[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48874-48879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19870]
[[Page 48874]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 0907301205-0289-02]
RIN 0648-AY14
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring
Fishery; Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces final specifications for the 2010-2012 fishing
years for the Atlantic herring (herring) fishery. The intent of this
final rule is to conserve and manage the herring resource and provide
for a sustainable fishery. This final rule also makes minor corrections
to existing regulations.
DATES: Effective August 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the New England
Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Paul J. Howard,
Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492. The
EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov. Copies of the Small Entity Compliance Guide are
available via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov and from the
Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01915-2298.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281-9272, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Proposed 2010-2012 specifications were published on April 20, 2010
(75 FR 20550), with public comment accepted through May 20, 2010. These
final specifications are unchanged from those that were proposed. A
complete discussion of the development of the specifications appears in
the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
The 2010-2012 herring specifications are based on the provisions
currently in the Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and also
provide the necessary elements for a transition to the new annual catch
limit (ACL) and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The ACL
and AM process was developed by the Council in Amendment 4 to the
Herring FMP, which was submitted to NMFS by the Council on April 23,
2010. Amendment 4 will be implemented for the 2011 fishing year, if
approved by NMFS.
2010-2012 Final Specifications
The following specifications are established by this action:
Allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY), domestic annual
harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total foreign
processing (JVPt), joint venture processing (JVP), internal water
processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea processing (USAP), border transfer (BT),
total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), and the total
allowable catch (TAC) from each management area.
Table 1.--Specifications and Area TACs for the 2010-2012 Atlantic
Herring Fishery
Atlantic Herring Specifications (mt) for 2010-2012
MSY Fishing Level 2010-145,000
2011-134,000
2012-127,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable Biological Catch 106,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimum Yield 91,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Annual Harvest 91,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border Transfer 4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Annual Processing 87,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Venture Processing Total 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Venture Processing 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Waters Processing 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. At-Sea Processing 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Allowable Foreign Fishing 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1A Total Allowable Catch (TAC) 26,546*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1B TAC 4,362
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 2 TAC 22,146
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 3 TAC 38,146
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Gear Set-Aside 295
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Set-Aside 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ If New Brunswick weir fishery landings through October 15 are less
than 9,000 mt, then 3,000 mt will be added to the Area 1A TAC in
November.
Comments and Responses
There were seven comments received from Congresswoman Chellie
Pingree; the Herring Alliance; four industry entities (Northern Pelagic
Group, LLC; Cape Seafoods Inc.; Lunds Fisheries Inc.; the Small Pelagic
Group); and one individual.
Comment 1: Congresswoman Pingree noted the negative impacts on
Maine communities, but supported the proposed specifications because
they are consistent with the best available scientific advice, and are
better than alternative proposals that would have reduced the quota
even more.
Response: There are no changes from the proposed specifications.
Comment 2: The Herring Alliance noted their view that caution is
warranted in management because of the ecosystem role of herring as a
forage species, past declines in the New England herring stock, and
concern that in other regions, stocks with spawning subcomponents have
had some of those subcomponents extirpated. The group ultimately
commented in support of the proposed action, but noted that though the
proposed specifications are consistent with the scientific and
statistical committee's (SSC) advice, the SSC also suggested that the
Council should consider a conservative catch limit of 90,000 mt, given
the substantial uncertainty in the stock assessment. The commenters
said this emphasized their opinion that the final specifications should
be set no higher than those that were proposed. In addition, they
pointed out that the proposed management area TACs pose a relatively
high risk for the inshore stock component.
