientists to review the
Distribution parameter. The results of
this workshop were then presented to
the Council and its advisory bodies,
including the SSC. The Council
subsequently concluded that there was
no superior data to inform this
parameter. Additionally, NMFS notes
that the Distribution parameter in the
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
33146
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
various Pacific sardine control rules is
not a required element dictated by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act or National
Standard 1. Instead, it is an additional
precautionary policy adopted and used
by the Council to further reduce the
harvest of Pacific sardine beyond what
is required. Amendment 18 does not
supersede the Council’s ability to
recommend a change to the Distribution
parameter if and when they deem it
necessary.
Comment 6: Oceana claims that
NMFS has not, and therefore must
analyze the effects of each alternative on
essential fish habitat (EFH) for salmon,
groundfish, and highly migratory
species.
Response: NMFS notes that this
action is a rebuilding plan intended
only to continue limiting fishing
mortality in order to allow the Pacific
sardine population to rebuild. The
closure of the primary directed fishery
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
is maintained through this action. There
are no anticipated impacts to EFH that
have not already been considered in
prior EFH consultations on the Pacific
sardine fishery, even when the primary
directed fishery was open. Only the
smaller sectors of the fishery with very
limited take of Pacific sardine (e.g., the
live bait fishery) would occur under
Amendment 18, as the primary directed
fishery will remain closed until the
stock reaches its rebuilding target.
Comment 7: Oceana claimed that
NMFS has not adequately consulted on
the potential effects from Amendment
18 on Endangered Species Act (ESA)listed predators, and that NMFS must
reinitiate an ESA consultation for this
action.
Response: Oceana did not introduce
any new scientific information that
would require NMFS to reinitiate
consultation under the ESA. Prior ESA
consultations on the Pacific sardine
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
fishery concluded that there would be
no significant impact to ESA-listed
species, and those consultations
analyzed effects when the primary
directed fishery was open. Amendment
18 maintains the closure of the primary
directed fishery and only allows a very
limited amount of take for the remaining
small sectors of the fishery. As it relates
to this action, potential impacts to
species listed under the ESA would be
if this action somehow changed the type
of gear used by the fishery, or the timing
or location of fishing. This action does
not do any of those things.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: June 14, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–13349 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33142-33146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13349]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[RTID 0648-XA797]
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species
Fisheries; Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery
Management Plan
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of agency decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 14, 2021, the Regional Administrator of the West Coast
Region, NMFS, with the concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, approved Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery
Management Plan. Amendment 18 implements a rebuilding plan for the
northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine, which NMFS declared
overfished in June 2019.
DATES: The amendment was approved on June 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) as amended through Amendment 18, are available at
the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite
101, Portland, OR 97220-1384, or at this URL; https://www.pcouncil.org/coastal-pelagic-species/fishery-management-plan-and-amendments/. The
final Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Amendment 18 is available on NMFS'
website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-and-policies/west-coast-region-national-environmental-policy-act-documents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Massey, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, NMFS, at [email protected] or 562-436-2462; or Kerry
Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at [email protected]
or 503-820-2409.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendment 18 expands Section 4.5 of the CPS
FMP to include the rebuilding plan for Pacific sardine. There are no
implementing regulations associated with Amendment 18, therefore NMFS
did not promulgate proposed and final rules to implement this
amendment.
NMFS published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 18 on March
16, 2021 (86 FR 14401), and solicited public comments through May 17,
2021. NMFS received five public comments in support of Amendment 18,
one from a student and four from prominent fishing industry groups. The
industry groups included the California Wetfish Producers Association,
the West Coast Pelagic Conservation Group, the Sportfishing Association
of California, and the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. NMFS
received three public comments opposing Amendment 18, one from a
private citizen and two from the environmental non-governmental
organization Oceana. Oceana submitted two letters, one containing its
public comment and the other containing a list of names that signed a
petition campaigning against Amendment 18. NMFS summarizes and responds
to the public comments below. NMFS responded to comments related to
NEPA compliance in the final EA prepared for Amendment 18 (see
ADDRESSES).
Comment 1: Oceana argues that by adopting the recommended
management strategy for the rebuilding plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo
Management) considered in the supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see
ADDRESSES), NMFS is continuing failed policies that led to the
overfished determination.
