[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61215-61218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29178]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950830223-5273-02; I.D. 082395C]
RIN 0648-AE97


Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Chinook 
Salmon Savings Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

[[Page 61216]]
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing Amendment 21b to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP). This amendment prohibits the use of trawl gear in specified 
areas of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) 
until April 15 of a fishing year if and when 48,000 chinook salmon are 
taken as bycatch by trawl vessels in the BSAI during the period from 
January 1 until April 15 of that fishing year. This action is necessary 
to limit chinook salmon bycatch in the trawl fisheries and is intended 
to promote the objectives of the FMP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 21b and the environmental assessment/
regulatory impact review/final regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/
FRFA) prepared for Amendment 21b are available from the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99510; 
telephone: 907-271-2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Bibb, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in 
the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI is managed by NMFS according to 
the FMP prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(Council) under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (Magnuson Act). The FMP is implemented by 
regulations governing the U.S. groundfish fisheries at 50 CFR parts 675 
and 676. General regulations that also pertain to U.S. fisheries are 
codified at 50 CFR part 620.
    Chinook salmon are caught incidentally in trawl fisheries in the 
BSAI management area. They are a prohibited species in the trawl 
fisheries and must be discarded after being counted by a NMFS-certified 
observer.
    Chinook salmon bycatch in the domestic BSAI trawl fisheries 
exceeded 20,000 fish in 1987, 1988, and 1989, and exceeded 40,000 fish 
in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. Chinook salmon bycatch in 1995 is 
estimated to be approximately 20,000 fish through September 23.
    Concern about bycatch in the groundfish trawl fisheries exists 
because incidental harvests reduce the amount of chinook salmon 
available for escapement and subsistence, commercial, and recreational 
fisheries. From about 50 percent to over 90 percent of the chinook 
salmon bycatch in the BSAI is believed to originate from Western 
Alaska. Minimum escapement goals for several systems in the Yukon 
River, Kuskokwim River, and portions of Bristol Bay were not met in the 
mid- and late-1980's. Although escapement has improved in recent years, 
these goals are only being met through careful management of directed 
fisheries by time, area, and gear restrictions, and through increased 
abundance of chinook salmon. In addition, chinook salmon is one of the 
major food items of the Yup'ik Eskimo and Athabaskan Indians of Western 
and Interior Alaska and plays an important role in supporting the 
indigenous cultures and mixed, subsistence-cash socioeconomic systems 
of these peoples. Finally, commercial and recreational chinook salmon 
fishing provides a primary source of income in Western Alaska 
communities.
    A proposed rule to implement Amendment 21b to the FMP was published 
in the Federal Register on September 8, 1995 (60 FR 46811). Public 
comment on the proposed rule was invited through October 20, 1995. A 
notice of availability for Amendment 21b was published in the Federal 
Register on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 45392). Comments on Amendment 21b 
were accepted through October 24, 1995. Five letters containing nine 
comments were received within the comment period. These comments are 
summarized in the ``Response to Comments'' section below.
    Amendment 21b was approved by NMFS on November 20, 1995, under 
section 304(b) of the Magnuson Act. Upon reviewing the reasons for 
Amendment 21b and the comments on the proposed rule to implement it, 
NMFS has determined that this final rule creating a Chinook Salmon 
Savings Area (CHSSA) is necessary for fishery conservation and 
management. These measures are unchanged from the proposed rule.
    Three non-contiguous areas of the BSAI comprised of nine \1/2\ deg. 
latitude by 1 deg. longitude blocks constitute the CHSSA. The CHSSA 
will be monitored for incidental catches of chinook salmon in the trawl 
fisheries during the period from January 1 until April 15 of each 
fishing year. If an annual prohibited species catch (PSC) limit is 
reached in the BSAI during that period, the CHSSA will then be closed 
to vessels using trawl gear. If closed, the CHSSA will reopen April 15 
for the remainder of the year, regardless of the amount of chinook 
salmon bycatch.
    The CHSSA are:
    (1) The area defined by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order listed:

56 deg. 30' N., 171 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 30' N., 169 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 00' N., 169 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.; and
56 deg. 30' N., 171 deg. 00' W.