Response: This action established the specifications at the level
that was proposed. The SSC's final advice to the Council was that, in
the face of several sources of uncertainty, it would be
[[Page 48875]]
inappropriate to allow catches to increase above recent catch until a
new benchmark assessment can be completed. The sources of uncertainty
cited were the retrospective pattern in the assessment (that
overestimates stock biomass) and the uncertain mixing ratios of stock
subcomponents. Despite this uncertainty in the recent stock assessment,
the analysis does suggest that recent catch levels have maintained a
relatively abundant stock size and low fishing mortality. The SSC noted
that there could be a range of values that represent recent catch:
90,000 mt (2008); 106,000 mt (2006-08 average); or 108,000 mt (2004-08
average). While the commenter is correct in stating that the SSC
suggested that the Council should consider a conservative catch limit
(e.g., 90,000 mt), the SSC also noted that the choice of the time
period used to derive ABC depended upon the Council's tolerance for
risk. NMFS concludes that these final specifications, which set the ABC
at 106,000 mt for all three years, are consistent with the SSC's
technical advice.
In the specifications documents submitted by the Council, it noted
the need to consider its concerns about the risk of depleting spawning
components of the stock and the need to consider the role of herring in
the ecosystem as a forage species. The specifications documents include
a risk assessment that was prepared to evaluate the impacts of the
various TAC allocation alternatives on the individual spawning
components of the herring stock complex. While the Atlantic herring
stock is assessed as one stock, it is comprised of an inshore Gulf of
Maine stock component, and an offshore Nantucket Shoals/Georges Bank
stock component. These two stock components are segregated during
spawning season, but mix at other times of the year; thus each
component is vulnerable to fishing mortality independent of the other
component. The best scientific information available indicates that the
inshore stock component comprises approximately 18 percent of the total
stock. The inshore stock component is present in Areas 1A, 1B and 2 at
various times of the year; it does not range into Area 3. Most herring
is harvested in the inshore herring management areas; thus, while the
inshore stock component is a relatively small portion of the stock, it
is also the subject to more fishing effort than the offshore component
because of its proximity to shore. As a result, the need to minimize
the risk of overfishing the inshore stock component is a major factor
in determining the area TAC allocations.
The Council's plan development team (PDT) conducted a risk
assessment to examine the removal rates from the inshore and offshore
stock components of the various TAC alternatives considered by the
Council, in order to evaluate the risk of overfishing to the inshore
stock of various TAC allocation alternatives. The analysis generates a
relative exploitation rate, which is then compared to the target
exploitation rate for the entire stock complex. Risk is defined in the
analysis as it relates to the potential for fishing a stock component
at a level that may be higher than the target exploitation rate. The
PDT determined, given the current fishing mortality at maximum
sustainable yield (Fmsy)for the herring stock (F=0.27, or an
exploitation rate of 0.24), that an exploitation rate on the inshore
stock component that ranged from 0.24 to 0.28 could be viewed as risk
neutral, assuming that productivity of this subcomponent is higher than
most other herring stocks in the NW Atlantic.
This action is estimated to result in an exploitation rate on the
inshore stock component of 0.42 in 2010, 0.45 in 2011, and 0.50 in
2012. While these rates present a higher risk to the inshore stock
component than some of the other TAC allocation alternatives, the lower
risk alternatives reduced the inshore area TAC allocations to levels
that would have had greater negative impacts on the herring fishery
than this action. This action, while not risk neutral for the inshore
stock component, is predicted to result in exploitation rates on the
inshore stock component similar to those that occurred from 2000-2007,
when exploitation fluctuated around 0.47. Maintaining this exploitation
rate is consistent with the SSC advice to maintain catch at recent
levels.
Comment 3: All four industry groups opposed the Council's
recommended specifications for 2010-2012. They gave a number of reasons
for their views, which are similar in many ways. Therefore, these
comments are summarized together, without attributing each point to a
group.
The industry groups argued that the specifications are
unnecessarily restrictive given the conclusion of the 2009
Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee stock assessment that the
fishery is not overfished or subject to overfishing. They also
contended that the TRAC stock assessment is flawed, and that the SSC
should have rejected it and instead recommended that the 2009
specifications be maintained until a new benchmark stock assessment can
be conducted. They cited concern about the high level of precaution the
SSC used in recommending a buffer between the maximum sustainable yield
(MSY) fishing level and the ABC. They argue that the SSC's initial
recommendation to reduce the MSY fishing level by 40 percent to account
for scientific uncertainty was a matter of guesswork, and therefore
entirely arbitrary.
