[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 48 (Friday, March 12, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12279-12280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6145]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[I.D. 030299B]
RIN 0648-AL48


Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Northern Anchovy Fishery; Amendment 8

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management 
plan; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(Council) has submitted Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review. The amendment was 
prepared to provide a comprehensive management approach to small 
coastal pelagic species (CPS) off the Pacific coast. The amendment also 
addresses the provisions of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) 
regarding overfishing, bycatch, essential fish habitat, and fishing 
communities.

DATES: Comments on Amendment 8 must be received on or before May 11, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on Amendment 8 or supporting documents should be 
sent to William T. Hogarth, Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 
West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
    Copies of Amendment 8, which includes a Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review, are available 
from Larry Six, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 
2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR, 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries 
Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4030 or Julie Walker, Pacific Fishery 
Management Council, at 503-326-6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each Regional 
Fishery Management Council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS 
for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an 
amendment, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register 
that the amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS 
will consider the public comments received during the comment period 
described above in determining whether to approve the amendment for 
implementation.
    Amendment 8 would place Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), 
Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Jack mackerel (Trachurus 
symmetricus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens) in the FMP's 
management unit with northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax). The basic 
elements of the amendment follow:
    1. Amendment 8 would divide managed species into two categories: 
``actively managed'' and ``monitored''. Actively managed species would 
be subject to annually determined harvest limits based on estimated 
biomass. Monitored species would not be subject to mandatory harvest 
limits, although other management measures such as closed areas could 
apply.
    2. Amendment 8 would include conservative harvest strategies that 
take into account uncontrolled harvests in the Mexican fishery, natural 
variability in the stocks, and the importance of coastal pelagics as 
forage for other fish, marine mammals, and birds.
    3. The amendment would establish a limited entry system in the 
commercial fishery for CPS finfish (squid is not included) south of 
39 deg. N. latitude (Pt. Arena, California). Open access would continue 
north of 39 deg. N. latitude. Historically, 99 percent of the sardine 
resource has been harvested south of Pt. Arena. When abundance is high, 
fishermen in more northern areas would still be able to gain benefits 
from the high abundance through the open access fishery. When abundance 
declines, the resource tends to disappear from the north and move 
south.
    4. To qualify for a limited entry permit, a vessel would have had 
to land at least 100 metric tons (mt) of finfish during the period 
January 1, 1993, through November 5, 1997.
    5. Vessels with limited entry permits would be limited to 125 mt 
per trip. The purpose of the limit is to control the fleet's harvest 
capacity.
    6. Limited entry permits could be transferred under only limited 
circumstances to a replacement vessel, except during the first year of 
the program, when one unrestricted transfer of each permit would be 
allowed.
    7. To accommodate vessels that land dead bait and fish for small 
specialty markets, Amendment 8 would allow vessels to land a specific 
amount, between 1 and 5 mt, without a limited entry permit. The Council 
would determine, and could adjust, the precise amount.
    8. Amendment 8 would establish a framework process similar to that 
used in the Pacific coast groundfish fishery to allow the 
implementation of certain types of management actions without further 
amending the FMP. Under the framework system, actively managed and 
monitored species could be moved between categories as circumstances 
require.
    The SFA amended section 303(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which 
describes the required components of each FMP. The SFA established a 2-
year deadline (October 11, 1998) by which each Regional Fishery 
Management Council was required to submit amendments to NMFS to bring 
all FMPs into compliance with the new provisions of section 303(a).
    Amendment 8 seeks to make the FMP consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act by defining, consistent with the SFA, optimum yield (OY), 
overfishing, and levels at which managed stocks are considered 
overfished. Amendment 8 also, as required by the SFA, defines essential 
fish habitat, discusses the nature of bycatch in the fisheries for CPS, 
and presents social and economic data on communities substantially 
dependent or substantially engaged in fishing.
    As described in the National Standard guidelines (63 FR 24212, May 
1, 1998), OY is based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The MSY 
control rules proposed for CPS would maintain biomass of the stocks at 
levels that are the same or higher than those produced at FMSY (the 
harvest rate that produces MSY), while also allowing relatively high 
and consistent levels of catch. OY based on an MSY control rule for CPS 
would always be at least as effective in maintaining a healthy stock 
and fishery as catches under an FMSY policy. An alternative would be to 
define OY as being equal to MSY, but this could prevent the Council 
from reducing harvest levels to accommodate ecological or economic 
factors. Large fluctuations in biomass make reducing the harvest as the 
biomass falls essential. The proposed definition of

[[Page 12280]]

overfishing is in terms of fishing mortality or exploitation rate. 
Depending on the exploitation rate, overfishing could occur when CPS 
stocks are at either high or low abundance levels. Biomass levels below 
which no fishing is allowed are also defined.
    With regard to overfishing, experience with CPS stocks around the 
world indicates that overfished low biomass conditions usually occur 
when unfavorable environmental conditions and high fishing mortality 
rates occur at the same time. Management measures for overfished CPS 
stocks would not depend on whether low biomass was due to excess 
fishing or unfavorable environmental conditions. Reductions in fishing 
mortality are required in either case.
    Bycatch as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is minimal in the 
CPS fisheries. Any bycatch issues that might arise if a high volume 
fishery occurred in the northern portion of the management area are 
unknown. In the CPS fisheries, some fish are caught and sold incidental 
to catching other species, because they sometimes school together. 
Incidental catch allowances are defined as percentages of catch, 
landings, or deliveries. Incidental catch allowances can be adjusted as 
needed, depending on the status of the incidental species.
    Presence/absence data were used to determine essential fish habitat 
for CPS and were based on a thermal range bordered within the 
geographic area where a CPS species occurs at any life stage, where the 
CPS species has occurred historically during periods of similar 
environmental conditions, or where environmental conditions do not 
preclude colonization by the CPS species. This is necessary because as 
abundance increases, the range of CPS species increases significantly. 
New habitat becomes essential to maintain the prevailing biomass.
    Based on socioeconomic data, historical harvests, and the natural 
variability exhibited by CPS species as documented in the FMP, 
management areas were developed to give fishing communities along the 
Pacific coast opportunities to make maximum use of the available 
biomass. The framework process may be used to make adjustments as 
experience is gained from harvesting an expanding sardine biomass and 
as markets develop.
    The FMP stresses the importance of CPS as bait to recreational 
fisheries and as food for those species targeted by recreational 
fishermen. The needs of live and dead bait fisheries are addressed. The 
FMP takes into account the importance of CPS as prey by maintaining 
levels of high average biomass.
    Public comments on Amendment 8 must be received by May 11, 1999, to 
be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve/disapprove Amendment 
8. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 8 has been submitted for 
Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request 
public comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 8 in the 
near future.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq.

    Dated: March 8, 1999.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 99-6145 Filed 3-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F