    (2) The area defined by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order listed:

54 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.;
54 deg. 00' N., 170 deg. 00' W.;
53 deg. 00' N., 170 deg. 00' W.;
53 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.; and
54 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.

    (3) The area defined by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order listed:

56 deg. 00' N., 165 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 00' N., 164 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 164 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 165 deg. 00' W.;
54 deg. 30' N., 165 deg. 00' W.;
54 deg. 30' N., 167 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 167 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 166 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 30' N., 166 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 30' N., 165 deg. 00' W.; and
56 deg. 00' N., 165 deg. 00' W.

    Further explanation of, and reasons for, this rule are contained in 
the preamble to the proposed rule (60 FR 46811, September 8, 1995).

Response to Comments

    Five letters containing nine comments were received within the 
comment period. The following paragraphs provide a summary and response 
to comments.
    Comment 1: The bycatch simulation model used to predict the 
biological and economic impacts of the alternatives is outdated and 
inappropriate. The model did not incorporate recent regulatory actions 
such as trawl closures, the pollock ``B'' season delay, and the Catcher 
Vessel Operational Area. In addition, the use of historical salmon 
bycatch rate information to predict future salmon bycatch patterns is 
misleading due to the difficulty of sampling to estimate salmon bycatch 
and to uncertainty associated with the historical data.
    Response: The draft EA/RIR/FRFA was developed over a 3-year period 
from 1992 to 1995. The bycatch simulation model was used to analyze 
alternatives in early drafts and, consequently, was based on management 
measures and historical data available at that time. Additional 
alternatives, including the 8- and 9-block closure areas, were included 
in the analysis in 1994 and 1995. At that time, the bycatch simulation 
model was 