They contended that the ABC recommendation, and the resultant TACs,
represent multiple layers of precaution, and represent an overly
conservative reaction to the uncertainty in the stock assessment. They
noted that there are three layers of scientific uncertainty that affect
TAC levels: (1) the severe retrospective pattern in the updated stock
assessment; (2) the SSC recommendation for a 40% reduction in ABC to
account for scientific uncertainty; and (3) the additional 41%
reductions in the Gulf of Maine that they contend result from the PDT's
risk assessment. They requested a peer review to determine if what they
characterize as cumulative, multiple reductions in catch levels, are
necessary and scientifically valid.
They questioned the scientific validity of the PDT's risk
assessment, which resulted in the area TAC allocations. They requested
that the PDT's risk assessment analysis be peer-reviewed. In addition,
they noted that the additional layer of precaution used in establishing
area TACs, which is based on what they characterize as a two-stock
component theory, is contrary to the TRAC's historical approach to
assessing the Atlantic herring resource as a single stock component.
They noted that the proposed reduction in the Area 1A TAC will be
particularly damaging to herring vessels and coastal communities in
Maine and Massachusetts, and to the New England lobster fishery which
depends on herring for bait. They contended that neither the proposed
rule nor the economic analysis in the EA adequately consider the
economic consequences of the proposed Area 1A TAC. They noted that, in
their view, the recent closure of the last sardine factory in the U.S.
was a direct result of the proposed TAC reduction.
They argued that the proposed reduction in the Area 2 TAC threatens
the success of the Atlantic mackerel fishery during the winter months
due to the catch of herring in the mackerel fishery; they contended
that the proposed rule did not examine the economic impacts of the TAC
on the Atlantic mackerel fishery.
[[Page 48876]]
They objected to the fact that this action sets the specifications
for three years, though it is not entirely clear what they are
suggesting should occur to address this concern. They noted that NMFS
should collect additional data to assess the resource as it prepares
for the next benchmark stock assessment in 2012.
They noted that the statement in the proposed rule that suggests
that the fishery may land the same amount of herring as it has in
recent years is outrageous, though they do not fully explain their
reasoning. NMFS assumes that they do not agree that the TAC reductions
in the Gulf of Maine could be compensated for by fishing in Area 3.
Response: For the most part, these comments reflect differing
opinions about the stock assessment for herring and the validity of the
SSC's advice. The commenters offered no alternative scientific analyses
to support their opinions, nor did they cite any specific legal
requirements that would be violated if the proposed specifications were
implemented. As more specifically discussed below, NMFS has determined
that the precautionary approach reflected in the specifications is
consistent with the best scientific information available, and other
applicable Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
While the TRAC concluded that recent catches have maintained a
relatively abundant stock size and low fishing mortality, and that the
stock is not overfished or subject to overfishing, it also noted
concerns about the stock assessment results, primarily a retrospective
pattern that results in an overestimation of stock biomass. While the
SSC reviewed the TRAC results and initially recommended a 40 percent
buffer between the MSY fishing level and ABC, that initial advice was
not arbitrary, as characterized by the commenter. The initially
proposed 40 percent buffer corresponded to the average retrospective
inconsistency in the estimate of exploitable biomass presented in the
TRAC assessment; the SSC believed that the magnitude of this
inconsistency was sufficient to account for all sources of uncertainty
in the assessment. In addition, that initial advice was revisited at
the request of the Council, and these specifications are being set
consistent with the SSC's revised advice that ABC should not exceed
recent catch. The Council responded to the advice by recommending an
ABC of 106,000 mt, which corresponds to average total US and Canadian
catch from 2006-2008. The SSC also noted that exploitable biomass is
projected to decline during 2010-2012 due to the recruitment of poorer
than average year-classes. The ABC of 106,000 mt provides a 27 percent
buffer from the Fmsy based catch level of 145,000 mt in
2010, in order to ensure that Fmsy is not exceeded for the stock
complex, given the uncertainties in the assessment.