Response: This comment misunderstands the biology of Pacific
sardine, the structure of the CPS FMP, and the extraordinary and
precautionary measures that the Council has built into the framework
for managing CPS. Pacific sardines are well known to experience
dramatic swings in abundance in response to environmental conditions,
even in the absence of fishing pressure. The recent population decline
of Pacific sardine appears to be due to poor recruitment. Specifically,
the Southwest Fisheries Science Center's (SWFSC) 2020 stock assessment
states that recruitment has declined since 2005-2006 except for a brief
period of modest recruitment success in 2009-2010, with the 2011-
[[Page 33143]]
2018 year-classes being among the weakest in recent history. Such
declines in population are by no means unprecedented. The Pacific
sardine has undergone large population fluctuations for centuries even
in the absence of industrial fishing as evidenced by historical records
of scale deposits. Although this decrease in biomass triggered the
requirement to declare the stock overfished, overfishing has never
occurred for this stock, as Pacific sardine catch has been well below
both the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and the overfishing limit
(OFL) in every year.
Most stocks managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) are managed with the goal of
maintaining a fixed biomass level and use a constant exploitation rate
to achieve that management goal. This is not the case for Pacific
sardines, which as stated above, are well known to experience dramatic
swings in abundance in response to environmental conditions and in the
absence of fishing pressure. In addition, Pacific sardine are important
forage species and play a critical role in the marine ecosystem.
Accordingly, management for Pacific sardine does not rely on a fixed
exploitation rate or a single set of management measures. Instead, the
Council has crafted a management framework that does two critical
things: (1) The harvest control rule incorporates the stock's current
levels of productivity to adjust the exploitation rate based on whether
the stock is experiencing high or low recruitment, and (2) implements
stringent management measures as soon as the stock exhibits signs that
it is entering a significant downswing in biomass. With respect to this
latter element, the FMP takes the very precautionary step of mandating
a closure of the primary directed fishery, when the stock reaches
150,000 metric tons (mt), a level three times higher than the
overfished threshold. The primary directed fishery is the main driver
of fishing mortality for Pacific sardines and its closure creates an
automatic reduction in removals, even in the absence of changes to the
annual catch limit (ACL). This FMP provision has kept the primary
directed fishery closed since 2015 (7 years so far), which was 4 years
before the stock was even declared overfished. In addition, when the
stock reached its overfished level of 50,000 mt in 2019, the FMP
automatically required a reduction on incidental catch limits of
Pacific sardines in other CPS fisheries from 40 percent to 20 percent,
which also has major impacts on fishing mortality. The FMP explicitly
acknowledges that this framework could constitute a rebuilding plan
without further adjustment. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides Councils
with 2 years to develop a rebuilding plan once a stock is declared
overfished (a process which itself takes several months). Sometimes, if
a Council fails to develop a rebuilding plan and NMFS must develop and
implement its own plan, it can take more than 2 years to implement a
plan. The Council took the extraordinary step to anticipate population
fluctuations for this cyclical stock and not wait to respond to low
productivity and decreasing stock size. Instead, the Council
automatically implemented provisions that would be found in a
rebuilding plan as soon as the stock passed certain biomass thresholds.
This represents an extremely precautionary approach to management.
Comment 2: Oceana claimed that Amendment 18 violates the Magnuson-
Stevens Act because the recommended management strategy for the
rebuilding plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo Management) considered in the
supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see ADDRESSES) does not provide at
least a 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock within the
modeled rebuilding timeframe (through 2050). Relevant to this, Oceana
also claims that NMFS did not use the best scientific information
available for evaluating the effects Alternative 1 Status Quo
Management in the EA. Furthermore, Oceana claims that NMFS
mischaracterizes Alternative 1 Status Quo Management to achieve a
particular conclusion.
Response: NMFS has determined that the information and analysis
used to determine a rebuilding timeline based on status quo management
is supported by the best scientific information available and that
status quo management has not been mischaracterized for a specific
outcome. To support their claim, Oceana highlights the results of the
preliminary model run for Alternative 1 Status Quo Management provided
in the SWFSC's Pacific Sardine Rebuilding Analysis (Appendix A of the
EA), which had an output that the stock would not rebuild before 2050.