[[Page 61217]]
outdated and new data were not readily available to update the model. 
As a result, these additional alternatives were not analyzed using the 
model. The Council's preferred alternative was the 9-block closure.
    In addition, the bycatch simulation model projects closures on the 
basis of historical bycatch rate data since 1990. A closure would not 
be projected by the model if the bycatch limit in question exceeded 
bycatch amounts in the years used in the model. For example, the model 
would not project closure of any area of the BSAI as a result of a 
48,000 chinook salmon bycatch limit because this amount exceeds 
historical bycatch in any year since 1990. Therefore, even if the 
bycatch simulation model had been updated for new management measures 
and data, no closure would have been projected as a result of the 
preferred alternative.
    The EA/RIR/FRFA does not base the economic analysis on the results 
of the bycatch simulation model. Rather, the analysis is based on 
geographical analysis of the location and timing of historic catch and 
bycatch data. The analysis identifies times and areas of high chinook 
salmon bycatch and compares the proportion of estimated chinook salmon 
bycatch and total groundfish catch from the trawl fisheries for pollock 
and Pacific cod in these areas. The CHSSA were selected because they 
represented areas with a relatively high proportion of the overall 
chinook salmon bycatch in comparison with the proportion of total 
groundfish catch.
    Although historical chinook salmon bycatch indicates that it is 
unlikely that the CHSSA would close, the analysis does recognize the 
importance of these areas in that between 20 percent and 49 percent of 
groundfish harvested in the pollock and cod trawl fisheries between 
1990 and 1993 were harvested in the CHSSA.
    The response to Comment 4 addresses concerns about the adequacy of 
observer sampling data as a basis for estimating salmon bycatch 
amounts.
    Comment 2: The bycatch simulation model does not address impacts of 
a closure on halibut and Tanner crab bycatch in the cod fishery.
    Response: The bycatch simulation model does project changes in 
halibut and Tanner crab bycatch that would occur if areas close and 
fishing effort moves to adjacent areas. However, for the reasons 
discussed above, the bycatch simulation model was not used to analyze 
the impacts of Amendment 21b. If the model had been used, it would have 
projected that the 48,000 chinook salmon bycatch limit would not have 
been reached and, therefore, that this alternative would have no affect 
on halibut and Tanner crab bycatch.
    The geographical based information summarized in figures, maps, and 
text contained in the EA/RIR/FRFA addressed the distribution of 
groundfish catch and chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock and cod 
fisheries. This information did not address halibut and Tanner crab 
bycatch in CHSSA or adjacent areas.
    Comment 3: Closure of a smaller area north of Unimak Island could 
reduce salmon bycatch by 25 percent at all levels of salmon abundance, 
while only redistributing about 6 percent of the ``A''-season pollock 
effort. This closure is preferable to the proposed CHSSA.
    Response: The EA/RIR/FRFA confirms that the areas north of Unimak 
Island, identified as the ``horseshoe'' and ``Unimak'' blocks, have 
historically contributed substantially to the chinook salmon bycatch 
amounts. However, other areas along the 200-m contour, and the 
remaining blocks included in the CHSSA, also have experienced high 
chinook salmon bycatch in one or more years. The variability associated 
with historical chinook salmon bycatch, in the same area from year to 
year and in adjacent areas in the same year, indicate the difficulty in 
predicting where salmon bycatch problems will occur in the future. NMFS 
believes that closure of the CHSSA in response to high bycatch amounts 
will provide a better ability to limit bycatch for the remainder of the 
year than would closure of a smaller area. In addition, the Council 
considered trade-offs between potential groundfish catch and chinook 
salmon bycatch in selecting the CHSSA as their preferred alternative.
    Comment 4: The procedures used to estimate historical chinook 
salmon in past years are neither precise nor accurate. The CHSSA cannot 
be enforced until NMFS reforms its chinook salmon bycatch estimation 
procedures.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS conducted a comparison of whole haul 
and partial haul sampling (including basket sampling) data. Results 
showed that partial haul sampling produced accurate estimates of 
bycatch. Although the variance of the estimate increased as the sample 
size decreased, no bias was detected. The same analysis showed that 
regulations requiring retention of salmon until counted by an observer 
(Sec. 675.20(c)(6)) failed to obtain accurate numbers overall. Accurate 
counts were highly linked to the presence of an observer. NMFS 
concludes that the most accurate salmon bycatch estimates are those 
derived from direct observer sampling, and that increasing precision 
can be obtained by increasing sample sizes. NMFS believes that the 
CHSSA can be enforced using existing methods for estimating chinook 
salmon bycatch.
    Comment 5: Historical chinook salmon bycatch is not a valid basis 
for predicting locations of high salmon bycatch in the future. 
Therefore, NMFS should use ``hot spot authority'' to close areas of 
high chinook salmon bycatch.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS has the authority to close an area 
to fishing due to high bycatch rates. However, in practice, NMFS cannot 
collect accurate in-season bycatch data fast enough to make timely 
closures of high bycatch areas. Therefore, NMFS recommends that the 
Council identify areas of historically high bycatch rates and use a 
prohibited species catch limit to trigger closure of these areas.
    Comment 6: Limits in chinook salmon bycatch could have been 
accomplished through co-management using the voluntary Salmon Research 
Foundation initiative.
    Response: The Council considered the alternative of ``status quo,'' 
which would have allowed continued development of voluntary salmon 
bycatch limitations initiatives like the Salmon Research Foundation. 
However, the Council chose to recommend a chinook salmon prohibited 
species catch limit that triggers closure of the CHSSA, recognizing the 
potential negative impact the action would have on the voluntary 
program initiated by the Salmon Research Foundation. NMFS acknowledges 
the laudable work conducted by the Salmon Research Foundation to 
address the salmon bycatch problem. However, NMFS concurs in the 
Council's recommendation, given that not all trawl vessels participated 
in the Foundation's voluntary program. In addition, the future 
effectiveness of the Foundation's program would be largely dependent on 
the unknown ability of competing trawl industry groups to engage in 
widespread cooperation and voluntary participation in the Foundation's 
program. Amendment 21b provides a more certain mechanism for limiting 
chinook salmon bycatch in the future.
    Comment 7: Any trigger that closes an area is more likely to be 
reached in years of increased chinook salmon abundance when there is 
less need to constrain bycatch than in years of low chinook abundance.
    Response: NMFS agrees that there is more of a need to constrain 
chinook salmon bycatch in years of low abundance and the EA/RIR/FRFA 
shows that low bycatch has been followed, in 