To consider the risk of depleting individual spawning components,
the PDT conducted a risk assessment (see Response 2) to
evaluate the risk of overfishing the inshore stock component. Such
analyses are frequently conducted by Council PDTs, and are not formally
peer-reviewed. PDTs are comprised of technical experts identified by
the Council specifically to offer technical advice that will assist in
making sound fishery management decisions. NMFS disagrees with the
contention that such advice must be formally peer-reviewed before it is
considered in management. The risk assessment prepared by the PDT
provides a useful tool for considering the risk of overfishing the
stock components by estimating exploitation rates.
NMFS disagrees that the PDT's risk assessment, which estimates
mortality rates on both the inshore and offshore stock components under
the proposed management area TAC options, is contrary to the TRAC's
approach to assessing the Atlantic herring resources as a single stock
complex. The commenters offer no scientific analyses that refute the
risk assessment method of estimating the exploitation risk to each
individual stock component in establishing management area TACs. Though
the herring stock is assessed as a single unit, there is ample evidence
that there are inshore and offshore stock components that can be
affected by fishing mortality independent of each other. The most
compelling evidence supporting the existence of separate inshore and
offshore components was the collapse of the offshore component in the
early 1970s after years of heavy exploitation by foreign fishing
fleets. During the decade that the offshore stock component was in a
depressed state, the smaller inshore stock component supported the
coastal fishery.
As noted in the Response to Comment 2, the concern that is
addressed in this action is the fact that in recent years, most of the
harvest has come from the inshore stock component, which is vulnerable
to overfishing because of its proximity to shore and because it has
substantially less biomass than the offshore component. These
management areas are of particular economic importance to the industry,
and the collapse of the inshore stock component would eliminate the
opportunity to participate in the nearshore fishery for herring. This
action is intended to prevent such a situation from occurring.
The analysis of the economic impacts of the TAC allocations shows
clearly that the reductions in the Area 1A TAC are likely to adversely
impact fishery participants from ports in Maine and New Hampshire, and
to a lesser extent ports in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. These
impacts were carefully considered in selecting TAC allocations intended
to balance the biological concerns against the economic concerns. NMFS
notes that preventing overfishing of the inshore stock component is
critical for the long-term health of the inshore fishery.
The discussion of economic impacts in the proposed rule summarizes
the impacts on the regulated participants in the herring fishery; the
Regulatory Flexibility Act only requires a discussion of impacts on
regulated entities in the IRFA. While not addressed in the proposed
rule, the Council's analysis of economic impacts does address the
possible negative impacts that may be felt by participants in the
lobster and mackerel fisheries. The analysis notes that herring is an
important bait for the lobster fishery. The reductions in the TAC in
Area 1A are likely to result in increased bait prices, especially
considering the expected demand for bait related to recent high levels
of lobster landings. The analysis also discusses the impacts of this
action on the mackerel fishery, and notes that the reduction in the
Area 2 TAC may require mackerel vessels to take steps to avoid catching
herring, which could potentially increase their operating costs. The
analysis acknowledges the possibility that mackerel fishing may cease
because mackerel fishermen will not want to risk catching herring in
excess of allowed levels. NMFS cannot comment on the cause of the
recent sardine plant closure.
The commenters expressed concern that this action establishes
specifications for three years. NMFS notes that the fishery management
plan specifies that the Council will conduct an annual review of the
status of the fishery, and may adjust the specifications at any time
through the specifications process, if the review indicates an
adjustment is warranted.