However, NMFS does not rely on these initial modeling results because
they do not realistically reflect the biological impacts that would
result from management under Alternative 1 Status Quo Management.
Instead, NMFS relied on several sources of information when selecting
Ttarget (i.e., the target rebuilding time frame). First,
additional modeling results using a 2,200 mt constant catch level
predict that the stock has at least a 50 percent chance of rebuilding
in 17 years, only one year later than the 16 years predicted under
Alternative 3 (Five Percent Fixed U.S. Harvest Rate). Second, both
rebuilding timelines under Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are likely
overestimated by the modeling results since both alternatives do not
account for the fact that in recent years only a small portion of the
already-small U.S. Pacific sardine landings are from the northern
subpopulation of Pacific sardine (i.e., the population managed under
the CPS FMP), with a greater proportion coming from the southern
subpopulation. Third, NMFS took into account the biology of the sardine
stock and its changing productivity based on ocean conditions. In
addition, Alternative 1 Status Quo management allows the stock to
rebuild on a similar timeline as Alternative 3, but also prevents
further economic harm to the fishing industry, which has already been
declared a Federal disaster since 2015 when NMFS closed the primary
directed fishery. NMFS believes that the stock has at least a 50
percent chance of rebuilding by the Council's recommended
Ttarget of 14 years (reduced from the modeled 17 years for
2,200 mt constant catch to account for the fact that only a small
portion of the 2,200 mt is from the northern subpopulation, discussed
more further below).
When analyzing the effects of Alternative 1 Status Quo Management,
NMFS relied on several sources of information to support its
conclusion. These are not separate characterizations of the
alternative, as the comment suggests. Instead, NMFS recognized that the
model available was not capable of capturing all aspects of the Pacific
sardine stock and that other sources of information should be used to
evaluate the alternatives and select rebuilding criteria, including the
additional model results for a constant catch of 2,200 mt (intended to
represent expected average catch by fishery during the rebuilding
period), the mixed stock composition of Pacific sardine landings, and
the biology of the sardine stock and its changing productivity based on
ocean conditions. The initial model run calculated rebuilding
probabilities as though the full ABC is harvested, which has never been
the case due the non-discretionary harvest restrictions already in
place pursuant to the CPS FMP that purposefully restrict the fishery
from catching the full ABC. These include the continued closure of the
primary directed fishery (i.e., the largest fishery that takes the
majority of Pacific sardine
[[Page 33144]]
catch) and restrictions on incidental harvest of Pacific sardine in
other CPS fisheries (which are currently less than half of typical
incidental limits). Therefore, although NMFS is required to set an OFL
and ABC every year for Pacific sardine, those reference points have not
been the drivers for annual catch levels. Instead, removals of Pacific
sardine are driven by the management measures required by the FMP and
included in this rebuilding plan. Therefore the Council and NMFS
determined that analyzing removals at the level of the ABC would be
inaccurate and fail to realistically evaluate the effectiveness of the
rebuilding plan management strategies and their effects on fishing
communities. The results of the final model run (i.e., 2,200 mt
constant catch) that the Council and NMFS find more representative of
Alternative 1 Status Quo Management projects that the stock has at
least a 50 percent chance of rebuilding in 17 years, which is in
between the Council's recommended Tmin of 12 years and
Tmax of 24 years.
NMFS' determination that 14 years is the time period that is as
short as possible while taking into account the factors set forth by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the biology of the stock and the
needs of fishing communities, was further informed by the stock
composition of the removals counted against the ACL and included in the
2,200-mt average. There are two stocks of Pacific sardine that can
occur off the U.S. West Coast, known as the northern subpopulation and
the southern subpopulation. The northern subpopulation is the dominate
stock off the U.S. West Coast, is the stock managed in the CPS FMP, and
is the stock that is overfished and will be managed under this
rebuilding plan. The southern subpopulation usually resides off the
coast of Mexico, however in the summer months it usually migrates north
into waters off southern California. Although the southern
subpopulation prefers warmer water than the northern subpopulation,
meaning the two subpopulations generally inhabit different geographic
ranges, they do typically mix in the summertime and it is impossible to
distinguish between the subpopulations at the time of landing.