[[Page 61218]]
the next year, by low returns to the Nushagak River. However, 
projecting chinook salmon abundance in future years is currently not 
possible. In addition, it would be difficult for NMFS to establish 
whether low chinook salmon bycatch was occurring due to low salmon 
abundance or changes in trawl fishing behavior. Therefore, it does not 
appear that existing information about the relationship between salmon 
bycatch and salmon abundance supports the development of a workable, 
abundance-based bycatch management program.
    Comment 8: Trigger and closure management actions should be very 
well justified on a cost/benefit basis and narrowly tailored in scope 
before qualifying for approval. This action has the potential of 
imposing extreme costs on the pollock and Pacific cod trawl fleet, 
while providing little benefit to the salmon fisheries of western 
Alaska.
    Response: Current levels of chinook salmon bycatch are not 
considered a conservation problem. The primary objective of Amendment 
21b is to avoid the levels of high chinook salmon bycatch that occurred 
in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 48,000 chinook salmon bycatch 
limit is greater than any annual chinook salmon bycatch estimate since 
1980, except 1991. NMFS believes that closures of the CHSSA likely will 
occur only in years of unusually high chinook salmon bycatch. Although 
closure of the CHSSA would affect the pollock or Pacific cod trawl 
fisheries, NMFS believes it is important to have a mechanism in place 
to limit future increases in chinook salmon bycatch.
    The EA/RIR/FRFA does show a relationship between high chinook 
salmon bycatch amounts and returns to the Nushagak River in the next 
year. Although information is incomplete about chinook abundance 
throughout western Alaska and the relationship between bycatch amounts 
and returns to western Alaska, the Council and NMFS believes that 
limits on chinook salmon bycatch will provide benefits for chinook 
salmon escapement and commercial, recreational, and subsistence 
fisheries.
    Comment 9: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports the proposed 
action to limit chinook salmon bycatch in the BSAI trawl fisheries.
    Response: NMFS concurs.

Classification

    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that Amendment 
21b to the FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the 
BSAI fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson Act and 
other applicable laws.
    The Council prepared a FRFA as part of the RIR, which indicates 
that this rule could have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. A summary of this determination 
is included in the proposed rule (60 FR 46811, September 8, 1995). A 
copy of the EA/RIR/FRFA may be obtained from the Council (see 
ADDRESSES).
    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
E.O. 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 675

    Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 22, 1995.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 675 is amended as 
follows:

PART 675--GROUNDFISH OF THE BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS AREA

    1. The authority citation for part 675 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In section 675.22, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 675.22  Time and area closures.

* * * * *
    (i) Chinook Salmon Savings Areas. When the Regional Director 
determines that 48,000 chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) have 
been caught by vessels using trawl gear during the time period from 
January 1 until April 15 in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area, NMFS will prohibit fishing with trawl gear for the 
remainder of that period within the following three areas:
    (1) The area defined by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order listed:

56 deg. 30' N., 171 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 30' N., 169 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 00' N., 169 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.; and
56 deg. 30' N., 171 deg. 00' W.

    (2) The area defined by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order listed:

54 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.;
54 deg. 00' N., 170 deg. 00' W.;
53 deg. 00' N., 170 deg. 00' W.;
53 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.; and
54 deg. 00' N., 171 deg. 00' W.

    (3) The area defined by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order listed:

56 deg. 00' N., 165 deg. 00' W.;
56 deg. 00' N., 164 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 164 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 165 deg. 00' W.;
54 deg. 30' N., 165 deg. 00' W.;
54 deg. 30' N., 167 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 167 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 00' N., 166 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 30' N., 166 deg. 00' W.;
55 deg. 30' N., 165 deg. 00' W.; and
56 deg. 00' N., 165 deg. 00' W.
[FR Doc. 95-29178 Filed 11-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W