NMFS recognizes that, while this action does not reduce the total
potential harvest of herring below the 2008 harvest level, it does
reduce specific area allocations to levels lower than recent harvest.
While the impact of
[[Page 48877]]
these reductions may be mitigated if the industry can increase harvest
above recent levels in Area 3, NMFS recognizes the fact that fishing in
this offshore area increases operating costs. Therefore, it may not be
possible for the herring industry to mitigate the negative economic
impacts of the inshore TAC reductions.
Comment 4: One individual commented that all herring quotas should
be cut in half.
Response: The proposed ABC and area TACs were reduced from the 2009
levels, for reasons noted in Responses 2 and 3.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that the
need to implement these measures in an expedited manner in order to
help achieve conservation objectives for Atlantic herring constitutes
good cause, under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive
the 30-day delay in effectiveness. If there is a delay in implementing
the TACs in this action, the herring fleet will continue to fish in
federal waters under the TACs that are currently in effect. The 2009
allocations are higher than the measures specified in this action for
2010 and also higher than those that have been implemented for the 2010
fishing year by the states under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) FMP. The allocations in this action were developed
to reflect an updated estimate of the annual catch that can be
harvested in light of the scientific uncertainty about the results of
the TRAC's stock assessment. Herring is a highly mobile, pelagic
species, and herring populations have shown variable aggregation
patterns in recent years. Analysis of this year's fishing activity
indicates that the herring fleet has been successfully targeting
aggregations in an area of Georges Bank (in management Area 3) where
herring do not typically migrate until October. Due to the seasonal and
annual variability in its distribution, the herring fleet is quick to
target herring aggregations as they become available in each management
area; the fleet is capable of landing over 2,000 mt in a single week.
If the effective date for this action is delayed, increased fishing
activity in response to fish availability could lead to an
unanticipated pulse of landings. Given that the specifications reduce
the total available TAC by 37 percent from the 2009 level, and reduce
individual management area TACs by as much as 56 percent from the 2009
levels, it is necessary to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and
implement the provisions in this rule immediately to ensure that the
2010 individual area TACs are not exceeded before the implementation of
this action.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been
determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order
12866.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared, which
consists of and incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant
issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS
responses to those comments, the analyses contained in the Council
document and the accompanying EA, and the discussion and summary of the
analyses contained in the preamble to this action. A copy of the
analyses is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
Statement of Objective and Need
This final rule announces final 2010-2012 specifications for the
herring fishery. A complete description of the reasons why this action
is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this
action, are contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not
repeated here.
A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such
Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a
Result of Such Comments
NMFS received seven comments on the proposed specifications. Three
of the comments were specific to the IRFA. Comment 3 outlines concerns
by three industry groups that the analysis in the proposed rule
understated the economic impacts of the specified area TACs on the
herring, mackerel, and lobster fisheries. NMFS' assessment of the
issues raised by these comments is contained in the response to these
comments and is not repeated here. The comments did not result in any
changes to the area TACs, which were reduced to meet biological
objectives specified in the FMP.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule
Will Apply
Based on 2009 permit data, the number of fishing vessels eligible
to fish in each permit category in the herring fishery are as follows:
41 for Category A (limited access, All Areas), 4 for Category B
(limited access, Areas 2 and 3), 54 for Category C (limited access,
incidental), and 2,272 for Category D (open access). There are no large
entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of
the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on
small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action does not contain any new collection-of-information,
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken to Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent with the
Stated Objective of the Applicable Statutes, including a Statement of
the Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each of the Other Significant
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency which Affect the
Impact on Small Entities was Rejected
This action will not reduce the stock-wide TAC below the level of
landings in 2008 (83,580 mt), the last year for which data was complete
at the time the impacts analyses were conducted. On a stock-wide level,
no loss of revenue is projected because the herring fishery would have
an opportunity to harvest the same amount of herring as in recent
years. The impacts of the reductions to the area TAC allocations may
vary, however.