Therefore, in an abundance of caution, NMFS counts all landed Pacific
sardine against the ACL (which is set based on the biomass of the
northern subpopulation only), regardless of which subpopulation they
might belong to. Since the closure of the primary Pacific sardine
fishery, the remaining small levels of catch of Pacific sardine have
occurred in the summertime when the southern subpopulation is mixing
with the northern subpopulation in the Southern California Bight. Post-
season reconstruction, for purposes of assigning landings in stock
assessments, has demonstrated that in recent years, only 472 mt on
average of the 2,200-mt average catch are assumed to be from northern
subpopulation. The Council recognized, therefore, that the modeled
2,200 mt was significantly overestimating the impact of the fishery on
the northern subpopulation and adjusted the Ttarget
accordingly. NMFS notes that the rebuilding timeline under Alternative
3 is also likely overestimated for the same reasons, however this does
not change the fact that the modeling shows Alternative 3 only
rebuilding slightly faster than Alternative 1.
Comment 3: Oceana claims that harvest levels allowed under
Alternative 1 Status Quo Management will not allow the stock to rebuild
because the sea surface temperature index used to calculate the
EMSY parameter (i.e., the exploitation rate at maximum
sustainable yield) in the OFL harvest control rule causes the OFL, and
hence other harvest specifications, to be inflated. Oceana supports
this claim by citing recent Council documents and a 2019 scientific
paper from NMFS' SWFSC that indicates that the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation is a better predictor of sea surface temperature than the
currently used 3-year average of California Cooperative Fisheries
Investigation (CalCOFI) sea surface temperature measurements. Relevant
to this, Oceana claims that NMFS should calculate EMSY based
on the mean EMSY from recent stock assessments rather than
the 3-year average of CalCOFI sea surface temperature measurements.
Response: Changing how EMSY is calculated is outside the
scope of this action, however NMFS would still like to provide a
response to this comment. NMFS is aware of the scientific publications
and ongoing Council discussions related to EMSY, and is
committed to participating in these ongoing discussions about new
science and whether that new science justifies a change for how
EMSY is calculated for management purposes. Regarding recent
Council discussion: The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC), which is the scientific advisory body responsible for
recommending changes to EMSY, has the ability to recommend
changes to EMSY at any time. The Council's SSC has not done
this since 2014 when they recommended that NMFS switch from using the
3-year average of Scripps Institution of Oceanography sea surface
temperature measurements to using the 3-year average of CalCOFI sea
surface temperature measurements to inform EMSY. During this
time, NMFS used a static EMSY of 18 percent that was
produced by a management strategy evaluation. The implementation of
Status Quo Management during the rebuilding period for Pacific sardine
will not supersede the ability to change EMSY if and when a
recommendation from the Council is made. Regarding the recent 2019
paper from the SWFSC: Research regarding the appropriate temperature
index to inform EMSY is ongoing, and the SWFSC has not yet
determined whether a change in how EMSY is calculated is
necessary for management purposes based on this publication. The best
predictor of sea surface temperature will likely change with time as
equilibrium ocean conditions shift with climate change. The recent 2019
paper highlights new sea surface temperature-sardine recruitment
relationships, however it does not actually provide a new method to
calculate EMSY for management purposes. NMFS and the SWFSC
will continue to collaborate on whether this new publication warrants a
change in management. If a change is determined to be necessary, NMFS
will promulgate a new action that will go through the proper Council
process and will include public input during the Council process and
during NMFS' subsequent rulemaking process.
Comment 3: Oceana stated that NMFS must base its analysis on a
productivity scenario representing the best known long-term boom and
bust dynamics of the sardine population. Oceana points out several
shortcomings of the Rebuilder tool that was used to analyze rebuilding
timelines under certain management alternatives, including the fact
that it analyzes a limited range of years for recruitment scenarios.
Response: NMFS acknowledges and agrees that the boom and bust
dynamics of Pacific sardines are critical to analyzing rebuilding for
this stock. Consideration of this biological characteristic of the
stock was an important part of NMFS' analysis. The Council analyzed two
productivity scenarios for each management alternative. The model used
data inputs from the 2020 benchmark stock assessment that covers the
time period 2005-2020. The two modeled time periods, 2005-2018 and
2010-2018, were chosen to represent different levels of potential
future productivity (i.e., recruitment scenarios) for this stock. Each
of these productivity scenarios was
[[Page 33145]]
also analyzed with two Mexican harvest scenarios including a fixed
tonnage (6,044 mt) and a fixed rate (9.9 percent of Pacific sardine
biomass). The Council's CPS Management Team chose to include only the
modeling results for the 2005-2018 productivity scenario as part of its
rationale for its recommendations because this time period represents a
broader range of recruitment observed for this stock than the modeled
subset of years 2010 to 2018, which include only years with low Pacific
sardine productivity. The modeling results for 2010-2018 also provided
a relatively low spawning stock biomass target (i.e., the model's
estimated rebuilding target under this productivity scenario) of only
38,122 mt, which is less than the overfished threshold of 50,000 mt in
the CPS FMP. As a result, the CPS Management Team determined that the
model results from the low productivity scenario do not adequately
represent the fluctuating Pacific sardine population, and therefore
relied on analysis of the model results for the moderate productivity
scenario when developing management alternatives. The decision was also
made to consider the modeling runs based on the fixed rate assumption
for Mexico versus a fixed catch level on the presumption that it is
reasonable to assume Mexican catch might go up and down based on stock
size. Despite the model's limitations (discussed above in the response
to Comment #2), it is the best model available to project Pacific
sardine biomass forward in time, taking into account recruitment,
fishing mortality, etc. and was an appropriate source of information
for NMFS to rely on when reaching its decision. Furthermore, the
Council's SSC endorsed the use of the model for this purpose.
However, NMFS acknowledges the limitations of the model and took
that into account in reaching its decision by relying on other sources
of information to inform its decision. When evaluating the Council's
recommendation, NMFS took several other aspects into consideration,
including the basic biology and life history of Pacific sardine
estimates of its large population fluctuations over thousands of years,
and the history of the Pacific sardine fishery on the west coast of
North America. One of the primary drivers of Pacific sardine biology
that the model cannot take into account is the wider-scale
oceanographic conditions that drive Pacific sardine recruitment. There
is no model that exists that can accurately predict when ocean
conditions will ultimately allow for more favorable Pacific sardine
recruitment. NMFS understands these limitations and explained the
caveats of the modeling results and analyzed them holistically with
other non-model based considerations. NMFS notes that the shortcomings
of the Rebuilder Tool and the SWFSC's resulting Pacific Sardine
Rebuilding Analysis highlighted by Oceana apply to all of the
alternatives analyzed.
Comment 4: Oceana claims that NMFS must establish a rebuilding
biomass level target consistent with the long-term BMSY
(i.e., the biomass at maximum sustainable yield) from previous
management strategy evaluations. In addition to a 2014 management
strategy evaluation, Oceana also cites a value from a 2012 SWFSC
scientific paper for consideration of a BMSY. Relevant to
this, Oceana also claims that the proposed BMSY of 150,000
mt age 1+ biomass in Amendment 18 is too low because below that
threshold, the primary directed fishery for Pacific sardine is
prohibited from operating.
Response: NMFs has determined that the established rebuilding
target is supported by the best scientific information available and
represents a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable
yield under prevailing environmental conditions. Because Pacific
sardine biomass fluctuates drastically with prevailing oceanographic
conditions, BMSY also fluctuates with the stock's
productivity. This is why so many values that could potentially be used
for BMSY exist in relevant literature, and also why the
Council and NMFS have never explicitly defined a single BMSY
reference point for Pacific sardine. The two values that Oceana implies
NMFS should consider using for BMSY are based on older stock
assessment data. In recommending a rebuilt level of 150,000 mt age 1+
biomass, the Council and NMFS used the most recent data from the 2020
Pacific sardine stock assessment which includes the recent decline in
the population and recent low recruitments. The Council's SSC endorsed
using the 2020 stock assessment and the model for this purpose.