This action reduces the Area 1A TAC by 41 percent, from 45,000 mt
to 26,546 mt. In 2008, landings from Area 1A were 40,390 mt. The
reduction from 2008 landings levels of 13,844 mt would result in a loss
of revenue of $3.6 million, at the average 2008 price of $260/mt. This
may be offset by the provision that would allocate an additional 3,000
mt of herring to Area 1A in November, if the catch in the New Brunswick
weir fishery is lower than estimated. The value of this additional
allocation is $780,000, which could reduce the revenue loss to $2.8
million.
The TACs in Areas 2 and 3 established by this action are higher
than historical landings from those areas (2008 landings from Area 2
were 22,495 mt; from Area 3, 13,144 mt). It is possible that the
impacts associated with the Area 1A TAC reduction will be offset by
increases in the harvest from other management areas. However,
conditions associated with harvesting herring from Areas 2 and 3 may
not be ideal. If the Area 1A TAC is attained during the summer, fish
may only be available in Areas 1B and 3, since Area 2 is primarily a
winter fishing ground.
[[Page 48878]]
Area 3 is a large, offshore area, and it is never certain that fish
will aggregate in such a way that they are available to fishing
operations. Smaller vessels may not be able to fish safely offshore.
For larger vessels that can safely fish in Area 3, increasing the
amount of offshore fishing will increase operating costs. Sea time is
likely to increase and the length of each trip will increase, resulting
in higher trips costs, particularly for fuel. The degree to which
fishing costs will change is difficult to predict, so an overall
estimate of increased costs can not be made. However, observer data
shows that each additional day at sea for a midwater trawl vessel
increases the trip cost by an average of $2,800.
Alternatives to this action included options for setting the ABC,
OY, and management area TACs. The first of 2 non-preferred alternatives
for ABC and OY was based on the SSC's initial advice to the Council
that ABC equal 90,000 mt for the 2010-2012 fishing years (Alternative
2). Because the herring resource is not overfished, and the MSA-
mandated ACL provisions do not need to be established until 2011, the
Herring Committee developed a second non-preferred alternative for ABC
that would set ABC at the FMSY-based catch level (145,000 mt) for 2010
and at 90,000 mt for 2011 and 2012 (Alternative 1). In all
alternatives, OY is a reduction of ABC by 14,800 mt to account for
potential catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery. For the 2 non-
preferred ABC alternatives, the resulting OY was 130,200 mt in 2010 and
75,200 mt in 2011 and 2012 under Alternative 1, and 75,200 mt in all 3
years under Alternative 2.
As described in the response to Comment 2, the SSC revised
its advice, and the Council recommended an ABC of 106,000 mt for the
2010-2012 fishing years; the corresponding OY for all years is 91,200
mt. Unless there is scientific information to the contrary, the Council
is required to set the ABC consistent with the SSC's recommendation.
Alternative 1 was not selected because the ABC recommended for 2010
exceeds the SSC's recommendation. Under Alternative 2, the ABC
recommended is 16,000 mt less than the selected ABC. This alternative
was not selected because the selected ABC has higher potential to
economically impact fishery participants than the preferred
alternative.
There were 8 management area TAC allocation schemes presented in
the EA that, when applied to the ABC and OY values under Alternatives 1
and 2, resulted in 32 sets of potential management area TAC
allocations. The 8 management area TAC allocations schemes included the
following: 1) allocation based on distribution of herring catch in the
four management areas from 1999-2008; 2) allocation based on
distribution of TACs in the 2001 fishing year with an Area 2 reserve;
3) allocation based on distribution of TACs in the 2001 fishing year
without an Area 2 reserve; 4) allocation based on distribution of TACs
in the 2009 fishing year; 5) allocation that maximizes catch in Area
1A, and allows 1A landings in July, August, and September; 6)
allocation that maximizes catch in Area 1A, and allows 1A landings in
May, June and July; 7) allocation that maximizes catch in Area 2; 8)
allocation that reduces the quota in a relatively balanced manner
across areas.
The specification of management area TACs has the greatest
potential to economically impact fishery participants, especially the
specification of the TAC in Area 1A, therefore this section focuses on
the Area 1A TAC alternatives. Of the 32 management area TAC allocations
considered, only two alternatives specified Area 1A TACs that are
higher than status quo (i.e., 45,000 mt). Alternative 1/Option 1 had an
Area 1A TAC that was 31,000 mt higher than status quo and Alternative
1/Option 2A had an Area 1A TAC that was 400 mt higher than status quo.
At a $260 per mt (average price in 2008), these alternatives would have
resulted in fleet-wide revenue increases of approximately $8 million
(Alternative 1/Option 1) or $104,000 (Alternative 1/Option 2). These
alternatives were not selected because they would not have reduced the
relative exploitation rate on the inshore stock component. The other
alternatives have Area 1A TACs that are lower than status quo (10-90
percent less). As discussed in the response to Comment 2, the
selected alternative reduces the relative exploitation rate on the
inshore stock component compared to the status quo, while maintaining
harvest opportunities in inshore areas. Similar to alternatives with
Area 1A TACs higher than status quo, alternatives that feature smaller
reductions to the Area 1A TAC (10-20 percent less), which would have
less economic impact on the industry than the selected alternative,
were not chosen because they did not sufficiently reduce the relative
exploitation rate on the inshore stock component. Alternatives with
substantially lower Area 1A TACs (80-90 percent less) were not selected
because they had too great a potential to negatively impact the herring
industry through loss of revenue and fishing opportunities. The
economic impacts of reducing the Area 1A TAC and displacing effort into
other management areas are discussed earlier in the preamble.
Similarly, for all other management areas (Area 1B, Area 2 and Area
3), the selected alternative was determined to best balance the
exploitation rate on the inshore stock component against providing
adequate harvest opportunities. The TAC alternatives for Area 1B ranged
from 2,538 mt to 8,854 mt; all 32 alternatives were below the status
quo (10,000 mt). The TAC alternatives for Area 2 ranged from 3,817 mt
to 67,700 mt; 6 of the 32 alternatives were above the status quo
(30,000 mt). Finally the TAC alternatives for Area 3 ranged from 15,100
mt to 85,949 mt; 3 of the 32 alternatives were above the status quo
(60,000 mt). The alternatives considered for Areas 1B, Area 2 and Area
3 where the TACs were lower than the status were not selected because
they had too great a potential to negatively impact the herring
industry through loss of revenue and fishing opportunities. The
alternatives considered for these management areas where the TACs were
higher than the status quo were not selected because they would not
have reduced the relative exploitation rate on the inshore stock
component.
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 make to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of
this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent
to all holders of permits issued for the herring fishery. In addition,
copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter) are
available from the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES) and may be
found at the following web site: http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
[[Page 48879]]
Dated: August 6, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as
follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 648.14, paragraphs (r)(1)(vi)(A) and (r)(1)(viii)(B) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
(r) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) For the purposes of observer deployment, fail to notify NMFS at
least 72 hr prior to departing on a trip aboard a vessel with an All
Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited
Access Herring Permit fishing with either midwater trawl or purse seine
gear on a declared herring trip.
* * * * *
(viii) * * *
(B) Fail to notify the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement of the time
and date of landing via VMS, if a vessel with an All Areas Limited
Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring
Permit fishing with either midwater trawl or purse seine gear, at least
6 hr prior to landing herring at the end of a declared herring trip.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 648.201, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.201 Closures and TAC controls.
* * * * *
(h) If NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed
less than 9,000 mt through October 15, NMFS will allocate an additional
3,000 mt to the Area 1A TAC in November. NMFS will notify the Council
of this adjustment and publish the adjustment in the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 2010-19870 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S