Regarding Oceana's claim that 150,000 mt age 1+ biomass is too low
because it represents a level where ``the population is too low to
support a commercial fishery,'' the comment misunderstands the
structure of the CPS FMP and the precaution built into its framework.
The Council chose a ``CUTOFF'' threshold at which it would
automatically close the primary directed fishery not because the stock
could not support a fishery at that level, but in order to provide
additional protections to the stock as biomass began decreasing in
response to environmental conditions. This CUTOFF threshold is part of
the optimum yield considerations built into the Pacific sardine harvest
guideline control rule. A stock on an upward trend does not require the
same safeguards. In addition, NMFS notes that the CUTOFF value is three
times the overfished biomass level, demonstrating both how
precautionary the automatic closure level is and that it represents the
level at which the stock will produce maximum sustainable yield.
Additionally, when developing a rebuilding plan it is important to
consider the current environmental and/or reproductive conditions the
stock is experiencing, which is why the model used to project
rebuilding timelines used the most recent stock assessment. Although
history and science have shown that the Pacific sardine population can
recover quickly when conditions are favorable, as previously stated it
is unknown when those conditions will change. If the modeling analysis
to determine an appropriate rebuilt level or the rebuilding plan
included high biomass levels and high recruitment levels witnessed in
the past as suggested by Oceana, then the model could potentially over
assume the level of catches that could occur for rebuilding.
Comment 5: Oceana claims that NMFS fails to use the best scientific
information available on international catch levels in its
consideration of Amendment 18. Specifically, Oceana claims that the
Distribution parameter in the Pacific sardine harvest control is
inconsistent with recent high catch levels by Mexico published in the
2020 Pacific sardine stock assessment.
Response: NMFS notes that changes to the management framework of
Pacific sardine and to the Pacific sardine harvest control rules are
set in the CPS FMP and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
However, NMFS would like to respond to this comment.
The value for the Distribution parameter in the Pacific sardine
harvest control rules has recently been reviewed. In 2015, a 3-day
meeting was held that included agency and non-agency scientists to
review the Distribution parameter. The results of this workshop were
then presented to the Council and its advisory bodies, including the
SSC. The Council subsequently concluded that there was no superior data
to inform this parameter. Additionally, NMFS notes that the
Distribution parameter in the
[[Page 33146]]
various Pacific sardine control rules is not a required element
dictated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act or National Standard 1. Instead,
it is an additional precautionary policy adopted and used by the
Council to further reduce the harvest of Pacific sardine beyond what is
required. Amendment 18 does not supersede the Council's ability to
recommend a change to the Distribution parameter if and when they deem
it necessary.
Comment 6: Oceana claims that NMFS has not, and therefore must
analyze the effects of each alternative on essential fish habitat (EFH)
for salmon, groundfish, and highly migratory species.
Response: NMFS notes that this action is a rebuilding plan intended
only to continue limiting fishing mortality in order to allow the
Pacific sardine population to rebuild. The closure of the primary
directed fishery is maintained through this action. There are no
anticipated impacts to EFH that have not already been considered in
prior EFH consultations on the Pacific sardine fishery, even when the
primary directed fishery was open. Only the smaller sectors of the
fishery with very limited take of Pacific sardine (e.g., the live bait
fishery) would occur under Amendment 18, as the primary directed
fishery will remain closed until the stock reaches its rebuilding
target.
Comment 7: Oceana claimed that NMFS has not adequately consulted on
the potential effects from Amendment 18 on Endangered Species Act
(ESA)-listed predators, and that NMFS must reinitiate an ESA
consultation for this action.
Response: Oceana did not introduce any new scientific information
that would require NMFS to reinitiate consultation under the ESA. Prior
ESA consultations on the Pacific sardine fishery concluded that there
would be no significant impact to ESA-listed species, and those
consultations analyzed effects when the primary directed fishery was
open. Amendment 18 maintains the closure of the primary directed
fishery and only allows a very limited amount of take for the remaining
small sectors of the fishery. As it relates to this action, potential
impacts to species listed under the ESA would be if this action somehow
changed the type of gear used by the fishery, or the timing or location
of fishing. This action does not do any of those things.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: June 14, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-13349 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
